# Paying NCAA  players.  The first domino falls.



## weagle (Sep 14, 2019)

I'm of the general opinion that nothing good comes out of California, but this is way overdue.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports...lif-senate-ok-athlete-bill-ncaa-calls-harmful

The current monopoly that the NCAA has on the athletic talent of 18-21 year old football players is an anti-capitalist, plantation system.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 14, 2019)

Nope, just another like of junk. They are paid in the form of there scholarships. If they CHOOSE not to take full advantage of ALL that entails that's their problem NOT ours. All this is going to do is make it even MORE unaffordable for.most of us to enjoy the sport we love so much and eventually turn it into NFL Light which most of us CAN'T STAND


----------



## weagle (Sep 14, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> Nope, just another like of junk. They are paid in the form of there scholarships. If they CHOOSE not to take full advantage of ALL that entails that's their problem NOT ours. All this is going to do is make it even MORE unaffordable for.most of us to enjoy the sport we love so much and eventually turn it into NFL Light which most of us CAN'T STAND



Do you have a problem with the Universities paying the Coach $8 million or the DC 1.5 million?


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 14, 2019)

weagle said:


> Do you have a problem with the Universities paying the Coach $8 million or the DC 1.5 million?


Just win baby


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 14, 2019)

I didn’t read the link or watch the video but I think a reasonable stipend would be fair


----------



## weagle (Sep 14, 2019)

Matthew6 said:


> I didn’t read the link or watch the video but I think a reasonable stipend would be fair



As long as the player gets to negotiate what's "fair" i'm good with that.  If it's the NCAA deciding what's fair and making it illegal to shop your skills elsewhere, then nope.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 14, 2019)

weagle said:


> shop your skills



And here in lies the problem. It will become no different than the NFL, the rich will get richer and the rest will suffer. You'll have a handful of "superstars" negotiating superstar salaries and the rest of the nameless, faceless players getting scraps. All the while we the fans will take it in the shorts to pay for it. Ordinary folk won't even be able to afford to go to a game when tickets are $100 a piece. A drink will cost $15 and a hot dog $12. All the gear your kids want will go up $15-20 per.
And non of us will have any idea what our team will look like from week to week as all the players become free agents and the richest school can buy Championships.

And finally some of these kids have problems enough having been "superstars" with no consequences for their actions simply because they can throw a ball around, now make that 17-19yr old kid a Millionaire and see what happens.


----------



## TomC (Sep 14, 2019)

Big can of worms and NOTHING good comes out of California. What's "fair"........there will me a million interpretations of that term or whatever similar terms arise in the fine print. Sounds great on the surface but will turn into a big mess. They are getting paid (i.e scholarships, etc). Let them come in, play hard and then "earn" the big bucks!


----------



## JustUs4All (Sep 14, 2019)

The NCAA has been NFL light for decades.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 14, 2019)

All the PRoC is trying to do is BUY their flagship institution relevance.  USCw has been irrelevant for how many years now? UCLA too for that matter. The only marginally relevant football program out there is Stanford and they get the players they get as the premier educational institution that they are.

All the top recruits are leaving the state for places like the SEC and B10 for a chance at a Championship and they are not only trying to halt the exodus but steal some of the out of state talent from those places as well.


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 14, 2019)

Let it burn! I like HS football better anyway


----------



## across the river (Sep 14, 2019)

In reality, there are only two sports that are "profitable" and those two are only profitable at a select number of schools.  Overall, schools aren't making money on sports as people seems t think.  If you start "paying" players, most payment is going to end up being supplemented by taxpayer money, which is stupid.  Paying colleges players is dumb, regardless of the sport.  

You fix it by allowing kids to get drafted and signing at anytime.  If the pros want to take a chance on them out of high school, they can. After one year of college (i.e. Trevor Lawrence, Zion Williamson) they can get drafted.    

It obviously makes it more difficult from recruiting standpoint, but the transfer portal makes it where kids just up and leave now anyway.  nothing really changes with the few kids that would get drafted early.   If a kid is good enough to get paid NFL money or get endorsements, then I agree he should be able to get paid, but not by the school. 

A CFL rookie makes like $50,000.  Areana league players make less than that, so most college players are being properly compensated, or overcompensated for their services with a scholarship and room and board based on the free market.   There are a handful, that are not, and those guys should be allowed to market themselves however and whenever they wish..  However, you don't change the whole system, for what is actually very small percentage of the participants.   You let the free market pay them what they are worth, and you do that by allowing them to go pro whenever the can and/or want to. 

It is funny to me that everyone gets made at the NCAA, but it is the professional leagues that set the time when the kids can get drafted.   The NCAA doesn't say the kid has to be three years removed from high school, the NFL does.   The XFL(if it survives) will be an interesting test of all of this, as part of their marketing strategy is to sign those topsides not yet eligible for the NFL.


----------



## TomC (Sep 14, 2019)

And the offensive tackle and guard are going to be irritated that they can’t get the $ that the receivers are getting who are equally upset that the pretty boy QB is getting so much more than they are and the girl’s volleyball team figures they deserve SOMETHING but it’s not “FAIR” that the boy’s teams are getting more than the girl’s teams which is obviously “sexist” (ie. similar to the ridiculous issues the USA women's soccer team made recently) on and on and on and on kind of like this run on sentence.

And if NFL players (a high percentage of which) can’t  act responsibly with fat wallets, just imagine the kind of issues many of these kids just out of high school would run into with flush bank accounts. Recipe for disaster and controversy!


----------



## weagle (Sep 14, 2019)

across the river said:


> If you start "paying" players, most payment is going to end up being supplemented by taxpayer money, which is stupid.  Paying colleges players is dumb, regardless of the sport.
> 
> You fix it by allowing kids to get drafted and signing at anytime.



There is no rational argument that paying a Head coach $8 million a year and the DC 1.5 million a year is OK but if you pay the talent say $40K year then it's dumb. Free market Capitalism is never dumb. 

I agree 100% with "allowing kids to get drafted and signing anytime" Just like any other talent that an individual might poses, be that singing, computer science, engineering, golf, or acting.  

Right now the NCAA plantation is a free farm league for the NFL.


----------



## weagle (Sep 14, 2019)

TomC said:


> And the offensive tackle and guard are going to be irritated that they can’t get the $ that the receivers are getting who are equally upset that the pretty boy QB is getting so much more than they are and the girl’s volleyball team figures they deserve SOMETHING but it’s not “FAIR” that the boy’s teams are getting more than the girl’s teams which is obviously “sexist” (ie. similar to the ridiculous issues the USA women's soccer team made recently) on and on and on and on kind of like this run on sentence.



In a free market you make what you are worth, not what someone else is worth.  

The problem is big time college football is allowed to pretend to be amateur, when in fact it is a multi-billion dollar business that should be ruled an illegal monopoly under the Sherman act.


----------



## across the river (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> There is no rational argument that paying a Head coach $8 million a year and the DC 1.5 million a year is OK but if you pay the talent say $40K year then it's dumb. Free market Capitalism is never dumb.
> 
> I agree 100% with "allowing kids to get drafted and signing anytime" Just like any other talent that an individual might poses, be that singing, computer science, engineering, golf, or acting.
> 
> Right now the NCAA plantation is a free farm league for the NFL.



Slow down now Rachael Maddow.  A "plantation" implies slavery, ownership, and forced labor, no of which occurs in college football.   The NFL, not the NCAA, has the three year removed rule, and no kid has to go play NCAA football.  They can sit out for three years and train if they want to.   They are amateur athletes and the NCAA allows them the opportunity to play college football in exchange for an education, room and board, food, and other opportunities.  To compare it to "slavery" is baseless.    

Trevor Lawrence, and Tua could have both sat out this year and trained like some of the basketball players have done.   No one is making them play, so obviously they are o.k. with the "deal" they are getting from the school.  Like I said, I think those guys should be able to "go pro" whenever, but they can't because of the NFL's rule.   You say free market capitalism is never dumb, and I agree, but if you let free market capitalism exist in college sports, most sports teams would be non existent, because  the majority of teams do not generate enough money to maintain their program.


----------



## Horns (Sep 15, 2019)

across the river said:


> Slow down now Rachael Maddow.  A "plantation" implies slavery, ownership, and forced labor, no of which occurs in college football.   The NFL, not the NCAA, has the three year removed rule, and no kid has to go play NCAA football.  They can sit out for three years and train if they want to.   They are amateur athletes and the NCAA allows them the opportunity to play college football in exchange for an education, room and board, food, and other opportunities.  To compare it to "slavery" is baseless.
> 
> Trevor Lawrence, and Tua could have both sat out this year and trained like some of the basketball players have done.   No one is making them play, so obviously they are o.k. with the "deal" they are getting from the school.  Like I said, I think those guys should be able to "go pro" whenever, but they can't because of the NFL's rule.   You say free market capitalism is never dumb, and I agree, but if you let free market capitalism exist in college sports, most sports teams would be non existent, because  the majority of teams do not generate enough money to maintain their program.


While the idea of sitting out is true, it’s not gonna happen because the players have to keep making a name for themselves in order to draft higher which equates to more money


----------



## gobbleinwoods (Sep 15, 2019)

@across the river


> most sports teams would be non existent, because the majority of teams do not generate enough money to maintain their program.



Which is why teams are willing to go get beat up in the first 2-3 weeks of the schedule by larger, profitable schools for that payout of around 1 million to keep their team afloat.


----------



## treemanjohn (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> And here in lies the problem. It will become no different than the NFL, the rich will get richer and the rest will suffer. You'll have a handful of "superstars" negotiating superstar salaries and the rest of the nameless, faceless players getting scraps. All the while we the fans will take it in the shorts to pay for it. Ordinary folk won't even be able to afford to go to a game when tickets are $100 a piece. A drink will cost $15 and a hot dog $12. All the gear your kids want will go up $15-20 per.
> And non of us will have any idea what our team will look like from week to week as all the players become free agents and the richest school can buy Championships.
> 
> And finally some of these kids have problems enough having been "superstars" with no consequences for their actions simply because they can throw a ball around, now make that 17-19yr old kid a Millionaire and see what happens.


That's exactly what a capitalist Republic looks like

What about when fat Tony buys his favorite players jersey with his name on it? Shouldn't the player get a little something for that?


----------



## James12 (Sep 15, 2019)

Tebow made me sick the other day talking about it on ESPN.  Not all student Athletes grew up in Pontre Vedra Beach.  Yes, student athletes get treated differently, and get scholarships etc, but I still can’t understand why the University and it’s Brand can make millions off a kid, but Jake Fromm or Manziel can’t sell an autograph, they’re OWN SIGNATURE. 

Go watch a UGA game and count the #11 jerseys.  If he tears his ACL this week, and/or never plays again, does his 60K operations job from his degree match up to what he made the university in 3 years?


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 15, 2019)

gobbleinwoods said:


> @across the river
> 
> Which is why teams are willing to go get beat up in the first 2-3 weeks of the schedule by larger, profitable schools for that payout of around 1 million to keep their team afloat.


I’m certain n m state is grateful for the 1.7 mil from bama.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

treemanjohn said:


> That's exactly what a capitalist Republic looks like
> 
> What about when fat Tony buys his favorite players jersey with his name on it? Shouldn't the player get a little something for that?



They do. Their EDUCATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 15, 2019)

These kids are owed nothing. They’re getting a free ride! Period!


----------



## treemanjohn (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> They do. Their EDUCATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What percentage of college athletes of you think have a scholarship? How many have a full ride?


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

James12 said:


> Tebow made me sick the other day talking about it on ESPN.  Not all student Athletes grew up in Pontre Vedra Beach.  Yes, student athletes get treated differently, and get scholarships etc, but I still can’t understand why the University and it’s Brand can make millions off a kid, but Jake Fromm or Manziel can’t sell an autograph, they’re OWN SIGNATURE.
> 
> Go watch a UGA game and count the #11 jerseys.  If he tears his ACL this week, and/or never plays again, does his 60K operations job from his degree match up to what he made the university in 3 years?



An NFL players income doesn't add up to what they made the owner so where's the difference????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also an NFL owner doesn't have to support 1,000 other NON PROFITABLE athletes off the income from the NFL team. Universities do. IF Universities are FORCED to start paying ATHLETES it WILL BE THE END OF CFB thanks to Title IX. Title IX will FORCE Universities to compensate ALL student athletes EQUALLY, see current scholarship guidelines, and they simply CAN NOT afford that. 

Just drop the non profitable sports you say? Nope! Title IX prohibits that as well. Why do you think they still currently offer them even though they lose extravagant amounts of money?


----------



## weagle (Sep 15, 2019)

across the river said:


> Slow down now Rachael Maddow.



Rachel Madcow would be proud of you.  

The signature argument for a liberal is to accuse others of doing exactly what you are in fact doing yourself.

I'm for free market capitalism. You are arguing for the NCAA to have a monopoly, protected by the State, on the talent of 18 to 21 year old athletes.  

I want freedom, you want fairness and you get to decide what is fair.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

treemanjohn said:


> What percentage of college athletes of you think have a scholarship? How many have a full ride?



All! See Title IX


----------



## treemanjohn (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> All! See Title IX


Way wrong! Not even close.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> I'm for free market capitalism. You are arguing for the NCAA to have a monopoly, protected by the State, on the talent of 18 to 21 year old athletes.
> 
> I want freedom, you want fairness and you get to decide what is fair.



No you're not. Just like a Liberal you're sticking your nose in OTHER PEOPLES business where it doesn't belong with NO CONCEPT of what you're talking about.

Most Universities are Federally funded and are subject to Title IX legislation.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

treemanjohn said:


> Way wrong! Not even close.



Then by all means please enlighten us why they spend what they do on every other non profitable sport, which for most Universities is all but 1 or 2 sports FB and/or BB, if they are not being forced to??


----------



## jrickman (Sep 15, 2019)

Allow the players to collect royalties for use of their name, likeness, and active jersey number just like any professional athlete can, and this whole argument probably goes away. Get your jersey number retired, you can collect for life. Anything else just results in a bidding war that will destroy the college athletics universe in 10 years or less.


----------



## treemanjohn (Sep 15, 2019)

I will only enlighten you if you promise to listen

Football can carry up to 125 on it's roster with 85 (head Count) scholarships. There are 5 head count sports. Football, basketball, gymastics, volleyball, and tennis, Head count sports CAN NOT be divided. One scholarship/one player. 

Every other sport has a set amount which CAN be divided. IE: Baseball has 11 7/10 scholarships to field 25. It's very rare for a BBL, softball, track, swim....... athlete to get a full ride


----------



## weagle (Sep 15, 2019)

Here's some food for thought:  And this is a little skewed because in some southern states the top 2 or 3 are Head Football coaches.







The idea that big time college football is an amateur sport is a liberal fantasy.   Freedom and capitalism will win in the end.  It's coming.


----------



## James12 (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> An NFL players income doesn't add up to what they made the owner so where's the difference????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The difference? One makes several hundred thousand and gets a pension plan after just a few years regardless of production, so long as he remains employed.

So an adult can’t profit from signing his own name in a random restaurant for some random fan?  Get out of here, that’s ridiculous.  Selling school property such as jerseys or equipment that’s different.  But often times just as the school capitalizes on the kids 1-4 years, that’s often the only chance the kids have to capitalize themselves.  

And I think there's a monetary argument on both sides actually, but don’t take away an individual’s personal rights - that’s where the line is crossed in my opinion.


----------



## across the river (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> Rachel Madcow would be proud of you.
> 
> The signature argument for a liberal is to accuse others of doing exactly what you are in fact doing yourself.
> 
> ...




But I am not arguing for that.  I think they should go pro whenever they want to, that is a free market. Like Holyfield, if they aren't good enough, they don't make it.  That is a free market.

A baseball player gets drafted out of high school.  He can choose to sign and go pro, or go to college in exchange for an education.   A golfer, can go pro whenever he fills like it.  The one year rule for basketball and three year rule for football aren't NCAA rules.  What part of that do you not get?   A kid coming out of high school in basketball doesn't have to go to college.  Some go overseas to play professionally, a couple have just trained the one year.  In a couple of years they will be able to go pro straight from high school as it should be.   A football player, doesn't have to go to college.  They can train and then go to multiple other professional leagues. The Spring League, AFFL, AFL,CFL, or upcoming, XFL, PPF, or FFL  all three of which will be alternate paths to college. Most of these leagues you have probably never heard of and don't generate much revenue or pay much, but that is a free market.  The AAF lasted less than one season, and went kaput, that is the free market.   The XFL may not make it financially, but that is a free market.    If there is a near monopoly, it is the NFL not the NCAA.   The truth of the matter is there is one market for football that pays any money and that is the NFL.   Currently, the best option for 99.9% of kids is college football, which is an subsidized organization.  Alabama, Texas, Georgia, and Ohio State may have plenty of money, but they don't have football without the other schools that don't have slush funds.  One of the largest fees for most college students is an intercollegiate athletic fee to support college athletics.   Go look it up if you don't believe me.   So you are saying a school should charge more to a student attending a school for academic purposes to pay a college athlete.  That is asinine.   The reality is most kids playing college athletics benefit greatly from the arrangement.  They have a  zero percent chance of making a dime off of playing a sport, so getting an education to do what you love is a. great deal.  There are a handful of kids that have the size athletic ability and drive to make it to the professional ranks, and they don't have to go to college to get there.  However, it is currently there best option, so they choose to go that route because it give what stye feel is the best route to get there.  That is a free market.   Subsidizing pay for kids who already are already getting a subsidized education anyway is cray.  That isn't a free market by any means.   Like I said, they should be able to go pro whenever they want and sink or swim with there decision.  That would be the free market.  The issue is there are no other leagues that give as good of a deal as college athletics, so most kids go that route.  That isn't a plantation or a monopoly.


----------



## weagle (Sep 15, 2019)

across the river said:


> A baseball player gets drafted out of high school.  He can choose to sign and go pro, or go to college in exchange for an education.   A golfer, can go pro whenever he fills like it.
> .



You had this part right and then spent the rest of the post proving why NCAA football is not a free market.

If the NCAA changed the rules and said each team could spend $5 million in player salaries, every single SEC school would max that out without batting an eye and still make millions per year.


----------



## KyDawg (Sep 15, 2019)

The Kids are getting paid now. They are given a College Education, room, food, they already get a small stipend and get to go to a lot of pretty neat places, and stay in nice hotels. I am getting like Brown, let it burn, because I just don't feel like arguing with those that think it is fine.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

jrickman said:


> Allow the players to collect royalties for use of their name, likeness, and active jersey number just like any professional athlete can, and this whole argument probably goes away. Get your jersey number retired, you can collect for life. Anything else just results in a bidding war that will destroy the college athletics universe in 10 years or less.



And just how many of those players do you think can ACTUALLY capitalize on their name, likeness etc.????? Do you want a picture with/autograph from the 2nd string OG or NT? NO YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!! You like everyone else want and only care about getting the handful of "superstars" pic/autograph. 

There are 130 FBS teams with a scholarship roster of 85 players. That is 11,050 scholarship athletes of which MAYBE 10 per team most people will give two cents for their autograph/picture. And VERY FEW of those have a fan base worth talking about. Even of just the Power 5 schools MAYBE half have a fan/booster club base that would be able to compete or the top players in the nation. Imagine if T. Boone Pickens or Capt. Nike up at Oregon, whatever his name is, could start telling players "Son, I'll give you $5 Mil for your autograph if'n you'll come play at MY school.". How many schools do you REALLY THINK could compete with that?

And what kind of dissent/jealousy do you think THAT would breed in a locker room full of 17-22yr olds????!!!!


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> You had this part right and then spent the rest of the post proving why NCAA football is not a free market.
> 
> If the NCAA changed the rules and said each team could spend $5 million in player salaries, every single SEC school would max that out without batting an eye and still make millions per year.



And just how any other institutions do you think could do that? And you STILL haven't answered the Title IX implications. What about the Service Academies?

And just for the record even IF they did The Barn would STILL #dailywartiglesux


----------



## hayseed_theology (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> You had this part right and then spent the rest of the post proving why NCAA football is not a free market.
> 
> If the NCAA changed the rules and said each team could spend $5 million in player salaries, every single SEC school would max that out without batting an eye and still make millions per year.



Arbitrary $5 mil cap?  That's not how a free market works.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

hayseed_theology said:


> Arbitrary $5 mil cap?  That's not how a free market works.



Neither is "Free Market Capitalists" agreeing with whacked out PRoC Liberals. 

But alas we're nitpicking details


----------



## pete56 (Sep 15, 2019)

if they are going to get paid IRS needs to start collecting tax on value of benefits which would include value of scholarship.


----------



## weagle (Sep 15, 2019)

pete56 said:


> if they are going to get paid IRS needs to start collecting tax on value of benefits which would include value of scholarship.


Absolutly


----------



## weagle (Sep 15, 2019)

Cling to the state approved sham if it appeals to your sense of fairness, but de-regulation is coming.  Athletic directors and school presidents see the writing on the wall and have plans to get out in front of an all out open market for the 18 to 21 year old football talent.   Step one will be a fixed salary for the players in an attempt to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.  Billions, with a $B are in play.  The future is most likely University licensed club status for the football programs.  Much like a minor league baseball team in a city.  This is not a guess on my part.


----------



## gobbleinwoods (Sep 15, 2019)

pete56 said:


> if they are going to get paid IRS needs to start collecting tax on value of benefits which would include value of scholarship.



Then all scholarships should be taxed?   Hope, academic, need, etc.


----------



## jrickman (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> And just how many of those players do you think can ACTUALLY capitalize on their name, likeness etc.????? Do you want a picture with/autograph from the 2nd string OG or NT? NO YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!! You like everyone else want and only care about getting the handful of "superstars" pic/autograph.



It is no coincidence that #11 and #7 UGA Jerseys are the top sellers this year. That is UGA making money off Jake Fromm and DeAndre Swift, period. Those kids should be entitled to a cut of that. It’s just common sense. Salary? No way. Royalties for name and/or likeness? Absolutely. Does the bulk of the team get left out of this? Yep. The same guys will command far lower salaries at the next level too. Them’s the breaks.


----------



## Patriot44 (Sep 15, 2019)

Souf Cakalaki is now in on this too. I suppose someone is a Cock and wants to get those birds some attention with the Clemson beat downs!


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

jrickman said:


> It is no coincidence that #11 and #7 UGA Jerseys are the top sellers this year. That is UGA making money off Jake Fromm and DeAndre Swift, period. Those kids should be entitled to a cut of that. It’s just common sense. Salary? No way. Royalties for name and/or likeness? Absolutely. Does the bulk of the team get left out of this? Yep. The same guys will command far lower salaries at the next level too. Them’s the breaks.



And you don't think that won't create jealousy and dissent in a locker room full of 17-22yr olds? Your nuts. You don't think it won't be abused by wealthy boosters to try to BUY a team? You need your head examined. THAT is PRECISELY why the NCAA prohibits it.


----------



## jrickman (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> And you don't think that won't create jealousy and dissent in a locker room full of 17-22yr olds? Your nuts. You don't think it won't be abused by wealthy boosters to try to BUY a team? You need your head examined. THAT is PRECISELY why the NCAA prohibits it.



So Jake Fromm shouldn't collect a share of the royalties that are being collected by UGA because #11 jerseys are hot sellers purely because he's wearing it...because it might make Stetson Bennett and Jake Camarda resentful? Should he be prohibited from announcing his intent to enter the draft too, because it might hurt John FitzPatrick's pride? 

No booster is going to be able to manipulate a licensed product royalty sharing system. It works on sales alone. If the booster wanted to go out and personally buy up all the #11 jerseys, Jake gets the same cut as if they just put them in the store and let them sit. They are all gonna sell, no matter who buys them...ALL.

That has absolutely nothing to do with why the NCAA prohibits it. The NCAA prohibits it because the member institutions do not want to open the door to giving up a cut of the money being made off the backs of these young men. Meanwhile the NCAA takes their cut, you can be sure. These kids are getting a scholarship and an opportunity to do something special, and for that they should be grateful. But the profits being made all around them are borderline obscene. You would be shocked if you saw the real numbers. I'm merely suggesting that they are entitled to a small share of the proceeds of the product that they...well, they ARE the product more or less. The NCAA and member institutions are squeezing a fistful of sand here. The harder they squeeze it, the more they are going to lose.


----------



## gobbleinwoods (Sep 15, 2019)

jrickman said:


> So Jake Fromm shouldn't collect a share of the royalties that are being collected by UGA because #11 jerseys are hot sellers purely because he's wearing it...because it might make Stetson Bennett and Jake Camarda resentful? Should he be prohibited from announcing his intent to enter the draft too, because it might hurt John FitzPatrick's pride?
> 
> No booster is going to be able to manipulate a licensed product royalty sharing system. It works on sales alone. If the booster wanted to go out and personally buy up all the #11 jerseys, Jake gets the same cut as if they just put them in the store and let them sit. They are all gonna sell, no matter who buys them...ALL.
> 
> That has absolutely nothing to do with why the NCAA prohibits it. The NCAA prohibits it because the member institutions do not want to open the door to giving up a cut of the money being made off the backs of these young men. Meanwhile the NCAA takes their cut, you can be sure. These kids are getting a scholarship and an opportunity to do something special, and for that they should be grateful. But the profits being made all around them are borderline obscene. You would be shocked if you saw the real numbers. I'm merely suggesting that they are entitled to a small share of the proceeds of the product that they...well, they ARE the product more or less. The NCAA and member institutions are squeezing a fistful of sand here. The harder they squeeze it, the more they are going to lose.



The California 'law' if Newson signs it is for the use of a name and image.   Thus a booster could give a player a million $ to use his name and image to say sell cars or insurance for the booster.    Not for sales of said jerseys.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> In a free market you make what you are worth, not what someone else is worth.
> 
> The problem is big time college football is allowed to pretend to be amateur, when in fact it is a multi-billion dollar business that should be ruled an illegal monopoly under the Sherman act.



I can appreciate your passion, after all you were an "amatuer athlete"...but your logic is off base.
An $8million Coach who puts together a program that draws in a hundred million annually and raises enrollment is a FAR CRY different than a star player who, according to your desires would play maybe one season, 2 at most before leaving...if you cant see that, then your bias prevents logical discussion.
By the way, this is not a new concept...this has been going on since the late 1800's...schools paid big $$$ for big name coaches to build football programs because they knew the economic effect football would bring to the schools...not the "stars"...the coaches' programs.
I hear all of this talk about how much the schools "make off the players"...yet No ONE mentions just how much value is added to the player through the exposure generated by top programs...to say the least about the maturation process, the coaching up, bulking up, etc....oh yeah,...there is that "education" thing too...


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

jrickman said:


> No booster is going to be able to manipulate a licensed product royalty sharing system. It works on sales alone. If the booster wanted to go out and personally buy up all the #11 jerseys, Jake gets the same cut as if they just put them in the store and let them sit. They are all gonna sell, no matter who buys them...ALL.



Here is the MAJOR FLAW in your "logic". Let's say UGA would sell 50,000 #11 jerseys over the course of JF's tenure there. But the booster goes to JF during his recruitment and says "Son, if you come play at my school I'll buy 100,000 of your jerseys the day you set foot on the field". There in lies the problem.

#2 How many players do you think have worn the #11 jersey over the course of UGA's football program? Who's to say I'm buying a "Fromm" jersey and not one in support of one of those former players? For that matter UGA currently has 2 #11's on the team, JF and Jeremiah Johnson. So which one of them "owns" the rights to the royalties from the sales of #11 jerseys? Think JF might get just a little ****ed if he has to split the royalties 50/50 with JJ when most of those jerseys sold are likely because of him? I think he might.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

And finally, for those that think that the NCAA and the Universities "won't" pay the players because they don't want to "share their money", they WON'T SHARE ANYTHING. All they will do is JACK UP the prices to the CONSUMER, YOU AND ME, to cover the cost of what they have to pay them. Won't cost them a dime except for revenue lost as they price people like you and me out of the market trying to cover that cost.


----------



## across the river (Sep 15, 2019)

weagle said:


> You had this part right and then spent the rest of the post proving why NCAA football is not a free market.
> 
> If the NCAA changed the rules and said each team could spend $5 million in player salaries, every single SEC school would max that out without batting an eye and still make millions per year.




How is it not a free market.  You continue to ignore the fact that the NCAA is not the one keeping the football players from going pro.  The NFL could change the rule or someone start another league and cut the NCAA out.   College ball is what most feel is their best option, so that is where they go to play until they are three years removed from college.  It doesn't mean it is there only option.   However, if we are going with the free market argument, you don't pay employees more than you have to because your job as a CEO is to maximize profit for the shareholders.   If you want to consider college players "employees", then why would anyone pay them if they are going to come play for a scholarship anywhay.  That is a terrible waste of taxpayer money and fees at most schools.    Go start your own league with 5 million per team and start paying 18,19, and 20 year old kids to play football for you. Vince is going to try it as a others.   That is a free market. 


The revenue of the top 5 or so teams in college football is double that of the 25th team, and multiples greater than that those past that.  the overwhelming majority of school do "make millions" and actually loose money.  Just because Texas, Ohio State, Bama and A&M could afford to do it, doesn't mean Vanderbilt could. 

I actually hope the XFL or one of these other leagues survive, just to stop this stupid narrative of paying players.   Basketball players have had the option for years to play professionally overseas, or the D league now,  but most don't and choose to go to college.  Why, because playing in college gives them a better option.  Scouts know what they are getting when they play in college verses a kid playing in China, so the kid turns down money to play in college.   They same thing go for football players.  Most will turn down money to play in college in exchange for an education (for most) and an opportunity to play with and against other talented players.  They have a choice and will have more in the next couple of years.   If you don't think that is a free market, you need to go back and take another economics class.


----------



## across the river (Sep 15, 2019)

hayseed_theology said:


> Arbitrary $5 mil cap?  That's not how a free market works.




To him and Rachel Maddow, that is a free market.   You are told to pay people and how much to pay them to make you feel better, because someone else makes more than you do.


----------



## lampern (Sep 15, 2019)

This is a good bill and I hope it passes


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

lampern said:


> This is a good bill and I hope it passes



And when the NCAA makes them forfeit all their games because of it, then what?


----------



## lampern (Sep 15, 2019)

They won't.

So goes California, so goes the rest of the country.

NCAA makes millions off student athletes

Student athletes gonna get paid and nothing the NCAA can do about it.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 15, 2019)

lampern said:


> They won't.
> 
> So goes California, so goes the rest of the country.
> 
> ...



In what world do you think the NCAA is in ANY WAY beholden to the PRoC Libtard legislature? They are their own separate and independent body and while they do have to follow Federal law they CAN and likely WOULD tell the PRoC to go take a flying leap, DQ any and all school that engage in such actions and tell them that all those December and January games INCLUDING that silly little one on New Year's day in Pasadena would be moved to other states.

Be careful what you wish for. That law of unintended consequences is a ROYAL female dog.


----------



## lampern (Sep 15, 2019)

The NCAA will kowtow to the Democrats in CA if this bill passes 

Ain’t no way they will go after Democrats or Democrat schools


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 15, 2019)

Please hurry up and pay these kids so it  will implode faster. I’m about sick of it anyway. I’d much rather watch girls softball anyway


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 15, 2019)

Please let it happen!!! Please do it now!! Pay the players now!!


----------



## KyDawg (Sep 15, 2019)

hayseed_theology said:


> Arbitrary $5 mil cap?  That's not how a free market works.



Until some one challenges because the men's Football team, is making more money per athlete that the women's Volley ball team or the women's Gymnast, or the men's golf team. Let them go pro after HS, is they choose to play College ball, their commitment is 3 years. Works pretty good for men's Baseball.


----------



## KyDawg (Sep 15, 2019)

brownceluse said:


> Please hurry up and pay these kids so it  will implode faster. I’m about sick of it anyway. I’d much rather watch girls softball anyway



Gonna be paying them too. Once it starts is will not be a Football only club.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 15, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> Nope, just another like of junk. They are paid in the form of there scholarships. If they CHOOSE not to take full advantage of ALL that entails that's their problem NOT ours. All this is going to do is make it even MORE unaffordable for.most of us to enjoy the sport we love so much and eventually turn it into NFL Light which most of us CAN'T STAND



All of that agreed- except I like NFL football.

They are all paid well enough as it is. A great many are CARRIED through college just because the are good players. I bet most aren't reading or have math skills past maybe 9th grade level. Actually, math scores are probably even lower.


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 15, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Gonna be paying them too. Once it starts is will not be a Football only club.


That’s perfectly fine with me. Better to look at than a majority thug riddled football team


----------



## DannyW (Sep 16, 2019)

Ya'll keep talking and pretty soon it will happen. Then you will understand the old expression "you better be careful what you wish for".

As a parent who just paid for three kids out of state tuition, I will concede that the stars of the team probably got paid less than they were worth in tuition, books, etc, , and the rest of the team got paid way, way, way more than they were worth.

Especially considering there is no tax on the value of tuition, books, board, ect...


----------



## nickel back (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> As long as the player gets to negotiate what's "fair" i'm good with that.  If it's the NCAA deciding what's fair and making it illegal to shop your skills elsewhere, then nope.



Just dang, thought you was smarter than this.


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 16, 2019)

nickel back said:


> Just dang, thought you was smarter than this.


He played at Auburn. Think he graduated but regardless that should answer your questions.?


----------



## elfiii (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> Here's some food for thought:  And this is a little skewed because in some southern states the top 2 or 3 are Head Football coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that will be the end of college football and then I won't have any team sport I'm really interested in so I will be able to devote 100% of my time in the Fall to deer hunting. Come to think of it, I wish they would go ahead and trash CFB this year and get it out of the way.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

elfiii said:


> And that will be the end of college football and then I won't have any team sport I'm really interested in so I will be able to devote 100% of my time in the Fall to deer hunting. Come to think of it, I wish they would go ahead and trash CFB this year and get it out of the way.



"College" football is as College and "Stock Car" racing is Stock.  

I am as big a fan as there is, but see the reality.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> Here's some food for thought:  And this is a little skewed because in some southern states the top 2 or 3 are Head Football coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry Weagle...this is incongruent with your last statement.
Please note: "Public Employee"
and just for the sake of your argument about Capitalism/Fre-market as it pertains to this graphical representation....this is perfectly in-line with the principles of free market capitalism....these individuals are freely hired and freely paid according to their ability to boost revenue/shareholder value....increased enrollments being a very real and measurable metric...name another public employee generating revenues in the 10's of millions of $$$$


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> Sorry Weagle...this is incongruent with your last statement.
> Please note: "Public Employee"
> and just for the sake of your argument about Capitalism/Fre-market as it pertains to this graphical representation....this is perfectly in-line with the principles of free market capitalism....these individuals are freely hired and freely paid according to their ability to boost revenue/shareholder value....increased enrollments being a very real and measurable metric...name another public employee generating revenues in the 10's of millions of $$$$



We're talking to a Liberal in denial. Thinks he needs to FORCE his sense of fairness on other people. Probably thinks burger flippers oughta be paid a "Living Wage" too.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

I must be the worst liberal ever.  I want de-regulation and capitalism.  I want individuals to be able to market their skills in a market not controlled by the state.  I want to end the monopoly on the talent of 18-21 year old citizens.  I want to end the fake amateurism and protectionism of the NCAA.  

I think there are ways to save the sport, but the first step is for folks to recognize "college" football is in fact professional.  Therefore, the professionals should have the same rights as every other professional, be that a singer, golfer, baseball player, engineer or mechanic.   

The Liberal view is :we know what's best for you, we will decide what you are worth, you should be happy with what we decide is best for you, You are not responsible enough to make your own decisions, people will get their feelings hurt so lets be fair.  The state knows best so be happy in your comfy seat in the back of the bus.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> Sorry Weagle...this is incongruent with your last statement.
> Please note: "Public Employee"
> and just for the sake of your argument about Capitalism/Fre-market as it pertains to this graphical representation....this is perfectly in-line with the principles of free market capitalism....these individuals are freely hired and freely paid according to their ability to boost revenue/shareholder value....increased enrollments being a very real and measurable metric...name another public employee generating revenues in the 10's of millions of $$$$



The point of the graphic is to prove that colleges are not running an amateur program.  It is very much professional as indicated by the professional level salaries.  I have zero problem with the salaries as they are negotiated, just like every other compensation package should be.  Imagine if the NCAA said "Hey coach, you can only make $500K, and we have an agreement with our competitors that keeps you from shopping your skills.  But hey that's a really good salary and you should be happy with it"


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> The Liberal view is :we know what's best for you, we will decide what you are worth, you should be happy with what we decide is best for you, You are not responsible enough to make your own decisions, people will get their feelings hurt so lets be fair.  The state knows best so be happy in your comfy seat in the back of the bus.



And that is EXACTLY what you are saying doing. Because YOU don't think it's fair YOUR WILL should be enforced upon the institutions. The players ARE compensated just like burger flippers. Obviously not as much as YOU think they should be but as long as they are willing to enter into the contract with the institutions it's their business NOT yours.


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> The point of the graphic is to prove that colleges are not running an amateur program.  It is very much professional as indicated by the professional level salaries.  I have zero problem with the salaries as they are negotiated, just like every other compensation package should be.  Imagine if the NCAA said "Hey coach, you can only make $500K, and we have an agreement with our competitors that keeps you from shopping your skills.  But hey that's a really good salary and you should be happy with it"



Then all the coaches have a right to walk away until the institution is willing to offer more. I'm betting the majority of the players are quite happy getting what they get to play a sport they love.


----------



## KyDawg (Sep 16, 2019)

Football funds a lot of scholarships to non football sports. I think paying players is a road we will forever regret taking. A booster can not hand money to a recruit but nothing to stop him from telling a recruit that he will buy a millions dollars worth of his T shirts.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> The point of the graphic is to prove that colleges are not running an amateur program.  It is very much professional as indicated by the professional level salaries.  I have zero problem with the salaries as they are negotiated, just like every other compensation package should be.  Imagine if the NCAA said "Hey coach, you can only make $500K, and we have an agreement with our competitors that keeps you from shopping your skills.  But hey that's a really good salary and you should be happy with it"


not even close...you are attempting to conflate the profession  of coaching with the participation of the amatuer student athlete...NOT ONE in the same.
You want to pay the athlete...ok, for giggles...have him sign a binding contract obligating him to 3 years at minimum with options on a 4th year, no transfer portals without significant $$$ buyouts, no guaranteed playtime, it is earned with performance incentives as an option. Team reserves the right to dismiss due to any contracturally outlined issues executed or non executed to include attitude and or lack of effort as well as traditional nonperformance issues...now, as to recruiting?...,do you want "salary caps?...BAMA would outbid AUBURN at every opportunity, just as UGA, TEXAS, TAMU, OSU etc. would outbid their respective competitors.
my bigger issue with your line of thought is your refusal to assign a monetary value for all of the exposure, coaching, S & C and educational benefits derived by EACH student athlete...this aint a one way street as you suggest...


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> I can appreciate your passion, after all you were an "amatuer athlete"...but your logic is off base.
> An $8million Coach who puts together a program that draws in a hundred million annually and raises enrollment is a FAR CRY different than a star player who, according to your desires would play maybe one season, 2 at most before leaving...if you cant see that, then your bias prevents logical discussion.
> By the way, this is not a new concept...this has been going on since the late 1800's...schools paid big $$$ for big name coaches to build football programs because they knew the economic effect football would bring to the schools...not the "stars"...the coaches' programs.
> I hear all of this talk about how much the schools "make off the players"...yet No ONE mentions just how much value is added to the player through the exposure generated by top programs...to say the least about the maturation process, the coaching up, bulking up, etc....oh yeah,...there is that "education" thing too...


weagle...like to hear your take on the above...


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> And that is EXACTLY what you are saying doing. Because YOU don't think it's fair YOUR WILL should be enforced upon the institutions. The players ARE compensated just like burger flippers. Obviously not as much as YOU think they should be but as long as they are willing to enter into the contract with the institutions it's their business NOT yours.



I'm not concerned what their compensation us as long as it's not controlled or protected by the state.  It's called capitalism.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> not even close...you are attempting to conflate the profession  of coaching with the participation of the amatuer student athlete...NOT ONE in the same.
> You want to pay the athlete...ok, for giggles...have him sign a binding contract obligating him to 3 years at minimum with options on a 4th year, no transfer portals without significant $$$ buyouts, no guaranteed playtime, it is earned with performance incentives as an option. Team reserves the right to dismiss due to any contracturally outlined issues executed or non executed to include attitude and or lack of effort as well as traditional nonperformance issues...now, as to recruiting?...,do you want "salary caps?...BAMA would outbid AUBURN at every opportunity, just as UGA, TEXAS, TAMU, OSU etc. would outbid their respective competitors.
> my bigger issue with your line of thought is your refusal to assign a monetary value for all of the exposure, coaching, S & C and educational benefits derived by EACH student athlete...this aint a one way street as you suggest...



Now you are starting to understand.  None of that should be controlled by the state.  Currently all of it is for the 18-21 year old football players, but for no one else, because it isn't an amateur sport.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> Now you are starting to understand.  None of that should be controlled by the state.  Currently all of it is for the 18-21 year old football players, but for no one else, because it isn't an amateur sport.


what are you talking about..."controlled by the State"
you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.
again, i appreciate your emotion, but your bias blinds you....and you still will not acknowledge the multiple points ive referenced


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> weagle...like to hear your take on the above...



My take is that the players should be treated no different than the coach.  Paid in accordance to their market value. Just like an engineer, or teacher, or golfer...and basically every one else.   We don't tell the coach he's getting experience so he can go to the NFL, so he should be happy with $500 k.   

College football ceased being an Amateur sport long ago.  

The only folks shackled with the "amateur" status are the players and only because the bureaucracy has the power of the state to maintain that status.

It is going to change.  That's a fact, not a guess.  It's in the works.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> what are you talking about..."controlled by the State"
> you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.
> again, i appreciate your emotion, but your bias blinds you....and you still will not acknowledge the multiple points ive referenced



I love college football so my emotion is the opposite of what my values tell me is right. 
The State = the legally protected relationship between NCAA college football and the NFL to maintain what is effectively a free farm system for the NFL and a cash cow for every level of the College game with the exception of the actual talent.  In any other business it would be called racketeering. 

If you were a lawyer and approached Bama QB Tua Tagovailoa tomorrow and told him you would like to represent his business interests regarding football, you would be arrested, imprisoned or fined.  The same can not be said if you approached a scholarship engineering student or computer science genius.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

Yall might recall Donald J Trump was part of and attempt to break this whole charade down as part of the USFL back in the early 80's.  They won an anti trust law suite against the NFL and also signed underclassmen like UGA hero Herschel Walker.  They were headed down the right path, but as often happens in a capitalist society, they failed.  That's life in the big city.  You should be free to fail or succeed.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Sep 16, 2019)

I just want to say thank you to the O’Bannon’s from UCLA for taking away NCAA Football! ???


----------



## across the river (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> I must be the worst liberal ever.  I want de-regulation and capitalism.  I want individuals to be able to market their skills in a market not controlled by the state.  I want to end the monopoly on the talent of 18-21 year old citizens.  I want to end the fake amateurism and protectionism of the NCAA.
> 
> I think there are ways to save the sport, but the first step is for folks to recognize "college" football is in fact professional.  Therefore, the professionals should have the same rights as every other professional, be that a singer, golfer, baseball player, engineer or mechanic.
> 
> The Liberal view is :we know what's best for you, we will decide what you are worth, you should be happy with what we decide is best for you, You are not responsible enough to make your own decisions, people will get their feelings hurt so lets be fair.  The state knows best so be happy in your comfy seat in the back of the bus.



I grew up in a small town.  I couldn't really wait to get out of there, but a good, very talented friend of mine, had no interest to ever leave.   He still lives there and works  for a very wealthy individual.  He make peanuts compared to what he could  make someone else, but there really isn't a lot else there for him to do in terms of jb options, so he willing goes to work everyday to make this man a bunch of money.  There really aren't any better options in the area he wants to pursue, so he isn't going to make a lot more money and the guy who owns the company isn't going to just randomly volunteer to pay him a lot more, even though the probably generates a bunch for him.  I guess you could "pass a law" to pay him more, but that isn't a free market.   In a free market, he has the right to take what the guy offers him, or go pursue another option.  Since he really doesn't have an other options, he goes to work for this guy.  It isn't all bad though, as the guy seams to treat him well, so he seems happy.   The point is no one makes him go to work everyday.


Much like my buddy has very few other options available to go work at in that small town, and 18-21 year old football player has very few options in terms of football.   The NFL, NOT THE NCAA, not the government, not anyone associated with college football, prevent those kids from jumping directly to the NFL.  I just for the life of me don't understand why you don't get that, and continue to blame the NCAA and the state. They have nothing to do with that rule.  

Trevor Lawrence as an 18 year old coming out of high school isn't worth much of anything to the NFL or any other company for that matter.  Even, if he could go pro straight out of high school, he isn't going to go number one or anywhere close. Out of high school he could choose to train, go play in one of the professional or budding professional leagues that would allow him to play (but pay peanuts), or go play for a college in exchange for and education, room, board, food, and an opportunity to showcase his skills and market himself.   In exchange for him showcasing his skills, the school sells jersey's, more merchandise, and more tickets.  I think he should be able to go pro whenever he wants, but he can't because of the NFL (NOT THE NCAA).
However, he still has options.  He can lay out and train for two years, go play in one of the other leagues for a little of nothing, or continue to play and train at Clemson as an amateur in exchange for and education.  At Clemson he also gets plenty of exposure, and works his way up to likely the #1 draft pick and millions in endorsements when he does turn pro.   The other options probably don't offer that.  If, and that is a big if, there were another league (i.e. the XFL) that could pay a decent salary, a kid might think about it, but college as an amateur would still likely be a better option that a D-league setup like the NBA has.

That is a free market.  The NCAA, isn't in a position overall to pay college football players or any other athletes.   There are a few teams that are profitable, but that is the exception and not the rule.  The kids don't have to play, but it is obviously it the best option for most kids.   If there were a better option the kids would take it but it isn't.  They CHOOSE to play as an amateur. You and everyone else that seem to be so bothered with the whole idea of them not getting paid need to go start a professional league and pay these high school kids millions.   Then your company can go bankrupt because there is no demand for it.  That my friend is capitalism.   Passing laws to pay kids to play college ball, when there are very few of them that could ever play professionally in ANY league, just because you think it isn't"fair", is not.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

across the river said:


> The NFL, NOT THE NCAA, not the government, not anyone associated with college football, prevent those kids from jumping directly to the NFL.  I just for the life of me don't understand why you don't get that, and continue to blame the NCAA and the state. They have nothing to do with that rule



The NFL, NCAA football and exemptions to Federal anti Trust laws and various state laws keep this system in place.  That is a fact.  If you don't want to accept the fact, that's your business. 

It is going to change.  That is also a fact. The University Presidents, Coaches and AD's know it and discuss strategies to institute changes in a way that cause the least disruption of the golden goose. 

I have many friends that are former NCAA and NFL players and former Head and assistant coaches at SEC schools.  Some agree with me 100%.  Some try to tell me not to talk about it.  Not because they think I'm wrong, but because they know I'm right.


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

Jay Hughes said:


> I just want to say thank you to the O’Bannon’s from UCLA for taking away NCAA Football! ???



The NCAA is the united nations of the college world.  Run by social justice warriors.  

Big time college football isn't going anywhere.  It is a wildly profitable enterprise to the tune of Billions.  It's time to stop pretending it's amateur when it's clearly not.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 16, 2019)

weagle said:


> The NCAA is the united nations of the college world.  Run by social justice warriors.
> 
> Big time college football isn't going anywhere.  It is a wildly profitable enterprise to the tune of Billions.  It's time to stop pretending it's amateur when it's clearly not.


again...you are wrong, there is NO stipulation, no restriction no mandate that a person attend any college or University prior to an attempt at a pro career....and, paying the athletes, especially according to what youve laid out will absolutely crash College football...be about as popular as College baseball in scope and scale.

i can still remember when kids would give their eye teeth for an OPPORTUNITY  to play ball and hopefully earn a scholarship to the school of their choice...symptomatic of the current sense of entitlement this society has devolved to


----------



## weagle (Sep 16, 2019)

I'm not sure whats busting your rear to achieve your goals has to do with entitlement.


----------



## nickel back (Sep 17, 2019)

So, go where you're going to make the most $$$ to play CFB? Yeah, that's going to work out just fine.


----------



## gobbleinwoods (Sep 17, 2019)

A point not being discussed is if college players are being compensated and another school offers more will they be able to freely transfer without penalty from the NCAA?


----------



## weagle (Sep 17, 2019)

gobbleinwoods said:


> A point not being discussed is if college players are being compensated and another school offers more will they be able to freely transfer without penalty from the NCAA?


That's what contracts are for. Just like any other profession.


----------



## weagle (Sep 17, 2019)

nickel back said:


> So, go where you're going to make the most $$$ to play CFB? Yeah, that's going to work out just fine.


Why not. That's how every other profession works.  It's not always the money. Future advancement, geographic location, family ties, lifestyle etc are also considerations. Just like any other profession.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> You had this part right and then spent the rest of the post proving why NCAA football is not a free market.
> 
> If the NCAA changed the rules and said each team could spend $5 million in player salaries, every single SEC school would max that out without batting an eye and still make millions per year.




It's funny watching you go on and on about paying players...

When in FACT! Auburn and Alabama have been paying players for YEARS! And been busted doing it! 

Is this really your argument? You just want it legal so your cow tipping school doesn't get in trouble for it moving forward??


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

Browning Slayer said:


> It's funny watching you go on and on about paying players...
> 
> When in FACT! Auburn and Alabama have been paying players for YEARS! And been busted doing it!
> 
> Is this really your argument? You just want it legal so your cow tipping school doesn't get in trouble for it moving forward??


...you left out UGA, FLORIDA, CLEMSON, etc., etc., etc...


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> Why not. That's how every other profession works.  It's not always the money. Future advancement, geographic location, family ties, lifestyle etc are also considerations. Just like any other profession.


HA, LOL!!!...so when will these " profesionals" have tine to study and gain their education?.. .all their time will be spent negotiating contracts...
sorry Weagle, since you refuse to mention the value added to the player by the school, your argument is nothing bu a biased opinion


----------



## weagle (Sep 17, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> HA, LOL!!!...so when will these " profesionals" have tine to study and gain their education?.. .all their time will be spent negotiating contracts...
> sorry Weagle, since you refuse to mention the value added to the player by the school, your argument is nothing bu a biased opinion


.  You are making my point again. They are already being paid via scholarship room board etc.  Now that you agree they are not amateurs let the compensation negotiations begin. Like any other profession.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I'm not sure whats busting your rear to achieve your goals has to do with entitlement.


and this is the crux of the argument you posit..."who benefits most from playing"...the school? which is your argument, or the athlete,? which is most others position.
as i mentioned earlier, your bias prevents you from logically noodling this out.
if the value lies in the athlete, fine, send him straight to the pros...no college, no education, no maturation,...straight from HS to protraining camp

the "entitlement " part comes from the athletes who deny the value of all theyre given by the school and instead believe they, individually are driving $$$ to the schools...which is self centered, and erroneous, enrollment, donor $$$, merchandise, media...ALL driven by TEAM branding,...not Star players.
THAT is the unvarnished TRUTH


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> .  You are making my point again. They are already being paid via scholarship room board etc.  Now that you agree they are not amateurs let the compensation negotiations begin. Like any other profession.


other students are "paid" scholarships, room and board as well for academic achievement...thats a silly position


----------



## Browning Slayer (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> Like any other profession.



Profession?? 

So why not pay high school players? How about a percentage of concession stand sales?


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> .  You are making my point again. They are already being paid via scholarship room board etc.  Now that you agree they are not amateurs let the compensation negotiations begin. Like any other profession.



And they are FAIRLY compensated. No negotiating necessary. Let alone have a bunch of Liberal idiots tell them their  business. And just like burger flippers that think they deserve a "living wage" College sports is not intended to be a profession. It like burger flipping is intended to gain skills, work ethic, experience, etc. to improve your resume so you can get that job that pays a REAL living wage


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

DD, makes a very good point...the opportunity for the athlete to mature, grow, learn without the added pressure of negotiating contracts, added pressure to perform...just think about the boos and gripes raining down on a paid player for dropping a game winning pass. missing a FG, etc....no longer can you make the excuse..."hes just a kid"...nah, he's a pro.

unintended consequences


----------



## weagle (Sep 17, 2019)

I'm glad y'all know what's best for someone else. Nanny state for the win.


----------



## nickel back (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> Why not. That's how every other profession works.  It's not always the money. Future advancement, geographic location, family ties, lifestyle etc are also considerations. Just like any other profession.



You do understand that all these young men will all try to go where the most money can be made, do you understand the effects of pay for play will do to *Recruitment.*

Schools like GSU would get left behind


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I'm glad y'all know what's best for someone else. Nanny state for the win.


here again, youre speaking of individuals vs the current system...you, in fact are responding as the Nanny...


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

nickel back said:


> You do understand that all these young men will all try to go where the most money can be made, do you understand the effects of pay for play will do to *Recruitment.*
> 
> Schools like GSU would get left behind


as would 65% of all the other institutions along wit a STEEP decline in revenue per school resulting in less scholarships,  pooer equipment/facilities and eventually less opportunities for kids to play ball


----------



## Browning Slayer (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I'm glad y'all know what's best for someone else. Nanny state for the win.




Next thing we'll hear from you is that we should give everyone a National Championship ring just for playing the game.. Like participation trophies..


----------



## TomC (Sep 17, 2019)

Pro sports are separate entities governed as such where 100% of participants are compensated which is the polar opposite scenario of trying to implement something similar at the NCAA level where you have a myriad of sports (male and female) under a single athletic department.

Liberals are the best at coming up with ideas that sound great on the surface, are based on emotion as opposed to reality, fail to take into consideration the complexities and issues that will MOST CERTAINLY arise and are NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE to implement even though the idea makes sense. That’s exactly what this idea is. Stop and think JUST A TAD beyond the basic idea of all that would be involved in putting something like this into play!


----------



## elfiii (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I am as big a fan as there is, but see the reality.



I see the reality clearly. That's why I added that last sentence. I'm tired of waiting for them to go ahead and trash amateur athletics completely. I want them to go ahead and do it. That way I won't have any team sports to get worked up over and I can fully enjoy my time in the woods and on the water without any foolish team sport distractions.


----------



## elfiii (Sep 17, 2019)

RipperIII said:


> and this is the crux of the argument you posit..."who benefits most from playing"...the school? which is your argument, or the athlete,? which is most others position.
> as i mentioned earlier, your bias prevents you from logically noodling this out.
> if the value lies in the athlete, fine, send him straight to the pros...no college, no education, no maturation,...straight from HS to protraining camp
> 
> ...



Preach it Rip.


----------



## weagle (Sep 17, 2019)

I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.

Hint:  That's going to happen.

The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so


----------



## elfiii (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so



It won't be me because outside of maybe the Braves I won't be participating in any CFB threads in here because CFB will no longer interest me.


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 17, 2019)

elfiii said:


> It won't be me because outside of maybe the Braves I won't be participating in any CFB threads in here because CFB will no longer interest me.


So you will turn your back on your beloved mutts.  Dang. What’s the world coming too. ?


----------



## ddgarcia (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so



With enough touchy feely liberal idiots like you around it might happen and we may have to.

And 5yrs after that we'll be back to remind you that WE told YOU what would happen to college athletics in general and CFB in particular if it did come to pass.


----------



## elfiii (Sep 17, 2019)

Matthew6 said:


> So you will turn your back on your beloved mutts.  Dang. What’s the world coming too. ?



Not just the mutts. I'll be turning my back on the next to last team sport I have any interest in. Baseball will be all that's left and it's over before the rut hits so no worries here.


----------



## KyDawg (Sep 17, 2019)

Matthew6 said:


> So you will turn your back on your beloved mutts.  Dang. What’s the world coming too. ?



Do you ever spend a second without thinking about the Dawgs. Obsessive comes to mind.


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 17, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Do you ever spend a second without thinking about the Dawgs. Obsessive comes to mind.


Happy birthday Charlie


----------



## tcward (Sep 17, 2019)

They are already getting paid...a paid free ride to school. When you start paying players, the money has to come from somewhere....my daughters tuition goes up. Paying players will turn it into semi-pro ball. When it turns pro...I’m done.


----------



## tcward (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> Do you have a problem with the Universities paying the Coach $8 million or the DC 1.5 million?


Yep, I do.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so


no one here said that it wasnt going to happen, we just said that it is wrong. and long term detrimental to both the players, the game and college football.
if it happens, check back in 10 years and we'll discuss ...


----------



## across the river (Sep 17, 2019)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so




Baseball kids can already go pro out of high school.  Basketball players can go after a year now, and will be able to go straight out of highschool here soon.   Pretty much any other sport can go pro if they want.   That leaves football and football only, and there are only a few kids out of the thousand playing that a NFL career would even be feasible for.  So we are going start paying 460,000 student athletes, because a handful of the football players have to wait 3 years to based on a NFL rule.  If they do start truly paying athletes significant money (and not just bump up there stipend), college athletics overall will go bankrupt, because most schools can't afford to pay.  I guess we will see if it happens, but I highly doubt it.   Economically it makes no sense and isn't feasible, because it would have to be applied to all schools.


----------



## weagle (Oct 25, 2019)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so



I'll just leave this here.

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta...r-from-georgia-student-athletes-may-soon.html


----------



## riprap (Oct 25, 2019)

Y'all need to get on board with this. If these kids don't make it to the nfl they'll have to get a real job. Ain't nobody got time for that.


----------



## ddgarcia (Oct 25, 2019)

weagle said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta...r-from-georgia-student-athletes-may-soon.html



Don't mean a darn thing. States can't get the NCAA how to run their business


----------



## elfiii (Oct 25, 2019)

ddgarcia said:


> Don't mean a darn thing. States can't get the NCAA how to run their business



Wonder how it's going to work when the NC two A tells these schools they can play all the paid for football they want but they won't be included in post season play, national rankings, etc. etc.?


----------



## mguthrie (Oct 25, 2019)

elfiii said:


> Wonder how it's going to work when the NC two A tells these schools they can play all the paid for football they want but they won't be included in post season play, national rankings, etc. etc.?


There won't be a post season then. NCAA needs to do something quick to head this off. I think a free scholarship is enough but these libs don't think like that. What will they do when the star QB makes 6 figures selling his likeness and the water polo team doesn't make a dime


----------



## weagle (Oct 25, 2019)

mguthrie said:


> What will they do when the star QB makes 6 figures selling his likeness and the water polo team doesn't make a dime



Hopefully they'll offer a class on economics and teach supply and demand to any of the snowflakes that don't get it.  

My favorite line in that article was about the "non profit" NCAA that earned a billion dollars last year.  The NCAA has a lot in common with the United Nations.


----------



## Chattco1 (Oct 25, 2019)

weagle said:


> Hopefully they'll offer a class on economics and teach supply and demand to any of the snowflakes that don't get it.
> 
> My favorite line in that article was about the "non profit" NCAA that earned a billion dollars last year.  The NCAA has a lot in common with the United Nations.


----------



## Chattco1 (Oct 25, 2019)

I'm all for paying the players as long as they pay for their entire college career from the earnings to include tuition, meal plan, books, clothing etc. They are already receiving a education at the taxpayers expense as it stands.


----------



## weagle (Oct 25, 2019)

Chattco1 said:


> I'm all for paying the players as long as they pay for their entire college career from the earnings to include tuition, meal plan, books, clothing etc. They are already receiving a education at the taxpayers expense as it stands.



That might be true for for the water polo team, but the men's football team is raking in Billions with a B.

Back to econ 101:  The QB at SW Arkansas Tech might be worth less than his scholarship costs, but a starting SEC QB is worth millions.

The NCAA knows the cat is out of the bag and they are actively trying to get out in front of it.

Here's a start toward a solution:

1.  Let players shop their talents to the NFL or farm league, just like players of every other sport can.  Once you go pro, you can't come back and compete as an amateur in that sport.  If you accept compensation, you are a "pro"

2.  For universities: Offer 4 or 5 year guaranteed scholarship contracts with a non compete clause.  Once you sign up, there is a huge $ penalty for breaking the non compete.  Players who become injured or don't pan out can't be cut and will still count toward the scholarship limit.  If the player decides to go pro early the player and the league are responsible for monetary damages for breaking the non compete.

3. Stop the charade and admit that a scholarship, room and board is in fact  compensation.  Now that you've admitted that the players are already receiving compensation, decide what compensation you are willing to pay for the talent level you need to keep raking in the billions.   Reach an agreement with the other institutions that you want to compete with on what is allowable to be in the league.  Just like the NFL does with roster limits and salary caps.  All schools aren't going to be able to compete with the top schools.  There are probably 50-60 schools that have the juice to play.  For the others, they can form their own league with their own rules.  ETA:  I think the top schools could get plenty of talent to continue the level of competition they want, by offering the current room, board, tuition Plus $40K year.  The $40K plus some of the other compensation would certainly be taxable.  

The main goal is a free market driven by supply and demand.  Risk is mitigated by contracts, just like in every profession.

Herschel Walker coming out of HS might decide he wants to go ahead and take Millions from the league.  Any business school graduate would tell you that's the smart move as he can always pay for College with the money if that's what he decides he wants.

Weagle coming out of HS probably isn't getting offered any league money and sees working his way through college with sweat, effort and broken bones as a sweet way to be the first college graduate in his family.


----------



## DannyW (Oct 26, 2019)

weagle said:


> That might be true for for the water polo team, but the men's football team is raking in Billions with a B.
> 
> Back to econ 101:  The QB at SW Arkansas Tech might be worth less than his scholarship costs, but a starting SEC QB is worth millions.
> 
> ...



Weagle, you and I don't agree on the "pay for play" college football model but I have to give you props for at least making an attempt to give the concept some structure. We have been discussing/arguing the idea for at least a couple years and you are the first proponent to actually offer any degree of detail how it might work.

Of course, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and I think there are 200-300 more pages of details that would need to be worked out and agreed upon by both the NCAA and a couple hundred colleges. No sweat...

The NFL could make most of the problem go away if they started a farm system. Eliminate the 10 man practice squad and allow teams to have a 40-man developmental team. The players on the team would belong to the franchise and play a limited schedule, say 8 games a season to limit injuries, with the other developmental teams. This would give the hotshot HS players a path to the NFL if they choose to skip the college route.

And BTW....congrats on being the first college graduate in your family...your example probably broke down the wall and inspired others in your family to do the same.


----------



## elfiii (Oct 26, 2019)

weagle said:


> My favorite line in that article was about the "non profit" NCAA that earned a billion dollars last year.  The NCAA has a lot in common with the United Nations.



Like most people you are wrapped around the axle with the incorrect nomenclature. The correct technical term for them is “exempt organization”. We can explore that term if you want to. Then there’s comprehensive basis of accounting, etc. etc.


----------



## weagle (Oct 26, 2019)

elfiii said:


> Like most people you are wrapped around the axle with the incorrect nomenclature. The correct technical term for them is “exempt organization”. We can explore that term if you want to. Then there’s comprehensive basis of accounting, etc. etc.



Actually I agree with you.  

"non profit" is the term used in the article.  It is part of the false persona that the NCAA promotes to pretend that big time college football is an amateur sport.


----------



## weagle (Oct 26, 2019)

DannyW said:


> The NFL could make most of the problem go away if they started a farm system. Eliminate the 10 man practice squad and allow teams to have a 40-man developmental team. The players on the team would belong to the franchise and play a limited schedule, say 8 games a season to limit injuries, with the other developmental teams. This would give the hotshot HS players a path to the NFL if they choose to skip the college route.



I agree and there are many ways to skin this cat. Your solution would end the NCAA's monopoly on the 18 - 22 yo football talent and create a free market.  That is the key issue.




DannyW said:


> And BTW....congrats on being the first college graduate in your family...your example probably broke down the wall and inspired others in your family to do the same.



Thank you and by the way, that is in fact correct.  After I went to college my younger brother and several of my cousins got their degrees.  All of my children, nieces and nephews have degrees.  

Despite the common perception that there are just a bunch of thugs playing college football, I saw a lot of guys who came from very rough backgrounds take advantage of the opportunity and not only pull themselves up but also pulled many of their family members out of poverty.


----------



## elfiii (Oct 26, 2019)

weagle said:


> Actually I agree with you.
> 
> "non profit" is the term used in the article.  It is part of the false persona that the NCAA promotes to pretend that big time college football is an amateur sport.



All the other sports are amateur except for maybe roundball.


----------



## weagle (Oct 29, 2019)

Well... That didn't take long.

The Latest: NCAA hopes to avoid court fight on compensation

https://apnews.com/325f23d5acc649b4...AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter


----------



## Browning Slayer (Oct 29, 2019)

The moneys about to flow out of Auburn like Niagara Falls! Big win for the Barners...


----------



## brownceluse (Oct 29, 2019)

The bag man doesn’t have to hide now!!


----------



## riprap (Oct 29, 2019)

Here's what UGA can do. We can start taking superstars off of scholarship when they start making the big bucks and go get more players.


----------



## Chris 195 7/8 B&C (Oct 30, 2019)

I’d like to know the value of a prime time recruit when you add all their benefits. Tutors, nutritionist, transportation, every single aspect or benefit received.


----------



## nickel back (Oct 30, 2019)

Just wait till the Demorats get their hands in all this fun. CFB as we know is about to die.

But hey, just look at Arron Murry, he would have been rich coming out of CFB, NO NEED TO PLAY IN THE SORRY NFL


----------



## gobbleinwoods (Oct 30, 2019)

riprap said:


> Here's what UGA can do. We can start taking superstars off of scholarship when they start making the big bucks and go get more players.



That would be a unexpected twist.


----------



## DannyW (Oct 30, 2019)

Legislation was also introduced that would require players who receive compensation from their image/likeness, to be responsible for paying income taxes on the value of their scholarship. Presumably players who do not get compensation for image/likeness will continue to be exempt from income tax on their scholarship.

Not heard the bills chances to be passed...it's new legislation.


----------



## DAWG1419 (Oct 30, 2019)

gobbleinwoods said:


> That would be a unexpected twist.


More to come. Just wait. We have no clue what the future will hold. It’s gonna get good and everyone is gonna be like


----------



## weagle (Jul 7, 2022)

weagle said:


> I hope everyone bookmarks this page to come back in 2 years and show me how wrong I was.
> 
> Hint:  That's going to happen.
> 
> The gears are already turning. I promise not to say I told you so



I'm not going to say I told you so.


----------



## treemanjohn (Jul 8, 2022)

weagle said:


> I'm not going to say I told you so.


It was a good call but an easy call. The NCAA was working as a crime syndicate and the tenacious group won. They knew it was going to come to an end, but they didn't expect it wo last this long


----------



## weagle (Jul 8, 2022)

treemanjohn said:


> It was a good call but an easy call. The NCAA was working as a crime syndicate and the tenacious group won. They knew it was going to come to an end, but they didn't expect it wo last this long



I knew it was an easy call because it was already in the works, but there 7+ pages of replies telling me I'm wrong.  I wasn't guessing.


----------



## ddgarcia (Jul 8, 2022)

weagle said:


> I knew it was an easy call because it was already in the works, but there 7+ pages of replies telling me I'm wrong.  I wasn't guessing.


Most of what you've got in 7+ pages is people telling why it shouldn't happen and the destruction it will and is bringing to the sport we all love.


----------



## bullgator (Jul 10, 2022)

ddgarcia said:


> Most of what you've got in 7+ pages is people telling why it shouldn't happen and the destruction it will and is bringing to the sport we all love.


And that’s the “I told ya so” that’s next. 
I believe what you’ll see coming up is the NCAA or someone with a lick of sense trying to get this under control to stop the bleeding of fans they're going to experience.


----------



## OwlRNothing (Jul 10, 2022)

One of the very best things about college football is that most of the players aren't playing for money or fame or a future in the NFL. Most are just playing because they love the game. 
We already have players holding out of bowl games and playoffs to protect their future in the NFL. Paying them to play at the college level is just going to change the reason they play or don't play; it's going to change the motivation and spirit of the game. 

I don't think humans will stop until they've ruined every good thing about the greatest game ever invented. The love of money is the root of all evil. Amen.


----------



## specialk (Jul 10, 2022)

OwlRNothing said:


> One of the very best things about college football is that most of the players aren't playing for money or fame or a future in the NFL. Most are just playing because they love the game.
> We already have players holding out of bowl games and playoffs to protect their future in the NFL. Paying them to play at the college level is just going to change the reason they play or don't play; it's going to change the motivation and spirit of the game.
> 
> I don't think humans will stop until they've ruined every good thing about the greatest game ever invented. The love of money is the root of all evil. Amen.



Actually the lack of money is the root of all evil....


----------

