Idea of paying players

[cole256 17,059]

18 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

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. 

Right so just don't pay them....just let injustice keep happening. And it doesn't make any sense to say it sounds great until you tell someone who isn't trained in such explains how it works....I'm sure you couldn't explain the constitution in detail but I'm sure you like it

[cole256 17,059]

27 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

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. 

You don't know that to be true.....you just said it. First of all if we really wanted that guy we could offer that. If we didn't think he was worth it ok. Second we're not going to get him right now anyway so you should want something different. Last, I don't know why you assume a recruit all of a sudden don't care about playing

[cole256 17,059]

33 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

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. 

Even this argument is wrong. You don't think us winning don't have anything to do with money? You think we would sell out if we sucked? You can look at Tennessee and see how wrong that is. 

And people literally went to see Batman for who played joker. The film was highly acclaimed for the strong cast of villains

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

41 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

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. 

Great, but there's no football without the players at any point.  I'm saying they should be able to use their own likeness to generate money outside of the athletic department.  Take the schools completely off the hook here.  Give the kids a scholarship for school, room, books, etc like always and let the market decide who earns what money on their own time.  No extra cash from the school.

If the local bowling alley wants to promote that Boobee Whitlow is hanging out there from 2-4 on his damn time, then what's wrong with that?  Bowling alley gets more people.  Boobee makes some money.  Everyone wins.

[provibe 261]

8 hours ago, boisnumber1 said:

Stupid move by CA legislators - imagine that. Let's make all of our athletes ineligible. Do they think they are the first ones to come up with this idea? Pretty funny to me actually. When/if this actually does happen, college football will crash and burn, and the majority of people will not care about it anymore. No one cares about the minor leagues...i dont care how you dress it up.

Totally agree 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You don't know that to be true.....you just said it. First of all if we really wanted that guy we could offer that. If we didn't think he was worth it ok. Second we're not going to get him right now anyway so you should want something different. Last, I don't know why you assume a recruit all of a sudden don't care about playing

Not only that, but don't you think a recruit understands that there is more money to made by showing off talent and going to the NFL?  Seems pretty obvious.

[AUght2win 6,836]

11 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Even this argument is wrong. You don't think us winning don't have anything to do with money? You think we would sell out if we sucked? You can look at Tennessee and see how wrong that is. 

And people literally went to see Batman for who played joker. The film was highly acclaimed for the strong cast of villains

You are veering off a lot. The argument is for all of college football. Auburn was used as an example. 

Let's say the best high school prospects wanted an immediate payday and went to play in the CFL. The NCAA's talent pool would go down. Every team would essentially have to use replacement players sort of like the NFL has had to do during strikes. College football wouldn't hurt at all. People don't care if the total quality of football is good or not. They care that their team wins. A change in the NCAA's talent pool wouldn't effect that and it wouldn't effect money. 

[AUght2win 6,836]

23 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Right so just don't pay them....just let injustice keep happening. And it doesn't make any sense to say it sounds great until you tell someone who isn't trained in such explains how it works....I'm sure you couldn't explain the constitution in detail but I'm sure you like it

LMAO "injustice". This is what blows my mind. Let's cool the word choice. Willingly playing a sport, in world class facilities, with world class coaches and trainers, in historic venues, in front of millions of adoring fans, while getting free education, board, and food is a far cry from "injustice". You probably agreed with Lebron when he described an employer-employee relationship as "slavery". 

[oldaufeller 367]

Consider who is driving this whole idea - California - where selling entertainment is big business and entertainers get big bucks.  So using that logic it seems if football (or sports players) entertain us they should be payed. Alright - 

Point 1 - The schools will do the paying (as the NCAA doesn't have the money) and now you've added additional payload to the budget.  Something they really don't want as they are trying to address all the horror of student debt.  But hey, let's add more student debt to pay sports players.  The proceeds from sports is already in the school's budget - you're adding payroll.

Point 2 - OK, pay the players and eliminate the scholarships. They pay full tuition, room & board and all the other benefits.  Great - $60000 a year to buy back what they were getting with scholarship but now with the added benefit of TAXES!

Point 3 - The NCAA is recognized as a national network to collect money on the player's behalf. Wonderful, distribute 40% of the retained earnings and every athlete gets 35 dollars and 62 cents (US currency of course.)

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

If the local bowling alley wants to promote that Boobee Whitlow is hanging out there from 2-4 on his damn time, then what's wrong with that?  Bowling alley gets more people.  Boobee makes some money.  Everyone wins.

Because someone at the bowling alley thinks Boobie's signature on a postcard is worth $100,000.  And if Tua would come to Texas, his signature would be worth $200.000. There is no base for defining equity for these athletes in the open market.  Oops.  It's a bidding contest with a lot of future promises.  

[cole256 17,059]

2 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

LMAO "injustice". This is what blows my mind. Let's cool the word choice. Willingly playing a sport, in world class facilities, with world class coaches and trainers, in historic venues, in front of millions of adoring fans, while getting free education, board, and food is a far cry from "injustice". You probably agreed with Lebron when he described an employer-employee relationship as "slavery". 

This is same thing you did last time, but yeah guys making millions off a billion dollar industry while you don't get any capital and maybe 100,000 of things they don't even have to pay for is injustice. 

You probably have the same mind as the people that used to tell blacks they should be happy to work the land instead of having a thought to own their own

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

Consider who is driving this whole idea - California - where selling entertainment is big business and entertainers get big bucks.  So using that logic it seems if football (or sports players) entertain us they should be payed. Alright - 

Point 1 - The schools will do the paying (as the NCAA doesn't have the money) and now you've added additional payload to the budget.  Something they really don't want as they are trying to address all the horror of student debt.  But hey, let's add more student debt to pay sports players.  The proceeds from sports is already in the school's budget - you're adding payroll.

Point 2 - OK, pay the players and eliminate the scholarships. They pay full tuition, room & board and all the other benefits.  Great - $60000 a year to buy back what they were getting with scholarship but now with the added benefit of TAXES!

Point 3 - The NCAA is recognized as a national network to collect money on the player's behalf. Wonderful, distribute 40% of the retained earnings and every athlete gets 35 dollars and 62 cents (US currency of course.)

Because someone at the bowling alley thinks Boobie's signature on a postcard is worth $100,000.  And if Tua would come to Texas, his signature would be worth $200.000. There is no base for defining equity for these athletes in the open market.  Oops.  It's a bidding contest with a lot of future promises.  

Consider reading my post.  I'm not proposing that the schools pay for anything more than they already do.  And again I ask, why do we hate capitalism?  Anyone else can make money off of their likeness at a university, including a student on full academic scholarship, but an athlete can't.  That's some serious BS.

[cole256 17,059]

3 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

Consider who is driving this whole idea - California - where selling entertainment is big business and entertainers get big bucks.  So using that logic it seems if football (or sports players) entertain us they should be payed. Alright - 

Point 1 - The schools will do the paying (as the NCAA doesn't have the money) and now you've added additional payload to the budget.  Something they really don't want as they are trying to address all the horror of student debt.  But hey, let's add more student debt to pay sports players.  The proceeds from sports is already in the school's budget - you're adding payroll.

Point 2 - OK, pay the players and eliminate the scholarships. They pay full tuition, room & board and all the other benefits.  Great - $60000 a year to buy back what they were getting with scholarship but now with the added benefit of TAXES!

Point 3 - The NCAA is recognized as a national network to collect money on the player's behalf. Wonderful, distribute 40% of the retained earnings and every athlete gets 35 dollars and 62 cents (US currency of course.)

Because someone at the bowling alley thinks Boobie's signature on a postcard is worth $100,000.  And if Tua would come to Texas, his signature would be worth $200.000. There is no base for defining equity for these athletes in the open market.  Oops.  It's a bidding contest with a lot of future promises.  

What does a school get for going to a major bowl? What do they get selling apparel? Tv contracts? But why would you mention those numbers right?

[Zeek 16,650]

If I can play NCAA video games again then I don’t give a damn lol.

At least stop cock blocking the kids from making a YouTube channel and profiting from their own likeness.

[cole256 17,059]

Lol. It don't have anything to do with me but why should those freaking athletes think they deserve anything?

[AUght2win 6,836]

Just now, cole256 said:

This is same thing you did last time, but yeah guys making millions off a billion dollar industry while you don't get any capital and maybe 100,000 of things they don't even have to pay for is injustice. 

You probably have the same mind as the people that used to tell blacks they should be happy to work the land instead of having a thought to own their own

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO yeah that definitely correlates to thinking amateur athletes are already compensated enough. You're just whipped up into envy politics. No, the long snapper at Auburn doesn't deserve 100k a year. I don't want to pay college football players because it's unfeasible and not deserved. 

[AUght2win 6,836]

Just now, Zeek said:

If I can play NCAA video games again then I don’t give a damn lol.

At least stop cock blocking the kids from making a YouTube channel and profiting from their own likeness.

I am totally on board with dumping or revamping the NCAA. They are outrageously weird with their rules. I just don't like the very vague idea of "paying players". Doesn't work on any level. 

[cole256 17,059]

2 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO yeah that definitely correlates to thinking amateur athletes are already compensated enough. You're just whipped up into envy politics. No, the long snapper at Auburn doesn't deserve 100k a year. I don't want to pay college football players because it's unfeasible and not deserved. 

I really don't care what you don't want. You also don't know what it's like to be a D1 athlete. You're just whipped up in ignorance. 

And your highlighted part goes hand in hand with the dumb slavery comment you made

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, AUght2win said:

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO yeah that definitely correlates to thinking amateur athletes are already compensated enough. You're just whipped up into envy politics. No, the long snapper at Auburn doesn't deserve 100k a year. I don't want to pay college football players because it's unfeasible and not deserved. 

Not deserved?  It's literally more expensive to attend a game at Auburn than many NFL stadiums.  The revenue they generate for not only the school, but the town on gamedays, is astronomical.

[AUght2win 6,836]

Just now, cole256 said:

I really don't care what you don't want. You also don't know what it's like to be a D1 athlete. You're just whipped up in ignorance. 

I wish I knew. Walked on twice at Auburn, didn't make it. I did end up working in the athletic department (on a *GASP* free internship). 

If you a D1 athlete thinks it's unfair then why play?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Sport will die at this level if they pay players and keep giving them the goodies.

What happens when a University has to choose between the athletes and the regular students. You pay those athletes don't think tuition isn't going up to cover the cost. So Mr and Mrs Aubie, that additional 4k a year is part of our athletic payment fund. Just think of how much your daughters academic experience will be enhanced watching Auburn beat Sanford 56-10.

Lol, which btw... will kill other programs. Tuition cost increases, tickets increases, donor level increases. I'm sorry if we are paying players then that OOC schedule  better look like Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Penn State. Paying players and then paying a Sanford millions to come in and take a loss to keep their program alive. Screw that. I don't pay  to  go watch the Dallas Stars play the Columbus Cottonmouths. I pay to see the Astro's or Ranger's, there better not be any Madison Trash Panda's on the schedule.

I have no issue paying them if we give em like 30k a year, cut scholarships, cut books, cut living, cut stipends, and that 30k is taxed. Your job is to catch a football, you are no better than Julie that spends her nights outside of class slinging drinks and being hit on by drunks.That is her job. You make Auburn money, she makes X bar money.

I've read the articles, I have relatives that work for Auburn. That money isn't going back into academics. Hell they don't even reimburse for the tuition they take to support Auburn's programs now. Without the academic side of Auburn well..... there is no Auburn.

[cole256 17,059]

Just now, AUght2win said:

I wish I knew. Walked on twice at Auburn, didn't make it. I did end up working in the athletic department (on a *GASP* free internship). 

If you a D1 athlete thinks it's unfair then why play?

Sounds like if you don't like it here then leave.....

[cole256 17,059]

1 minute ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Sport will die at this level if they pay players and keep giving them the goodies.

What happens when a University has to choose between the athletes and the regular students. You pay those athletes don't think tuition isn't going up to cover the cost. So Mr and Mrs Aubie, that additional 4k a year is part of our athletic payment fund. Just think of how much your daughters academic experience will be enhanced watching Auburn beat Sanford 56-10.

Lol, which btw... will kill other programs. Tuition cost increases, tickets increases, donor level increases. I'm sorry if we are paying players then that OOC schedule  better look like Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Penn State. Paying players and then paying a Sanford millions to come in and take a loss to keep their program alive. Screw that. I don't pay  to  go watch the Dallas Stars play the Columbus Cottonmouths. I pay to see the Astro's or Ranger's, there better not be any Madison Trash Panda's on the schedule.

I have no issue paying them if we give em like 30k a year, cut scholarships, cut books, cut living, cut stipends, and that 30k is taxed. Your job is to catch a football, you are no better than Julie that spends her nights outside of class slinging drinks and being hit on by drunks.That is her job. You make Auburn money, she makes X bar money.

I've read the articles, I have relatives that work for Auburn. That money isn't going back into academics. Hell they don't even reimburse for the tuition they take to support Auburn's programs now. Without the academic side of Auburn well..... there is no Auburn.

And little Julie who is a legacy and got scholarships out of her ass even though she's just an average student isn't any better than the guy who has to spend 15 hours of his day doing what he's told. 

[AUght2win 6,836]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not deserved?  It's literally more expensive to attend a game at Auburn than many NFL stadiums.  The revenue they generate for not only the school, but the town on gamedays, is astronomical.

What makes this possible? Auburn - the brand. Auburn - the school. Auburn - the history. Auburn - the alumni. Auburn - the fanbase. Fans don't come to watch world class athletes. They come to root for whoever in the hell is wearing Navy Blue. Whether it's Cam or me or you. That's why the argument falls flat. If the entire NCAA had to use scrubs as replacement players, people would still watch. That's why the service they offer isn't contingent on their own individual value (Capitalism).

Not so with the NFL. People go to NFL games to see stars and athletic prowess. That's why replacement players didn't work.

[oldaufeller 367]

The NCAA is for collegiate amateur sporting events.  This legislation opens the door for a professional collegiate team.  So if Arkansas wants to petition the MLB to sanction their baseball team as a AAA ball club - good luck to them.  Don't expect to see them at next year's SEC tournament. They can on load the payroll, contract management, etc. - but remember AAA teams don't pay well and are usually money sinkholes anyway.  Maybe Arkansas's baseball fan base is big enough to support a collegiate AAA team but why bother. A AAA club you want to be profitable -  U of Arkansas still has to meet accreditation requirements with it's students.  

It's an idea that I can't find a reasonable construction.  I don't opposed students making money.  Perhaps pay them hourly for game time? 25 bucks an hour for 4 hours each Saturday.  The current allowed stipends dwarf that amount.

[Maverick.AU 13,279]

Damn... this thread sure did go to hell...