me too
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!
College football players as amateurs? ESPN agenda.
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
why? because they have a special skill that you don't have and that skill is valued by society and can be worth many millions of dollars (albeit for a small handful of them)?
The NFL could alleviate some of this bitching by actually having a hand in developing their own player pool. The college system is under a lot of pressure that it really isn't built to handle by itself.
I know some type of development league would take away some talent from CFB, but maybe it's time the NFL provide a professional alternative for kids instead of everyone bitching at the NCAA and trying to shoehorn a professional pay system that college sports really aren't built to provide.
I know some type of development league would take away some talent from CFB, but maybe it's time the NFL provide a professional alternative for kids instead of everyone bitching at the NCAA and trying to shoehorn a professional pay system that college sports really aren't built to provide.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Bull****. They players are receiving over $250K in education in exchange for their efforts.
1. "Paying" college athletes would be along the lines of "true cost of college w/ living stipend" like academic merit scholars get.
2. The big schools, including CU, can pay this with the increased media revenue that would be coming in and not bat an eye. We have been blown away with the Pac-12 media revenue projections. They're chicken**** numbers compared to what would come in with 64 teams playing competitive football games every week and a NFL style playoff at the end.
3. Attendance at home games would also get a lot better. Rather than a season ticket package that included in some years 4 Pac-12 games, an FCS opponent, a random MWC opponent and an "away" game in Denver against CSU... we'd be looking at every year of 4 (or 5) home Pac-16 games and 2 (or 1) home games against the SEC, B1G or ACC.
2. The big schools, including CU, can pay this with the increased media revenue that would be coming in and not bat an eye. We have been blown away with the Pac-12 media revenue projections. They're chicken**** numbers compared to what would come in with 64 teams playing competitive football games every week and a NFL style playoff at the end.
3. Attendance at home games would also get a lot better. Rather than a season ticket package that included in some years 4 Pac-12 games, an FCS opponent, a random MWC opponent and an "away" game in Denver against CSU... we'd be looking at every year of 4 (or 5) home Pac-16 games and 2 (or 1) home games against the SEC, B1G or ACC.
1. Based on your plan? Or a plan you have heard kicked around? As we learned in the Big 12, you don't need a majority of schools to make the rules the "big boys" want everyone else to follow. Because the big boys have the resources, they will be vehemently against a level playing field.
5. Not one person is this thread used the term "student athlete." As said by several posters in this thread, collegiate athletes are compensated in numerous and invaluable ways. You're talking about maybe 10-20 football players and 0-5 basketball players per BCS school who aren't receiving fair market value for their services. 2% or less of collegiate athletes aren't getting what they're worth so now they're "servants?" Basketball players absolutely have the luxury to drop out of school at any time (or not go at all - see Brandon Jennings) and football players have to play three years of college football before dropping out. It has to be really tough for those guys to stick around a college campus partying and plowing coeds for three years.
Every profession requires individuals to work within a system until they reach a certain experience level. Want to be a lawyer? Well, you have to go to three years of law school. You have to pass the bar. And you're probably going to have to do some unpaid or underpaid intern (using your words, "servant") work at a legal clinic, a law firm or a government agency. The fact of the matter is that you made the choice to be a lawyer and by doing so you agreed to follow the process of becoming a lawyer. The same applies here. You want to be a professional athlete? Well, there is a process you have to follow. You agreed to that when you made the choice to pursue an athletic career.
It's going the other direction, actually. MLB is now looking at how it can invest in college baseball so that it could pretty much take the place of the minor leagues and they could avoid having to spend so much time & money on scouting high schools and developing players. The NFL is smart enough to not create for itself the albatross that MLB currently has around its neck.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
At which point, it would become the NFL D league and begin losing viewership.
yes, based upon a plan being actively discussed by ADs in major conferences right now.
the idea isn't to pay them millions of dollars, as nik pointed out. the idea is to provide a stipend that puts them on an equal footing to other students with highly prized skills. why can a brilliant musician, artist, or physicist receive lots of comp while in college but an athlete cannot? i know the historical answer and i also know there is way to fix this problem.
one of the reasons the ADs are talking about jettisoning the ncaa is because, right now, the little guys (in non-major conferences, who don't get big tv dollars) veto any efforts that would funnel more of the money to the players. they cannot compete if it is done. CU may not be texass (who is?) but we are a major program, in a major conference and that means we get a piece of the tv pie when this thing goes.
Nik, I think there are two different discussions taking place. One is the 64 team division you propose. The second is paying college athletes. I'm not opposed to either idea; I am concerned about the future of Colorado athletics if anything other than a blanket stipend is implemented. And I am tired of college athletes being referred to as servants or slaves or anything other than lucky to have been blessed with their abilities.
The problem with a blanket stipend is it doesn't solve many of the issues people argue when pushing for paying players and it certainly will not decrease cheating in college athletics. A stipend doesn't put football and basketball players on "equal footing to other students with highly prized skills." First, a stipend is capped and not based on the actual value of the athletes' services (the exact same way athletes' "income" is calculated now). Second, because under Title IX we'll have to implement the stipend across the board, we're putting football players on equal footing with cross country runners and PRich on equal footing with Stevie Joe Dorman. Speaking in terms of pure economics, I'd hardly say Stevie Joe or collegiate runners have "highly prized skills" and the so called "equal footing" is not so equal after all. So, with a stipend plan, we'll continue to hear the same tired "it's not fair" argument. Instead of "Johnny Football makes so much money for A&M and sees none of it," we'll hear "Johnny Football makes tens of millions for A&M and sees only $1,000 a month of it, the same amount as the third-string catcher on the softball team."
The only way "paying" players makes sense is to allow them to license their likeness and image. This results in the player receiving fmv for at least a portion of the players' services. EA Sports makes the rounds at every college campus and offers PRich 10k for the use of his image and sends Stevie Joe a free copy of NCAA '14 for his. So the players get a chunk of what they are worth and the universities circumvent Title IX. This plan, however, gives massive advantages to A&M, Texas, Alabama, USC, etc. Nobody in Colorado would recognize a CU player doing a car commercial. 100% of Texas and half the nation knows who Johnny Football is and what he looks like. If college athletes must be paid I'm in favor of the stipend model because I like my teams winning. However, a stipend solves none of the issues caused by not "paying" players.
I just don't see how making college football into NFL-lite is going to lead to an increase in revenue. There's already a product for people who like something that looks like the NFL; it's the NFL. Many of the college fans I know are so-so or outright turned off by the NFL. They like college football for the thing that make it traditional and unique.
azbuff,
There are 2 ways that could go.
1. The new governing body controls all licensing of athletes and gives the players a share, divided equally among members and trickling down to athletes.
2. College athletes could be like Olympians and receive remuneration through endorsements (like Bloom did for skiing). Can of worms, but maybe there is a way to make it work without Nike sponsoring the Oregon football team and paying them.
There are 2 ways that could go.
1. The new governing body controls all licensing of athletes and gives the players a share, divided equally among members and trickling down to athletes.
2. College athletes could be like Olympians and receive remuneration through endorsements (like Bloom did for skiing). Can of worms, but maybe there is a way to make it work without Nike sponsoring the Oregon football team and paying them.
This idea will ruin college football. There will be lawsuits galore (Title IX). Schools will have to drop athletics. Corruption will sky rocket. Any hope for parity will be long gone. Donations to the athletic departments will dry up for many. Why give money to a program with no hope of competing? Much of the bad stuff like corruption will trickle down to the high school level. With the stakes raised in the value of a scholarship as schools get out of the football business, the whole high school athlete hype will continue to expand. Fewer kids will be able to get athletic scholarships. People like me will stop buying season tickets because the chasm between the haves and have nots will widen. I say that because I just cannot see schools like CU competing in this new world.
That sounds great, until the next Clowney or other 5* national recruit comes along and some booster at Bama pays him $1 million to "license his image" if he comes and plays for the Tide...
EDIT: Which I see you covered at the end of your post.
The bold is the crux of it. I've got news: we haven't been competing in the new world that has existed since the facilities arms race began.
Gentlemen -
There has always been under-the-table pay for play. That has never stopped CU from being able to compete and win. What has killed us has been an inability to secure large enough donations and state support to keep up with the facilities arms race & skyrocketing coach salaries.
But there's a law of diminishing returns on those things that benefits us. No one is going to build a 200,000 seat stadium. The bigger the pie, the bigger the slice CU gets. And that's what we need to build the facilities that have the highest ROI. That's what we need to pay coaches enough money that they've got generational wealth from the job and are getting paid on par with their NFL counterparts. There will always be some programs like USC, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State and Notre Dame that will be able to take things to a level that CU can't. We just have to be "good enough" and let our natural advantages take over.
We're hardly a "small market" enterprise here or a place where it's been difficult to win. Plus the state of Colorado and the Pac-12 region are experiencing tremendous growth while areas like the midwest and north atlantic decline in significance. We're a Top 30 historical program in a Top 20 home market and a conference that owns 2 time zones. CU will be just fine as media dollars drive this bus.
fervorfactor
Active Member
I'm curious if CU (and all other state schools) starts paying players for their sports effort does that make them employees of the state? Aren't they then held to state employment rules..drug testing, income tax, performance, background checks and a myriad of other issues? As was posted earlier, this is Pandora's box. And it will differ in each state. Violations will leave the decision to the state and not whether a coach decides to suspend or fire a player.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting thought.
If they are employees and they get hurt during a game, are the entitled to workers' compensation benefits? Are they ultimately entitled to permanent impairment benefits?
If they are employees, do they have a property right in their job? If they are "terminated" can they sue the University for wrongful termination?
Sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.
They would probably include a stipend in the scholarship package. But the point is good. There will be unintended consequences.
He likes oxygen.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
They will never call it anything more than a stipend which doesn't involve being a state employee
fervorfactor
Active Member
Great, I'll just write my employees a stipend check and ignore Colorado employment laws. We're good.
Welcome back fervorfactor
To me, I'm not really a big fan of the stipend route. Whatever figure it is, the true worth is likely to vary more from conference to conference and Subdivision to Subdivision. I do, however, believe players shouldn't have their likeness used without their permission. The NCAA and EA Sports can dispute it as much as they want, but I think it was obvious to anyone that picked the Florida Gators that the QB was Tim Tebow. Players deserve a cut of that, as I don't think it's fair for none of that licensing money to be shared with the players involved. They're not just commodities to be used in whatever damn way the NCAA wants.
I also don't have an issue with players gaining any kind of endorsement deal with local or national businesses. If the local Burger joint wants to come up with a signature burger, and use PRich's likeness and ideas on what makes a badass burger... and they both come to an agreement on fair compensation to the player for that, then fine. I know people worry that a rich booster will just pay the player millions of dollars for claiming to do some bull**** activity, but it isn't like money isn't being exchanged anyways at a lot of the top programs
Ultimately, I think the student should be treated the same way. If you are an art major on scholarship, and a local business calls you up because they're impressed with your work, and want you to do some paintings for the inside of their restaurant for $5000... the school is not going to rescind on the scholarship and kick you out. So, why can't athletes have their name attached to something, in the same way?
I also don't have an issue with players gaining any kind of endorsement deal with local or national businesses. If the local Burger joint wants to come up with a signature burger, and use PRich's likeness and ideas on what makes a badass burger... and they both come to an agreement on fair compensation to the player for that, then fine. I know people worry that a rich booster will just pay the player millions of dollars for claiming to do some bull**** activity, but it isn't like money isn't being exchanged anyways at a lot of the top programs
Ultimately, I think the student should be treated the same way. If you are an art major on scholarship, and a local business calls you up because they're impressed with your work, and want you to do some paintings for the inside of their restaurant for $5000... the school is not going to rescind on the scholarship and kick you out. So, why can't athletes have their name attached to something, in the same way?
I am typing this as I sit here watching (and pondering shutting off) an NFL game between two very good pro teams and I am bored with it. It is soulless, packaged, homoginized, and almost contrived.
Take college football the direction that Nik talks about in the OP and as a fan I quickly go from passionate to ho-hum.
To start with college players get a lot, even those who spend four years on campus without contributing much on the field. Their expereince is very different from the traditional student but they still get the opportunity to get an education, get to know young people from different places and backgrounds, and with or without a degree develop as people. They are far from working for free.
The do in fact get as mentioned earlier all school expenses paid, basic living expenses, as well as certain priorities in scheduling classes and tutoring. I wouldn't have an issue with providing scholarship athletes with a simple small stipend to allow them some flexibilty in living but frankly they do alright as it is.
While nobody wants to see games like the Akron-tOSU and the Miami- Savannah State matchups we almost all enjoy seeing the times when FCS schools step up and knock of a ranked BCS team or give them a good scare.
Part of the appeal of college football is the fact that it has a completely different connection with its fans than pro football. Most college fans have a sense of place and connection with their schools. For the large number who went there they can see the players as students like they were is a real sense, most of us had scholarship athletes in our classes at times. Most of those same athletes go on to "real jobs" after school just like the rest of us.
As long as our school is a part of major college football we are as well. Wyoming fans know they aren't Nebraska but they know that for one day they made the Nebraska fans sweat.
Give the big money guys including ESPN their head and I have no question that for the first few years the money will flow. They will make every game a "significant matchup." They will put in a playoff including wildcards. Soon they will be directing the best talent to the programs that generate the best TV numbers.
Then things will start to decline. The teams will represent the schools in name only. The connection to the fans will be lost. The fans of all the programs that got "left out" will have no reason to pay attention. At the same time the game will homoginize and become a minor league for the NFL. Interest will start to drop away. Donors of those schools that become the whipping boys without being able to build records against the next step down will be less likely to donate.
A big issue here is that most of the schools, even a lot of the big money ones, run a deficit in the athletic programs. Take away the connection to the fans and the academic function of the schools and suddenly a lot of schools are going to be less excited about funding something with a primary purpose of providing content for ESPN.
This of course not touching on the fact that Title IX requires that any benefits that go to the football players be availabe to all the women scholarship athletes so anything you give to the star wide reciever also go to the girl who swims the 50meter backstroke. The cost becomes huge in many ways.
Take college football the direction that Nik talks about in the OP and as a fan I quickly go from passionate to ho-hum.
To start with college players get a lot, even those who spend four years on campus without contributing much on the field. Their expereince is very different from the traditional student but they still get the opportunity to get an education, get to know young people from different places and backgrounds, and with or without a degree develop as people. They are far from working for free.
The do in fact get as mentioned earlier all school expenses paid, basic living expenses, as well as certain priorities in scheduling classes and tutoring. I wouldn't have an issue with providing scholarship athletes with a simple small stipend to allow them some flexibilty in living but frankly they do alright as it is.
While nobody wants to see games like the Akron-tOSU and the Miami- Savannah State matchups we almost all enjoy seeing the times when FCS schools step up and knock of a ranked BCS team or give them a good scare.
Part of the appeal of college football is the fact that it has a completely different connection with its fans than pro football. Most college fans have a sense of place and connection with their schools. For the large number who went there they can see the players as students like they were is a real sense, most of us had scholarship athletes in our classes at times. Most of those same athletes go on to "real jobs" after school just like the rest of us.
As long as our school is a part of major college football we are as well. Wyoming fans know they aren't Nebraska but they know that for one day they made the Nebraska fans sweat.
Give the big money guys including ESPN their head and I have no question that for the first few years the money will flow. They will make every game a "significant matchup." They will put in a playoff including wildcards. Soon they will be directing the best talent to the programs that generate the best TV numbers.
Then things will start to decline. The teams will represent the schools in name only. The connection to the fans will be lost. The fans of all the programs that got "left out" will have no reason to pay attention. At the same time the game will homoginize and become a minor league for the NFL. Interest will start to drop away. Donors of those schools that become the whipping boys without being able to build records against the next step down will be less likely to donate.
A big issue here is that most of the schools, even a lot of the big money ones, run a deficit in the athletic programs. Take away the connection to the fans and the academic function of the schools and suddenly a lot of schools are going to be less excited about funding something with a primary purpose of providing content for ESPN.
This of course not touching on the fact that Title IX requires that any benefits that go to the football players be availabe to all the women scholarship athletes so anything you give to the star wide reciever also go to the girl who swims the 50meter backstroke. The cost becomes huge in many ways.
Because you don't have Bubba BigBucks trying to buy the most talented art department in the country by throwing around $100 bills. As soon as you open that door you might as well just tell all the 5* kids to get an agent and put their services up to the highest bidder.
Could not disagree more. In fact, I would be done with "college" football. Drop the pretense then and just create the minor leagues for the NFL. Should have nothing to do with Universities.
Don't have the time to catch up and post more in-depth, apologies if this has been touched on. But outside of a few star kids, most are getting the deal of a lifetime. They are getting their education paid for, getting on the job training by elite coaches, the benefits of elite facilities and medical attention, the benefit of dedicated tutors and academic resources and much more. Some will graduate with the NFL recruiting them (draft) for a highly lucrative career while the majority will graduate with a degree they may never have received without a special talent in football. Have plenty more - will hit it tomorrow.
Last edited: