Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL)

[3yardsandacloud]

Yes I know Bill, just yanking your chain a bit. I guess the point is that the NCAA does not recognize a champion in D-1 Football. They do list other organizations that do, but that's not the same thing.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

"The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process." etc, etc.



Go to this NCAA page and plug in Ohio State. See how many championships we get credit for in football ... 0.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html


Syncro Swimming is classified as an "Emerging" sport:

http://www.ncaa.org/news/2004/20040426/awide/4109n07.html


The NCAA News -- April 26, 2004


'Emerging-sports' idea has yielded championship results


Four have gained NCAA postseason status others seek championship momentum

By Beth Rosenberg
The NCAA News

It's been more than a decade since the NCAA Gender-Equity Task Force identified nine emerging sports for women, and since that time some of those sports have grown into championship sports. Others, however, have languished with few varsity teams and little hope for championships in the near future.

The task force -- in an effort to bolster women's participation -- identified archery, badminton, bowling, rowing, ice hockey, squash, synchronized swimming, team handball and water polo as emerging sports. Of those, ice hockey, bowling, rowing and water polo have gained championship status, with rowing and ice hockey holding postseason events in more than one division.

The other sports have thrived at various levels, but few are close to gaining the 40 teams necessary for an NCAA championship.

"Considering the financial stresses on all athletics departments of the period since the group was meeting, I think that four out of nine (having championships) is pretty good," said Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Tom Hansen, who served as a task force member. "I consider it a success."

Hansen said when the group looked at which sports to elevate to "emerging" status, they passed over niche sports played only in certain areas and focused instead on those that could be popular throughout the country.

"We wanted to create more national-championship opportunities for women at the NCAA level for sports that had a national following, and we wanted to encourage institutions to devote resources to them with the anticipation that they would become a national-championship sport," Hansen said.

... Blah, blah, blah




What does all that mean? Hell if I know.

 

[AJHawkfan]

Soooo, where does this money to pay athletes come from?

As much as I hate to say it, it would come from the non-scholarship's tuition, aka general fund - the same where the books, tutors, room & board, course fees, tuition etc. all come from.

Soooo, where does this money to pay athletes come from?

As much as I hate to say it, it would come from the non-scholarship's tuition, aka general fund - the same where the books, tutors, room & board, course fees, tuition etc. all come from.

 

[OilerBuck]

I'm not a person who's opinion is swayed easily, but after listening to Colin Cowherd on the subject, I have done a complete 180 degree turn in my opinion on the subject.

His first point was that, according to Brand, around 5% of the athletic departments in the country are even in the black. That means that many are likely already in danger of cutting programs just to stop the bleeding. I have no clue how many student-athletes there are at any given university, so I am going to use a number of 300 (there are likely MANY more) just to make a point. Let's say the athletic department pays each student athlete just $100 a week (this may go a long way in Columbus, but in the big city it isn't going to last long). 300 students x $100 = $30,000 x 52 weeks in a year = $1,560,000 a year on top of what they are already losing.

Colin also talked about the misconception that college athletes in general are exploited. If you think about it, what percentage of these athletes actually create enough buzz to bring IN as much to the University as they get out of a scholarship? Sure there is the occasional Carmello Anthony, Ted Ginn, Etc. but to be honest, these schools likely sell out the games anyway and the kids that bring along that much hype are likely making millions within a couple years.

The problem is, athletes complain that they don't have money because they can't work, be a student and an athlete all at once. All college students run short on money and are resigned to eating Ramen Noodles...and I don't see any offensive lineman struggling to get nourishment. Sheryl Swoops complained about credit card bills, but every year I see college students tied down with not only credit card debt but also YEARS worth of school debt that a scholarship athlete will never have.

Just because OSU's athletic department makes money (which really we need just to pay off building and renovating facilities), we assume that we can pay players, but not just a group of schools can do this...ALL of them would have to or it would be an unfair advantage. Also, can you equate cost of living into it to make sure the money goes just as far in California as it does in North Dakota? If a school that is already in the red has to start paying players, they will cut scholarship sports. What is more important...

A.) That our football, basketball and baseball players (the greats of which will soon be in the pros anyway) make some extra spending money in school.

or...

B.) That other sports programs stay up and running to give a free ride to kids that appreciate it and may otherwise not get a chance at a college education.

My eyes were opened today.

 

[Zurp]

This is a bit outside the topic, but just barely. I think I still have my toe inside the lines of the topic.

Anyway, I've felt that football players should be able to get a major in football. Actually, I feel that COLLEGE STUDENTS should be able to major in football. The classes they take may include weight training (the students learn HOW and WHY to properly lift, rather than simply to lift), nutrition, and other health sciences, as well as learning offensive and defensive strategies and techniques. Underclassmen may spend more time learning in classrooms, while the upper classmen may take on assistant coaching positions at local area high schools. I believe that this will produce smarter, more disciplined football players who might have a better chance at succeeding in the NFL. Also, it would give players who don't make it to the NFL a better knowledge of the game, and they would be better suited for a coaching career.

 

[jwinslow]

not a bad idea, except you don't get coaching jobs without teaching classes, and to teach a class you need a major other than football as most high schools don't have a lot of football101 classes. Perhaps something that is a glorified health major, so you can be a PE/Health teacher. We all know how much intelligence it takes to teach Health class.

 

[Zurp]

Sure - it can be an overall Athletics/PE/Health major. I just think that more players would be better prepared for after college if they're more rounded of a football player. If a RB takes classes that help him understand defensive strategies, he may be more apt to learn ways to beat those strategies. And if a linebacker learns offensive strategies, he may be more suited for when an unexpected play comes up.

And I'm not suggesting this is a "Coach is giving everyone easy A's" type of a thing. Though I don't know how to solve that issue, short of not letting the coaches teach the classes. But who'd be better suited to teach the classes than real football coaches?

And what about the smaller schools that can't afford to start a new type of education field? I see many holes in my plan. Maybe it would be better to hope this never comes to fruition.

 

[BB73]

I think a Coke commercial showing during the NCAA hoops tournament siad that there are 360,000 student athletes in college. Paying a significant percentage of them would take a whole lot of money.

 

[AJHawkfan]

Paying a significant percentage of them would take a whole lot of money.

I'm pretty sure Title IX and the other equal opportunity laws assure that you would have to pay them ALL the same.

What you would see is a lot of schools dropping a lot of sports programs.

 

[Adam Locked]

OSU and UF wonder if they deserve cash from BCS...

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;...cvrYF?slug=ap-t25-bcs-money&prov=ap&type=lgns

Buckeyes and Gators wonder if they deserve a cut of BCS cash By ANDREW BAGNATO, AP Sports Writer
January 5, 2007 QB Chris Leak:

Here because of hard work

Teams fight rust
GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) -- Playing in a bowl is no longer reward enough for some college football players: Some Buckeyes and Gators want a cut of the millions being generated by the championship game.
"We all deserve more money," Ohio State senior guard T.J. Downing said. "We're the reason this money's coming in. We're the guys out there sacrificing our bodies. We're taking years off our lives out here hitting each other, and we're not being compensated for it."

... This is an age-old debate. But I think it's pretty crazy. I'm a student-athlete myself in college and I think we ARE getting paid. It's called scholarships. Do we not value education these days? Most of these players who attend schools like USC, OSU, Michigan, probably can not get into those schools on their grades alone.


That's just my opinion on the matter. I see both sides of the argument, but as a walk-on on my own college team I think being able to get money in the form of a college education makes doing what you do all worth while.

 

[daddyphatsacs]

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;...cvrYF?slug=ap-t25-bcs-money&prov=ap&type=lgns

That's just my opinion on the matter. I see both sides of the argument, but as a walk-on on my own college team I think being able to get money in the form of a college education makes doing what you do all worth while.

I certainly see your point as a walk-on, but guys like Troy Smith are exploited by the university and the NCAA in my opinion. How many #10 jerseys has OSU sold this season? That isn't by coincidence.

I, myself, would consider it a privledge to be on scholarship at OSU. Many of the guys playing have been in the spotlight since high school, so they probably tend to take it for granted. I think it is a bit of a double standard for the NCAA to want the players to stay away from most jobs, but then turn around and make 100's of millions of dollars off of these players. College football is a huge business, look at how much money Alabama just paid Nick Saban to come coach there. I can definately understand why some players decide to leave early and go pro..........

 

[CookyPuss]

Classic point-counter point in the first 2 posts. I saw Joe Germain the other night on FSN and he said "no way." He brought up the how do you decide who gets it an how much arguments. I agree that these athletes are given and incredible opportunity to attend top universities on scholarship. No other segment of students gets the scholarship opportunities that athletes get. I totally agree with this. However, I also agree that they need to find a way to make sure these kids have a little pocket money. I remember the good ol' college days when $50 bucks a week would have been a luxery. The problem is that the big programs can afford this much easier than the smaller schools. In the end, I have to side more with Joe G that the ones being "exploited" are more than likely going to get the opportunity to make the big bucks. In that some ways, its not that much different from the unpaid internships that many other students must complete before earning in their field.

 

[Crashcup]

First off let me say that I don't believe they should be paid ala Germaine.

But lets say they did. Wouldn't one think that they should minimally graduate?

But then their "players union" would object.

 

[BayBuck]

I don?t think I would say ?exploited.? We have 36 sports (at OSU), almost a thousand athletes, most of whom don?t generate anything, and they?re getting a pretty good situation. Now those that happened to be blessed to be in the sports that do generate (money), I for one think you should be grateful for the fact you?re getting to help those other 900 and something. But no, I wouldn?t say exploited. If that were the case, maybe 18-year-olds would go start a league and see how they do.

I'm with Tress on this one.

 

[AJHawkfan]

If the players are being exploited so horribly, they always have the option to quit the team and blend into anonymity with the rest of the student body. (And pay their own way on top of it.)

I have to agree that for a very small minority, (OSU football, Duke/UNC basketball, etc.), the athletes are directly earning a lot of money for the university. However, you cannot change the rules for all to satisfy a selct few.

 

[OH10]

If you are an Ohio State football player, you're set for life.