your argument is more succinct and better than mine.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
We Now Take You to Eugene, Oregon
- Thread starter lawdogg
- Start date
your argument is more succinct and better than mine.
The longform mentioned in the article is a pretty good read. you can find it here.
Colt Lyerla comes off as really sympathetic, especially the part about the car and the house. He was all set to go to USC and get away from his "bad Colt friends" and the booster meeting happened. He made the decision to go to Oregon because he thought that's what would be best for him and his Mom, and then he didn't get the house or the car.
However, not sure that NCAA can punish for anything more than the booster getting involved since no benefits were actually given.
Colt Lyerla comes off as really sympathetic, especially the part about the car and the house. He was all set to go to USC and get away from his "bad Colt friends" and the booster meeting happened. He made the decision to go to Oregon because he thought that's what would be best for him and his Mom, and then he didn't get the house or the car.
However, not sure that NCAA can punish for anything more than the booster getting involved since no benefits were actually given.
I guess our disagreement lies in that I see the relationship as mutually beneficial for all parties and you do not.
I would strongly disagree. I would also argue that kids who are in college who do not have the academic ability to be in college should not be on a scholarship. They should be in some sort of minor league set up by the NFL.
Players paid = players paying taxes = less overall "benefit" to the player. The school is either going to give them room, board, tuition or going to pay them approx:75k a year. They are not going to get both. If they get paid 75K a year they will see 45-50k of it, and we are then in a worse situation than we started.
The smartest idea I heard was actually from Charles Barkley surprisingly enough. His plan was that you institute a stipend that players receive UPON GRADUATION and only upon graduation. If you leave school early, say to enter the draft, no stipend. If you get kicked off the team (team rules violations), no stipend. You quit the team, no stipend. You don't meet the academic requirements of the univesity, no stipend.
He also brought up that D1 programs should stop letting their players take BS degrees, but that is a different topic.
Schools should provide more access to food, which they are working on. There is no reason an athlete should go home and go to bed hungry at any D1 school. D1 schools should guarantee a 4year scholarship be available to every athlete. Maybe they get a little bit more cash as part of their room/board to cover some expenses to let kids do what kids do (eat out, see a movie, etc). Flat out paying them though will not work.
The smartest idea I heard was actually from Charles Barkley surprisingly enough. His plan was that you institute a stipend that players receive UPON GRADUATION and only upon graduation. If you leave school early, say to enter the draft, no stipend. If you get kicked off the team (team rules violations), no stipend. You quit the team, no stipend. You don't meet the academic requirements of the univesity, no stipend.
He also brought up that D1 programs should stop letting their players take BS degrees, but that is a different topic.
Schools should provide more access to food, which they are working on. There is no reason an athlete should go home and go to bed hungry at any D1 school. D1 schools should guarantee a 4year scholarship be available to every athlete. Maybe they get a little bit more cash as part of their room/board to cover some expenses to let kids do what kids do (eat out, see a movie, etc). Flat out paying them though will not work.
Last edited:
It's unclear to me why there is even an argument. Everybody around them is getting really, really rich off their labor. The education slant is pathetic because so many of them never graduate (of course, that's the players fault). The NFL slant is even worse since fewer ever make it in the league.
I always hear that the rich school will be able to attract better player and the rich will get richer. Richer than what? The rich schools already dominate.
Agreed. The NCAA has long since needed a make-over. But however flush these schools are with TV cash, only 10 or so make money as a whole enterprise due to Title IX. The money is being buried in coaches salaries, facilities for ALL the sports, and scholarships for ALL the sports. In a free market, you'd cut most women's and men's sports and reallocate those funds to pay the football players for performance. However, government has intervened and distorted this market.
Agree that the fans come to see the school not the players in most cases. If you have a "superstar" like Johny Football or Andrew Luck or RG3 you may get some fans for them but even then the school affiliation is what allows them to be the superstar.
If you had no CU football team very few people would show up to see the Boulder Pumas semi-pro or minor league football team.
As far as going back into the school to reduce tuition etc. this is not practical. At CU and most schools the overall athletic program in addition to providing a huge amount of positive publicity for the school and providing a connection between the school and the community also adds a great deal to the campus environment and experience. Athletics brings in a much more diverse group of students contributing to the school experience.
By diverse I am not talking only about race but also socio-ecomomically and in terms of life perspective. The runners at CU likely would not be there, the soccer players, the skiers, etc. without the scholarships provided by athletics but the add a great deal to the school.
Football is what pays for all of this and more. Football is what allows the CU XC teams to fly around the country to meets and to have high quality coaching and training staffs and nutrition available.
I'm not in favor of paying the athletes. I think they get an opportunity for a great education, to make lifelong connections, and to enjoy their sports. If they don't want to do this in exchange for performing there are plenty of others who do.
I do think that things should be tightened up to insure that recruited athletes get a reasonable opportunity to get that education even if they get hurt or even if the coaches want somebody else in their spot. The SEC practice of oversigning and of running off players who don't meet expectations like cattle should be ended. A signed LOI should be a guaranteed 4 year scholly as long as the player makes a reasonable effort and doesn't violate reasonable behavioral guidelines.
This is a circular argument. If you are not NFL level talent, stay and graduate. If you are, leave asap and get paid. You're arguing against yourself here.
While I agree with this wholeheartedly in theory..... how would this be implemented practically?
This is pure speculation..... but there is no way that the schools would ever allow this BECAUSE it is such a cash windfall to them.
My opinion is this.... if you want to see the schools behave like a business..... have the NFL announce that they will start the minor leagues and pay the players...... I am willing to bet you that the deal that colleges give to their football players would become much better in a hurry..... the rules would change to allow payments to players....
just my best guess....
Not sure what is circular about my argument. Schools don't do a good job of graduating players. They also don't do a good job of getting players into the NFL. Where is the circle?
edit - good read on it
You're contention, if I am reading your earlier post correctly, is that the school should pay the players because a good portion of them don't make it to the NFL. But then you state that a degree means nothing because these guys bolt early to the NFL so what good is it.
I am confused by this. As I said in my original post, in most cases this is a binary situation. You either make it to the league, in which case you become well paid, or you stay in school and could achieve a graduate degree free of cost and go on to a nice career.
ESPN is televising high school football and bball games almost daily. Pay 'em!!
Ah. I was not making a connection between the graduation rate and the rate at which players make it in the NFL. Even if you take out the players who don't graduate because they leave early for the NFL, schools aren't very good at graduating players.
Interesting wording there. I might rephrase it as, "some players aren't very good at graduating from college".
Edit: And just so I'm clear, are we also paying a salary to these students who can't cut it academically (but are still on a scholarship) because the mean ol' college isn't good at graduating them?
Last edited:
They should get paid for their part in bringing revenue to the university. Even if you kick in the value of access to the university classes, room and board, I don't believe they are getting paid appropriately.
not surprised this is now another "to pay or not to pay" thread.
reading the posts here, especially [MENTION=21]PhillyBuff[/MENTION] 's points, raises a question about Research Assistantships and Teaching Assistantships that cover graduate students cost of education. Isn't this another example of colleges under-paying college students for the true value of the work (i.e. the same argument for why we should pay players)?
Personal anecdote: My Masters was funded by a RA position where I was doing software development, about 20 hours/week (I was not fortunate enough to get paid for doing my actual thesis work). Assuming my work/time was valued at the average introductory salary of a newly graduated SW Engineer in 2006, they got much more value than the in-state tuition + student health insurance + stipend that I received (my swag is about 2x the value). All that being said, I feel I got a good deal -- the long term tradeoff of a lower salary for a year in exchange for an MS and a potentially more rewarding career wasn't a tough decision (in hindsight, I'm not 100% convinced an Masters is worth the extra 1 - 2 years -- if I was doing it over again, I'd go to work once I got my BS and try to get my employer to pay for the MS).
reading the posts here, especially [MENTION=21]PhillyBuff[/MENTION] 's points, raises a question about Research Assistantships and Teaching Assistantships that cover graduate students cost of education. Isn't this another example of colleges under-paying college students for the true value of the work (i.e. the same argument for why we should pay players)?
Personal anecdote: My Masters was funded by a RA position where I was doing software development, about 20 hours/week (I was not fortunate enough to get paid for doing my actual thesis work). Assuming my work/time was valued at the average introductory salary of a newly graduated SW Engineer in 2006, they got much more value than the in-state tuition + student health insurance + stipend that I received (my swag is about 2x the value). All that being said, I feel I got a good deal -- the long term tradeoff of a lower salary for a year in exchange for an MS and a potentially more rewarding career wasn't a tough decision (in hindsight, I'm not 100% convinced an Masters is worth the extra 1 - 2 years -- if I was doing it over again, I'd go to work once I got my BS and try to get my employer to pay for the MS).