SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
"Amateurism" 
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!
Death of College Football and Amateurism
- Thread starter CPVbuff
- Start date
Remember, this isn’t the universities paying players. It’s the players ability to profit from their own likeness. It means compensation from EA Sports if they use your name on a video game, it means getting paid for an ad or an endorsement like Jeremy Bloom wanted for skiing.
So the coxswain is likely getting nothing, unless they find the rare paddle endorsement.
So the coxswain is likely getting nothing, unless they find the rare paddle endorsement.
The Devil’s in the details on this. The NCAA, and probably the major conferences as well, will have to figure out how to incorporate this new law into the existing system to try to maintain something resembling an even playing field.
I will be very interested to see how CU and the PAC 12 deal with this. This could be the beginning of the end, or just another step in the evolution of big time college sports.
I will be very interested to see how CU and the PAC 12 deal with this. This could be the beginning of the end, or just another step in the evolution of big time college sports.
The governor signed it but it was championed by a legislator, who drafted the original bill.
Never change.
The big issue is donors who own companies willing to pay big bucks to players to use their 'likeness'. So it will fundamentally change the landscape. Think Oregon with Nike. As I see it, they will basically be able to encourage any quality recruit to come to Oregon with a Nike endorsement contract. School doesn't pay a thing in such a case.
They earn a lot of money for the schools but yes they do get a free ride, tuition, fees, books, room and board. Leave with no student loan debt.
They also get a level of academic support that other students don't get, they get the advantages of networking with boosters as well.
It isn't a bad deal for the athlete.
We also need to remember that if the revenue sports go away due to this a big chunk of the non-revenue sports they support also go away.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I’m sure it does and that’s not okay to be honest. But again, nobody makes them play football. You’re getting a free scholarship, you can always quit and pay your way. I worked multiple jobs in college...I never slept and sometimes worked 10 hours a day and had 6+ hours of school. It’s life, it isn’t easy
This is news to me and this isn’t okay and if this is the case then I absolutely side with the players.
there’s a lot of opinion ls on both sides. I’m not against the players being paid for their likeness. I’m just worried this is going to turn into a giant mess and ruin what fun the game is.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
Nobody is saying that the college education is useless, but the way big time college football and bball work, focusing on education is difficult. It of course can be done, but it's pretty tough between practices, film, studying the playbook on your own, weight training, etc. Throw in the fact that many of these kids come from disadvantaged situations, e.g. environments where education wasn't promoted, unstable home-life, poor quality in urban schools, etc. Many of our athletes come in somewhat unprepared, need help keeping grades up, and then leave with a Communications or Sociology degree, if a degree at all (no offense to those majors, but you get my point...). And of course, you could have a demanding coach that wants you to do more, and teammates pushing you to dedicate yourself more. Some institutions (while I HOPE UNC is an outlier, they likely aren't too far from the norm) even help give athletes bogus degrees while they play for them.
The college tuition/board pays for what the athletes give on the field. The extra money they earn should be allowed just like anywhere else - they have earned it. But yes..as some others have posted, the ramifications of this is large... ....you can't close Pandora's box, only try to sort and control the demons that have been released.
CPVbuff
Well-Known Member
I agree with you in a vacuum. But superstar players need superstar supporting casts. Look at the shoe contracts with schools. The schools will or could begin to lose revenue. As the teams individuals will begin to make more of the revenue. This could go 100 different ways up to wiping out the impact of title IX But the one thing is certain. Boosters will eventually have total freedom.
Well, two family members were on college athletic scholarships, and I can attest, their academic choices were pretty highly regulated and managed. Now, being older, I have friends kids' and my own who are in the scholly-sphere. If the college or university is paying, you are playing their game, not yours.
As far as I can tell, the NCAA still forbids this stuff. That hasn’t changed. How they choose to deal with it will make for good theater.
Some movement in this direction is probably better than none, but EA Sports execs and the like deciding which future NFL star on which team to anoint seems dicey.
My point about the coxswain was to point out the fact that somewhere between the most and least adored athlete on campus, cries and protests of unfair treatment will arise. I think spreading that endorsement money (10-20 percent?) around to some degree is reasonable; at least to the kicker.
Once you start, there are a lot of issues that make this look to be in need of totally new structure. College and pro baseball both exist, maybe college football is destined to become as uninteresting as college baseball.
Think about the potential for this in context of the Texas boosters. Texas is already ahead of everyone else in money given to the programs, imagine if boosters could give it straight to players.
I still come back to what I think is the best way to handle this: put any endorsement money earned into a trust. Once the athlete graduates he/she receives 100% of those funds, plus interest. If he leaves school early, he has to pay back the cost of tuition, fees, etc. This would, in theory anyway, maintain some semblance of amateurism while allowing the athlete to profit from his likeness.
Irregardless of your personal hardships, this whole argument about the value of a free education is a complete farce, and completely oversimplifies the reality of being a CFB player.
The reality is that there are some kids that could care less about an education (usually, these are the kids that know they are special and have a really good chance of making it to the NFL). While most of these kids do care about getting a college degree, but (believe it or not) are realistic that they likely will not make it to the NFL. The latter group do get a nice benefit by getting a free education.
Here is the big thing that you're missing: every single one of the coaches that these kids play for either make, or dream of making millions of dollars being a CFB coach. This is supposed to be the adult, or father figure, and they are inherently conflicted. As a result, the well being of these players is secondary in many cases. This is an ugly truth of playing CFB, and the main source of my belief that something should change. As a result, most "normal" college football players leave the sport with debilitating ailments that rear their ugly heads a little later in life. I bet if you asked former CFB players when they're 35-45 yo, ones that never made it to the NFL, whether they would give back the free education in exchange for a normal, healthy lifestyle, that 50% or more of those guys would trade in a heartbeat. So I ask you the same question, would you trade having someone payoff your student loans, at the risk that you could no longer run, or sit comfortably in a chart longer than an hour after you're 35 years old? BTW, you'd still have to work similar hours in this scenario.
There is an inherent conflict in that literally everyone is making a lot of money off of these kids, except for the kids. I am not sure what the right answer is, but do believe that something should change, and the argument that getting a free education should be enough is in fact BS.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Are they not?
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
It’s not a “personal hardship” it’s a fact of life for most students. The very small percentage with rich parents or full ride scholarships doesn’t change the fact college is hard. It’s hard to find time to study, have fun, work and grow up all on your own.
As far as everything else you said. Again, nobody is making these kids play football! They could have focused on school and got an academic scholarship. They could have forgone the whole thing and paid their way. They thought it sounded fun to play football and get a free education. Sorry but boo hoo if you hurt because you played college ball. My back hurts all the time for spending 4 years lifting heavy boxes at a staples warehouse. I could have worked at McDonald’s and done nothing physical but I chose the way that provided more benefits to me (I.E. money)
Some of you act like they’re servants, they get treated very well by their schools. Again, I’m fine with some sort of changes. Jeremy Bloom? We all remember him, his situation was ****ed and that’s the kind of thing that should change. EA sports wants to make a game? Pay them for their name. Names on jerseys? Pay em. Offer them some compensation back from revenue? Sure, that’s fine by me as long as it’s equal to every player.
But this isn’t the reality! Players are going to go where the big money is. I see no good of this situation unless someone finds a way to regulate this. It is what it is I guess, we’ll see where it all goes. I’m not even disagreeing with your take at all btw. I don’t think downplaying a scholarship is fair as it’s a tremendous amount of money to be given, especially nowadays. But, yes the NCAA is riding this cash cow to the bank and they do deserve to get something in return.
I think it’s interesting that folks here think many players and their families aren’t getting paid right now by boosters at the biggest schools.
This is definitely the right thing to do, and I'm pleased that California is forcing the issue.
These students should be allowed to earn money off their fame and talents. The NCAA and the Universities earn millions of dollars off their likeness, and the players don't get any of it? Not ethical, in my opinion.
These students should be allowed to earn money off their fame and talents. The NCAA and the Universities earn millions of dollars off their likeness, and the players don't get any of it? Not ethical, in my opinion.
A few more points to emphasize:
The California bill was written so the law takes effect in three years. The bill’s author did this to allow the NCAA, business, universities and students time to have dialogue and address unintended consequences.
The NCAA formed a subcommittee to look at the issue and asked/begged/threatened California not to pass this bill so they could come up with solutions. California legislators didn’t exactly trust them and pushed ahead.
Complete unrestricted ownership of your own likeness is pretty much a central tenet of our economic system. The NCAA went to the mat against athletes like Ed Obannon and Jeremy Bloom. They had plenty of time to address the issue, but dragged their heals.
NCAA has said they will potentially bar California schools from NCAA tournaments. We will see if they carry forward with those threats. I doubt it.
If I’m a star player, I would seriously think about committing to a California school. Like today.
The California bill was written so the law takes effect in three years. The bill’s author did this to allow the NCAA, business, universities and students time to have dialogue and address unintended consequences.
The NCAA formed a subcommittee to look at the issue and asked/begged/threatened California not to pass this bill so they could come up with solutions. California legislators didn’t exactly trust them and pushed ahead.
Complete unrestricted ownership of your own likeness is pretty much a central tenet of our economic system. The NCAA went to the mat against athletes like Ed Obannon and Jeremy Bloom. They had plenty of time to address the issue, but dragged their heals.
NCAA has said they will potentially bar California schools from NCAA tournaments. We will see if they carry forward with those threats. I doubt it.
If I’m a star player, I would seriously think about committing to a California school. Like today.
WHERE THE CAPITALISTS AT?!?!??
Just imagine the YouTube advertising money that those athletes are missing out on while their non-athlete classmates are able to cash in especially if they are into esports and just imagine how many more boosters could come online as a result.
This might lead to the restructuring of those apparel deals as well. Maybe the schools still get the same uniforms but the shoes could soon be out of typical deals.
This might lead to the restructuring of those apparel deals as well. Maybe the schools still get the same uniforms but the shoes could soon be out of typical deals.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
The article states that the NCAA can’t ban them from participating. We’ll see!
Based upon your above clarifications, you and I agree more than we disagree. You're right, that many of these kids do decide to take this route on their own....but an 18 yo kid is usually naive to the realities of what they're getting themselves in to. That's why I used the hypothetical, hindsight scenario.
I just have a problem with those that say "A free education should be enough for these kids". That was true for a long time, but in todays current environment, when there is SO much damn money being shared amongst everyone except for the guys putting the ass on the line, it no longer holds water. I think everyone needs to be very careful about how this is approached so as to not kill college football, but that doesn't change the fact (in my opinion) that the current set up is inherently unfair and unsustainable.
The NCAA can do whatever it wants. But I agree with Creebuzz, they’d be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It’s in everybody’s interest to find a way to make this work. The threat to ban California teams from NCAA tournament participation was a bluff to try to influence the legislative process. It didn’t work.