Cal governor signs bill to allow players to receive money for...
- Thread starter Bad seed
- Start date
Wait until these sponsors want their logo on the star QB’s helmet or jersey.
I honestly don't understand your passion for this. Not like any would care who these kids are if they weren't associated with organizations with some of the most rabid fan bases in the country. Case in point, someone like Connor Shaw was a household name here, and almost no one else has ever heard of him. Johnny Manziel was a huge deal in college. Is he doing anything besides Safe Auto insurance commercials (that features washed up athletes)? It's the logo on the helmet people want to see, not the name on the back of the jersey.
Back to my original statement though, why are you so animated in this regard about paying players for an extracurricular college club? Do you want the chess club to be paid too? And how do you reconcile that with the plethora of benefits they already receive as part of their scholarship package that all you "pay the players" guys totally dismiss as compensation?
If this payment to players becomes reality, it will be interesting to see how the schools will fight for part of the player's money. The reality is the school provides the player the platform to earn his popularity so the school deserves a cut of the money.
Frankly, I think this is going to be a bastardized mess.
Frankly, I think this is going to be a bastardized mess.
This is work for these players, it is more than work, they also attend school...they risk injury on the job in a injury prone job.. they make millions for the schools.
..its called capitalism and i'm passionate about capitalism.. it shouldnt be hard to understand... the great thing,its going to happen..
....and surprise, it wont change the enjoyment the fan gets from watching college sports
...and you call big time college sports a "extracurricular college club?" ..Lol
So you say fans buy the jersey for the school.... huh, wow.. so why do you see so many # 21... it you are correct it would be any number.. c'mon they buy # 21 because of Marcus Lattimore...If it wasnt the player they'd buy any number
They buy it for USC and Marcus Lattimore. Thus, the school is going to demand a cut of the money and would rightfully deserve it.
The biggest winners in all of this will be agents and attorneys.
Last edited:
The government intervening in a private transaction is hardly "capitalism". Quite the opposite.
So the player's aren't rewarded for their work with a FREE college education.
They already get a cut. All of it after the expenses for scholarships, etc. Sure it is a great deal for the run-of-the-mill scholarship athlete. However, the star athlete gets cheated and anybody that can count can see it. People would pay for these kids to sign autographs, but they can't do it. A star athlete can make a very good living just off of that. People don't like to hear it, but OJ financed his entire defense off of signing memorobilia. Of course, there would be a competitive advantage to the highest bidder. However, that already goes on. It just happens under the table for pennies on the dollar. I think some people protest so much about college athletes making money because they don't like to see a kid making money. It is just plain jealousy in my opinion. I had academic scholarships all through college. Nobody said I couldn't work or make money on the side. The only requirement was that I keep my GPA at a certain level. Why should athletes be any different just because people want to cling to this traditional model of amateurism. I always laugh inside when people go on about liking a College sport over the same version of the Professional sport and the first thing that comes out of their mouth is that the players make money.
Last edited:
Most on here know that. They just want to hate on these kids and not see them make anything. They want to cling to the old school idea that they are doing them a favor by giving them an athletic scholarship.
And the funny thing if they were fans of say , Jacksonville gamecocks instead of South Carolina gamecocks they’d scream bloody murder about how unfair the system is now
Why do you dismiss a scholarship and all the trappings that go with it (including exposure to NFL scouts) as compensation?
Your logic about people "just want to hate on [the] kids and see them not make anything" is absolutely ridiculous. It isn't jealousy, or any other reason you invented, but rather several reasons that have been actually stated. I didn't see anyone arguing about financial burden to the institutions, either. But keep arguing that as well as though it is one of the salient points made.
Money ruins good things. Because money leads to wanting more, and greed ruins EVERYTHING. It ruins good business, it ruins movies, it ruins video games. Because, as Jim Sterling put it, it's not enough to make some money, they want to make all the money in the world. No matter how much, people always want more.
It's why I don't watch the NFL with the huge egos stoked by equally huge paychecks, where multimillionaires compare themselves to slaves. Where a man trying to make a difference is derided for daring to be a part owner of an NFL team. You laugh at people who cite money as the reason they don't watch pro sports, then laugh away, because I don't enjoy pro sports at all, except the NHL, which is mostly devoid of the huge egos of the NFL and NBA.
Yeah when I know a family friend that couldn't afford to go to college. So he joined the Marines and done 2 tours in Iraq to get a free college education. Call me hater, I have no sympathy for anybody that's playing a game getting a free education crying for more money.
This is why college football as we know it is coming to an end.
Hopefully, a professional minor league will be formed and college football can return to actual "student athletes" the way it was always intended to be.
You don't comprehend the difference between "amateur" and "professional".
If you want a league of players who are financially compensated, that is a professional league that should not be associated with a college.
It is the difference between "amateur" and "professional" sports. To suggest we can have a successful "amateur/professional" league in college is not realistic.
Some want to turn college football into something it is not and never was intended to be. It is supposed to be made up of students who want to play athletics for a school team. Now, it is morphing into a professional league that has not business being associated with colleges.
You don't comprehend that you don't have to compromise your amateur status by making money on the side. The NCAA knows this. That is why they let ex-minor league baseball players come back and play college football all the time. They made money so they should be disqualified, right? Wrong, the NCAA makes up rules to benefit themselves. This way of thinking runs against an entrepreneurial spirit in the name of just keeping things comfortable and the same. I understand the hypocrisy in this because I had some form of academic scholarship for seven years. Nobody prevented me from working. Nobody prevented me from making money outside of the confines of the college. So, let's say an athlete creates an app and begins to make money, you mean to tell me that he/she should lose his amateur playing status just because he had and idea. Ridiculous.
Last edited:
At least I give you credit for admitting it. ....and nobody and is crying for more money. The push is to allow kids with brains and the entrepreneurial spirit to go out and get theirs. Why would anyone have a problem with that unless they have hatred/jealousy in their heart.
As long as they're not being paid for their athletic contributions (or the resulting fame) I have no problem with a kid getting paid for legit outside work done. The problem is where these benefits become grease for their football performance. I don't know the NCAA rules for getting paid for work done, and in fact I believe kids are allowed to be paid the going rate for work performed. I just think the NCAA oversteps bounds to tell players they can't work for fear of impermissible benefits. But by the same token, I think impermissible benefits are a real threat to CFB, and being paid for things which have no determined rate (endorsement, old football gear, autographs) is just a way to buy off players and completely diminishes the amateur aspect.
Your example of minor league ball players is one worth looking at. They were previously paid to play a different sport. They are not currently paid, so while they were professional baseball players, they are amateur basketball or football players. It's not about whether they have made money, but whether they are making money based on their current performance (or potential performance) that makes them professional vs amateur.
No, the push is to allow kids to get paid for athletic fame, which is in fact against the amateur heart of the sport. No one (here at least) has said anything restricting legit, extracurricular jobs. If a basketball player wants to work for a moving company, he should be able to. If he wants to create a new type of respirator rental service, great for him. If he wants to sell his image as a basketball player, then that's the no go. At least for me.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Well said. If we could do away with the prohibition against these athletes holding regular jobs in their off seasons, this wouldn't be as big of an issue.
As for those saying the University shouldn't get a cut of the money, as mentioned before, if any part of the endorsement includes the University logo in any way, the University should have a right to compensation for the use of their logo. Is Tua a marketable commodity if he's at, let's say, The Citadel? No. But because he's at Alabama, everyone knows his name. Therefore, Alabama has an argument that without the school, he wouldn't get the compensation in the first place; therefore, they are entitled to a cut.
Who said? You? Corey Jenkins played QB for us for two years. He made decent money with the Boston Red Sox organization. His agents took it all, but he made decent money. Did you have a problem with him playing as an amateur. Don't give me the "it was a different sport" argument either. You are either an amateur or you are not. Had a problem with Hayden Hurst? Probably not because in those cases it worked to our benefit. However, to think this could somehow be on a large scale seems to be too much for some to handle. The whole model of college athletics has changed. Once you started dealing with large television contracts and networks, anyone with any business sense should have known that the day is coming when many people advocating for the players would say the scholarship and the cost of attendance is not enough. One of the first things a scholarship athlete has to do when he gets on campus is promote the program. He has to take a bunch of pictures, go to a fan day to meet a bunch of people that he doesn't know, do some form of school walk. All in the name of promoting the program and making money for whom? Full disclosure. My academic scholarship was a full one. I even got a stipend check in addition. I didn't have to do all that. I didn't have to promote jack. For a star athlete. Many of these guys are a creation of social media before the schools get involved. Everyone knew Zion's talent was worth millions at small Spartanburg Day School. He didn't need Duke. A shoe company would have paid him 5-10 million dollars last year if they could. So, why should a kid like that be forced to choose between college and money that his talent has earned. Duke or no school would have had to pay him anything. Frankly, he could have forgone the scholarship and said I just want to go to school and play. Just let me be able to use the fame that I already have to make money for myself. This is an extreme example. However, sometimes you have to use extreme examples to show people what they are speaking against.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
The problem is that this is not about "entrepreneurial spirit". Most people don't have a problem with athletes being allowed to have regular jobs in the off-season, especially given the backgrounds most of these athletes come from. This is specifically about star players being able to make money off their likeness being used by others, i.e. earning sponsorship fees, as do professional athletes. The majority of college athletes WILL NOT be earning in this capacity, but are still barred from having a regular job to help make ends meet. That simply is not right.
As for your argument about baseball players coming back to play football after "making money", the flaw in your argument is that they are playing a completely different sport in which they have not negated their amateur status.
As for your argument about baseball players coming back to play football after "making money", the flaw in your argument is that they are playing a completely different sport in which they have not negated their amateur status.
Last edited:
Because booters will ruin this
It's not gonna be a few every kid on the roster will have a endorsement deal. Once the Boosters pull their Money together. The amount of college football players in used car lot commercials will easily be in the thousands. Oregon and Oklahoma state will be the frontrunners. The elite recruits are going to the teams that pays the most.
The different sport angle is a self-serving one IMO. Money is money. It shouldn't matter where it comes from if money is that thing that taints one's amateur status. I think this happens because baseball players are usually in different financial situations that could fight back with legal action if they were allowed to. Football and basketball players are usually black kids from modest financial situations that don't have many advocating for them. If the NCAA wanted to allow them to make them some money on the side. They just haven't because the politics haven't warranted them taking any action. The different sport argument is what I call a loophole. You can always create loopholes to create a situation you can't. Where is the loophole for the basketball and football players. Would you advocate for a basketball player that went to a G-League, have it not work out, and come back to school to play football or any other sport.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
They fall under the same rules. They can come back and play another sport if they want to. It's not a loophole, just because you don't see it happening with Football and basketball players.
That happens for the most part now. Just because we close our eyes to it and pretend that it doesn't happen makes it okay? Frankly, I don't care how boosters want to spend their money. That is not my concern. If a booster wants take money away from his family to give to some 18-22 year olds for the hope of some sports glory, that is on his crazy behind.
I will end with this. What I sense is many are concerned about the competitive balance if college players were allowed some compensation beyond the scholarship and cost of attendance. What I will say to that is that it already happens and that is not necessarily a determining factor in success. You have numerous examples of college programs on the collegiate level and organizations on the professional level trying to buy championships. Doesn't always happen because, at the end of the day, coaching, talent evaluation, and team culture means more than anything especially in football. Florida State gets as many 4 and 5 star recruits as anyone. What are they winning? Oregon puts as much money into their program as anyone. Haven't been the same since Chip Kelly left. Everybody complains about Dabo and Clemson paying their players under the table. However, that is not new. Clemson cheating goes all the way back pre-Danny Ford. However, Clemson has never won on the level that they are at now. As goofy as Dabo seems to us, players respond to him, parents like him. He just seems to connect. So, the sports won't change IMO. How the players are compensated would.
Agree with you, that's well put.
And I say that as one who is all for paying athletes -- and will be as long as coaches and ADs and conference presidents continue to demand such ridiculously high salaries.
I know one way to reign this in. Put a cap on coaches salaries at public institutions -- make sure it's no higher than the president of the university or, even better, the highest paid member of the faculty.
Well it's clear that rational logic has no place in your emotional tirades. Just when you made a point we could discuss you shit all over it with ranting nonsense that A: ignores what we were actually discussing to begin with, B: ignores points I made that validate and invalidate some of your own points, and C: seems to be some kind of emotional rant about how "it's not fair" because you want to redefine what an amateur is for yourself while ignoring any semblance of logic.
I can be a professional carpenter or electrician, and even though it takes similar skills, I can still be an amateur plumber at the same time. They're surprisingly similar trades when you get to running pipe and making jigs. Just because I'm paid to do one and can do the other doesn't make me a professional at both.
If you're paid to play baseball, you're a professional baseball player. If you play basketball as a volunteer, you're an amateur basketball player. You can easily be both.
What you're wrongfully assuming is that a rich booster wont endorse a athlete before seeing him on a college field.
Amen .. I’ll just sit back and let you take on the other side .. frankly they tire me...
But the problem with this is that the top recruits will go to Cali schools for the money.
I'm not wrongfully assuming that. What I am saying is that I don't care about that given that it has already happening for like 50 years.
Last edited:
Not emotional. However, I seem to be striking some emotions which is my point. People tend to see things only through their worldview unless you strike some emotion of some kind. This thread was turning into a tired group think about liberals when actually this issue has many conservative principles tied to it. A wise person once told me, most Americans say they hate socialism unless they are getting a benefit from it. What some refuse to see or admit is the current system of college athletics is inherently socialist in nature. However, the people having to give back are in many cases young kids who can't or are unable to speak up for themselves. However, they should just be thankful for the scholarship, right?
Last edited:
Dafuq? How do you carry conversations in meat space? Can you stay on the same topic for two consecutive posts without diverging into meaningless diatribes that have little to nothing to do with the previous post? Or are you quoting me by mistake now?
Maybe I missed the talk about liberals... Am I the crazy one?
Otherwise I've had fun debating this with you, but honestly, we're starting to go in circles and that doesn't benefit anyone...
So to sum up my post: I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it.
