- 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: Florida Rep Proposes bill to pay college athletes
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:20 pm to TigerDat
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:20 pm to TigerDat
quote:
It's still not the players, college football would still be a major draw regardless, whether you are to hard headed to see it or not.
College football would still be a major draw BECAUSE THOSE PLAYERS ARE STILL PLAYING COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
You can deny it all you want but if the top football players below the age of nfl eligibility were to play in another league then college football would suffer. Would it completely fold? No. But to act like you could put a bunch of C-USA level teams out there and still attract the masses is ludicrous.
1
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:20 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Fair enough, the baseball comparison doesn’t work.
But back to your point of being the best amongst your peers. Even if all the best players went to a farm system, there would still be players on each college team that are the best amongst their peers and would be marketable. These players should be able to make money on their likeness and image.
Which hilariously in my opinion would make them more "valuable" to marketers than the farm system players. As more people would watch and follow college sports over the farm league. I think we've found an interesting paradox.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:21 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
This is where you are wrong. The school itself will not pay the players anything. It’ll be businesses and individuals outside of the school that will pay the players for the use of their likeness and image.
The schools sell this merchandise. So do outside entities, but mainly it is the schools who sell things online. That means if the players are to be paid from their jersey sales, the school will be responsible for at least some percentage of it. I don't think anyone fully knows what the plan is yet.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:23 pm to jlovel7
quote:
As more people would watch and follow college sports over the farm league. I think we've found an interesting paradox
I only think this is true if the farm system doesn’t have TV contracts.
If someone takes the best players and puts them on TV every saturday, I think people would watch.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:26 pm to ELchapoLSU
.....the end of the student/athlete. The end of collegiate football.
So is my state and property tax obligation used to fund services to NCAA sanctioned football programs still going to be in effect?
If you pay these collegiate athletes then they become professionals and IMO that ends my obligation to fund services (traffic control before and after games, medical services, etc) to these collegiate programs. Hey we can reach an amicable agreement. How about this? The law enforcement and EMT folks can still handle services, but at the end of the season (after the bowl games) I would be expecting a big fat check from LSU Athletics payable to the local tax jurisdiction. You know a reimbursement.
Fair enough?
So is my state and property tax obligation used to fund services to NCAA sanctioned football programs still going to be in effect?
If you pay these collegiate athletes then they become professionals and IMO that ends my obligation to fund services (traffic control before and after games, medical services, etc) to these collegiate programs. Hey we can reach an amicable agreement. How about this? The law enforcement and EMT folks can still handle services, but at the end of the season (after the bowl games) I would be expecting a big fat check from LSU Athletics payable to the local tax jurisdiction. You know a reimbursement.
Fair enough?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:32 pm to GeorgePaton
That’s an ignorant take. The players aren’t getting a salary, they will just be eligible to make money signing autographs and being on billboards and such.
They will still be required to go to class and maintain a certain GPA.
Right now players aren’t even allowed to have a YouTube page cuz any money they make getting clicks is considered them using their image to profit....
People are making this out to be so much more than it actually is.
They will still be required to go to class and maintain a certain GPA.
Right now players aren’t even allowed to have a YouTube page cuz any money they make getting clicks is considered them using their image to profit....
People are making this out to be so much more than it actually is.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:32 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
College football would still be a major draw BECAUSE THOSE PLAYERS ARE STILL PLAYING COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
You can deny it all you want but if the top football players below the age of nfl eligibility were to play in another league then college football would suffer. Would it completely fold? No. But to act like you could put a bunch of C-USA level teams out there and still attract the masses is ludicrous.
The entirety of what you just said encompasses 100% of the myth that exists about players being the product.
To the extent that a sport needs players on the field, yes you can say they are the product. But what people really mean when they say this, is that ONLY the best players attract the masses, and therefore THEY are the product, and without them, the game loses all of it's popularity. This is simply not true. Everything is relative. The game was massively popular when guys were much slower and smaller. It was massively popular when the game was all about defense and running the ball.
No one can tell that the best players are missing, if they never show up. What you see on the field is all you have to go by when you are making judgments. People didn't care in the 70's that guys were less athletic. They cared about watching the best teams and best players who WERE out there. They weren't concerned that better players might exist elsewhere, in another place, or another time. That was irrelevant then, and it would be irrelevant now. People love the game. The game is the true product. Everyone is replaceable, especially at the collegiate level where there is constant turnover, anyway.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:33 pm to TigerDat
Watered down, substitute, hamburger helper. Even the the TV networks will lose. Back to the 50's game of the week. Dizzy Dean was more interesting than the game.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:38 pm to Metaloctopus
I don’t think we are very far apart in our opinions, I just think we are communicating them to each other poorly.
I agree that no one cares that joe blow coulda been the greatest QB ever if he didn’t go to jail. They only care that John Smith is tearing it up now. But I also don’t think that the players should be denied the right to make money outside of the actual sport. If the Hummer dealership wants Grant Delpit to do a commercial, they should be able to pay him to do so just like they were able to pay coach O when he was in Oxford.
I agree that no one cares that joe blow coulda been the greatest QB ever if he didn’t go to jail. They only care that John Smith is tearing it up now. But I also don’t think that the players should be denied the right to make money outside of the actual sport. If the Hummer dealership wants Grant Delpit to do a commercial, they should be able to pay him to do so just like they were able to pay coach O when he was in Oxford.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:48 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
[quote]The players aren’t getting a salary, they will just be eligible to make money signing autographs and being on billboards and such [quote]
Read the header yoyo. It says "Florida Rep Proposes bill to pay college athletes".
You pay them......they cease to be student/athletes and become professional. That change occurs the moment the student/athlete gets paid to play. IMO opinon it doesn't matter where the dough comes from. From endorsements on billboards for jockstraps or men's after shave OR the state treasurer cuts an individual check to the player(s) it's still a payment to a professional athlete.
.....and I'm not opposed to that, just be up front with us. They're professional athletes. No problem! But like I said at the end of the season I want that "big fat check" payable to us...........John Q and Mary B. Taxpayer. Just sayin as I taxpayer I want to get in on the gravy.
Fair enough?
Read the header yoyo. It says "Florida Rep Proposes bill to pay college athletes".
You pay them......they cease to be student/athletes and become professional. That change occurs the moment the student/athlete gets paid to play. IMO opinon it doesn't matter where the dough comes from. From endorsements on billboards for jockstraps or men's after shave OR the state treasurer cuts an individual check to the player(s) it's still a payment to a professional athlete.
.....and I'm not opposed to that, just be up front with us. They're professional athletes. No problem! But like I said at the end of the season I want that "big fat check" payable to us...........John Q and Mary B. Taxpayer. Just sayin as I taxpayer I want to get in on the gravy.
Fair enough?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:48 pm to ELchapoLSU
They already get paid $30k - $70K per year, depending on the school. Tuition, meals, board, books, etc.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:49 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I don’t think we are very far apart in our opinions, I just think we are communicating them to each other poorly.
I agree that no one cares that joe blow coulda been the greatest QB ever if he didn’t go to jail. They only care that John Smith is tearing it up now. But I also don’t think that the players should be denied the right to make money outside of the actual sport. If the Hummer dealership wants Grant Delpit to do a commercial, they should be able to pay him to do so just like they were able to pay coach O when he was in Oxford.
I agree that they "should" be able to make money off of a commercial and at least something off of merchandise sales. I've stated a few times that I recognize that it isn't fair. My point is that there are too many worms in that can if the NCAA tries to open it. And it mainly has to do, at least in my opinion, with Title IV. You just know that the women are going to explode about not getting equal pay or "benefits".
And, of course, a simple educated response is "you don't sell as much merchandise or generate as much revenue as the men do, so you are not really entitled to make equal the amount of money". But that argument has always been the case when comparing men's and women's sports, and yet Title IV demands equal representation for the women, even though they lose money for the university.
And that, I believe, is a huge reason why the NCAA can't allow this right now. They are going to try to work out some kind of stipend deal for all student athletes that will be given out equally, is my guess, and that's as far as I see the NCAA going in terms of allowing payments.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:54 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
How do G league and minor-league baseball teams compare in ratings to college basketball and college baseball games?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:59 pm to jlovel7
quote:
How do G league and minor-league baseball teams compare in ratings to college basketball and college baseball games?
They aren't on TV. If someone were to pay the best athletes to forgo college for a minor league system, they'd need to put it on TV in order to have the money to pay the players.
The main difference in the mythical football farm league and the two you mentioned is the backing of the actual professional organization they feed into. Those leagues don't need TV money cuz the pro league is giving them money.
The NFL doesn't need to invest in a farm league cuz they have college football. If a football farm league were to arise, the NFL wouldn't back them. See the AAf as a prime example.
This is a huge reason why players should be able to make money: There isn't another option for football players.
Basketball players can go to the G league or go to Europe or Asia. Baseball players can go to the minors. Football players don't have any similar options.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:01 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
there are too many worms in that can if the NCAA tries to open it.
What if Lincoln had said that he believes that slaves should be free but there are too many worms in that can?
No one said creating the legislation would be easy but to impede progress cuz it'll take time and thought and effort and might have some unintended consequences is a terrible concept.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:08 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
I just want to say that I appreciate that we can have this debate without any name calling. It’s a rarity on this board. 
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:49 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
What if Lincoln had said that he believes that slaves should be free but there are too many worms in that can?
No one said creating the legislation would be easy but to impede progress cuz it'll take time and thought and effort and might have some unintended consequences is a terrible concept.
It's interesting that you brought up Lincoln, because I happen to have done a lot of research on that very person, and his supposed crusade against slavery. I grew up being told what a hero he was, but then I found out that he actually supported slavery very strongly as a Senator, and his mentor, Henry Clay, was a slave owner and Senator from Kentucky. Lincoln's only concern was to preserve the union at any cost, which he stated plainly, once the confederate states announced that they were seceding. Only 10% of the southern population owned slaves, and so slavery was a very small issue to most people in the south.
And yet, Lincoln killed thousands of people on both sides in order to retain power of all of the states. It was when the British were preparing to come to the aide of the confederates, that Lincoln launched a political torpedo, by claiming the abolition of slavery was his main objective. Once he muddied the waters with social politics, the British wanted no part of it.
Comparing what Lincoln did, to what the NCAA faces with Title IV is apples to oranges. As I said, very few people actually owned slaves, contrary to how revisionist historians paint the south as being an evil, racist MAJORITY. So Lincoln would not have faced much opposition on that front, and would not have needed to go to war. Thus, what he did, did not require courage. It was an act of dictatorship.
With Title IV, this is a federal law that was passed, that you are suggesting the NCAA, which has no federal authority, should ignore so as not to "impede progress". Title IV impedes progress and promotes forced acceptance of athletic programs that do more harm than good for the university... All in the name of "equality". The only way around Title IV is to abolish it. That would require federal action. Not NCAA action.
Time and thought will solve nothing. There was no time or thought that went into Title IV. It was an egregious overreach by the federal government to force "equality", at the cost of common sense.
So I'm afraid your last paragraph does not hit it's intended mark with me.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:00 pm to Metaloctopus
Suppose the casinos here in town start paying LSU players to be in commercials. Do we want to open that door? Crown Royal? Plaintiff attys put them on billboards? Don't think that won't come to Morris Bart, et al.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:04 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I just want to say that I appreciate that we can have this debate without any name calling. It’s a rarity on this board.
There is never any reason why people can't have a discussion without the name calling. But it is, indeed rare.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:12 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
Suppose the casinos here in town start paying LSU players to be in commercials. Do we want to open that door? Crown Royal? Plaintiff attys put them on billboards? Don't think that won't come to Morris Bart, et al.
In a perfect world, this would be allowed. But I don't see how it CAN be allowed. As I've said, some things just aren't fair, and that's kind of the way it has to be. Somebody will always say "but what about me?" and then that becomes a huge drawn out debate. Amateurs have to be treated as amateurs. Otherwise, we can't have amateur sports, and only the top prospects get a shot to play ball in whatever minor league system that would replace the college system. And that wouldn't exactly be fair to the lesser prospects, who sometimes become stars after getting the opportunity to spend four years in college, learning and developing their craft.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News