- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:34 am to lynxcat
Are you willing to start paying double your tradition fund?
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:36 am to secman12
quote:
Lynx..well said, but are you saying only football? This would be nice, but with Title IX think this is a non starter and what about football teams that stink....just do not think it can be done...at least not right...
This is where you start facing the operationalization issues. Title IX makes it extremely difficult because it increases the costs tremendously of implementation.
As mentioned, stipends hurt the little guys more than anyone.
A potential equalizer is if the NCAA pays the stipend so that it is independent of a college's size as a percentage of its athletic budget.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:37 am to RealityTiger
quote:
Are you willing to start paying double your tradition fund?
I love how you instantly jump to this as a conclusion.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:37 am to LSUGrad9295
GOOD POST...agree on all...but I DONT THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAID....if a scholarship isn't enough incentive, then DON'T PLAY...take your arse to the ghetto and push drugs...plain n simple...
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:38 am to lynxcat
If the NCAA is gonna start giving money back, I'd rather see it go back to LSU to the general operating fund.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:39 am to tiger chaser
quote:
GOOD POST...agree on all...but I DONT THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAID....if a scholarship isn't enough incentive, then DON'T PLAY
Nothing wrong in here.
quote:
.take your arse to the ghetto and push drugs...plain n simple...
:jumpoffcliff:
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:41 am to tiger chaser
I'm starting to like baseball more and more. Open up the draft to High School seniors. If they want to get paid then go play in the majors. Only sport where it would become an issue is football.
Other then that Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/others don't really care if they are paid or not. If they wanted $$ they would be gone.
Other then that Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/others don't really care if they are paid or not. If they wanted $$ they would be gone.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:41 am to lynxcat
quote:
I love how you instantly jump to this as a conclusion.
And I love how you think LSU and/or the NCAA is gonna just start handing out money with no financial plan to back it up.
You don't know shite about business.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:43 am to RealityTiger
quote:
If the NCAA is gonna start giving money back, I'd rather see it go back to LSU to the general operating fund.
Or, the NCAA could add a stipend addition as an optional feature of a collegiate athletic scholarship so that not every school is tied into it if they do not want to pay for it.
Or, make an athletic scholarship a fixed amount of money at all institutions (adjusted based on a cost of living index) that can be allocated as the institution sees necessary.
There are many ways to adjust the current system. You just have to think outside of the box and not be set in the "this is how things have always been" mindset.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:45 am to lynxcat
quote:
There is nothing 'moral' or 'immoral' inherently about paying a college athlete to play a sport. Once you add the rule of "pay is not allowed in forms x, y, and z" then you create moral hazard but when having the discussion of whether someone should be paid or not, moral implications are not involved.
figures you didn't get the point. Did not say paying or not paying was the moral question, the moral question is does a coach say something he doesn't believe just to look good to a prospect
Please read the OP's question again. My answer is about the coach who may not support paying players
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:45 am to RealityTiger
quote:
You don't know shite about business.
Please stay away from the ad hominem insults when you know nothing about me.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:46 am to stapuffmarshy
quote:
figures you didn't get the point. Did not say paying or not paying was the moral question, the moral question is does a coach say something he doesn't believe just to look good to a prospect
Please read the OP's question again. My answer is about the coach who may not support paying players
Fair enough. The thread had sidetracked some by then to the general idea of PFP.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:47 am to RealityTiger
quote:
And I love how you think LSU and/or the NCAA is gonna just start handing out money with no financial plan to back it up.
The financial side is important but I think you are overestimating the flexibility available when considering a complete overhaul of the current system's mindset.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:50 am to lynxcat
Another option, allow boosters to personally pledge a certain amount to individual players. (Not sure how this would work with Title IX or if it skirts around the issue).
All I am saying is that a variety of solutions are available to the problems being faced.
All I am saying is that a variety of solutions are available to the problems being faced.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:51 am to lynxcat
quote:
Fair enough. The thread had sidetracked some by then to the general idea of PFP.
I know, I like to go backward and keep it simple but it always backfires
Posted on 6/10/11 at 11:55 am to lynxcat
quote:
Another option, allow boosters to personally pledge a certain amount to individual players
Wouldn't work. Title IX. The booster would have to pick both a male athlete and a female athlete. And of course, the NCAA would have to ok the whole thing or else LSU becomes the next Ohio State/USC.
Posted on 6/10/11 at 12:00 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
Wouldn't work. Title IX. The booster would have to pick both a male athlete and a female athlete. And of course, the NCAA would have to ok the whole thing or else LSU becomes the next Ohio State/USC.
You really have a hard time thinking outside of the box. You need to consider an NCAA system where no rules are in place yet and you can mold it into whatever aligns incentives the most.
If a system like this were in place, the NCAA wouldn't have to approve anything. A booster could pledge $10k a year to Patrick Peterson and Seimone Augustus (these are just two random, high-profile men and women players for use in this example), LSU Compliance would take care of the paperwork to cover the Title IX obligations, and the booster would send the check.
This post was edited on 6/10/11 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 6/10/11 at 12:10 pm to lynxcat
The whole issue stems around the risk v. reward of PFP at major programs.
For any booster at a major program, it is worth the risk of paying a superstar player $50,000 (random number, PFP example) if he can result in millions of dollars in revenue for your institution.
Cam Newton single handedly gave AU the chance at winning the National Championship. Derek Rose did the same for Memphis. The list goes on and on and on. The penalties of being caught (which it is really hard to be caught if a booster and player are smart about their relationship) are not severe enough to 'play by the rules'.
If SHTF, the school's compliance office can self impose fines and penalties on itself and hand over information to the NCAA to please it without ever receiving program-destroying sanctions.
Under the current system the risk v. reward scenario:
Pay superstar thousands of dollars and risk potentially a bowl ban and maybe a few scholarships taken away...
V.
Athlete excels, becomes an instant difference maker, catapulting team into national spotlight, increasing ticket sales, merchandise sales, and post-season opportunities worth tens of millions of dollars for the school.
Are we really surprised the current rules are broken so often?
For any booster at a major program, it is worth the risk of paying a superstar player $50,000 (random number, PFP example) if he can result in millions of dollars in revenue for your institution.
Cam Newton single handedly gave AU the chance at winning the National Championship. Derek Rose did the same for Memphis. The list goes on and on and on. The penalties of being caught (which it is really hard to be caught if a booster and player are smart about their relationship) are not severe enough to 'play by the rules'.
If SHTF, the school's compliance office can self impose fines and penalties on itself and hand over information to the NCAA to please it without ever receiving program-destroying sanctions.
Under the current system the risk v. reward scenario:
Pay superstar thousands of dollars and risk potentially a bowl ban and maybe a few scholarships taken away...
V.
Athlete excels, becomes an instant difference maker, catapulting team into national spotlight, increasing ticket sales, merchandise sales, and post-season opportunities worth tens of millions of dollars for the school.
Are we really surprised the current rules are broken so often?
Posted on 6/10/11 at 12:12 pm to lynxcat
quote:
You really have a hard time thinking outside of the box
I swear I think I'm dealing with Barack Obama.
Nooo, it's a thing I completely understand. But it's so simplistic and unrealistic, it's stupid to even suggest. And I love how you just glossed over the benefits already given to a football player on full scholarship. Makes me think you never even attended college. If you did, you would understand the value of having your tuition, housing, meals, and books paid for semester to semester. I thought putting a dollar sign behind it might give you a better idea, but apparently not.
ETA: Or maybe daddy paid for it all for you so you're ignorant as to the actual costs of going to school.
This post was edited on 6/10/11 at 12:15 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News