- 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: University of Texas to pay 10,000 per athlete...
Posted on 10/22/14 at 2:58 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
Posted on 10/22/14 at 2:58 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
no. i beleive in the olympic model. let the kids market and brand themselves and get money from any idiot willing to give them money. as long as the schools dont pay, b/c then theyd have to pay everyone, and title IX gets in the way. this type of thing happens all the time in college football recruiting anyways. bring it into the light.
That seems to be the best approach. But opponents of that model will say, well, what's to stop some Auburn booster paying some kid $100,000 for his autograph...and the next thing you know the kids a Tiger?
But the problem with that approach is that it assumes that these kids aren't getting paid under the table already, and we all know that's incredibly naive. Just read the SB Nation Bag Men article.
3
Posted on 10/22/14 at 2:59 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
That seems to be the best approach. But opponents of that model will say, well, what's to stop some Auburn booster paying some kid $100,000 for his autograph...and the next thing you know the kids a Tiger? But the problem with that approach is that it assumes that these kids aren't getting paid under the table already, and we all know that's incredibly naive. Just read the SB Nation Bag Men article.
And if they're paying the athlete 10k, there's still going to be kids getting large sums of money under the table. This won't stop that
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:00 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
small schools are already being squeezed out. UT makes #100M a year. how can smaller schools compete with that? they just manage the best they can. kinda like moneyball and the oakland As vs the new york yankees. everyone thinks money solves everything. mo money, mo problems.
But he and I are saying the same thing. Big schools that make money can pay their athletes. But for small schools that are already losing money and barely keeping their athletic programs afloat, making them pay each athlete a similar amount will destroy them.
(again, to my point about this discussion around playing players always being framed in the context of the high majors)
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:00 pm to Chucktown_Badger
To me if some idiot is willing to give a kid $100k then let them. The concept of "amateurism" is so outdated.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:01 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
And if they're paying the athlete 10k, there's still going to be kids getting large sums of money under the table. This won't stop that
I admitted as much in the last part of my post. This just takes away the charade of the whole "scholar/amateur athletes" that we all know is BS.
Hell, it would probably keep some guys from bolting the NFL/NBA as soon as they currently do. Make bank AND stay in college?!
This post was edited on 10/22/14 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:04 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
johnny manziel is an "oil rich" kid with a mercedes. he allegedly sold autographs so he could get rims on his car. everyone always wants more. guys on wall street cook on the books so their $20M bonus turns into $30M. if you think some tiny stipend will satisfy these kids, youre begging....
A. It has to come from the NCAA
B. It has to cover just basic living expenses that aren't included in scholarships.
C. Its better than nothing and will end the argument "I go to bed hungry every night"
shite, make it $500, thats how much I got in college from may parents and that was like 5 years ago. It was PLENTY even with my alcoholism.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:04 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:it wouldnt even have to be this much of a charade. and the answer is: money, ego, injuries, limited eligibility(leave to the pros early), entitlement, inexact science of football evaluation. theres a reason free agency in the pro football isnt the proven way to win.
That seems to be the best approach. But opponents of that model will say, well, what's to stop some Auburn booster paying some kid $100,000 for his autograph...and the next thing you know the kids a Tiger?
craig loston wouldve been paid a fortune coming out of high school. how stupid would that have been?
This post was edited on 10/22/14 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:06 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:why?
A. It has to come from the NCAA
quote:i think schools should give kids the entire cost of education
B. It has to cover just basic living expenses that aren't included in scholarships.
quote:so in the world of "better than nothing," you think an organization should just part ways with $1B. ok...
C. Its better than nothing and will end the argument "I go to bed hungry every night"
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:07 pm to tccdc
There's going to be a bunch of people who were very shortsighted up front that are going to look back and wish things were the way they used to be.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:11 pm to tccdc
Well there goes parity. This is good for schools like Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, and USC. However it doesn't look good for the smaller schools.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:12 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Big schools that make money can pay their athletes. But for small schools that are already losing money and barely keeping their athletic programs afloat, making them pay each athlete a similar amount will destroy them.
Are you a communist? What's wrong with that?
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:12 pm to Sterling Archer
quote:i agree.
To me if some idiot is willing to give a kid $100k then let them. The concept of "amateurism" is so outdated.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:15 pm to RollTide1987
quote:the rules and system is already set up for the big schools, and michigan and texas still suck and smaLL schools still compete while they have a tiny recruiting budget, shitty facilities, all while getting their best coaches poached by bigger/ more prestigious schools. WHO THE HELL THINKS THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS FAIR?
Well there goes parity. This is good for schools like Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, and USC. However it doesn't look good for the smaller schools.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:18 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
WHO THE HELL THINKS THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS FAIR?
I really am getting tired of hearing people whine about parity and fairness in sports. The purpose of athletics is to gain a competitive advantage over your opponent. People seem to forget that sports isn't supposed to be a level playing field. You're always striving to get away from parity with your opponent.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:19 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
quote:
A. It has to come from the NCAA
why?
Because of what i've been saying. The small schools that lose money as it is won't be able to afford to pay their athletes.
The "purpose" of college athletics isn't supposed to be to make money...it's supposed to be about education, experience, competition, etc. (I know this is BS). And wiping out the athletics programs at a ton of schools because 20 or so athletics programs make some money is ridiculous.
This post was edited on 10/22/14 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:20 pm to tccdc
So what happens when other schools cant afford to pay athletes? And are supposed to compete with schools that do.
or cant afford to pay the female athletes?
Or when a player wants to be paid more than other players, because his image is more valuable?
Or football wants to be paid more than womens' soccer?
The only way paying athletes is doable, is to have a power conference of about 20-25 teams that can afford it, the rest of the schools will have to focus on other things, like education and nonsense like that....
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:24 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Well there goes parity. This is good for schools like Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, and USC. However it doesn't look good for the smaller schools.
Is it good for these schools tho? How does this put Bama in a better position than it already is in? It doesn't get any better for Bama bc they are already at the top.
Regardless, I can't see any scenario where paying players in college doesn't ruin the game.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:24 pm to Chucktown_Badger
So we are headed to a "superconference" model where all the P5 schools who can afford have their own division of college football?
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:27 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:ok. its $1B. where does that money come from? and im not saying the schools should pay a dime either (well, total cost of a scholarship is fair IMO)
Because of what i've been saying. The small schools that lose money as it is won't be able to afford to pay their athletes
Posted on 10/22/14 at 3:29 pm to hiltacular
quote:did the pony express days at SMU ruin the game? that was some blatant arse shite. i think youre being a bit dramatic. the game will evolve and the viewership will continue to grow.
Regardless, I can't see any scenario where paying players in college doesn't ruin the game.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News