- 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
re: Great read on why paying college athletes would NOT be doomsday
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:47 am to Baloo
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:47 am to Baloo
quote:
Once you concede that college athletes are getting compensated, you've lost the argument. Now, you're only arguing price. There is no fundamental difference from getting a scholarship and getting scholarship and a stipend. If the first is okay, then the second must be as well.
The NCAA right now is restricting trade. They are telling member institutions what they are allowed to give and what students are allowed to accept. Why not remove the restriction and let the free market decide? Now, not all restraints on trade are illegal, but you need a compelling reason. And this gets to the heart of the matter:
I don't value amateurism at all. It is an outdated concept dating back to 19th century gentlemen. They valued amateurism because it demonstrated they did not work. It was inherently elitist and completely inapplicable to a student athlete. The question is, should the courts continue to value amateurism as a valid concern?
There is no such thing as professional student athletes. If you want to be a professional athlete then you should be able to be a professional athlete and if you want to student athlete then you should be able to be a student athlete there is no mix.
2
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:49 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
There is no such thing as professional student athletes. If you want to be a professional athlete then you should be able to be a professional athlete and if you want to student athlete then you should be able to be a student athlete there is no mix.
that's silly
especially since you can be a pro in one sport and an amateur in another
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:51 am to Baloo
quote:
I don't value amateurism at all. It is an outdated concept dating back to 19th century gentlemen. They valued amateurism because it demonstrated they did not work. It was inherently elitist and completely inapplicable to a student athlete. The question is, should the courts continue to value amateurism as a valid concern?
i agree with this
but there is so much shite federal law that it makes directly paying players an albatross (ignoring the economic reality of the entirety of the college sports spectrum)
Title 9 is the biggest issue
Anti-trust legislation is another (but in avoiding that, they've created the false reality that you referenced above)
hell, this fricking class action is based on shitty law (essentially a contract of adhesion)
it makes this difficult to create real, rational changes to the system to get away from the false reality that both you and i acknowledge exists.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Title 9 is the biggest issue
Sure, and you can sidestep it pretty easily: either give all players a stipend a few thousnad bucks (which would eliminate about 90% of NCAA corruption -- most players just want some walking around money) OR more drastically, remove all restrictions on players receiving compensation from boosters. So long as the institution isn't directing payment, who cares?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 10:59 am to Baloo
quote:
either give all players a stipend a few thousnad bucks
i think this would fall under title 9, b/c the womenz would be required to get their stipends, too
quote:
remove all restrictions on players receiving compensation from boosters.
possible
i think they should just let kids market themselves via endorsements. completely independent payment with no possible argument that there is an association with the member institution. no title 9 issues. no further direct expenses of the institutions.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's silly
What is silly is the idea that the 2 need to be mixed
Posted on 7/26/13 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think this would fall under title 9, b/c the womenz would be required to get their stipends, too
Yes, that's why I said all players. If every scholarship cost, say, $10,000 more, how much would it cost a program? How many total schollies are there in LSU's program? 300? I honestly don't know. But if there's 300, which seems like a decent guess, it would cost LSU $3 million. Which is a lot, but we certainly have the money. Don't buy a waterfall.
quote:
think they should just let kids market themselves via endorsements. completely independent payment with no possible argument that there is an association with the member institution. no title 9 issues. no further direct expenses of the institutions.
right. Which is why the O'Bannon case is sort of perfect. It is licensing their likeness in a video game. They deserve a cut of that. It's not about the game, it's about being able to do an ad for the local car dealership. And if a random fan wants to give a player a hundred dollar handshake, why is that against the rules? Seriously, why?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 11:15 am to Baloo
quote:
Which is why the O'Bannon case is sort of perfect. It is licensing their likeness in a video game. They deserve a cut of that.
but from what i've read, they signed away these rights, so they do NOT deserve a cut
in my scenario/in the future? OK
but ed o'bannon signed away his rights to his likeness while at UCLA. he has no right to any money for his likeness accordingly
quote:
And if a random fan wants to give a player a hundred dollar handshake, why is that against the rules? Seriously, why?
i honestly don't care about that, either
like i said, there will need to be a 2-tiered system down the road. haves and have nots
Posted on 7/26/13 at 12:06 pm to Baloo
quote:
And if a random fan wants to give a player a hundred dollar handshake, why is that against the rules? Seriously, why?
Because then what is to stop random fan from showing up to players house and offering him 60,000 to go to their school?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think they should just let kids market themselves via endorsements. completely independent payment with no possible argument that there is an association with the member institution. no title 9 issues. no further direct expenses of the institutions.
Then what happens when all Oregon Players start getting "endorsement" deals from Nike?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 1:25 pm to tigers102886
quote:
Then what happens when all Oregon Players start getting "endorsement" deals from Nike?
i assume they get paid for endorsing Nike
Posted on 7/26/13 at 3:56 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Both of you REALLY need to read the article.
I don't care why it 'would not being doomsday'
I already know that not paying them wont either. Don't want this shite turning into the NFL.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 3:58 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Because then what is to stop random fan from showing up to players house and offering him 60,000 to go to their school?
Why would that be bad? What's wrong with a kid getting $60,000 based upon his ability and hard work?
Posted on 7/26/13 at 4:04 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
There is no such thing as professional student athletes
Posted on 7/26/13 at 4:27 pm to Sophandros
Fun fact: Donald Remy, the Vice President of NCAA legal affairs quoted in the article went to LSU.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 5:14 pm to Baloo
quote:All players would imply walk-ons as well. Now you're not looking at 300, you're looking at every single student athlete on every campus. And the benefits will need to be equal if Title IX isn't going away. The numbers just got bigger.
Yes, that's why I said all players. If every scholarship cost, say, $10,000 more, how much would it cost a program? How many total schollies are there in LSU's program? 300? I honestly don't know. But if there's 300, which seems like a decent guess, it would cost LSU $3 million. Which is a lot, but we certainly have the money.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 5:27 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
yup, they already get up 19k a year in money on top of schollies, training, medical attention, tutors, etc. etc........
Thank you. Paying tuition tuition out of your own pockets suck. I'd love to have people wearing my jersey, my likeness on a video game.
Posted on 7/26/13 at 5:28 pm to Baloo
quote:
Why would that be bad? What's wrong with a kid getting $60,000 based upon his ability and hard work?
Nothing, he should be a professional athlete not a student athlete.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News