Don’t blame Ed O’Bannon for the death of the video games. Blame the NCAA.

[JC]

So how much is enough? Give me a ballpark dollar figure.

What they are worth, like other sports and business’s. Or, to make things real simple and keep the University from paying them, let them earn money, jobs, autographs, sponsorship, however the hell they want to. Can someone provide me one valid reason why they should not be allowed to make money outside the University?

 

[Alma]

Except when you work for a paper, you don't have all the papers colluding with an umbrella organization of members to agree on compensation caps for the ones who are generating the revenue.

Why also should the athletes be limited to striking, when they can use other methods at their disposal, such as the legal system.

They can sue. They are suing. Striking just brings the issue to a head.

 

[Junkie]

What they are worth, like other sports and business’s. Or, to make things real simple and keep the University from paying them, let them earn money, jobs, autographs, sponsorship, however the hell they want to. Can someone provide me one valid reason why they should be allowed to make money outside the University?

Assuming you left out the word “not,” that’s a very good question.

 

[Batman]

What they are worth, like other sports and business’s. Or, to make things real simple and keep the University from paying them, let them earn money, jobs, autographs, sponsorship, however the hell they want to. Can someone provide me one valid reason why they should not be allowed to make money outside the University?

Letting them have a side hustle making appearances and such is a different issue than paying them directly, though.
Also, if they're making that money by marketing themselves, is the University under any obligation to market them like they do now?
That's one of the reasons I think the system is fine the way it is now. In football and basketball, at least, they don't just get the room and board/tuition/fees/clothes/etc. package. They get top-level training and coaching, brand marketing that could make them millions of dollars -- or open doors after college -- and a host of other fringe benefits. If you want to go into some sports-related career, getting an athletic scholarship to a Power-5 school is like going to an Ivy League school to be a lawyer. It opens doors and is an investment in your future. It's something a lot of people who ARE allowed to work and get paid go deep into debt to do. That's not something to be overlooked, yet often is in this debate.

 

[JC]

Letting them have a side hustle making appearances and such is a different issue than paying them directly, though.
Also, if they're making that money by marketing themselves, is the University under any obligation to market them like they do now?
That's one of the reasons I think the system is fine the way it is now. In football and basketball, at least, they don't just get the room and board/tuition/fees/clothes/etc. package. They get top-level training and coaching, brand marketing that could make them millions of dollars -- or open doors after college -- and a host of other fringe benefits. If you want to go into some sports-related career, getting an athletic scholarship to a Power-5 school is like going to an Ivy League school to be a lawyer. It opens doors and is an investment in your future. It's something a lot of people who ARE allowed to work and get paid go deep into debt to do. That's not something to be overlooked, yet often is in this debate.

Still not one valid reason they cannot make money like other scholarship students..

Why would you begrudge a kid the chance to make money? Especially since the ones who can a lot of times come from poverty.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

So how much is enough? Give me a ballpark dollar figure.

Their market value.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Letting them have a side hustle making appearances and such is a different issue than paying them directly, though.
Also, if they're making that money by marketing themselves, is the University under any obligation to market them like they do now?
That's one of the reasons I think the system is fine the way it is now. In football and basketball, at least, they don't just get the room and board/tuition/fees/clothes/etc. package. They get top-level training and coaching, brand marketing that could make them millions of dollars -- or open doors after college -- and a host of other fringe benefits. If you want to go into some sports-related career, getting an athletic scholarship to a Power-5 school is like going to an Ivy League school to be a lawyer. It opens doors and is an investment in your future. It's something a lot of people who ARE allowed to work and get paid go deep into debt to do. That's not something to be overlooked, yet often is in this debate.

The university has never been under obligation to market them. They choose to do so for their own benefit.

Plus, only about 1 percent ever go on to a pro sports career. So the millions of dollars point is moot.

 

[dirtybird]

Always thought if the NCAA wanted to, they could easily license out the video games and put the revenue into a general fund for the players. Divide it up by however many schools and players are in the game, and then it out after graduation/eligibility is used up or as a stipend. I'm not sure what EA Sports' licensing fee was, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall NCAA budget. It'd probably work out to about $200 per player, if that.
They could even do the same with a percentage of the greater merchandising pie. Perhaps 5 percent of all jersey sales go into the same fund with the same rules.
Probably still wouldn't be enough for the "PAY THEM!" crowd, though. Nothing would ever be enough.

In the short term, I think the NCAA isn’t into that becuase they move slow and don’t like giving an inch. Long term, I’d bet they do just what you said. Sort of the same way a playoff simply wasn’t feasible, right up to the point when it happened with relative ease.

You do that and allow for a few side hustles, the vast majority of the “pay them” crowd (at least the ones who think about it) is completely good.

 

[Batman]

Their market value.

I'd say that's what they're getting paid now. Zero. Because there's no shortage of guys lining up for the current deal and, even if I'm sure they'd all be happy to get some extra cash (who wouldn't?) the overwhelming majority of them seem OK with it.

But what is "their market value," exactly? $10,000 a year? $50,000? $1 million?
Can you pay a starting quarterback $100,000 and his backup $10,000? If you do that and have a situation like Georgia last year, where the freshman backup takes over and leads you to a great season does it trigger a renegotiation every year?
What are offensive linemen worth and how do you justify paying them (most likely) less than the skill positions?
Do 5-star recruits warrant getting paid more than 3-star recruits? And how do you curb the inevitable corruption and graft that will arise from that subjective system that's already filled with corruption and graft.
Given the obvious difference in school budgets, how do you actually get players to go to schools in the Sun Belt Conference or MAC when they'll pay a fraction of what a Power-5 school will? And how do those small conference schools
Do you need a salary cap to ensure competitive balance within conferences?
If you're paying players a salary, do you still need to give them a scholarship? Or even require them to attend class? If not, what's the difference between the NCAA and an actual minor league? If they're only there for sports, and that's basically their job, can you fire them for poor performance or bad off-the-field conduct? If a team sucks and goes 2-9 one season, can the school cut players' pay the next?
What are the tax implications for the players?

Again, if we're talking the appearance and licensing fees that guys can earn on the side, that's something to consider. I still think there's some issues with it, but it might be workable. Same with a straight stipend that's the same for everyone. There are a lot of issues, however, with a salary system that would create a lot more problems than it solves.
The PAY THEM! crowd has good intentions, but I really think it's naive to think that will suddenly make everything perfect. Or even be a fairer system. I also wonder what they think guys should be paid on the high and low end -- a hard dollar figure you can form a budget around, not something ambiguous like "their market value." Seems like most of them think every player should be paid six figures or more, and we all know that's not the case.

 

[Batman]

The university has never been under obligation to market them. They choose to do so for their own benefit.

Plus, only about 1 percent ever go on to a pro sports career. So the millions of dollars point is moot.

That's true, but it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. At the very least, if you're playing for State U. you're getting some name recognition that's probably going to help you land a post-college job somewhere.
Mississippi State had a quarterback in the late 1990s named Matt Wyatt. Never came close to making it in the NFL, but is now their color analyst and does an afternoon radio show in Mississippi. He was talking about this once, and flat out stated that he had doors opened for him that he knew would not have been opened had he not played football.
There's an army of insurance agents and car salesmen that can probably say the same thing.

 

[qtlaw]

Keeping the system as is because allegedly only a few are worth millions is just disingenuous. Be honest the reason it is as is because look at who generates the $$ and who gets the $$.

If the administrators and coaches were receiving the same $$ as the Econ dept prof and chair head okay, but is that what you see? No.

If the excesses from the Star were going to the other athletes okay. Is that what’s happening? No.

It’s clear to see yet nothing changes. Because Alumni like the exploitation and those with the power to change are making huge $$.

 

[JC]

I'd say that's what they're getting paid now. Zero. Because there's no shortage of guys lining up for the current deal and, even if I'm sure they'd all be happy to get some extra cash (who wouldn't?) the overwhelming majority of them seem OK with it.

But what is "their market value," exactly? $10,000 a year? $50,000? $1 million?
Can you pay a starting quarterback $100,000 and his backup $10,000? If you do that and have a situation like Georgia last year, where the freshman backup takes over and leads you to a great season does it trigger a renegotiation every year?
What are offensive linemen worth and how do you justify paying them (most likely) less than the skill positions?
Do 5-star recruits warrant getting paid more than 3-star recruits? And how do you curb the inevitable corruption and graft that will arise from that subjective system that's already filled with corruption and graft.
Given the obvious difference in school budgets, how do you actually get players to go to schools in the Sun Belt Conference or MAC when they'll pay a fraction of what a Power-5 school will? And how do those small conference schools
Do you need a salary cap to ensure competitive balance within conferences?
If you're paying players a salary, do you still need to give them a scholarship? Or even require them to attend class? If not, what's the difference between the NCAA and an actual minor league? If they're only there for sports, and that's basically their job, can you fire them for poor performance or bad off-the-field conduct? If a team sucks and goes 2-9 one season, can the school cut players' pay the next?
What are the tax implications for the players?

Again, if we're talking the appearance and licensing fees that guys can earn on the side, that's something to consider. I still think there's some issues with it, but it might be workable. Same with a straight stipend that's the same for everyone. There are a lot of issues, however, with a salary system that would create a lot more problems than it solves.
The PAY THEM! crowd has good intentions, but I really think it's naive to think that will suddenly make everything perfect. Or even be a fairer system. I also wonder what they think guys should be paid on the high and low end -- a hard dollar figure you can form a budget around, not something ambiguous like "their market value." Seems like most of them think every player should be paid six figures or more, and we all know that's not the case.

Players are let go all the time. It's called pulling their scholarship. And who cares what players schools can draw? Conservatives love to let the free market sort itself out, except for college athletes. I wonder why.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'd say that's what they're getting paid now. Zero. Because there's no shortage of guys lining up for the current deal and, even if I'm sure they'd all be happy to get some extra cash (who wouldn't?) the overwhelming majority of them seem OK with it.

But what is "their market value," exactly? $10,000 a year? $50,000? $1 million?
Can you pay a starting quarterback $100,000 and his backup $10,000? If you do that and have a situation like Georgia last year, where the freshman backup takes over and leads you to a great season does it trigger a renegotiation every year?
What are offensive linemen worth and how do you justify paying them (most likely) less than the skill positions?
Do 5-star recruits warrant getting paid more than 3-star recruits? And how do you curb the inevitable corruption and graft that will arise from that subjective system that's already filled with corruption and graft.
Given the obvious difference in school budgets, how do you actually get players to go to schools in the Sun Belt Conference or MAC when they'll pay a fraction of what a Power-5 school will? And how do those small conference schools
Do you need a salary cap to ensure competitive balance within conferences?
If you're paying players a salary, do you still need to give them a scholarship? Or even require them to attend class? If not, what's the difference between the NCAA and an actual minor league? If they're only there for sports, and that's basically their job, can you fire them for poor performance or bad off-the-field conduct? If a team sucks and goes 2-9 one season, can the school cut players' pay the next?
What are the tax implications for the players?

Again, if we're talking the appearance and licensing fees that guys can earn on the side, that's something to consider. I still think there's some issues with it, but it might be workable. Same with a straight stipend that's the same for everyone. There are a lot of issues, however, with a salary system that would create a lot more problems than it solves.
The PAY THEM! crowd has good intentions, but I really think it's naive to think that will suddenly make everything perfect. Or even be a fairer system. I also wonder what they think guys should be paid on the high and low end -- a hard dollar figure you can form a budget around, not something ambiguous like "their market value." Seems like most of them think every player should be paid six figures or more, and we all know that's not the case.

The overwhelming majority accept the deal because there is no other deal due to collusion. If there's an open market, they would be able to accept better deals.

Sure, you can pay one guy more than another guy.

Player in the mid-majors already aren't being recruited by the Power 5. They can have a choice of being paid $10K to sit on the bench at a Power 5, or $5K to be a mid-major starter. Either way, they have more options.

They've been already able to be fired for on and off field ability and conduct. It's called getting cut and having your scholarship removed. It's already a job for players.

Tax implications? It's called paying taxes. Whoopie.

Academically, make it a requirement that they attend class and get good grades. ****, coaches already receive bonuses for player academics. Already a precedent.

 

[dirtybird]

I'd say that's what they're getting paid now. Zero. Because there's no shortage of guys lining up for the current deal and, even if I'm sure they'd all be happy to get some extra cash (who wouldn't?) the overwhelming majority of them seem OK with it.

But what is "their market value," exactly? $10,000 a year? $50,000? $1 million?

If the argument of “there’s no shortage of guys lining up” holds, why do coaches make so much. I doubt Nick Saban would refuse to coach for $900,000. But there’s a market, and quality involved.

Now colleges can’t pay directly. It’s a non-starter. But open up that side hustle, and look we have a market. And some kids get paid and some just don’t. And value is established.

 

[Junkie]

Players are let go all the time. It's called pulling their scholarship. And who cares what players schools can draw? Conservatives love to let the free market sort itself out, except for college athletes. I wonder why.

While there's a chance it's what you're alluding too, I think it has more to do with rich guys don't like to share with poor guys.

 

[justgladtobehere]

How Josh Rosen would overhaul college sports so athletes can get their cut (if they earn it)

 

[swingline]

Also, I'm wearing shorts at work today so **** all of you.

Cargo shorts or GTFO.