Spurrier - College is for Football, not Academics

Problem is, national LOI day and admission "decision day" aren't all that close together. My best guess?? Like any number of HS seniors all over the country, these kids (and that's what they are) had certain standards they had to meet, during their last semester of HS. They probably didn't REALLY believe they wouldn't ACTUALLY be denied admission.......just like thousands of other HS seniors, all over the country. That's not a situation, limited to just athletes.

In addition, there's probably a bit of a p*ssing match taking place, between a director of enrollment and a football coach....with the enrollment guru figuring he'll be there long after ye old ball coach. Not always a smart move......but one the the enrollment manager wins far more than you'd think.

 

Exactly. There's just too many questions to answer when considering who to pay and how much to pay them.

 

You could pay college athletes through merchandise sales. Take a percentage and divide it up among all athletes. Star players, those with jersey sales matching their name and number get an extra percentage of their merchandise.
Same goes for shoe deals, the players get a cut from the Nikes and Under Armours of the world.

 

Yes, and no hard work or intellect goes into playing sports.
Sheesh.

 

Which would be reportable, taxable income. Making them, arguably, employees.

 

Here is some quick math...

If you gave athletes 1,000 per month (not much) that would mean 50 athletes would receive $600,000 per year. If you give this to everyone, let's say 300 athletes per school, that's $3.6 million. I really do not think any university can take that type of hit. Even USC and Notre Dame cannot take it.

Do they pass the cost along to students in the form of higher tuition? No way.

Do you allow players to do card signings on their own or do their own type of fund raising using their own personal fame? I think this would turn slimy in a hurry.

The way it's done now is not perfect, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than some other scenarios.

 

It just makes them contracters.
Like the guy who runs circulation is an employee, the people who deliver the paper aren't.
Star players should also be able to negotiate appearance fees.
The money from sales of officially licensed merchandise goes somewhere, why not direct some of it to the players? A cut of that and the shoe money that the coaches get, and athletes would get, not huge money, but something.
The money is there, it always has been.

 

Once you pay "stipends," you're paying people to play, and the system as it existed no longer does.

 

You're probably right. But I assumed that Spurrier wouldn't have gone public on this if it involved players getting lazy in the classroom and not holding up their end of the bargain.

 

STARMAN JUSTICE!!

 

Well, have to confess, this is where my knowledge gets sort of thin. Again, not an attorney, just an enrollment guy. But (as JD alluded) I don't believe that under this scenario they would fit the legal definition of a contract employee. Plus, the laws differ from state to state....plus you're dealing with a combination of both state and private institutions.

 

I fully agree that paying college athlete is impractical.

But it is time to get rid of the restrictions that keep them from holding jobs while they are on scholarship. Yes, I understand that it opens the door for abuse. So what? Abuses still happen. If the kid can find the time for a job, let him. If somebody like Jeremy Bloom can get sponsors and compete in the Olympics, let him.

Stop worrying so much about athletes and boosters pulling one over on the system and start considering what is best for them.