the new division

[Medford]

Originally Posted by Furio I am not an expert in high school football recruiting but looking him up on rivals and espn they only listed him as a 3 star recruit in high school.

I don't follow it a ton either, what I've "learned" is mostly from some Texas Fans that follow the state of Texas HS football. According to them, he put up huge stats on a very successful team but didn't have many big offers. The talent was obviously there, but the big name colleges (and even the Houston's of the world) were largey shying away from offering him a scholarship. Most of those recruiting sites partially base their star system off of what scholarship offers a recruit holds. You see the revers w/ UD in bball, we sign a Chris Wright, once a top 50, and all of a sudden he drops into the back of the top 100. Ohio State comes along and offers a 3 star football player, and all of a sudden that guy finds himself as a 4 star in the next update (it happened as recently as a month ago in that case)

In short, in football, if OSU, Bama, Texas & LSU all have offers on the table, you don't even have to watch film, the kid is going to be a 4 star eventually. On the flip side, if all those schools fail to offer, along w/ local schools like Houston, rivals isn't going to rate you higher than a 3 star no matter how good your film looks, "there must be something wrong w/ the kid"

	Chris Wright CHRIS WRIGHT 6-8 225lb | Trotwood Madison, HS (OH) A10 All Rookie Team. Preseason 2008 2nd Team All A10. Member of the UD Flight Club with a 40+ inch vertical leap. Consensus Top-75 national recruit. Uncle is former Flyer J.D. Grigsby. Nickname is Top Flyght. CAREER STATS 2007-08 10.4ppg 5.7rpg

[jack72]

Also pay the high school kids. And let's not forget the AAU basketball players.

[UD62]

Originally Posted by jack72 Also pay the high school kids. And let's not forget the AAU basketball players.

My grandson plays for a grammer school team in Beavercreek, he could use a few bucks.

[FSUFlyer]

Originally Posted by jack72 Also pay the high school kids. And let's not forget the AAU basketball players.

So you're against paying these athletes despite their coaches and schools making millions off of them and billions being made (in total) because of them each year?

It seems like the courts may help push this through as the O'Bannon lawsuit appears to only be gaining traction.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew Universities, and the athletic departments within the universities, are non profits that do not pay taxes. So, if they're going to claim tax exemption on the grounds that the focal point of their existence is education and not profit, then yes, I think they should distribute the money throughout the university and at least do a better job of pretending that they're about what they say they're about. They're getting a tax exemption on the grounds that they do not operate the way the free market does.

Socialism is just the use of capitalism to pay for social engineering. Been happening forever. I just hate pretentiousness. Carve out the athletic programs and make them pay taxes then, that way intent = reality.

Originally Posted by westchesterflyer http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/op...ef=todayspaper From today's NY Times.

"They could get an education if they chose — and that would be a good thing, of course — but there would be no more pretending that football players were actually students first."

Exactly. Have I mentioned how much I hate pretentiousness?? Let the smaller divisions have real athletic competitions among students, kind of like DIII is right now. Those are true students competing for their schools (mostly) instead of pretending to be students.

[Gazoo]

And this:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...220716523.html

[bobber]

Originally Posted by Gazoo And this: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...220716523.html

That's pretty hipocritical.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

my problem is that the athlete's can't make any money off of their likeness under the rules. i'm ok with the school making millions off the player's likeness, but my issue is that the kid should have the opportunity to do the same. think about what's going on with johnny football. he's being investigated because he signed something for money. players get gifts from bowls, which becomes personal property, but they can't sell it. drives me nuts.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by FSUFlyer So you're against paying these athletes despite their coaches and schools making millions off of them and billions being made (in total) because of them each year? It seems like the courts may help push this through as the O'Bannon lawsuit appears to only be gaining traction.

My point is where o where does it all end. This is America so people make money off of people. I guess I could resent that my money for tickets goes to allow Brian Roberts a scholly to play and make huge bucks and get rich. Or my tax money makes Obama a rich man. No complaints here. God bless he and Lebron and the others. It is the system we set up. Of course the younger generation thinks they are owed things, so if the rule says no autographs for sale, then I can think it is wrong and do it anyway.

By the way if an average BCS football school spends $3 to $4 million a year paying players, it will only raise ticket prices and advertising on TV, which we pay for when we go to the store. Where do you think Oregon gets all their money? From Nike, which you pay for when you buy the shoes. Some people must think the coaches and top VPs at the school will take a pay cut.

Here is another decent article on Division 4 and basketball. However, I found the comments more interesting than the article. Not a lot of people in love with it.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...nament-is-safe

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer my problem is that the athlete's can't make any money off of their likeness under the rules.

Yes they can!!!...they just can't do it for a college. If immediate money is their A#1 priority, they can go to Europe or NBDL where they can get paid to play. If they want a free >$40k/year education and all the perks that go along with it, then they can sign the letter-of-intent and abide by the rules.

And let's not pretend these poor athletes are the only ones getting screwed by the system. My cousin just got out of Georgetown Law School...in the summers she work as an intern for free upwards of 50-60 hrs/week...yet her time was billable...and she got nothing but experience and professional contacts...which are extremely valuable.

Any doctors out there remember the time they spent in local hospitals learing their trade for little pay before starting their practice? The hospital made lots and lots of money off them, too....and all they got was experience, references and contacts.

Why does America value and treat athletes as if they are so f'in special? and is it no wonder they get in so much trouble? and can't believe the rules apply to them? All Hail the almighty dunker! How can we live without them???

College athletes and their poor, needy lives are the least of my worries as it's obvious they have everything they need x 10. I'd rather see more money go to the poor future doctors, lawyers and teachers of this world...the ones who someday may make a positive and tangible difference in the world.

[LI Flyer]

The fact that many, many people will pay good money for a 20 year old's Texas A&M autographed football jersey demonstrates how much our society has lost important core values. As I think back to my grandfather's generation working through the depression to make end's meet or my father working some 50-60 hours a week to pay bills each month and put three kids through college, I often wonder what their thoughts would be about today's world.

I believe we as a society have lost sight of what is really important in life.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by Furio Good balanced presentation. The emphasis on helping the athletes by tossing them a couple of dollars is just a smoke screen for what Top 5 football conferences are really seeking aka the whole money pie not 3/4.

Yup....

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Yes they can!!!...they just can't do it for a college. If immediate money is their A#1 priority, they can go to Europe or NBDL where they can get paid to play. If they want a free >$40k/year education and all the perks that go along with it, then they can sign the letter-of-intent and abide by the rules. And let's not pretend these poor athletes are the only ones getting screwed by the system. My cousin just got out of Georgetown Law School...in the summers she work as an intern for free upwards of 50-60 hrs/week...yet her time was billable...and she got nothing but experience and professional contacts...which are extremely valuable. Any doctors out there remember the time they spent in local hospitals learing their trade for little pay before starting their practice? The hospital made lots and lots of money off them, too....and all they got was experience, references and contacts. Why does America value and treat athletes as if they are so f'in special? and is it no wonder they get in so much trouble? and can't believe the rules apply to them? All Hail the almighty dunker! How can we live without them??? College athletes and their poor, needy lives are the least of my worries as it's obvious they have everything they need x 10. I'd rather see more money go to the poor future doctors, lawyers and teachers of this world...the ones who someday may make a positive and tangible difference in the world.

She went to Georgetown and worked for free during the summers? Really? When I was at UC Law School (a far inferior law school according to the rankings), the top students worked for firms in Cincinnati and were paid over $1,000 per week. The average law clerk job in New York is $39,000 per year. That's not a bad average. That's definitely not bad for a summer job. But, you're missing my point. The athletes are not permitted to be paid money for their likeness. It's a bit draconian to disallow a student to make money off of his likeness. What's the harm in allowing a player to make money off of his signature? I'm not even addressing the idea of schools paying the students or allowing players to share in the profits. I just believe that players should be able to make money if they want to.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

And, by the way, a guy I knew who went to Harvard medical school was paid over 6 digits during his residency. Not bad.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo Yes they can!!!...they just can't do it for a college. If immediate money is their A#1 priority, they can go to Europe or NBDL where they can get paid to play. If they want a free >$40k/year education and all the perks that go along with it, then they can sign the letter-of-intent and abide by the rules. And let's not pretend these poor athletes are the only ones getting screwed by the system. My cousin just got out of Georgetown Law School...in the summers she work as an intern for free upwards of 50-60 hrs/week...yet her time was billable...and she got nothing but experience and professional contacts...which are extremely valuable. Any doctors out there remember the time they spent in local hospitals learing their trade for little pay before starting their practice? The hospital made lots and lots of money off them, too....and all they got was experience, references and contacts. Why does America value and treat athletes as if they are so f'in special? and is it no wonder they get in so much trouble? and can't believe the rules apply to them? All Hail the almighty dunker! How can we live without them??? College athletes and their poor, needy lives are the least of my worries as it's obvious they have everything they need x 10. I'd rather see more money go to the poor future doctors, lawyers and teachers of this world...the ones who someday may make a positive and tangible difference in the world.

So open the doors. If Alabama is willing to pay for players let 'em. If the lawfirm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howl is willing to pay for interns, but another firm is not, then who gets the better interns? I worked for peanuts to get great experience in college, then when I graduated I landed right where I wanted to be.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer She went to Georgetown and worked for free during the summers? Really? When I was at UC Law School (a far inferior law school according to the rankings), the top students worked for firms in Cincinnati and were paid over $1,000 per week.

Did you go to law school the past 3 years? The market for lawyers today isn't the same as >10 years ago. Ask that recent UC/NKU/UD law school grad how the job hunt is going...

The cousin is now working at the same Boston law firm where she interned and is making a boatload of cash. Her free work is now paying off.

[jack72]

We have a world class track athlete who lives down the street from us. My wife and I worked our whole lives to retire and buy a house in the same pay grade as this 30 year old. He and his wife drive Cadillac and Mercedes Suv's. Something wrong with that picture.

[Gazoo]

I just listened to an interview with Chris Carter, the HOF football player. The interviewer asked this same question. His response: people go to college to gain skills of all kinds. When you gain the skill, then you go pro. When you're still learning the skills, you work for nothin'. He asked the reporter how much she earned in her first internship and the answer was basically nothing. He said, paraphrasing, "exactly. That's what you do, you work for nothing to gain the skills you need. That's what I think about paying college football players. If you want to earn money, go pro."

[Hyde Park Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Did you go to law school the past 3 years? The market for lawyers today isn't the same as >10 years ago. Ask that recent UC/NKU/UD law school grad how the job hunt is going... The cousin is now working at the same Boston law firm where she interned and is making a boatload of cash. Her free work is now paying off.

there's no question that the market is much tighter for lawyers. only 50% of law school grads have jobs. but, the big firms are still paying clerks very, very well. uc/nku/ud grads are really behind the 8 ball as the big firms want ivy league kids but will settle for grads from top 20 schools. if you went somewhere else, you better have been on law review and have exceptional grades. yeah, it's tough.

[xubrew]

There are almost no similarities between internships and intercollegiate athletics. Apples and oranges are both round pieces of fruit of similar size that grow on trees. Comparing intercollegiate athletics to internships is kind of like comparing apples to steering wheels.

For starters, the majority of internships serve as both apprenticeships and work experience for people who are starting off on a specific career path, and they provide a very high probability of advancing within that career. Playing college sports does no such thing for well over 96% of all who participate.

Secondly, college players are the focal point of the game. Interns are not. They're not really essential. In fact, it's been my experience that having interns is actually more work, not less. It should be more work, because in addition to everything else you have to do, you have to teach the interns as you're doing it, and then monitor and critique their progress along the way. Not having interns will not grind things to a halt at very many places. Not having players will. Without the players, there is no game. So, they're kind of essential.

I just don't understand the thought process of someone who argues that since interns don't get paid much, then college athletes shouldn't either. That's kind of like saying that since car salesmen work for commission, then the police should as well. As if those two things some how have something to do with each other.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by xubrew There are almost no similarities between internships and intercollegiate athletics.

You're right...real interns pay their own tuition, get no perks and have to perform daily and if they get in trouble with the law, it does make the paper and they do lose their jobs. In athletics, they are protected. Interns also don't have fans making excused for them and they never, ever use the work 'if' when talking about how a bad day would have been better had they just worn a different colored shirt.

Originally Posted by xubrew For starters, the majority of internships serve as both apprenticeships and work experience for people who are starting off on a specific career path, and they provide a very high probability of advancing within that career. Playing college sports does no such thing for well over 96% of all who participate.

While 96% of athletes don't advance in their field, 100% of them think it will...look at the UD player profiles...Paul Williams' goal for all 4 years at UD was to play in the NBA despite having no chance from day 1 as a freshman. I bet it's the same for players at Alabama A&M and Utah State. Until a player's eligibility is up, they all believe that their sport is their future whether it be in europe, asia, south america or Congo.

Originally Posted by xubrew Secondly, college players are the focal point of the game. Interns are not. They're not really essential. In fact, it's been my experience that having interns is actually more work, not less. It should be more work, because in addition to everything else you have to do, you have to teach the interns as you're doing it, and then monitor and critique their progress along the way. Not having interns will not grind things to a halt at very many places. Not having players will. Without the players, there is no game. So, they're kind of essential.

To the coach of a HS team, the players are the focal point of the game...to the manager of a department with interns, they are the focal point of the project...at least they are with me. If someone is hiring interns that make their jobs harder and add hours to their day, then much like a team with bad players, it's their own fault! But it's not the system's fault....not is it the fault of those at the next level who are watching the young talented engineers, accountants, teachers or basketball players.

Originally Posted by xubrew I just don't understand the thought process of someone who argues that since interns don't get paid much, then college athletes shouldn't either. That's kind of like saying that since car salesmen work for commission, then the police should as well. As if those two things some how have something to do with each other.

College athletes do get 'paid' with 'free' everything...interns don't....so I wasn't making that argument....if it appeared I was, my bad for not being clear.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew For starters, the majority of internships serve as both apprenticeships and work experience for people who are starting off on a specific career path, and they provide a very high probability of advancing within that career. Playing college sports does no such thing for well over 96% of all who participate.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I'm sure your stat refers to the idea that well over 96% (how can you be "well over 96%" without just being 97%, 98%, or 99%???) of college athletes do not go on to play in the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL (or some subset of those leagues).

That's fine, without checking I'll accept your stat is roughly correct. But that means that you'll also have to accept that well over 96% of accountants don't go on to long professional careers at a Big 4 firm, making their internships failures. 96% of lawyers don't go on to make partner at a top law firm. 96% of finance majors never manage their own global stock portfolio on behalf of a prominent money manager. By your own logic, that means that an accountant who has an internship at a Big 4 firm but goes on to own his/her own business is an accounting failure and the internship was wasted time because it was not in the "specific career path."

Does your 96% stat include former players who go on to teach / coach HS? Play / coach overseas? Get a job selling sporting goods equipment for Mizuno or Nike? Manage a Dick's Sporting Goods? Work as a promoter for sporting events, or even non-sporting events? Work for a sports agent? All of these careers are offshoots of what an athlete has learned during his / her college athletics career.

You simply can't argue that the only successful internships (and college athletes) are the ones who make it to the single highest level in a narrow definition of "career".

[xubrew]

Does your 96% stat include former players who go on to teach / coach HS? Play / coach overseas? Get a job selling sporting goods equipment for Mizuno or Nike? Manage a Dick's Sporting Goods? Work as a promoter for sporting events, or even non-sporting events? Work for a sports agent? All of these careers are offshoots of what an athlete has learned during his / her college athletics career

Wow. You're really stretching.

College athletics is not the entry level for any of those careers. Careers that require "X amount of experience" will not consider being a college athlete to count toward that experience the way that an internship does. If you think otherwise then you know absolutely nothing about any of those fields.

In every state I've lived in, to be a high school coach, you also have to be a high school teacher, and you cannot simply be a PE teacher. This would require an advanced secondary degree. Most high school coaches make a teacher's salary, and only make a few thousand bucks for the season. They are not career coaches, and their pay would be virtually the same if they quit coaching. I have some friends that are high school coaches, and only one of them was a varsity athlete in high school (much less college), and it was for a different sport than what he is coaching.

Being a sports agent requires a law degree. Being a former player does nothing to help you break into that profession.

Managing Dick's Sporting Goods, or selling sporting goods, or working as a promoter, are not offshoots of being a former college athlete either. Being a college athlete won't even suffice as experience in any of those fields the way that an internship does (if there is even such a thing as interning at Dick's Sporting Goods). I'd be very surprised if the vast majority of the people in those positions are former college athletes.

[UDFLIES]

This argument is ridiculous. It comes down to this, the top level college athletes make their school and the NCAA MILLIONS of dollars. Interns do not do that for their company, or whatever else you all are trying to compare these athletes to.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by xubrew In every state I've lived in, to be a high school coach, you also have to be a high school teacher

My son's HS golf coach is not a teacher anywhere...he has a day job and coaches for fun and love of the game. My 8th grades son's football and basketball coaches are not teachers, either. Nor is my 7th grade daughter's volleyball or basketball coaches.

Our HS varsity football coach is a retired teacher....our baseball coach isn't a teacher...in fact, the only coaches in our school who also teach are the girls and boys varsity basketball coaches....not track...not XC...not field hockey...not wrestling...not tennis. So 2 of 10 varsity coaches teach...that's it...and this is at a public HS.

Originally Posted by xubrew Being a sports agent requires a law degree.

unless you're a rapper

[rollo]

Originally Posted by UDFLIES This argument is ridiculous. It comes down to this, the top level college athletes make their school and the NCAA MILLIONS of dollars. Interns do not do that for their company, or whatever else you all are trying to compare these athletes to.

Is there anyone here who would rather be an accounting student who has to work during the semester and intern in the summers over being a D1 athlete?

That answer should end the debate about who has it tougher.

[UDFLIES]

Originally Posted by rollo Is there anyone here who would rather be an accounting student who has to work during the semester and intern in the summers over being a D1 athlete? That answer should end the debate about who has it tougher.

I didn't realize this debate was about who has it tougher? The debate is whether or not it is right that a bunch of people sit around and make tons of money off what these kids are doing..

[rollo]

As long as this is America and the athletes have the choic to play or not, I see no problem with it. As soon as 6-year olds are taken from their parents and sent to sports academies to train for their careers, I'll agree with you. Until then, every athlete in this country knows exactly what they are doing. Exactly. And if they want to get paid, then the scholarships should be eliminated and they can pay their own way and get in line at the Bursar's office like the rest of the student body.

[UDFLIES]

Originally Posted by rollo As long as this is America and the athletes have the choic to play or not, I see no problem with it. As soon as 6-year olds are taken from their parents and sent to sports academies to train for their careers, I'll agree with you. Until then, every athlete in this country knows exactly what they are doing. Exactly. And if they want to get paid, then the scholarships should be eliminated and they can pay their own way and get in line at the Bursar's office like the rest of the student body.

Once the athletes have the choice to go to the NBA out of high school instead of being forced into the NCAA so other people can make money off of them for a year or two I'll agree with you.

[UD62]

Originally Posted by UDFLIES Once the athletes have the choice to go to the NBA out of high school instead of being forced into the NCAA so other people can make money off of them for a year or two I'll agree with you.

The rule to prevent HS graduates to go directly into the NBA is a good one. Too many wanna-bes thinking they have the skill to make the jump, encouraged by their peeps, will fall by the wayside even more than they do now. For the vast majority of Div. 1 players the NBA is a pipe dream. College does give them the opportunity to improve themselves both athletically and career wise, whether they do or not is up to them. There are few players that would benefit from a rule change, and a greater number of players that would be hurt by that change. One only has to look at the experience of some UD players, who are either in the NBA or giving it a good shot. without the opportunity to play for the Flyers, their chances would be nil. As it is they have a degree, a shot at the big time and the opportunity for a good job after basketball. For other UD players the opportunity to play in Europe is directly tied to their skills honed while at UD. However for most of the of the UD players basketball will give way to a career in something else, made possible by the degree earned while a student athlete at Dayton. I have no problem with a clearly thought out plan to provide a stipend to athletes.But don't have much sympathy for someone like Johnny Football.

[UDDoug]

The rule doesn't force them to go to college. They can go to the DLeague (pretty sure) or to Europe (definitely ca) and make money.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ud2]

Just don't know how anybody can defend the hypocrisy of the system.

Everybody, literally everybody,: the coaches, the schools, the tv networks, etc. make millions off of these guys, but no, we aren't going to at least ensure that some of the poorer guys have a little spare change. Geesh.

And on top of that, let's go ahead and job these guys even more by strongly encouraging them to get a degree with questionable value while we're at it.

One of these guys tears up a knee over in Europe in his first year, and his playing career is over. Good luck finding a good job with a degree in general studies.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by rollo My son's HS golf coach is not a teacher anywhere...he has a day job and coaches for fun and love of the game. My 8th grades son's football and basketball coaches are not teachers, either. Nor is my 7th grade daughter's volleyball or basketball coaches. Our HS varsity football coach is a retired teacher....our baseball coach isn't a teacher...in fact, the only coaches in our school who also teach are the girls and boys varsity basketball coaches....not track...not XC...not field hockey...not wrestling...not tennis. So 2 of 10 varsity coaches teach...that's it...and this is at a public HS. unless you're a rapper

I guess we live in different states. But, for all those people, is coaching their only or is it something they do in addition to their primary career??

...and did they all have to play college athletics to get those coaching positions??

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew I guess we live in different states. But, for all those people, is coaching their only or is it something they do in addition to their primary career?? ...and did they all have to play college athletics to get those coaching positions??

My HS basketball coach was a former HS player, of the remaining staff (3 assistant coaches) 2 were former college players and one was a former local HS star. And we were not a terribly good team, and we were in a rural school district. The girl's coach was a former varsity player at the high school.

The football team had 2 former NFL players as assistant coaches, the head coach and 1st assistant coach (father / son) I really don't know their backgrounds because I didn't play football, but I do know they were former football players.

Our baseball team had a former minor league pitcher as the JV coach. I know that 1 guy I played with, who played minor league ball, is the coach now.

Wrestling head coach wrestled for Iowa, the top college program in the country.

XC coach was a former college runner.

Track coach included at least 1 former college track athlete, but I know litte about the coaches of that sport.

Volleyball coach not so sure, but she was a referee for baseball, basketball, and football. A likely guess is that she played some varsity sport in HS, maybe college.

We sure defied the odds . . . . . . according to you. . .

EDIT: and my school never won a state title in anything, so it's not like we were an athletics powerhouse.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by Gazoo My HS basketball coach was a former HS player, of the remaining staff (3 assistant coaches) 2 were former college players and one was a former local HS star. And we were not a terribly good team, and we were in a rural school district. The girl's coach was a former varsity player at the high school. The football team had 2 former NFL players as assistant coaches, the head coach and 1st assistant coach (father / son) I really don't know their backgrounds because I didn't play football, but I do know they were former football players. Our baseball team had a former minor league pitcher as the JV coach. I know that 1 guy I played with, who played minor league ball, is the coach now. Wrestling head coach wrestled for Iowa, the top college program in the country. XC coach was a former college runner. Track coach included at least 1 former college track athlete, but I know litte about the coaches of that sport. Volleyball coach not so sure, but she was a referee for baseball, basketball, and football. A likely guess is that she played some varsity sport in HS, maybe college. We sure defied the odds . . . . . . according to you. . . EDIT: and my school never won a state title in anything, so it's not like we were an athletics powerhouse.

Again, was coaching a high school team their only job and career??, and was being a college athlete a prerequisite??

If it's not their primary career choice, was being a college athlete a prerequisite for whatever their primary career happens to be??

If being a high school coach is their only source of income, and they're able to make a living doing nothing else, and they have no other job or career whatsoever, and all of that would have been an impossibility had they not played college sports, then yes, you are defying the odds.

[Gazoo]

Wow, losing respect quickly.

Originally Posted by xubrew Being a sports agent requires a law degree. Being a former player does nothing to help you break into that profession.

First Google result: http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2006/01/09/should-a-sports-agent-go-to-law-school/

A way to get around the legal issues of being a lawyer is to join or form a Sports Agency that is comprised of Sports Agents without Law School degrees a lawyer(s) to handle the contracts (this is what the company I interned this past Summer did).

Now, whether an athlete would rather have a former athlete represent him is a matter of personal opinion for each athlete, but, if you argue that it's irrelevant then I struggle to find sanity in anything you're saying. And if I'm running a sports agency, I want some former athletes on my staff to help drum up business via their ability to "speak the language".

Originally Posted by xubrew Managing Dick's Sporting Goods, or selling sporting goods, or working as a promoter, are not offshoots of being a former college athlete either. Being a college athlete won't even suffice as experience in any of those fields the way that an internship does (if there is even such a thing as interning at Dick's Sporting Goods). I'd be very surprised if the vast majority of the people in those positions are former college athletes.

Any athlete who doesn't have a job and DOESN'T walk into Dick's and say, "hey, I'm a former college athlete, I can explain to customers exactly how they should use 60% of the equipment in your store" is a fool who can't be counted on to succeed. Get your foot in the door and get to work. And the manager of that store who doesn't seriously consider hiring the athlete--same thing. Methinks you haven't hired many people.

Originally Posted by xubrew This would require an advanced secondary degree. Most high school coaches make a teacher's salary, and only make a few thousand bucks for the season. They are not career coaches, and their pay would be virtually the same if they quit coaching.

And you say that you measure success by the amount of money somone makes?? ("They are not career coaches, and their pay would be virtually the same if they quit coaching.") Yikes. No, really: YIKES.

[xubrew]

Gazoo, I think everything you're saying looks ridiculous to everyone reading it but you. This whole discussion was comparing playing college athletics to internships. They're not the same at all. I don't know why you insist on continuing to make such a ridiculous comparison.

You are not an authority on the industry of sports agency. I am quite sure of that after reading your comments. Do you even know anyone that is a sports agent?? If so, how many of them do not have law degrees?? If you want to talk semantics, then fine. I'm sure there are some out there that do not have law degrees. I'm sure there are some professors out there who do not have PhDs, but it is not the standard. The education, credentials and skills required to be a sports agent are not acquired through participating in college athletics. To say that college athletics is the equivalency of an internship to get into the industry of sports agency is ridiculous.....and laughable.

Any athlete who doesn't have a job and DOESN'T walk into Dick's and say, "hey, I'm a former college athlete, I can explain to customers exactly how they should use 60% of the equipment in your store" is a fool who can't be counted on to succeed. Get your foot in the door and get to work. And the manager of that store who doesn't seriously consider hiring the athlete--same thing. Methinks you haven't hired many people

This is a supposition. Nothing more. And, while it may be a sensible supposition, it still does not equate to athletics being an internship for a career at Dick's Sporting Goods. I'm having a hard time not laughing as I'm typing that.

And you say that you measure success by the amount of money somone makes?? ("They are not career coaches, and their pay would be virtually the same if they quit coaching.") Yikes. No, really: YIKES

I never said that. I never implied that. Again, we were talking about internships, which basically serve as apprenticeships for a specific career path. Coaching high school sports is not a career. That's not saying it isn't a very admirable or very fulfilling thing to do, nor is it saying that I view high school coaches as unsuccessful people. You're putting words in my mouth....again. I'm saying that it is not a typical primary career for a person to have, and it's not. Playing college sports does not serve as an internship to acquire a position that isn't a primary career in the first place.

[Figgie123]

The assistant coach for my son's 7 year old basketball team, at the Kettering Rec Center, was an All Time Top 10 Scorer for the Penn State women's basketball team.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Figgie123 The assistant coach for my son's 7 year old basketball team, at the Kettering Rec Center, was an All Time Top 10 Scorer for the Penn State women's basketball team.

Which is where she should start...don't forget, the men's game - regarless of age - is dramatically different from the women's game so I'm sure she has alot to learn.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew Gazoo, I think everything you're saying looks ridiculous to everyone reading it but you. This whole discussion was comparing playing college athletics to internships. They're not the same at all. I don't know why you insist on continuing to make such a ridiculous comparison.

You should tell Chris Carter that. What would he know, as a former college football player and NFL hall of famer??

Originally Posted by xubrew You are not an authority on the industry of sports agency. I am quite sure of that after reading your comments. Do you even know anyone that is a sports agent?? If so, how many of them do not have law degrees??

No I'm not an expert, but, in answer to your question, yes. One of my best friends from high school worked for a sports agent for >5 years. He has his law degree, and others at his same firm did not.

Originally Posted by xubrew If you want to talk semantics, then fine. I'm sure there are some out there that do not have law degrees.

Not semantics, you said "requires." Just say "I was wr. . wro". . . go ahead. . .

Originally Posted by xubrew I'm sure there are some professors out there who do not have PhDs, but it is not the standard.

And I didn't say "it's a REQUIREMENT to have a PhD to be a professor." But for the record, my buddy started an entire department from scratch without his PhD. http://www.butler.edu/absolutenm/templates/?a=3385

Originally Posted by xubrew The education, credentials and skills required to be a sports agent are not acquired through participating in college athletics. To say that college athletics is the equivalency of an internship to get into the industry of sports agency is ridiculous.....and laughable.

Have you ever had an internship?? It is equally fair to say that the education, credentials and skills required to be a lot of things are not acquired by internships. Read about internships for Wall Street types, they get coffee and build massive spreadsheets that get summarily ignored by the higher ups. My internships included data processing and cold calling for sales, which I parlayed into a Series 7 (though my own efforts) which I parlayed into a finance profession. Most internships suck, you're confusing the typical internship with apprenticeship.

Originally Posted by xubrew This is a supposition. Nothing more. And, while it may be a sensible supposition, it still does not equate to athletics being an internship for a career at Dick's Sporting Goods. I'm having a hard time not laughing as I'm typing that.

Your marketing skills could use some polish: "Come and join our sports program, you will learn no marketable or useful skill whatsoever (unless you go on to play in the NFL)." Uh, no. But if anyone ever applies to a job opening of mine and they "wasted" their time with sports, I will immediately dismiss then since they have clearly not learned anything useful with that time. Or. . . not.

Originally Posted by xubrew I never said that. I never implied that. Again, we were talking about internships, which basically serve as apprenticeships for a specific career path. Coaching high school sports is not a career. That's not saying it isn't a very admirable or very fulfilling thing to do, nor is it saying that I view high school coaches as unsuccessful people. You're putting words in my mouth....again. I'm saying that it is not a typical primary career for a person to have, and it's not. Playing college sports does not serve as an internship to acquire a position that isn't a primary career in the first place.

That's your confusion, you are overspecifying what "career path" means. A career path is not a straight line like a road through Kansas, it's more like a back road in West Virginia. Very, very few people have an internship for a specific career path. Outside of a few specific careers (and maybe not even them), it just doesn't work that way. In college you get an internship in ANYTHING. . . anything at all that is even remotely related to anything that might get you a job somewhere in the same zip code of your desired profession. You make it sound like people sit down one sunny Saturday afternoon and writes their life's story. The things I learned while cold calling helped me years later situations in church. The things I learned while doing data processing helped me in situations while in cultures outside the country.

I'm not saying it never happens, but your utterly ridiculous position is that college students decide exactly what their career path will be and then find a confluence of precise career predetermination with available internships. That, my French friend, is laughably rare.

[UDBaby]

Heard a comment on the radio from J. Bilas that made me stop and think...He said...(paraphrasing)...."Every other college student on a scholarship outside of athletics is permitted to earn money in his or her chosen field, and in fact is encouraged to do so..Why should it be different for college athletes?"

He used the example of students on music, art and other "academic" scholarships who can earn as much as they want outside of school. Other than the obvious reason that there are NCAA rules against being paid for almost everything when you're a scholarship athlete, what's the difference?

Certainly something to think about above and beyond the trampled turf of "they're lucky enough to get a free education" at least IMHO.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

i have made this same argument on this board in prior posts, and it's met with the they're lucky comments. to me, it makes no sense. i would prefer that they allow scholarship players to make money from their likeness/identity than for schools to pay money to them.

[xubrew]

It's my position that playing college sports isn't anything like an internship, and it's silly to even make that comparison, and some how convolute that comparison into an argument against paying athletes.

But, even if you feel that it is like an internship, some internships are paid. Assistantships are also paid. In grad school, my assistantship paid for my tuition, books, housing, food, and $5000 a year on top of all of that. I worked in student affairs, which had much less to work with than the athletic department. I was hardly essential. I would consider my position to be far less essential to student affairs than an athlete's position is to an athletic department, yet I was given way more than what any athlete has ever been given.

Being a college athlete is nothing like being an intern, but if for whatever reason you feel like it is, then I don't see how you would be against paying athletes something in addition to the scholarship if the school decided they wanted to do that. After all, companies can pay their interns if they want to.

....and Chris Carter does not speak for the majority of current and former college players. In fact, he speaks for the EXTREME minority. He was also involved in a scandal when it was found out he took money from an agent, so quoting him is kind of silly. Why don't you ask Ed O'Bannon what he thinks??

[rollo]

As long as college sports classifies their athletes as 'amateurs' they can't be paid. Maybe they need to revisit their definitions. Corporations can pay interns because there's no eligibility at risk for enrolling a paid engineering intern or accouting intern as a student.

Petty? Yeah...but I firmly believe that most athletes are getting far, far, far more for their skills than they are bringing into the university as well as others who lose money annually. There are 30 kids on tOSU's football team that won't get 10 plays this season but are getting everything they need handed to them....there are 35 kids on Miami's team that play all day and night and the program will still lose money...but they get everything paid for. Let's not pretend every D1 athlete is the reason the home team's football stadium is sold out every Saturday...

[Fan4allUDSports]

Originally Posted by UDBaby Heard a comment on the radio from J. Bilas that made me stop and think...He said...(paraphrasing)...."Every other college student on a scholarship outside of athletics is permitted to earn money in his or her chosen field, and in fact is encouraged to do so..Why should it be different for college athletes?" He used the example of students on music, art and other "academic" scholarships who can earn as much as they want outside of school. Other than the obvious reason that there are NCAA rules against being paid for almost everything when you're a scholarship athlete, what's the difference? Certainly something to think about above and beyond the trampled turf of "they're lucky enough to get a free education" at least IMHO.

Here's my question on that though. If you are able to somehow regulate a stipend or paying the athlete is there a way to level the playing field? In sports you have a salary cap. Is there a way to give the salary cap and still get tax-free status for the schools? I can see where Bilas is talking from, but at the same time I see the side that it opens up a Pandora's box. If you were to compare Johnny Manziel to Will Bardo what would you pay each? If it is so vastly different is that the same comparing two "academic scholarships" from different schools? Would it also then allow an even larger gap between the haves and the have nots?

Is it totally fair for the students? Absolutely not. There is more pressure put on them than other students and sometimes less return. However, as an athlete you do get perks(travel especially) that the regular student does not. Look at our women's basketball team. They get a paid trip to go play basketball in Europe and build the team. Yet, does a regular student get that paid for? I just don't understand how paying students even a small amount does anything but change things that may have and adverse effect as opposed to helping ease the burden. I think that you have to look no further than Johnny Football to see that.

[Hyde Park Flyer]

My concern about paying stipends is that there are only a handful of programs that are actually making money. I don't want to add further budgetary concerns for the majority of programs not making money on football or other sports. I simply think that a player should be able to make money doing endorsement commercials, etc. Of course, there will be some contractual limitations because the schools already have contracts with certain merchants. But if a kid goes home several states away, I think he should be permitted to be paid for a commercial while holding a football. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of players will not be affected by this. I'm actually fine with that. The earnings world is anything but fair.

[UDBaby]

Originally Posted by Fan4allUDSports Here's my question on that though. If you are able to somehow regulate a stipend or paying the athlete is there a way to level the playing field? In sports you have a salary cap. Is there a way to give the salary cap and still get tax-free status for the schools? I can see where Bilas is talking from, but at the same time I see the side that it opens up a Pandora's box. If you were to compare Johnny Manziel to Will Bardo what would you pay each? If it is so vastly different is that the same comparing two "academic scholarships" from different schools? Would it also then allow an even larger gap between the haves and the have nots? Is it totally fair for the students? Absolutely not. There is more pressure put on them than other students and sometimes less return. However, as an athlete you do get perks(travel especially) that the regular student does not. Look at our women's basketball team. They get a paid trip to go play basketball in Europe and build the team. Yet, does a regular student get that paid for? I just don't understand how paying students even a small amount does anything but change things that may have and adverse effect as opposed to helping ease the burden. I think that you have to look no further than Johnny Football to see that.

A Pandora's Box of potential problems no doubt. I don't favor paying the players either. But, why shouldn't they be able to make money signing autographs or getting a royalty for products bearing their name or image, especially when the people selling those products are pocketing $$$ that rightly belongs to the person creating the demand (or at least part of the money).

Paying college athletes? Can't see how that will work. Allowing them to have a piece of the pie that bears their name and image? Sounds reasonable.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer My concern about paying stipends is that there are only a handful of programs that are actually making money. I don't want to add further budgetary concerns for the majority of programs not making money on football or other sports.....

Hyde Park,...UD is far, far from the top tier of Div 1 athletics. With that in mind, consider that we offer about 100 scholarships and have a budget for athletics in the $20-$25 million range. Therefore, if each UD scholarship athlete received a $2000 stipend for "spending money", the impact on the budget would be less than 1%.

That's trivial

[rollo]

Originally Posted by UDBaby But, why shouldn't they be able to make money signing autographs or getting a royalty for products bearing their name or image, especially when the people selling those products are pocketing $$$ that rightly belongs to the person creating the demand (or at least part of the money).

Because if the athlete is allowed to sell his autograph or get paid for public appearances by anyone, who's going to stop a Phil Knight at Oregon or T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State (or Dr. Levitt from UD) from paying prized recruits >$100,000 year for 10 autographed jerseys?? At least the sleazy autograph seekers are trying to make a living and the prices they pay/charge are somewhat controlled by the market...that's not the case with uber-wealthy alumni.

[CE80]

So what do the kids at UD that play football or sports at the Ivies get?

[UDBaby]

Originally Posted by rollo Because if the athlete is allowed to sell his autograph or get paid for public appearances by anyone, who's going to stop a Phil Knight at Oregon or T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State (or Dr. Levitt from UD) from paying prized recruits >$100,000 year for 10 autographed jerseys?? At least the sleazy autograph seekers are trying to make a living and the prices they pay/charge are somewhat controlled by the market...that's not the case with uber-wealthy alumni.

Good point...

[UDBaby]

You have to wonder if baseball has it right....get drafted out of H.S. and join a team's minor league system or wait till junior year to be draft eligible. But then again, football and basketball don't have minor league systems and the NCAA and the member U's make way, way, way too much money to ever hand their Golden Goose over to anything or anybody else.

Still...I don't see how it's ok for Nike or UA to make a boatloads on college players without compensation. Seems to violate every other rule/law governing copyrights and use of private property etc.

[IndianaFlyer]

Good grief, I'm starting to agree with everything rollo says.

[Fan4allUDSports]

Originally Posted by UDBaby You have to wonder if baseball has it right....get drafted out of H.S. and join a team's minor league system or wait till junior year to be draft eligible. But then again, football and basketball don't have minor league systems and the NCAA and the member U's make way, way, way too much money to ever hand their Golden Goose over to anything or anybody else. Still...I don't see how it's ok for Nike or UA to make a boatloads on college players without compensation. Seems to violate every other rule/law governing copyrights and use of private property etc.

And there in lies the problem. You are right, is it fair to use QB #2 for Texas A&M and know that it is Johnny Manziel in NCAA Football 14, yet he doesn't get a dime? As was also pointed out, how do you reward Will Bardo? Does he get the same thing that Manziel gets? Whatever the solution is, it seems to cause a problem with something else. I think that if there were a fair way to do this they would, but giving even an inch($2000 stipend) causes problems because, A) not everyone may be able to afford that money, B) how does it tie into Title IX, and C) what do you do when a star wants more money, due to him being worth more money? you have already started down a slippery slope that may cause even more problems.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by UDBaby You have to wonder if baseball has it right....get drafted out of H.S. and join a team's minor league system or wait till junior year to be draft eligible. But then again, football and basketball don't have minor league systems and the NCAA and the member U's make way, way, way too much money to ever hand their Golden Goose over to anything or anybody else. Still...I don't see how it's ok for Nike or UA to make a boatloads on college players without compensation. Seems to violate every other rule/law governing copyrights and use of private property etc.

Maybe its time to focus on the advertisers? This would include the schools themselves and the NCAA, not just Nike, CBS, etc. No more using individual images or names to promote the games. A side benefit of doing that may be that the individuals will get less of a swelled head.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by IndianaFlyer Good grief, I'm starting to agree with everything rollo says.

EVERYONE should be so fortunate! And I sincerely, genuinely and honestly believe that.

[UDBaby]

Originally Posted by IndianaFlyer Good grief, I'm starting to agree with everything rollo says.

Dare I say you now belong to an exclusive club whose members meet monthly in a phone booth on the corner of Brown and Wayne.....

Just kidding Rollo....roll the sleeves back down and count to ten...

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Because if the athlete is allowed to sell his autograph or get paid for public appearances by anyone, who's going to stop a Phil Knight at Oregon or T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State (or Dr. Levitt from UD) from paying prized recruits >$100,000 year for 10 autographed jerseys?? At least the sleazy autograph seekers are trying to make a living and the prices they pay/charge are somewhat controlled by the market...that's not the case with uber-wealthy alumni.

There is nothing (except the rules) stopping a Phil Knight or Boone Pickens from giving a prized recruit $100K right now.

There are NCAA rules. People that will violate or skirt those rules do so right now and always will. Providing $2000 spending money to scholarship athletes will have no effect whatsoever on that.

Coming up with one reason after another opposing a common sense idea can go on forever. A simple rule limiting the stipend to $2000 will do no harm. And those that broke the rules before will continue to do so.

[cj]

Originally Posted by UDBaby Dare I say you now belong to an exclusive club whose members meet monthly in a phone booth on the corner of Brown and Wayne..... Just kidding Rollo....roll the sleeves back down and count to ten...

Rollo is so large he can't wear sleeves.

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by CE80 So what do the kids at UD that play football or sports at the Ivies get?

Those kids are not receiving athletic scholarships. Any help they get is based on family financial need.

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I just listened to an interview with Chris Carter, the HOF football player. The interviewer asked this same question. His response: people go to college to gain skills of all kinds. When you gain the skill, then you go pro. When you're still learning the skills, you work for nothin'. He asked the reporter how much she earned in her first internship and the answer was basically nothing. He said, paraphrasing, "exactly. That's what you do, you work for nothing to gain the skills you need. That's what I think about paying college football players. If you want to earn money, go pro."

Requoted without comment. Perfectly said!

[rollo]

Originally Posted by cj Rollo is so large he can't wear sleeves.

or shorts...

[TerryK_67]

Probably can't get a hat on that BIG head either!

[UDBaby]

Originally Posted by TerryK_67 Probably can't get a hat on that BIG head either!

Or fit in a phone booth....

So how does he manage the tranistion from Rollo to Superman?

For that matter how does Clark Kent still do it considering that phone booths have gone the way of the buggy whip and black and white TV.

Flyer 86/Gazoo - great exchange from CC...but I still don't think his point addresses the issue of commercial interests making big money using (what is virtually undenably?) the exclusive property of collegiate athletes - without having to make any compensation to that athlete.

Don't pay them for sure. Would be a bigger mess than trying to fit Rollo into a phone booth....but that doesn't address all the issues.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I just listened to an interview with Chris Carter, the HOF football player. The interviewer asked this same question. His response: people go to college to gain skills of all kinds. When you gain the skill, then you go pro. When you're still learning the skills, you work for nothin'. He asked the reporter how much she earned in her first internship and the answer was basically nothing. He said, paraphrasing, "exactly. That's what you do, you work for nothing to gain the skills you need. That's what I think about paying college football players. If you want to earn money, go pro."

Originally Posted by Flyer 86 Requoted without comment. Perfectly said!

Chris Carter got in trouble in college for accepting money from a booster. Him taking a stand against paying college players a subsidy is like Kelvin Sampson coming out and saying there need to be stricter rules against phone calls and text messages to recruits. It couldn't possibly be more hypocritical.

Even if it wasn't hypocritical, he still does not speak for the masses, and his comparison is stupid because college athletics are not internships, and even if they were, you're allowed to pay interns.

There is nothing else you can say about that other than it is a hypocritical statement that would be a weak argument even if it wasn't hypocritical. Even if you are against the $2000 subsidy, you may want to find a different spokesman.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by xubrew Chris Carter got in trouble in college for accepting money from a booster. Him taking a stand against paying college players a subsidy is like Kelvin Sampson coming out and saying there need to be stricter rules against phone calls and text messages to recruits. It couldn't possibly be more hypocritical. Even if it wasn't hypocritical, he still does not speak for the masses, and his comparison is stupid because college athletics are not internships, and even if they were, you're allowed to pay interns. There is nothing else you can say about that other than it is a hypocritical statement that would be a weak argument even if it wasn't hypocritical. Even if you are against the $2000 subsidy, you may want to find a different spokesman.

I have no like or dislike for Carter, so I am not defending him because I like him or his team(s). To say he is hypocritical is to say every ex druggy, alcoholic, criminal, etc is the same. It was great that Pete Rose came out and said he made a big mistake when he lied and the baseball 13 should tell the truth. I applaud the guy for seeing what he did was wrong and bad for college athletics. He has a little more experience and knowledge about these types of things than you and I.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by xubrew Chris Carter got in trouble in college for accepting money from a booster.

Every tOSU football fan knows that Carter signed with an agent while still a student....and it cost them a National Championship!

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by jack72 I have no like or dislike for Carter, so I am not defending him because I like him or his team(s). To say he is hypocritical is to say every ex druggy, alcoholic, criminal, etc is the same. It was great that Pete Rose came out and said he made a big mistake when he lied and the baseball 13 should tell the truth. I applaud the guy for seeing what he did was wrong and bad for college athletics. He has a little more experience and knowledge about these types of things than you and I.

We're probably not going to agree on this, but I think overcoming an addiction and sharing your life experience is entirely different than taking money illegally. Pete Rose bet on baseball to make money, cheated on his taxes to make money, denied that he bet on baseball so he could get back into the game, and then admitted it fifteen years later so he could sell a book and make money. That seems very disingenuous to me.

Chris Carter accepted money, and then saw the error in his ways after he made millions playing in the NFL, and is now saying that people who will never get the chance to play in the NFL aren't even entitled to $2000 a year on top of their scholarship.

Again, I just don't see him as being the best proponent or spokesperson for that point of view.

Rollo feels differently about this than I do, and I respect his reasons for it. But, judging from his post above, I think we can agree that Chris Carter does not serve that point of view very well.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Those kids are not receiving athletic scholarships. Any help they get is based on family financial need.

So they don't deserve a $2000 stipend? Don't they have the same struggles to work?

[Marysville Flyer]

Are people on this board truly this naive to think that $40 a week is going to solve anything or help anyone? Are they naive enough to think that the star QB is gonna be satisfied with the same $40 that the backup punter gets? There is no way paying anyone anything solves any of the real issues here.

I also don't understand the reasoning of those that think that the athletes are being used or taken advantage and then their remedy to fix the problem is giving them a whole $2000.

Here in Columbus, anyone who played any role on the football or bAsketball team is set for life. I know it was that way
at Nebraska too. I've gotta believe it is that way at all of the universities that truly turn a profit like is being discussed here.

So many perks that others would die for. Lets not pretend the free ride is all they get.
Posted via Mobile Device

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer Are people on this board truly this naive to think that $40 a week is going to solve anything or help anyone? Are they naive enough to think that the star QB is gonna be satisfied with the same $40 that the backup punter gets? There is no way paying anyone anything solves any of the real issues here. I also don't understand the reasoning of those that think that the athletes are being used or taken advantage and then their remedy to fix the problem is giving them a whole $2000. Here in Columbus, anyone who played any role on the football or bAsketball team is set for life. I know it was that way at Nebraska too. I've gotta believe it is that way at all of the universities that truly turn a profit like is being discussed here. So many perks that others would die for. Lets not pretend the free ride is all they get. Posted via Mobile Device

It depends on what you think the real issues are.

I'm not in favor of the subsidy (it's not a stipend) that was proposed because I think it will stop players from receiving illegal benefits. In fact, I do not expect that the number of cases that involve illegal benefits to go down one-one-hundredth of a percent. They won't. Having money does not make you honest. Having money doesn't make you smart. Having money sure as hell doesn't stop you from wanting more of it. Look at the people who cheat on their taxes. The vast majority of them are very well off and can certainly afford to get by without cheating on their taxes. Look at all white collar crime for that matter. If anything, having more money makes you more likely to do something that is financially illegal, not less.

I also don't think they "need it" to get by. They don't. There is a special needs fund that is available to all student-athletes. If they need clothes, food, dental care, airline tickets, laptops, pens, notebooks, or anything that can be construed as a "special need" the school is allowed to provide it to them.

I think they should get it because they deserve it. Not because they need it and not because it will reduce foul play. I simply think they deserve it. Why $2000?? Well, I actually think it should be more, but that was the amount that was proposed....and then voted down. The original amount proposed was $5000 (which seems more appropriate to me), but that wasn't even considered by the div1 board of directors.

Athletes are not the only ones that have their college paid for. As an undergrad, I didn't have all my expenses paid, but I had a fair amount of them paid due to a scholarship. As an undergrad, I did absolutely nothing to produce any revenue whatsoever for the school. In grad school, I had tuition, room, board, and books paid for, and I got $5000 on top of that. That's more than any athlete has ever legally received in the entire history of college athletics, and I didn't have a position that I would quite describe as being essential. And, like in undergrad, I did nothing to produce any revenue whatsoever for the school.

Other majors, such as theater, art, journalism, film, and even business are not only allowed to go out and make money off of their experiences, likenesses and talents, but they are encouraged to do so. Journalism majors are encouraged to try and get published, and if they are, they'll likely be paid something. Same with Art students. Same with film students. Business students are allowed to get internships, and a good number of them are paid. On top of that, at many universities, writing for the school newspaper is a paid position. So is being an RA. So is being elected to student government. So is working for the campus TV station or radio station. So, why is this romantic ideal of "amateurism" only applied to athletics, and not to theater, or writing, or art, or TV, or journalism, or radio, or business??

Unlike a regular student, if an athlete is majoring in any of those areas, they are closely monitored if they do try to earn money in the way that a regular student would. I know of a case where a softball player was an art student, and wanted to enter some of her pieces into an exhibit and open them up for sale. Compliance at her school went ballistic in the fear that a booster would offer her an unfair price for her pieces, and basically told her she couldn't do it.

There are art majors, and theater majors, and journalism majors, and business majors, and students that attend college on scholarship (some on full scholarship) that are allowed to go out and make money. Some even receive money from the school for being in plays, or working at the TV station, or working on the paper, or whatever. No one gripes about that. But, the mere suggestion of giving athletes any money at all is shouted down from the rooftops.

Someone please explain that to me in a sensible way....if that's possible.

....and don't quote Chris Carter.

[anthonycharles]

Originally Posted by rollo Every tOSU football fan knows that Carter signed with an agent while still a student....and it cost them a National Championship!

And every tOSU football fan knows it is "Cris" Carter and not "Chris".

Sorry, nothing to really add here, that was just bugging me a little.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by anthonycharles And every tOSU football fan knows it is "Cris" Carter and not "Chris". Sorry, nothing to really add here, that was just bugging me a little.

I saw something on the local tv news a couple of weeks ago maybe.

During this occasion, Cris's coach at OSU, Earle Bruce, was in the audience. And Cris, as part of the speech he was giving, apologized to Coach Bruce and his teammates for getting involved with the agent and losing his eligibility.

I think Cris might have even been crying when he made this apology, I think it was a very emotional moment for him. I think he said that he had never apologized to Coach Bruce and his teammates before this occasion.

And the tv news interviewed Coach Bruce after Cris's speech, and I thought Coach Bruce said something like other players that year or the year before had done maybe the same thing as Cris, but Cris was the only one that lost his eligibility. Coach Bruce seemed to say that it was unfair how the NCAA handled Cris's case.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/...z/-/index.html

http://www.middletownjournal.com/new...-memory/nXkyr/

[CE80]

Originally Posted by xubrew I think they should get it because they deserve it. Not because they need it and not because it will reduce foul play. I simply think they deserve it. Why $2000?? Well, I actually think it should be more, but that was the amount that was proposed....and then voted down. The original amount proposed was $5000 (which seems more appropriate to me), but that wasn't even considered by the div1 board of directors.

So do all athletes deserve it? Tennis players? golfers? Do baseball players getting a half ride get $1000? Do D3 athletes get it too?

The fact is for the vast majority of D1 athletes, the athletic scholarship is a huge financial benefit. I know people whose kid got a scholarship to play soccer and they said the kied didn't have to worry about working in teh summer because their scholarship was worth much more than they could ever earn working.

It is only a very small percentage of athletes that lose out on earning potential because of them play football or basketball. To them I say too bad. They will get theirs some day if they keep their head on straight. As you said, their is money if they have atrue financial hardship.

I agree with you that it is the coaches an sports administrators that are getting too much. The NCAA doesn't make money. The administrators do. The schools don't make profits the coaches, ADs and conference officials do. Not sure how you control that. Limits on salaries?

[UD62]

Originally Posted by CE80 So do all athletes deserve it? Tennis players? golfers? Do baseball players getting a half ride get $1000? Do D3 athletes get it too? The fact is for the vast majority of D1 athletes, the athletic scholarship is a huge financial benefit. I know people whose kid got a scholarship to play soccer and they said the kied didn't have to worry about working in teh summer because their scholarship was worth much more than they could ever earn working. It is only a very small percentage of athletes that lose out on earning potential because of them play football or basketball. To them I say too bad. They will get theirs some day if they keep their head on straight. As you said, their is money if they have atrue financial hardship. I agree with you that it is the coaches an sports administrators that are getting too much. The NCAA doesn't make money. The administrators do. The schools don't make profits the coaches, ADs and conference officials do. Not sure how you control that. Limits on salaries?

Agree that some make a ton, but I have trouble with the the idea of limiting salaries. Who does the limiting, NCAA can't get out of it's own way, sounds like a job the federal government would be all to happy to do, and that would not be good.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by CE80 So do all athletes deserve it? Tennis players? golfers? Do baseball players getting a half ride get $1000? Do D3 athletes get it too?

Anyone that is on full scholarship would get it, and anyone who plays an equivalency sport would get an equivalency. This would merely offer the equivalency sports more to work with.

Div3 is non scholarship, so no, they wouldn't get it. A soccer player or baseball player would if they were on full aid. If not, then they would a partial subsidy to go along with their partial scholarship.

Originally Posted by UD62 Agree that some make a ton, but I have trouble with the the idea of limiting salaries. Who does the limiting, NCAA can't get out of it's own way, sounds like a job the federal government would be all to happy to do, and that would not be good.

It's not a salary. It's a subsidy. I'm not in favor of salaries. If you pay them salaries they are considered employees and Title IX no longer applies, and it would be taxed. And yes, there would be a limit to the subsidy just like there is a limit to what you can offer within a scholarship.

[UD62]

Originally Posted by xubrew Anyone that is on full scholarship would get it, and anyone who plays an equivalency sport would get an equivalency. This would merely offer the equivalency sports more to work with. Div3 is non scholarship, so no, they wouldn't get it. A soccer player or baseball player would if they were on full aid. If not, then they would a partial subsidy to go along with their partial scholarship. It's not a salary. It's a subsidy. I'm not in favor of salaries. If you pay them salaries they are considered employees and Title IX no longer applies, and it would be taxed. And yes, there would be a limit to the subsidy just like there is a limit to what you can offer within a scholarship.

Wasn't too clear in my post xubrew, i was talking about the coaches not the players

[Marysville Flyer]

The only reason this is an issue is because football and some basketball schools make a ton of money. It has ceased to be amateur athletics (if it ever was so).

Because of the money and power that comes with winning, cheating has become rampant and it is rampant in all camps: coaches, administrators, schools, players, boosters, sponsors, faculty, alum ..... Football is not academics it is big business.

Because of the greed and the farce that this is still amateur and about academics first, you have to put rules in force that will attempt to protect people from themselves as best as you can thus the current state of affairs.

These rules may seem unfair but are they really? How many of us make 50,000 a year working for a corporation that makes millions or billions off our sweat? MAny of us are restricted from working elsewhere in our field (non-compete) etc while there or after we leave. While it's not the same as athletes, there can be limiting restrictions to us and we don't have the perks available to us that a top flight recruit has provided for him simply by being a solid player that will never make the NFL or NBA.

Unless or until you stop treating college athletes like amateurs, no real change can be made that would allow them to earn money from their likenesses etc. Amateur status is the biggest factor that differentiates the football player from the art student that can sell their art.

In the end, it is a choice the individual can choose to make or pass on. Go earn money off my name and likeness on my own or play by the rules. There is nothing unfair in that choice
Posted via Mobile Device

[jack72]

http://www.daytonflyers.com/news/?article_id=10027

Terrible, we are taking advantage of basketball players by making them go to Italy instead of allowing them to get a summer job. This is very unfair. I wish someone would be that unfair to me.