Lets say we dont go that route but instead let college athletes make money on the side. Of course the end result would be an open bidding war on all players and recruits.  Would the NCAA try to enact some sort of rule saying where they can make money and where they cant?  And how would they enforce that any beter than they are now?  I've heard Jay Bilas argue that you can regulate against athletes getting paid 500k for mowing some guys lawn.  But you couldnt regulate against a guy like T Boone Pickens from putting every single freshman recruiting class on a billboard promoting T Boone Oil and Gas and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars each.  Advertising dollars generate big bucks so thats a legitimate business venture.  If you let these athletes make money on the side, I dont think you would be able to regulate it.  Maybe by itself there is nothing wrong with that but I think what it would do is further expand the gap between the haves and have nots.  Which again, may not necessarily be a bad thing.  I think youd have the potential for a school loaded with money, like Oregon, telling some kid theyll get him a sweet job working at Nike paying him 500k a year in advertisements if he would transfer to their school.  It would be open season on transfers. 

You wouldn't be able to regulate it, but it wouldn't be athletes getting paid by the schools on top of the scholarships they get. It would be athletes being paid by third parties for their name and likeness. Which I fully believe a person should be able to do. And that only really matters for the ones that have legitimate NFL talent.

 

The other guys would be able to work part time somewhere or if someone wanted to buy them a meal it wouldn't be a huge deal. Or if a fan wanted to buy their autograph......etc

---

Its such a tricky issue. 

 

Having the NCAA paying players opens up all sorts of issues.  Do all athletes get paid or just football players?  If just football players would what that do as far as Title 9?  Most athletic departments barely break even.  So would schools without much resources be forced to pay or would only money making sports?  How do we define a money making sport?  Will the NCAA of armies of accountants going over the books of each sport for each school to determine which players deserve money and which ones dont?  Or will we just leave it up to the school to decide which athletes they pay and which ones they wont?  And again how does Title 9 come into play? 

 

Lets say we dont go that route but instead let college athletes make money on the side. Of course the end result would be an open bidding war on all players and recruits.  Would the NCAA try to enact some sort of rule saying where they can make money and where they cant?  And how would they enforce that any beter than they are now?  I've heard Jay Bilas argue that you can regulate against athletes getting paid 500k for mowing some guys lawn.  But you couldnt regulate against a guy like T Boone Pickens from putting every single freshman recruiting class on a billboard promoting T Boone Oil and Gas and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars each.  Advertising dollars generate big bucks so thats a legitimate business venture.  If you let these athletes make money on the side, I dont think you would be able to regulate it.  Maybe by itself there is nothing wrong with that but I think what it would do is further expand the gap between the haves and have nots.  Which again, may not necessarily be a bad thing.  I think youd have the potential for a school loaded with money, like Oregon, telling some kid theyll get him a sweet job working at Nike paying him 500k a year in advertisements if he would transfer to their school.  It would be open season on transfers. 

 

 

Interesting post.  My take is very simple. The distribution of talent is probably already as lopsided as a college roster can allow. There are only so many starting roles in college football, and in order for a player to make any money, they have to play.  A team can "pay" a guy 500k to be on their team, but that just means another player leaves for another team where a roster spot is open.  Plus, all the "corrupt" teams will have to compete against all the other "corrupt" teams in a bidding war, just like they do now.  It seems like the same result, just the teams (or their sneaky affiliates) are "paying" more money to the players, which is exactly what I thought they were trying to avoid.

---

Greece...I get what you are saying about them not able to get jobs based on their name or likeness...but is there anything in the NCAA rules that would...say prohibit Manziel or Bridgewater working at McDonalds part time?  I wouldn't think so...

 

So to say that football players are prohibited from working by the NCAA is not 100%accurate either...

---

Greece...I get what you are saying about them not able to get jobs based on their name or likeness...but is there anything in the NCAA rules that would...say prohibit Manziel or Bridgewater working at McDonalds part time?  I wouldn't think so...

 

So to say that football players are prohibited from working by the NCAA is not 100%accurate either...

 

They can get jobs but there are very specific rules about what they can do and how much they can earn.  Its a lot less than Manziel could get if he was selling his autographs.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Do you think these schools are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you have any idea have few college football players (from all divisions) make it to the NFL?


I assume you also understand that scholarships are a year to year deal. What happens if his scholarship is pulled? Think he has the resources to stay in school? Think the school cares?


Everyone is making money off the athlete, except the athlete.

Go get a job like every other broke college kid?

---

Go get a job like every other broke college kid?

 

They have a job: playing football and earning millions of dollars for the university, the bowl system, and the coaches.   Now they'd like to get paid their fair share of that money.

---

They have a job: playing football and earning millions of dollars for the university, the bowl system, and the coaches. Now they'd like to get paid their fair share of that money.

My qoute was in reference to what kids should do if they lose there scholarship. But either way I don't feel like they should be paid; they are already gaining a wide array of benefits above the normal college kid. Let's also be honest, 95% wouldn't even be going to so of these colleges if they didn't run a 4.4 forty.

---

Here is some additional information I found...nothing seems bad here at all...

 

NEW Academic Year Student Athlete Employment:

A new NCAA rule permits a DI student Athlete to earn legitimate on and off campus employment income during semester or term time, provided such income in combo with other financial aid included in their individual limit does not exceed the value of a full grant plus $2,000...provided:

 

A) They have spent one academic year in residence at the certifying institution prior to working; AND

B ) They are eligible academically to compete for the school

 

Prior to working the employer must sign a written statement to be kept on file in the AD which states the below:

 

A) The student athlete may not receive any remuneration for the value or utility that they may have for the employer because of publicity, reputation, fame or personal following he or she has obtained because of their athletic ability;

B )The student athlete is to be compensated ONLY for work actually performed; AND

C) The student athlete is to be compensated at a rate commensurate with the going rate in the locality for similar services.

 

So basically what I am reading is...that the school does not want them getting a 100% free ride and making tons of money on the side, they don't want them earning money based on their "fame" for playing for the school, and they want to make sure the kids get paid like every one else...I don't really see an issue with any of this.

---

The issue is that you are telling a young adult where they are allowed to work and for how much. The schools make billions of dollars collectively from these athletes in return for a scholarship. So why does the school get to decide how they make money when they aren't playing or practicing?

---

The schools make billions of dollars collectively from these athletes in return for a scholarship. 

Let's not overdramaticize too much please. The ENTIRE NCAA didn't even make one billion dollars annually. That's including all sports and division 2/3 also.

 

Texas University was the most profitable single college by a lot and they barely made more than 100 million alone, no one else made more than 90 million...and many are in the red. 

 

The truth is yes, a lot of schools can afford to pay athletes...but in all honesty many or even most can't or they will go under. Especially when football has to pay the bills for most other sports. 

---

My qoute was in reference to what kids should do if they lose there scholarship. But either way I don't feel like they should be paid; they are already gaining a wide array of benefits above the normal college kid. Let's also be honest, 95% wouldn't even be going to so of these colleges if they didn't run a 4.4 forty.

 

What is this, a communist state?   Should we allow monopolies like the NCAA to tell these athletes what they can or cannot earn in exchange for their services?    Whatever happened to free enterprise? 

---

What is this, a communist state?   Should we allow monopolies like the NCAA to tell these athletes what they can or cannot earn in exchange for their services?    Whatever happened to free enterprise? 

 

Intercollegiate athletics isn't a job. If you want to be paid for your services, turn pro.

---

Intercollegiate athletics isn't a job. If you want to be paid for your services, turn pro.

 

But you cannot turn pro without playing NCAA football.   The NCAA is the feeder system for the NFL.   The NCAA cannot be bypassed for the NFL.  

 

Jimbo Fisher earns millions of dollars a year.   He got a huge raise because he had Jameis Winston this year.  Without Jameis Winston, Jimbo Fisher might not even have a job right now.    But Jameis Winston earns room and board and tuition while Jimbo Fisher makes millions of dollars a year.    If I was Jameis Winston, I'd be saying, "Coach Fisher got a million dollar pay raise because I threw a touchdown pass at the end of the national championship game.  Where's my share?"  

---

But you cannot turn pro without playing NCAA football.   The NCAA is the feeder system for the NFL.   The NCAA cannot be bypassed for the NFL.  

 

Jimbo Fisher earns millions of dollars a year.   He got a huge raise because he had Jameis Winston this year.  Without Jameis Winston, Jimbo Fisher might not even have a job right now.    But Jameis Winston earns room and board and tuition while Jimbo Fisher makes millions of dollars a year.    If I was Jameis Winston, I'd be saying, "Coach Fisher got a million dollar pay raise because I threw a touchdown pass at the end of the national championship game.  Where's my share?"  

 

Jameis will have his money in a year.

 

And Jameis isn't the only reason that Fisher got the raise he did.

---

Intercollegiate athletics isn't a job. If you want to be paid for your services, turn pro.

Why isn't it?

---

Let's not overdramaticize too much please. The ENTIRE NCAA didn't even make one billion dollars annually. That's including all sports and division 2/3 also.

 

Texas University was the most profitable single college by a lot and they barely made more than 100 million alone, no one else made more than 90 million...and many are in the red. 

 

The truth is yes, a lot of schools can afford to pay athletes...but in all honesty many or even most can't or they will go under. Especially when football has to pay the bills for most other sports. 

 

First of all I never said NCAA....I said the schools, but that is besides the point. Collectively NCAA and the schools makes billions of dollars.

 

Next told tell me their isn't billions of dollars annually (collectively) by these schools. The FBS alone has 125 teams. According to USA TODAY

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...e/1715435/

 

"The average annual salary for head coaches at major colleges (not including four schools that moved up to the Football Bowl Subdivision this season) is $1.64 million, up nearly 12% over last season — and more than 70% since 2006, when USA TODAY Sports began tracking coaches' compensation."

 

If I accounted for 120 of the 125 FBS teams. That is 196.8 million in year in salary.....and that's just for head coaches for the FBS. Thats not including any other sports or any assistant coaches and other personnel related to these sports.

 

So don't tell me college sports don't generate Billions of dollars because they do........

 

EDIT:

 

Look at this numbers alone from the NCAA tourney:

 

http://chronicle.com/article/NCAA-Signs-...-De/65219/

 

"In a move expected to shore up the long-term financial health of college sports, the NCAA announced on Thursday that it had signed a 14-year, $10.8-billion contract with CBS and Turner Broadcasting to televise its men's basketball tournament. The deal will funnel at least $740-million annually to NCAA member colleges and will very likely include an expansion of the tournament field to 68 teams."

 

 

That's just for the the NCAA March Madness....thats not even including jersey sales, ticket prices, etc.

 

Not to mention that $740 million annually is just for March Madness.......

---

Why isn't it?

 

It's an extracurricular activity, just like joining a club on campus or participating in intramural athletics.

---

It's an extracurricular activity, just like joining a club on campus or participating in intramural athletics.

 

I definitely don't think collegiate athletes should get payed, but it definitely is a job. Take football for example. The returning players get maybe a few days to a week after the bowl game to themselves before they are right back in the weight room focused on next season. Then you have spring conditioning to get ready for spring practice. Then you have 2-3 weeks of spring practice. After that you begin summer workouts, 7-on-7, etc., and shortly after that fall camp rolls around and you're doing two-a-days getting prepped for the start of the season. Then you have the season, conference championship games, bowl games etc. 

 

It's definitely a job.

---

I definitely don't think collegiate athletes should get paid

 

 

I don't think college athletes should get paid by the schools either. Their "payment" for playing at that school is their scholarship. I just believe that the NCAA shouldn't regulate how someone earns money off the field as long as it isn't breaking any real laws.

 

They should have to follow a code of conduct at that's it. If someone wants to give a kid money for an autograph, advertisement, etc .....the NCAA should have no say in that at all.

---

I don't think college athletes should get paid by the schools either. Their "payment" for playing at that school is their scholarship. I just believe that the NCAA shouldn't regulate how someone earns money off the field as long as it isn't breaking any real laws.

 

They should have to follow a code of conduct at that's it. If someone wants to give a kid money for an autograph, advertisement, etc .....the NCAA should have no say in that at all.

 

If they want to work a part time job for a few hours a week, I'd be fine with that, granted it is within NCAA rules. However, using football as an example again, it's awfully hard to balance out time between practice/weight lifting, film, school, and work.

---