Idea of paying players

[McLoofus 18,609]

6 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

This doesn't have to be an issue- just wait to pay athletes AFTER they turn pro. Put the money that they "earn" through likeness and endorsements in a trust account and pay it out gradually to the players that earn the money AFTER they lose eligibility.

Problem solved.

I love this because this is you trying to be creative in finding a way to move forward instead of just folding your arms and saying, "Nuh uh, change is scary."

[WDE_OxPx_2010 1,169]

Just now, McLoofus said:

I love this because this is you trying to be creative in finding a way to move forward instead of just folding your arms and saying, "Nuh uh, change is scary."

I mean I can do that too

 

[McLoofus 18,609]

1 minute ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

I mean I can do that too

 

Hah! This is actually a pretty good approximation of what I see when I read a lot of these posts. 

[oldaufeller 309]

OK - first - whoever drafted the NCAA letter needs to be fired.  The approach that maintaining amateur status in the NCAA is a "constitutional" or legal issue is completely bogus.  This is the equivalent of you arguing with the judge that you are innocent because the judge doesn't understand the law.  I wouldn't be surprised if CA passed this law just to demonstrate who has a bigger stick.  (Hint: they do => CA Legislature is greater than NCAA)

Also realize that schools with successful athletics programs already make boatloads more money from athletics anyways.  More tickets, bigger stadiums, more merchandise, etc.

So I feel this falls into the "Watch out what you ask for, you may actually get it."  Money for coaches, facilities, etc. will come from schools who get their money from supporters already.  No change here.  But I see where one of two directions for the athletes.

1) NCAA stays amateur and the NCPAA (National Collegiate Professional Athletics Association) is formed and schools pick which way to go (32 professional schools?)

or 2) NCAA converts to professional overall.   

Here's the gotcha for these athletes -the "watch out what you ask for" moment. Taking the current model  for professional athletes (NBA, NFL, MLB, ...) to balance the teams and maintain competitiveness they implement a draft system.  So athlete, declare yourself professional out of high school , get a sponsorship from the Patriots, Red Sox, or Celtics, and get assigned to Ball State who has the first Div 1 pick this year. Allowing the student athlete to maintain autonomous selection of school and get paid just won't work - the system will collapse because more money wins and fans are just not interested in who can buy the "mostest."  It is why professional sports organizations operate this way.  

JMHO - Good Luck. OldFeller

[Dual-Threat Rigby 1,883]

basically nothing changes in terms of competition, whether this happens or not

[keesler 3,854]

1 hour ago, oldaufeller said:

OK - first - whoever drafted the NCAA letter needs to be fired.  The approach that maintaining amateur status in the NCAA is a "constitutional" or legal issue is completely bogus.  This is the equivalent of you arguing with the judge that you are innocent because the judge doesn't understand the law.  I wouldn't be surprised if CA passed this law just to demonstrate who has a bigger stick.  (Hint: they do => CA Legislature is greater than NCAA)

Also realize that schools with successful athletics programs already make boatloads more money from athletics anyways.  More tickets, bigger stadiums, more merchandise, etc.

So I feel this falls into the "Watch out what you ask for, you may actually get it."  Money for coaches, facilities, etc. will come from schools who get their money from supporters already.  No change here.  But I see where one of two directions for the athletes.

1) NCAA stays amateur and the NCPAA (National Collegiate Professional Athletics Association) is formed and schools pick which way to go (32 professional schools?)

or 2) NCAA converts to professional overall.   

Here's the gotcha for these athletes -the "watch out what you ask for" moment. Taking the current model  for professional athletes (NBA, NFL, MLB, ...) to balance the teams and maintain competitiveness they implement a draft system.  So athlete, declare yourself professional out of high school , get a sponsorship from the Patriots, Red Sox, or Celtics, and get assigned to Ball State who has the first Div 1 pick this year. Allowing the student athlete to maintain autonomous selection of school and get paid just won't work - the system will collapse because more money wins and fans are just not interested in who can buy the "mostest."  It is why professional sports organizations operate this way.  

JMHO - Good Luck. OldFeller

The NCAA is made up of member institutions, it is 100% voluntary.  Members (schools) agree to adhere to the rules they put in place by the member institutions (the colleges/school presidents).  The NCAA is not some arbitrary governing body, schools like Auburn are making the rules.

California, Oregon, and any other states can pass all the bills the want.  But if the programs in those states allow their student-athletes to hire agents, accept endorsement deals, get paid for autograph sessions, etc.  then those athletes will be ruled ineligible by the NCAA.

Several Cali schools have already weighed in on the bill and they do not plan to operate outside the NCAA rules. 

Can you imagine any school wanting a bunch of agents all over their facilities?  Or a HC having to work through a players agent to set aside time for the player to attend autograph sessions or shoot commercials for the likes of Nike/Gatorade for endorsement deals.  

 

[keesler 3,854]

4 hours ago, dyehardfanAU said:

There are multiple problems with stipends.  Smaller schools would be at a financial disadvantage plus you would run into Title IX issues where athletes in all sports would have to receive the stipend putting even more financial strain on programs.

P5 schools have been giving stipends to football and basketball players for a few yrs now.  In fact Auburn was paying out the 2nd highest stipend of all the SEC schools back in '17 behind UT.

Tennessee $5,666/player - AU $5,586 - MSU $5,372 - Bama $4,886 - OM $4,600  are the top 5 in stipend $$.

 

[oldaufeller 309]

1 hour ago, keesler said:

The NCAA is made up of member institutions, it is 100% voluntary.  Members (schools) agree to adhere to the rules they put in place by the member institutions (the colleges/school presidents).  The NCAA is not some arbitrary governing body, schools like Auburn are making the rules.

California, Oregon, and any other states can pass all the bills the want.  But if the programs in those states allow their student-athletes to hire agents, accept endorsement deals, get paid for autograph sessions, etc.  then those athletes will be ruled ineligible by the NCAA.

Several Cali schools have already weighed in on the bill and they do not plan to operate outside the NCAA rules. 

Can you imagine any school wanting a bunch of agents all over their facilities?  Or a HC having to work through a players agent to set aside time for the player to attend autograph sessions or shoot commercials for the likes of Nike/Gatorade for endorsement deals.  

 

I agree wholly - I think a school that goes "professional"  is unworkable.  Kids might think it's great until they and their institution lose all  freedoms (what school to go to, how to train, contract obligations, etc.)  Professional sports are contract based, period.  That's why I split to NCPAA - a new pro organization for schools to join - and I don't see how it could work - ever.  If I were a university I wouldn't even visit the same zip code as NCPAA.  In a nutshell, CA can pass whatever they want.  And some kids and parents can start lawsuits trying to "claim their due"  with an unproven legal stand.  As far as I'm concerned, keep the allowable [reasonable] stipends in place (they have to live after all) and any kid that successfully sues to become professional no longer qualifies to compete in NCAA sanctioned events.  Again, watch out what you ask for. If a student athlete wants to be treated like a commodity and waive their life choices when they are 18 ... - in case I'm not clear - the CA proposal is stoopud just not "unconstitutional." .

Edited September 12 by oldaufeller

[Brad_ATX 5,233]

There's a really simple solution.  Allow student athletes to make money off of their likeness.  The NCAA should have no control over that, yet they do as it stands now.  The market will bear out how much each likeness is worth while the schools don't have to pay a dime to the players.

There was a story a few years ago where a football player at Clemson had to stop working at a phone store because of his name-tag.  NCAA said he was profiting from his name.

[AUght2win 992]

7 hours ago, toddc said:

The NFL tried the farm league last year and it failed before finishing the season. AAF

There has never been an NFL endorsed farm league akin to MLB's minors or even the NBA's D league. The AAF was not at all related to the NFL.

[AUght2win 992]

Don't pay the players. I used to be open to it but it's a dumb argument.

Let's break it down. You have 90+ kids on 120+ teams. How many of them, as individuals (like NFL stars) actually sell tickets? For Auburn maybe Bo, Boobie, the D Line. A handful of exciting talents. But let's be honest, we would watch college football regardless of the quality of play.

At the college level, the game lives entirely off of loyalty and tradition. It really is about the names on the front of the jersey and not the back. The notion that "these kids generate billions" isn't true. College football generates billions. Fan loyalty generates billions. The kids just get to wear the colors for a few years and then move on. It's incredibly pretentious for any of these kids to think that their unique talent is the reason people shell out for top dollar tickets.

[cole256 5,693]

A system set up where they capitalize the most off the physical labor of others.....it's so much money that the powers that be sets limits to control how you can even get out of this loop......then of course you have people who don't get any money from it, don't have the experience of being in it, do not even know what all is required to do it screaming the loudest as to why athletes shouldn't be compensated for their talents......it's wild

[AUght2win 992]

Another point worth making. If we pay college athletes, then all but the most popular sports will go under. You think the Equestrian program, for instance, turns a profit? LMAO. Or Men's tennis. Or Women's Soccer? The money the football program brings to the athletic department keeps so many other sports afloat. Hell, I don't know if Auburn baseball could survive on its own revenue alone.

[AUght2win 992]

Just now, cole256 said:

A system set up where they capitalize the most off the physical labor of others.....it's so much money that the powers that be sets limits to control how you can even get out of this loop......then of course you have people who don't get any money from it, don't have the experience of being in it, do not even know what all is required to do it screaming the loudest as to why athletes shouldn't be compensated for their talents......it's wild

How much would you pay the 5th string Buck defensive end? Would it be a communist system with a flat rate for everyone? That seems unfair.

Would all programs be able to pay their kids the same, or would Alabama be the Yankees and Ole Miss be the Padres in terms of budget disparity? 

What is a fair amount? 20k a year per player? Is that even feasible? 

What would happen to the other sports? Does a member of the swim team get the same pay? 

Is the pay based on TV ratings? A percentage of the gate? Should the kids be required to go to class if it's now their profession? 

[AUght2win 992]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a really simple solution.  Allow student athletes to make money off of their likeness.  The NCAA should have no control over that, yet they do as it stands now.  The market will bear out how much each likeness is worth while the schools don't have to pay a dime to the players.

There was a story a few years ago where a football player at Clemson had to stop working at a phone store because of his name-tag.  NCAA said he was profiting from his name.

"Hi I'm Alfred Bama, Red Elephant Booster. Come to UA and we guarantee you'll make upwards of 200k a year. Our fanbase is bigger. More exposure. We also have guarantees even if you're not a star (like say, an O-Lineman). We will hold autograph sessions at RE events. Our boosters can funnel you money directly that way."

[cole256 5,693]

1 minute ago, AUght2win said:

How much would you pay the 5th string Buck defensive end? Would it be a communist system with a flat rate for everyone? That seems unfair.

Would all programs be able to pay their kids the same, or would Alabama be the Yankees and Ole Miss be the Padres in terms of budget disparity? 

What is a fair amount? 20k a year per player? Is that even feasible? 

What would happen to the other sports? Does a member of the swim team get the same pay? 

Is the pay based on TV ratings? A percentage of the gate? Should the kids be required to go to class if it's now their profession? 

To pay everybody the same seems unfair but to pay them nothing is cool? Lol

 

Some of your questions are good, some are pitiful but it seems that you are leaning to the fact that since you'd have to sit down and formulate a system, a system shouldn't be formulated.......I can think of many things that have improved instead of saying this is the way we've always done it

[cole256 5,693]

2 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

"Hi I'm Alfred Bama, Red Elephant Booster. Come to UA and we guarantee you'll make upwards of 200k a year. Our fanbase is bigger. More exposure. We also have guarantees even if you're not a star (like say, an O-Lineman). We will hold autograph sessions at RE events. Our boosters can funnel you money directly that way."

Auburn don't have boosters, fan base, etc? And are we getting the same level of athletes right now?

[dyehardfanAU 808]

13 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

"Hi I'm Alfred Bama, Red Elephant Booster. Come to UA and we guarantee you'll make upwards of 200k a year. Our fanbase is bigger. More exposure. We also have guarantees even if you're not a star (like say, an O-Lineman). We will hold autograph sessions at RE events. Our boosters can funnel you money directly that way."

This is by far my biggest concern with this issue.

[Brad_ATX 5,233]

19 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

"Hi I'm Alfred Bama, Red Elephant Booster. Come to UA and we guarantee you'll make upwards of 200k a year. Our fanbase is bigger. More exposure. We also have guarantees even if you're not a star (like say, an O-Lineman). We will hold autograph sessions at RE events. Our boosters can funnel you money directly that way."

So what?  Kid is earning it.  Why are these kids the only ones at the university not allowed to make money off of their own likeness?  And why do we all of a sudden hate capitalism?

Edited September 12 by Brad_ATX

[oldaufeller 309]

Context - the CA resolution says athletes can get paid - but it doesn't specify where that pay check comes from.  These kids and parents see $$$ and want some.  Pretty much human nature.

The NCAA has gross revenue around 1.1 billion and recognizes a little over 460,000 student athletes. However read their financial statement https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf and they have about 41 million left over (after their scholarships, media, payroll... expenses.)  There you go - you've got about $89.13 for each one.  Let that sink in for a moment.  The NCAA is not part of the financial "recovery" for the athletes.  They are bystanders as the CA legislature gets all up in their shed.

So where's the billions?  https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ It's pumped into the schools so you're going to have to attach there if you want to score anything meaningful. 

This whole idea is bogus.  The stream of money will HAVE to come from the schools - that's where the billions everyone talk's about.  And considering sports revenue is part of many institutions general operating income and most institutions are upside down on sports to begin with - it's a non-starter. A school will have to elect to pay the athletes at which point they violate the eligibility requirements for competing in the NCAA.  The only outcome is a few trivial lawsuits to attach to school money for payment and still be in the NCAA (acting as a voluntary event organizer and regulation provider for sponsored events.)  To be clear the only thing this legislation does is launch a handful of trivial lawsuits.  Good luck.  smh

Edited September 12 by oldaufeller

[AUght2win 992]

28 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Auburn don't have boosters, fan base, etc? And are we getting the same level of athletes right now?

Oh we'd do it too. But the disparity in college football would become insane. It would go back to like it was in the 70s where there were no scholarship limits. Bear Bryant would recruit kids to come sit the bench, just so competing schools couldn't get their hands on them. I honestly couldn't see how a Louisiana Tech or a Troy could survive.

[cole256 5,693]

Just now, AUght2win said:

Oh we'd do it too. But the disparity in college football would become insane. It would go back to like it was in the 70s where there were no scholarship limits. Bear Bryant would recruit kids to come sit the bench, just so competing schools couldn't get their hands on them. I honestly couldn't see how a Louisiana Tech or a Troy could survive.

They could survive how they do now....by playing teams. Nothing Alabama does would effect those schools, and players still would want to play to get to the NFL. It's already set up right now anyway.....how many teams do you expect to compete for a SEC championship right now?

[AUght2win 992]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So what?  Kid is earning it.  Why are these kids the only ones at the university not allowed to make money off of their own likeness?  And why do we all of a sudden hate capitalism?

My argument is it isn't their likeness that generates money for college football. It isn't their hard work or devotion, either. People don't go see a Batman movie because of Clooney, Bale, or Pattinson. They go because they've always liked Batman. Now when the movie is good (Bale) then it helps, but to say "I BUILT THIS PROGRAM, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MONEY WITHOUT ME" is false. Whoever you put in that Auburn uniform is going to have fans and fill up the stadium.

Now if there are people profiting specifically off of something unique to the athlete (Cam's Superman, for instance), then that's different. 

[AUght2win 992]

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

They could survive how they do now....by playing teams. Nothing Alabama does would effect those schools, and players still would want to play to get to the NFL. It's already set up right now anyway.....how many teams do you expect to compete for a SEC championship right now?

We would have kids openly say they'd rather go sit the bench at Bama and collect $100k more over 4 years than to actually play at Auburn and earn less. That would be the issue you run into. The big brands (which, we're pretty damn big but not Texas or Bama big) would have incredible power. 

[AUght2win 992]

40 minutes ago, cole256 said:

To pay everybody the same seems unfair but to pay them nothing is cool? Lol

 

Some of your questions are good, some are pitiful but it seems that you are leaning to the fact that since you'd have to sit down and formulate a system, a system shouldn't be formulated.......I can think of many things that have improved instead of saying this is the way we've always done it

Not to get political, but it's the same argument for single payer healthcare. It isn't even remotely possible, it just sounds nice and fair. Even proponents of it can't explain how it would work. Same with this. "Pay the kids!" sounds great. Until somebody's asked to explain how it would work.