NCAA Doesn't Want To Pay Athletes

Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by gatorchamps0607, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. REM08
    Offline

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +685

    No question about that. Selfishly, I don't want much to change. The further college sports can be from pro the better for my fan/viewing experience. I'm just not sure that the current setup is the most fair for all players involved. I'm not trying to pretend that there's an obvious, problem free solution. I'm just not sure that I'm for artificially limiting someone's ability to provide for their family and their future because of history or tradition or the concept of "amateurism" - especially when their earning potential just happens to be limited in an arena where others are capitalizing on them to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm a pretty conservative guy and part of me bristles when I try and rationalize limiting the free market just to preserve parts of what college sports have always existed. I'm not sure how much I'm willing to compromise, but when I hear the horror quotes from some of you like "well whats to stop a booster from paying 15k for an autograph!!!!????" - it becomes obvious to me that I'm just not as appalled by that notion as many of you are.
  2. phatGator
    Offline

    phatGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +325
    Why would the NFL fund a minor league when colleges are doing it for them? They can't be compelled to. It would only happen if colleges stopped football.

    If the NFL rescinded their rule about being 3 years out of HS we will get more of the one and done players that frustrate us in basketball.

    I really don't know the answer. Lots of people make money off the athletes. But the scholarship players do get free college. Many are developed and make big bucks later.

    Maybe there could be a system that if the player graduates and does not sign a pro contract he is then paid some amount (say $250k) by the school. That would be a nice start for a 22 yr old kid. If he does sign a pro contract then he pays that money to the school.

    There also needs to be some real life adjustments to the rules: like allowing the school to pay to send a kid home for family emergencies. Or like a few years ago when the Northwestern running back studying drama was not allowed on a trip his classmates were taking to England because outside money had been raised for the trip.
  3. atlantagator86
    Offline

    atlantagator86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,553
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    The simple answer is money. The problem is that, and I think this is your point, there probably isn't a ton of money in minor league football.

    The advantage that college football and college basketball has is a built-in fan base that minor leagues football and basketball will probably never have. I doubt there's any real money being made in minor league basketball.

    I think part of what makes minor league baseball work is that the rosters typically include some former major leaguers and guys doing rehab. You would rarely have rehabbing done in minor league football.

    But if they quit looking at it as just a revenue source, I do think minor league football could work. Think of the number of college players who fail out of school and never have a chance. Think of the number of NFL players who have been cut while they could potentially still play. Think of the number of former college superstars that were just a little too slow or too small to play in the NFL.

    The problem in the past is that when people wanted to start new football leagues, they wanted to try to compete with the NFL and couldn't do it. They tried to set up teams in NFL cities and compete head to head.

    But I think if the NFL could come in and set up what are truly NFL farm teams in non-NFL cities, like Birmingham, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, Raleigh, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, etc. and try to include former college and pro players with regional interest, I think they could generate a little money.

    And if they allowed kids to be signed right out of high school and developed on these farm teams, I think they could generate enough money to make it pretty profitable. And I don't think it would kill college football.

    My guess is that unlike basketball or baseball, there aren't a whole lot of kids an NFL team would draft right out of high school, but it would be big names. And to keep kids from jumping early, maybe the rule is that if a kid doesn't get drafted out of high school, they can go to college, but they have to be 3 years out of high school before a college can draft them and for kids that drop out or fail out, they have to wait 4 years to be able to be drafted.
  4. GatorDoc74
    Offline

    GatorDoc74 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,348
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +410
    if you are OK with this notion, then you must also be OK with the notion of "buying" your players in college football. The richest schools, or the schools with the richest boosters, would have vast resources to purchase the best high school and JuCo players for their programs. It would be like the NFL, except there would be no draft and no salary cap.

    The reason the NFL has the most parity and most popularity of any major sport (in the USA) is because so many teams have a chance to go to the playoffs. Compare this to the NBA or MLB, where only a handfull of the teams (mostly the same teams every year) have any realistic chance to win it all.

    The draft and hard salary cap are the reason the NFL is the most popular pro sport, with the most parity. I don't think college football would be nearly as popular if success and championships could be bought by the highest bidder.
  5. GatorDoc74
    Offline

    GatorDoc74 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,348
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +410
    I'm sure the female gymnists and the men's water polo athletes would love a check for $250K at graduation.
  6. altalias
    Offline

    altalias Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +264
    How about a third string lineman/special team man who didn't pan out? Pretty good pay. Of course they would be forced to fire workers who don't pan out if they start getting paid like that.
  7. phatGator
    Offline

    phatGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +325
    I was thinking football. Yes, the idea has lots of flaws. Just thinking there might be some middle ground between current system and university pros.
  8. phatGator
    Offline

    phatGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +325
    Maybe prorated on playing time with a minimum payout. Anyway, it will never happen. The NCAA and schools love the status quo.
  9. REM08
    Offline

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +685
    I don't like the noting of buying players. I'm just not morally outraged by it happening if it were within the rules. I'm not talking about what this would do to the competitive balance of the game. I'm talking about the damage (lack of) that would be done otherwise. Lets not pretend that this doesn't already happen at times and that things are an equal playing field now. The best schools with the best coaches get the best players.

    The NFL does have a fairly equal playing field. But that isn't the biggest reason its the most popular sport right now. It has a lot of advantages over baseball and basketball. College football is wildly popular as well despite a relative few teams actually having a chance at a title. The sport of football, alone, brings with it advantages that are helping it given the times we live in.
  10. Swamper
    Offline

    Swamper New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    15,812
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +6
    if universities stopped admitting the athletes with a limited probability of academic success, the nfl would be forced to spend money to develop this talent to enrich their business.
  11. REM08
    Offline

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +685
    Right, but that will never happen.

    The NBA and NFL have it MADE when it comes to using the college systems as their feeder league. They don't only end up with well coached, developed players (we could nit pick here but you get the point), they end up with players who are already have massive fan followings much of the time.
  12. Brodeur
    Offline

    Brodeur Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,306
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +80
    Despite what other posters have said, the answer is no, not quite. Title IX does not force schools to treat every athlete the same. Even today, athletes are compensated very differently; some have full scholarships, some have partials, and some have none (in fact, NCAA rules make it impossible to give all athletes full scholarships in many sports via scholarship limits). Stipends would be no different.

    What Title IX does do is force you to do the same thing for women that you do for men. So if UF gave stipends to 100 male athletes (say all football and basketball players) then 100 women would have to get stipends too. That's it.
  13. phatGator
    Offline

    phatGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +325
    Exactly. I will take some restructuring of their current "farm system" to make them pony up money for something new.

Share This Page