are you secretly hoping clarett fails?

[indyfrisco]

Jon, if you pay one athlete you will have to pay them all. This will put many more athletic programs further in the red. And even if somehow only basketball and football players got money do you pay all basketball players, even those whose schools don't make money?

BSmack, your thoughts on paying the lacrosse team?

Jesus, are we capitalists or not? Give the players a percentage of the gate and TV contracts of their respective sports. End of fucking story.

I'm assuming you feel the Olympic athletes are also being robbed of money? Sure, some 100M sprinter can go "pro" and get $10,000 for winning a race in some track competition, but that's pennies compared to the money they would get from gate and concession receit profit sharing from the Olympic games.

[BSmack]

Jon, if you pay one athlete you will have to pay them all. This will put many more athletic programs further in the red. And even if somehow only basketball and football players got money do you pay all basketball players, even those whose schools don't make money?

BSmack, your thoughts on paying the lacrosse team?

Jesus, are we capitalists or not? Give the players a percentage of the gate and TV contracts of their respective sports. End of fucking story.

Then you would have another Title IX on your hands. No way you can pay the football and basketball players more than the Woman's basketball or Volleyball teams.

Equal opportunity is not the same as equal pay.

[BSmack]

I'm assuming you feel the Olympic athletes are also being robbed of money? Sure, some 100M sprinter can go "pro" and get $10,000 for winning a race in some track competition, but that's pennies compared to the money they would get from gate and concession receit profit sharing from the Olympic games.

Don't even get me start on the hypocricy of the IOC. They could teach the NCAA a few things. Though at least the IOC allows it's athletes to make money in their sports. The NCAA just shuts you out of competition the minute you try to get paid.

[Killian]

Jesus, are we capitalists or not? Give the players a percentage of the gate and TV contracts of their respective sports. End of fucking story.

Then you would have another Title IX on your hands. No way you can pay the football and basketball players more than the Woman's basketball or Volleyball teams.

Equal opportunity is not the same as equal pay.

So now you want to go against federal laws about equal treatment and equal pay? Title XI wanted an equal amount of scholarships for men and women. Sticky thing was that men had 85 alloted to football, plus the non revenue sports. Where scholarship numbers raised for women? Nope, men had to cut funding to olympic sports to stay in agreement with Title IX.

You honestly don't think there would be major litigation if football and basketball players were getting paid much more than female athletes?

A great way to remedy all of this is to let the kids have jobs in the off season, while still at school.

[Left Seater]

Typical response by BSmack and Jon for those who support paying football players. I guess it is because they don't really have a good answer.

Now I want to clear up a few things I have read in this thread that are incorrect. Athletes don't get four year scholarships. They get 1 year scholarships. The schools have the option to renew the scholarship each year for 3 or 4 years. The athlete has no say in the renewal. There is nothing to keep a school from pulling the scholarship after the first year for anyone.

I also don't think letting athletes work in the offseason is a good idea. Honestly there isn't any offseason these days. And with the demands on the athletes in-season they really need that other time to catch up. Instead I would like to see the NCAA allow athletes to have the option not to attend any class in the semester of their "season." IE a football player doesn't have to take any classes in the fall as long as he takes a full load in the spring and in the summer. And if at the start of the next season he is current, then let him take the fall off again.

[BSmack]

Typical response by BSmack and Jon for those who support paying football players. I guess it is because they don't really have a good answer.

And your answer is to attack the messenger? Pray do tell me where I went wrong?

Now I want to clear up a few things I have read in this thread that are incorrect. Athletes don't get four year scholarships. They get 1 year scholarships. The schools have the option to renew the scholarship each year for 3 or 4 years. The athlete has no say in the renewal. There is nothing to keep a school from pulling the scholarship after the first year for anyone.

Yet another argument for letting players enter the draft when they feel they are ready. Thanks for the help.

I also don't think letting athletes work in the offseason is a good idea. Honestly there isn't any offseason these days. And with the demands on the athletes in-season they really need that other time to catch up.

Then how about a little less time for football and a little more time for academics? Priorities please? We are trying to get these kids an education.

Instead I would like to see the NCAA allow athletes to have the option not to attend any class in the semester of their "season." IE a football player doesn't have to take any classes in the fall as long as he takes a full load in the spring and in the summer. And if at the start of the next season he is current, then let him take the fall off again.

Why not just let the athletes major in their sport? Weekly film study could be "Football Appriciation 101", time in the wieght room could be "Physical Training 203" and getting fucked over by the NCAA could be "Sucks To Be You Now Forget That Plane Ticket To Go To Your Friend's Funeral 301".

Hey, I'm pretty sure that's already a major program at FSU. :wink:

But seriously, sports are businesses. Why not at least offer intensive training in the business aspect of the games these guys play? Just a thought.

[BSmack]

So now you want to go against federal laws about equal treatment and equal pay? Title XI wanted an equal amount of scholarships for men and women. Sticky thing was that men had 85 alloted to football, plus the non revenue sports. Where scholarship numbers raised for women? Nope, men had to cut funding to olympic sports to stay in agreement with Title IX.

WRONG!

Colleges could have cut the size of their football team scholarships down to 53 (the size of an NFL roster) and had more than enough money to keep all their existing men’s sports programs. But the NCAA won't go for that idea. They would rather fuck over some wrestlers than piss off the almighty Football Booster Club.

You honestly don't think there would be major litigation if football and basketball players were getting paid much more than female athletes?

If the payments were directly tied to gate receipts, the litigation would be baseless. In fact, I dare say that the U Conn and Tennessee women’s basketball teams would be among the highest paid athletes in the NCAA. So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

[Killian]

If the payments were directly tied to gate receipts, the litigation would be baseless. In fact, I dare say that the U Conn and Tennessee women’s basketball teams would be among the highest paid athletes in the NCAA. So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

According to the numbers I could find:

UCONN Women's Basketball

18 home games, $22 per ticket, arena seats 10,027. Total if everygame were sold out and all tickets were $22 = $3,970692

UCONN Football

6 home games, couldn't find ticket price, avg. attendence this year of 39,300. 6 consecutive sell outs. Total if tickets were $22 per ticket * avg attendence * 6 games = $5,187,600.

Can you imagine if you took Tennessee who has over 100,000 each home game, and tickets are closer to $50-60?

What was your point again?

[indyfrisco]

What was your point again?

That math isn't my strongest subject.

Sin,
BS

[Killian]

He'll just come back and say that if you average those numbers over each player, basketball players would make 4 times as much as a football player. Which would make sense, especially at schools like Texas, FSU, ND, etc. :roll:

[BSmack]

If the payments were directly tied to gate receipts, the litigation would be baseless. In fact, I dare say that the U Conn and Tennessee women’s basketball teams would be among the highest paid athletes in the NCAA. So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

According to the numbers I could find:

UCONN Women's Basketball

18 home games, $22 per ticket, arena seats 10,027. Total if everygame were sold out and all tickets were $22 = $3,970692

UCONN Football

6 home games, couldn't find ticket price, avg. attendence this year of 39,300. 6 consecutive sell outs. Total if tickets were $22 per ticket * avg attendence * 6 games = $5,187,600.

Can you imagine if you took Tennessee who has over 100,000 each home game, and tickets are closer to $50-60?

What was your point again?

My point was that any idiot can twist data.

Now, what you forgot to include was the amount of money it costs to maintain and operate the U Conn basketball teams vs the football teams.

Now your argument resembles Notre Dame's title hopes. :wink:

[DallasFanatic]

I don't wish injury upon anyone and I am also a huge proponent for defying authority. With that being said, I hope Clarett does well in his pursuit of a professional football career. I hope he also flips off OSU when they come running back asking for donations.

[Snake]

My point was that any idiot can twist data.

sincerely Shaz

[the_ouskull]

My point was that any idiot can twist data.

sincerely Shaz

Heh.

the_ouskull

[The Anomaly]

53 Scholies? What happens with injuries? You just move players around? Again, how about that Arena League!!!!

[BSmack]

53 Scholies? What happens with injuries? You just move players around? Again, how about that Arena League!!!!

Football requires 11 players on the field at any given time. Assuming each team carries 3 QBs, a kicker, punter and a backup kicker/punter, that still leaves the team 2 deep at every position with scholarship players. This is assuming that nobody plays both ways. And there is no reason teams couldn't be allowed to carry 20 or so non scholarship players if coaches are so worried about depth.

Psst! The reason they don't reduce the number of scolarships is because the big schools don't want the competition from the bottom half of DI schools.

You do understand that?

[peter dragon]

I hope he also flips off OSU when they come running back asking for donations.

tOSU has the largest campus with over 55,000 full time students. Claretts donations will not be needed.

[indyfrisco]

This is assuming that nobody plays both ways.

You can count the number of players that play both ways on one hand. :roll:

[The Anomaly]

Psst! The reason they don't reduce the number of scolarships is because the big schools don't want the competition from the bottom half of DI schools.

You do understand that?

Yes!

Sin,
Boise St & Utah

[Killian]

If the payments were directly tied to gate receipts, the litigation would be baseless. In fact, I dare say that the U Conn and Tennessee women’s basketball teams would be among the highest paid athletes in the NCAA. So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

According to the numbers I could find:

UCONN Women's Basketball

18 home games, $22 per ticket, arena seats 10,027. Total if everygame were sold out and all tickets were $22 = $3,970692

UCONN Football

6 home games, couldn't find ticket price, avg. attendence this year of 39,300. 6 consecutive sell outs. Total if tickets were $22 per ticket * avg attendence * 6 games = $5,187,600.

Can you imagine if you took Tennessee who has over 100,000 each home game, and tickets are closer to $50-60?

What was your point again?

My point was that any idiot can twist data.

Now, what you forgot to include was the amount of money it costs to maintain and operate the U Conn basketball teams vs the football teams.

Now your argument resembles Notre Dame's title hopes. :wink:

Are you saying it takes more or less money to maintain the basketball team? So then, according to your argument, we should pay the players based on the gate, correct? So the basketball players pull in, per player, 4 times the money the football players. So they should be paid 4 times the salary of the football team, even though the football team was responsible for almost $2 million more in revenue?

And how do we pay the other athletes, who play in the non-revenue sports?

[BSmack]

Are you saying it takes more or less money to maintain the basketball team? So then, according to your argument, we should pay the players based on the gate, correct? So the basketball players pull in, per player, 4 times the money the football players. So they should be paid 4 times the salary of the football team, even though the football team was responsible for almost $2 million more in revenue?

Net profit if different from gross revenue. It costs more to field a football team than a basketball team.

And how do we pay the other athletes, who play in the non-revenue sports?

They don't get paid, they get scholarships.

Nothing like college sports to turn good God fearing capitalists into a bunch of fucking socialists. :roll:

[Left Seater]

Lawfully, you cannot pay some college athletes, while not paying others. They are all entitled to equal treatment.

Hence my comment about a typical response BSmack. How do you plan on paying the women's lacrosse team? And don't forget that not every D-1A football and basketball team make money. So do the athletes at those schools not get paid?

Back away from your "i'm attacking you" line and explain your plan, but just saying you won't pay the other sports isn't viable as 88 pointed out.

[BSmack]

BSmack- Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Oh, and if you want the facts, click on this link:

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/miscellane ... 0901ms.htm

Wow! A press release from 1998! How current and up to date. Have you heard about Clinton and that intern chick?

But seriously, Roy Firestone called and wanted to know how you are so ahead of the curve.

Lawfully, you cannot pay some college athletes, while not paying others.

Why not?

They are all entitled to equal treatment. Revenue producing sports are few, and the revenue they produce is primarily used to finance non-revenue producing sports.

How is it unequal treatment to pay someone for helping to draw 100,000 people to your events?

Getting the opportunity to obtain a college education in return for playing a sport you enjoy is a great trade-off. There are thousands who would take that deal in the heartbeat.

No doubt. What the hell does that have to do with having the right to pursue a career of your chosing?

Only assholes who do not value the educational opportunity think it is a bad deal. They want to "get paid". They can do that. They just have to choose the CFL or the arena league, or wait out the three years for the NFL.

And you don't want to "get paid"? What are you some kind of retard? You work for free?

Personally, I would have liked to see Clarett win his lawsuit against the NFL's draft policy. Then, the colleges would only have true student-athletes on their football and basketball rosters, which is what they are there for in the first place. If that were the case, then NCAA would have to be very tough on players who accept money or fail to take care of their academic obligations, and the schools who allow them to get away with such conduct. And that should be the policy.

And then maybe we could take a further step toward sanity by banning spring practices. What is wrong with letting the "student athletes" have ONE semester a year devoted to learning?

And for those who say that the NFL's millions would cause a huge drain on the college game, I simply urge you to take a close look at Matt Leinhart. Those who want to play college ball and get an education will do so. Those who want to "get paid" will most likely flame out and be washing my car for me.

Leinart has the money to insure his body and protect his interests. Clarett might not have that kind of family money laying around. He should have the right to persue his career choice without the threat of colusion by the NFL and NFLPA.

[Killian]

The non revenue producing sports, usually don't get scholarships. The kids who are bringing in 100,000 or 15,000 are getting paid in terms of scholarships. The kids who don't bring in any money usually don't get much or any from the school.

Paying athletes is pandora's box, and she's a stinky bitch. There's no way to do it equally among all the sports.

[BSmack]

The non revenue producing sports, usually don't get scholarships. The kids who are bringing in 100,000 or 15,000 are getting paid in terms of scholarships. The kids who don't bring in any money usually don't get much or any from the school.

Paying athletes is pandora's box, and she's a stinky bitch. There's no way to do it equally among all the sports.

Thanks for admitting that your "equal treatment" argument is a complete load of crap.

[Killian]

The non revenue producing sports, usually don't get scholarships. The kids who are bringing in 100,000 or 15,000 are getting paid in terms of scholarships. The kids who don't bring in any money usually don't get much or any from the school.

Paying athletes is pandora's box, and she's a stinky bitch. There's no way to do it equally among all the sports.

Thanks for admitting that your "equal treatment" argument is a complete load of crap.

My "equal treatment" argument is that you have to pay the men and women the same. Similar to Title IX. You can't have the men's football and basketball teams running around with money falling out of their pockets, and have women with nothing. It is about equal treatment, between the sexes. It may suck, but that's the way it is.

The fact remains that you cannot come up with a logical solution or explanation on how to pay the athletes. If you pay strictly off of the gate and bowl revenue, you realize you would create a greater discrepancy between the upper echelon teams and the lower than there is now.

Why would a kid go to Boston College when he would get paid more to go to USC?

[BSmack]

My "equal treatment" argument is that you have to pay the men and women the same. Similar to Title IX. You can't have the men's football and basketball teams running around with money falling out of their pockets, and have women with nothing. It is about equal treatment, between the sexes. It may suck, but that's the way it is.

And again you fail to cite any statute that would cover this.

The fact remains that you cannot come up with a logical solution or explanation on how to pay the athletes. If you pay strictly off of the gate and bowl revenue, you realize you would create a greater discrepancy between the upper echelon teams and the lower than there is now.

So what? It's called capitalisim. Try practicing it someday you commie pinko.

Why would a kid go to Boston College when he would get paid more to go to USC?

Like that's any different now?

[BSmack]

This is assuming that nobody plays both ways.

You can count the number of players that play both ways on one hand. :roll:

I played on a HS team that fielded a team with 25 players. I'm not suggesting that colleges need to trim that much fat. But 80+ players is overkill. Even bringing the number down to 60 players would be enough to restore the non revenue producing mens sports.

[Jimmy Medalions]

Memo to those kicking BSmack's ass:

You are flaming with a guy who, more than likely, still has his John Kerry bumper sticker on his Fiero.

That's some math...

Out.

[Left Seater]

Even bringing the number down to 60 players would be enough to restore the non revenue producing mens sports.

How so? In that it would be in compliance with Title IX, or that there would be enough money to fund more sports teams completely?

Explain your statement.

[Killian]

My "equal treatment" argument is that you have to pay the men and women the same. Similar to Title IX. You can't have the men's football and basketball teams running around with money falling out of their pockets, and have women with nothing. It is about equal treatment, between the sexes. It may suck, but that's the way it is.

And again you fail to cite any statute that would cover this.

The fact remains that you cannot come up with a logical solution or explanation on how to pay the athletes. If you pay strictly off of the gate and bowl revenue, you realize you would create a greater discrepancy between the upper echelon teams and the lower than there is now.

So what? It's called capitalisim. Try practicing it someday you commie pinko.

Why would a kid go to Boston College when he would get paid more to go to USC?

Like that's any different now?

What fucking statute would I site, seeing as how this is not in practice? What I am pointing out, is that there all ready is precedence for the NCAA trying to equal out men's and women's athletics. They do this with Title IX. If athletes were to be paid, there would most certainly be added to this to cover any payments.

You were also the one who brought up the NCAA not cutting football scholarships as a way to keep the lower tier teams down. If you paid the athletes, this would create an even stronger downward force on these teams. So which way do you want to agrue this? Your solution produces a greater disparity between the have's and have not's. Kids would stop going to schools for education, exposure, etc. and would only go to the schools that paid them the most, right then.

[the_ouskull]

One thing that I'm not seeing being discussed is the price that is put on fame...

Athletes, even "non-revenue" ones, live a pretty good life on campus. "Hey, that's so-and-so the wrestler." Or, "Doesn't that chick play softball?" aren't uncommon phrases. It is safe to assume that, if an athlete wants a free meal, they can get one... and not just the meals that the University provides. It also stands to reason that the athletes that take the biggest advantage of this are the ones that aren't going to go pro in their respective sport.

Example: OU has had an offensive lineman on campus for a few years now. We'll call him "great big motherfucker," or GBMF for short. Well, Jammal knows that he's got a VERY legitmate shot at the NFL. So, what does he do?

Nothing with a smile.

He doesn't get into trouble outside of the classroom. He doesn't miss class. He busts his ass and does everything his coaches tell him to do. He's a model student. Not an honor roll guy, but like I said, he doesn't miss class and he doesn't get into trouble. Pretty uncommon for a star athlete at a major university.

He knows that, if he keeps himself together, he's getting paid. He knows that the four / five year wait is worth the while.

What about those that aren't as lucky / talented as ol' GBMF? It's pretty easy to say, "yeah, you can buy me dinner," when you know that, in four years, nobody in going to want to do that. Especially if you're not a skill position guy, or at least a big name guy.

Example: You have a chance to go to an OU autograph session. Who do you want to sign your (now defunct) Orange Bowl patch? Jason White or Akim Millington? Exactly. It is very rarely the star of a team that gets a team in trouble. It's not the star QB that accepts the car from a booster. It's the guy that's accessible. It's the one that has an "in doubt" future. It's the one that, because he's broke now, and most likely will be broke again in a few years, takes advantage of the good life while he can.

That's fame.

Who won the best R&B grammy last year? (I don't know either...) Fame is fickle. These guys have a window of opportunity, made an even more viable exit by the fact that, if the school is successful, more and more people are "window shopping."

If you pay the successful athletes and not the unsuccessful ones, then you have to find a way to justify that. (Especially with women's groups considering that all of the revenue-producing sports, with few exceptions, are all male sports...) And, try as I might, I can't think of a way to do so other than to say, "well, they have a shot at going pro and donating money back to us and you don't." OR, "they bring money into the school and you don't. Sorry."

Their pay is their education. ALL of their "pay" is their education. If they aren't smart enough to take advantage of that, or good enough at their sport to where they don't have to, where does that become the University's problem...?

A: It doesn't.

Don't pay players. They already get / have more perks than most of us plain ol' students will ever fully know. Nobody's ever wanted to fuck me solely because I was in a fraternity. Nobody's ever bought me dinner because I had a really good intramural game. Nobody's ever asked for my autograph because I make a good Bloody Mary.

These guys aren't hurting. They're kings... and even if it's only for four or five years, that's four or five more years than most of us will ever see.

the_ouskull

[War Stoops]

An honest question for BSmack:

Philosophically, why do you believe Clarett's rights trump the rights of the NFL?

[BSmack]

An honest question for BSmack:

Philosophically, why do you believe Clarett's rights trump the rights of the NFL?

Because you and I know damn well that a team would have drafted Clarett had he been allowed IN the draft.

[Killian]

An honest question for BSmack:

Philosophically, why do you believe Clarett's rights trump the rights of the NFL?

Because you and I know damn well that a team would have drafted Clarett had he been allowed IN the draft.

Do you think it would have served him better to play one or two more years in college?

[BSmack]

An honest question for BSmack:

Philosophically, why do you believe Clarett's rights trump the rights of the NFL?

Because you and I know damn well that a team would have drafted Clarett had he been allowed IN the draft.

Do you think it would have served him better to play one or two more years in college?

That's a decision that Clarett and the team that drafts/choses not to draft him should make.

[Killian]

I'm asking your opinion. Do you think it would have bennefited him by staying in school for one or two more years? Because even in his workouts, he was a back with average speed and durability issues.

If you take this year into consideration, is Peterson ready to go pro? Probably. Is Michael Har? I doubt it. There used to be no limit for kids to go pro. When Jon Vaughn and Tommy Maddox declared after their Soph. years, no one thought anything of it. They were out of the league in 2 or 3 years. Maddox came back because he took the time to mature.

I will agree with you that there are ocassionally a player or two who is ready for the NFL after his Freshman year. But I could probably count on 1 hand the number that were ready in the last 15-20 years.

[BSmack]

I'm asking your opinion. Do you think it would have bennefited him by staying in school for one or two more years? Because even in his workouts, he was a back with average speed and durability issues.

Given what has happened with Clarett and the NCAA, not a chance. He mentaly left the college game the second the Miami-Ohio State game ended. Some might say he mentaly left reality, but that remains to be seen. If Clarett was smart, he's taken advantage of the past 12 months to study everything he can about the NFL game and work himself into a more durable version of himself. Is he that smart? I doubt it.

If you take this year into consideration, is Peterson ready to go pro? Probably. Is Michael Har? I doubt it. There used to be no limit for kids to go pro. When Jon Vaughn and Tommy Maddox declared after their Soph. years, no one thought anything of it. They were out of the league in 2 or 3 years. Maddox came back because he took the time to mature.

I will agree with you that there are ocassionally a player or two who is ready for the NFL after his Freshman year. But I could probably count on 1 hand the number that were ready in the last 15-20 years.

I agree. There are not too many 18 year olds ready for life in the NFL. Furthermore, the NFL is very unforgiving towards "project" players ever since the cap. Even if the age limit is overturned, I wouldn't expect to see more than 1 or 2 players attempt to make the jump in any given year. If the NCAA allows players without agents to keep their eligibility up to the draft, players could get a pretty good idea as to their real NFL worth.

[War Stoops]

Because you and I know damn well that a team would have drafted Clarett had he been allowed IN the draft.

No, I'm asking why you think his rights are more important than the NFL's not the individual teams'. The teams have the power to change the rule if enough owners want it changed. But I strongly believe that the NFL should have the right to set it's rules as it wants (obviously within reason, which is ensured by the players union.)

[Killian]

I agree. There are not too many 18 year olds ready for life in the NFL. Furthermore, the NFL is very unforgiving towards "project" players ever since the cap. Even if the age limit is overturned, I wouldn't expect to see more than 1 or 2 players attempt to make the jump in any given year. If the NCAA allows players without agents to keep their eligibility up to the draft, players could get a pretty good idea as to their real NFL worth.

I completely agree with this. My main concern is that I don't want to see the NFL/College football turn into the NBA/College basketball. Yes there are LeBron's, but there are far to many Kwame Brown's, Korleone Young's, etc. I don't want to see teams starting to draft HS studs because they may develop in 5 years.

My fear is that it would be many more than 1 or 2 each year. Maybe you would get a kid like Darius Walker, but without a solid background. Did he have a good year? Yeah. Is he ready for the league? No fucking way. I don't want to see kids in this situation piss away their chance later because of the temptation now.

If you had a system like the NBA, where you could declare and then comeback, I would be more for it. But I still think it's a bad idea.