Marshall: Paying players

[gr82be 14,441]

16 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

Do you live in the real world?  Do you think that kind of favoritism doesn't exist already.....for various reasons?  

So your solution is to hold back everybody because some may not make as much money? 

I say let the athletes make money from their talents just like everyone else. Some may be more successful than others but that's life in general. 

 

I've been peeking at this thread all day at work and just got home. Belle, I agree 100% with your point even though I'm not in the corner of paying players just yet. But you are correct, the stars of sports make more money that the blue collar athletes on every professional level. Why would or should it be different in college. 

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

57 minutes ago, DAG said:

I just want to confirm with you being okay with this, you are okay with more prominent schools reaching in their bag to promote this, correct? So now, if Bama can get big time boosters to say we will assure you you will get this much money for signed stuff if you come here, you will be okay with that? Or if USC says, we have all these sports where you can really make money off your signature, you will be okay with that?

They are ALREADY doing that. RIGHT NOW. And they have done it for years. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

46 minutes ago, Eagle-1 said:

Just so I'm clear on your position, you're ok with the more popular star players on respective teams making boat loads of money while the backup right tackle makes essentially nothing? Or another scenario, how about the hot equestrian female making money off of making herself available for a calendar photo shoot, while her teammate, homely Helen can't do the same?  Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes, yes I am.  Again, this is called pure capitalism.  Get money while you can.  I make more than people on my "team" at work every day, but we put in the same hours.  Is that fair?  Arguably not, but it's out financial system at work.

[DAG 33,997]

Just now, Tigerbelle said:

They are ALREADY doing that. RIGHT NOW. And they have done it for years. 

I am sure they are but now it’s completely at will and open. So, like I said I am not against players making their money. Only do not COMPLAIN when they choose to completely make decisions solely on the financial aspect. I am not saying you will do that but I know people get upset for various reasons already. 

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

Just now, gr82be said:

I've been peeking at this thread all day at work and just got home. Belle, I agree 100% with your point even though I'm not in the corner of paying players just yet. But you are correct, the stars of sports make more money that the blue collar athletes on every professional level. Why would or should it be different in college. 

Better get on board,because it's coming one day soon. If it had been addressed fairly years ago, then the world of college athletics would actually be less corrupt than it is right now. 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

5 hours ago, AUght2win said:

It will make college football a profession for 18 year old kids. There will be agents. It will be a lot more gross than it currently is. Besides, I have yet to see anyone explain how it will work. Every D1 kid gets paid equally? An arbitrator determines their worth? Does their pay go up if they go from zero to hero (Baker Mayfield going from walk-on to Heisman). And how will we keep other sports afloat when they depend entirely on the money football generates? 

I'd also think we would start discussing contracts.

So they come to Auburn do we get them for 4 years of eligibility? No transfer portal, no leaving early for the NFL. Do we get to fine them for for missing classes? Auburn spends about 550k a year per scholarship football player.

If we are paying players I don't believe there should be any 4 games in you decide you wanna go elsewhere.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I am sure they are but now it’s completely at will and open. So, like I said I am not against players making their money. Only do not COMPLAIN when they choose to completely make decisions solely on the financial aspect. I am not saying you will do that but I know people get upset for various reasons already. 

The athletes ALREADY DO make decisions based solely on the financial aspect. Why do you think bammer is so popular? Or the basketball blue bloods? They have financial systems set up to pay players under the table in various ways.

[GoAU 1,600]

16 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

You were allowed to work. And rugby is not raking in billions in the U.S. Neither is ROTC. Not comparable. 

You’re correct, I was allowed to work - I did it to pay my tuition, room and board.  Which by the way, the football players don’t have to pay 

There are no schools where football takes in billions.  Most schools barely break even.  Are you advocating schools paying as a % of each schools revenue, or just dividing up all college football money across all schools?   Do all players get paid the same?   Just scholarship or walk one?   What about other sports?   

So many loopholes and complications for kids that are already getting a free education and cost of living for playing a game a lot of us played in high school for free, and would have gladly played in college too.  If they truly can’t survive on the stipend, then expand it within reason, but they are not being taken advantage of.  

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

24 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

And 5 million in tuition fee's is pulled from the academic side to help the athletic department already. That is over half of the reserve profit that was made from athletics in 2018 after operation costs (yes even after tv money). The Wellness kitchen that athletes get to eat free at cost a regular student 10 at day and 20 at night. That was built by forcing all students (on and off) to incur a mandatory meal plan cost and any money not used, instead of rolling over, went into the building of the kitchen.

SO thats why I HAD to buy a meal plan.      BTW,  Content makes me angry not you posting it.   

[DAG 33,997]

9 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

The athletes ALREADY DO make decisions based solely on the financial aspect. Why do you think bammer is so popular? Or the basketball blue bloods? They have financial systems set up to pay players under the table in various ways.

Not all of them make it purely off of financial aspect. That second statement is purely speculation on your part. Alabama is popular because they have shown they can win consistently, just like Clemson is so popular. Winning is a huge proposition for athletes as it gives them the exposure needed to get to the next level and many of them want to get to the next level. Now, this does not mean they DON'T GIVE OUT BENEFITS. However, I can see why they are popular. But guess what? , a lot of SEC schools also think we fall in that category. We were not very good last year and right now we have a top ten rated class? How is that possible? Arkansas, Mississippi State fans think we are just as guilty as those other schools. Again, majority of that is pure speculation. However, now, you open up  a Pandora's box. Why should the stud athletes we get from Georgia come to Auburn, if Georgia Tech says, you can stay closer to home and sell you stuff in the Atlanta Metro Market? Now you are closer home, you can have a stable income and still play football. A lot of different things influence those decisions. Again, I am not against athletes doing what is best for them, but don't get upset when the Haves really exploit it to their benefit. 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

11 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

The athletes ALREADY DO make decisions based solely on the financial aspect. Why do you think bammer is so popular? Or the basketball blue bloods? They have financial systems set up to pay players under the table in various ways.

It might be coming but doesn't mean it will be a good result. Take 2018 at Auburn. The university academic side funded 7.7 million dollars. Athletics only returned 2.4 of that. What do you think will happen when more and more of tuition/academics is funneled to athletics with less return due to paying athletes? EA had no issues getting rid of its college game, I think universities will do the same.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

It might be coming but doesn't mean it will be a good result. Take 2018 at Auburn. The university academic side funded 7.7 million dollars. Athletics only returned 2.4 of that. What do you think will happen when more and more of tuition/academics is funneled to athletics with less return due to paying athletes? EA had no issues getting rid of its college game, I think universities will do the same.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Big universities will have a major problem.  The pressure from the local community alone would be enormous to keep playing.  Those businesses in downtown would lose so much cash if AU didn't play football there 7 days a year.  Not to mention enrollment numbers are likely to dwindle.  Just look at AU's applications the year after we won in 2010.  The raw numbers went through the roof, and with that, our average quality of accepted applicant.

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

Getting payed for their image is kind of a ridiculous notion in the long run.   Lowest case:  there are 3 big schools per state.  each with 100  athletes  that is 15,000 athletes in any given year that would be trying to promote something.   the market can not handle that.  The athletes word would become  worthless.  It would be everywhere.

 

Most schools have 100 on the football team alone.  Add in baseball, basketball, equestrian, lacrosse, etc.,  there must be 100,000 student athletes in any given year that would   try  to make money off their image. 

 

SO they can use their image to promote things....What happens when the Athlete decides to promote something that doesn't paint the  university in a good light?  Like a porno site?  Can you fire the athlete edit:  off the team? 

Can you fire them if they under perform? (in their sport,  not the porno site)

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

You’re correct, I was allowed to work - I did it to pay my tuition, room and board.  Which by the way, the football players don’t have to pay 

There are no schools where football takes in billions.  Most schools barely break even.  Are you advocating schools paying as a % of each schools revenue, or just dividing up all college football money across all schools?   Do all players get paid the same?   Just scholarship or walk one?   What about other sports?   

So many loopholes and complications for kids that are already getting a free education and cost of living for playing a game a lot of us played in high school for free, and would have gladly played in college too.  If they truly can’t survive on the stipend, then expand it within reason, but they are not being taken advantage of.  

NCAA sports.....not just football......make billions and are sold all over the world in various forms and products. And the athletes should be able to make money as well.

If Onterio McCaleb could've sold an autographed jersey for $500 or whatever, and used that money to help his family then I don't see why that would harm anyone, or  hurt the sport of college football. He wasn't allowed to do that. His family couldn't share in the food or shelter that he had while at Auburn. That's what you are not getting. A lot of these kids want to help their destitute families. It is a bigger picture than just what the athlete is getting while he's on campus.

Trent Richardson was signing memorabilia in the back room of T-Town Men's Wear for $1500 a pop and everybody knew it.....even the NCAA knew it.

Why was every player on every team not allowed that same opportunity?  

 

 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Big universities will have a major problem.  The pressure from the local community alone would be enormous to keep playing.  Those businesses in downtown would lose so much cash if AU didn't play football there 7 days a year.  Not to mention enrollment numbers are likely to dwindle.  Just look at AU's applications the year after we won in 2010.  The raw numbers went through the roof, and with that, our average quality of accepted applicant.

I agree with the applications and the quality. That is a legit payoff, why Alabama is bringing in so many out of state students. Auburn use to be more out of state than it is now (over half in the 90's), Georgia's Hope Scholarship hit that really hard.

But I still question if you increase tuition to pay athletes, on top of fast rising tuition charges as it is, that are already getting a full ride your students will start going to others for their education. Your USA's, UNA's, Troy's etc will benefit academically as these universities are already about 3k cheaper per semester than Auburn and Alabama.

Junior colleges are already benefiting from rising tuition costs at 4 year institutes.

[oldaufeller 367]

First - drop the narrative that there are some getting rich from college sports.  Who's getting rich?  NCAA had enough retained earnings to pay each student athlete 83 dollars and change if they distributed 100% retained earnings last year.

AUBURN: (One of the few profitable exceptions)

Total Sports Related Revenues $105,951,256 Total Sports Related Expenses $96,315,836 Net $9,635,420

Most universities operate athletics at a net loss.  16 NBA teams operate at a net loss.  Auburn is one of a few that operate at a profit.  Well that is 2 of the 22 NCAA sanctioned sports at Auburn are profitable. The rest are a net loss. Only a few schools have a profit in athletics, the ones that do are putting it back into facilities (capital costs,) operational costs or the general budget. So anyone who is throwing around the idea that some magical pot of billions is laying around and these kids are getting any of it need to get off their unicorn and think.  

Several are advocating making money by monetizing their name and likeness. I see this as the only option and I don't like it.  This money can only come from outside the traditional institutional cash flow - i.e. selling yourself in the open market.  Now it's a bidding war.  I see no other path. Hit me with your best argument or alternative.  I take criticism well so fire away (actually I've reached an age were I really don't care about what other people think of me so you can't hurt my feelings - one of the few perks of growing old.)  Also who are their "professional peers."  I would say farm teams and minor leagues.  So how does farm/minor compensation at 12-36K a year compare to a D1 athlete compensated at 200K+ a year.  A lot of the farm/minor league players have to pay their own insurance, pay club fees, gym fees, equipment, etc.  

So I'm going straight to an real practical example and we'll see where we wind up.  There are a bunch of Auburn #2 and #34 jerseys around and it's not because those numbers are any more special than the other 98 in 00 to 99.  They have their value in the names of the individuals that wore them.  Now who own's the royalty from those shirts? That's right in the shed of you namesake/likeness profiteers.   I can take a white t-shirt and print a 2 or 34 on it.  How many will I sell?  Or same plain white shirts with Newton or Jackson on the back?  Plain white shirt - "NEWTON." Some of you more entrepreneurial minded get yourself 100 white t-shirts and print Jackson on the back and sell them next weekend.  Good luck.  So when you put that name on an Auburn jersey there is some value.  It's why the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB teams sell shirts and split the proceeds among the team.  Ouch.  So the only real reason to give an athlete money directly outside the in place compensation is to grease the gears.  I see no good path here.  The money, so to speak is in the 230K+ yr at Auburn.  They can go pro right now - in the minors/farm.  Even just the athletes living expenses are about the total a minor/farm player gets.  Add all the other on top.  

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

17 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

NCAA sports.....not just football......make billions and are sold all over the world in various forms and products. And the athletes should be able to make money as well.

If Onterio McCaleb could've sold an autographed jersey for $500 or whatever, and used that money to help his family then I don't see why that would harm anyone, or  hurt the sport of college football. He wasn't allowed to do that. His family couldn't share in the food or shelter that he had while at Auburn. That's what you are not getting. A lot of these kids want to help their destitute families. It is a bigger picture than just what the athlete is getting while he's on campus.

Trent Richardson was signing memorabilia in the back room of T-Town Men's Wear for $1500 a pop and everybody knew it.....even the NCAA knew it.

Why was every player on every team not allowed that same opportunity?  

 

 

 McCaleb could sell a jersey for $500 to help his family.   the regular student from the SAME family,   with academic scholarships,  has to pay $30,000 per year hurting their  hard up families extremely hard.... often indebting  them for decades.   It is my only problem with capitalism.   We have people making millions of dollars because they can throw a ball 100 MPH,   or hit a ball into a hole 300 yards away.  While our police force, firemen and military are putting their lives and families future on the line every day for a "living wage". 

 

What would McCaleb have done if he had to pay tuition?     

[oldaufeller 367]

Someone please pull the financial sheets and show me who is making billions.  On the other hand, I think Bryan Bresee signature on a Auburn jersey might be worth 100K, I mean, as long as it's official, as in on the team.  Hope Dabo doesn't get too upset. It's capitalism.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

25 minutes ago, DAG said:

Not all of them make it purely off of financial aspect. That second statement is purely speculation on your part. Alabama is popular because they have shown they can win consistently, just like Clemson is so popular. Winning is a huge proposition for athletes as it gives them the exposure needed to get to the next level and many of them want to get to the next level. Now, this does not mean they DON'T GIVE OUT BENEFITS. However, I can see why they are popular. But guess what? , a lot of SEC schools also think we fall in that category. We were not very good last year and right now we have a top ten rated class? How is that possible? Arkansas, Mississippi State fans think we are just as guilty as those other schools. Again, majority of that is pure speculation. However, now, you open up  a Pandora's box. Why should the stud athletes we get from Georgia come to Auburn, if Georgia Tech says, you can stay closer to home and sell you stuff in the Atlanta Metro Market? Now you are closer home, you can have a stable income and still play football. A lot of different things influence those decisions. Again, I am not against athletes doing what is best for them, but don't get upset when the Haves really exploit it to their benefit. 

It is most certainly NOT "pure speculation" and I have reason to know that it is a fact. You have no idea what information I have.

But even besides my own personal knowledge.......those decisions are already being made for the exact reasons you are saying could happen. It is already a factor, and you are naive if you think a kid from Hawaii and his entire family moved from paradise to Alabaster,AL because they just love bammer.  The U of Hawaii would never be able to offer the financial package that the nickster has backing up his recruiting. Too far from home? We'll just move Mama and the kids with you.....a la Trent Richardson. 

 

 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

51 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

SO thats why I HAD to buy a meal plan.      BTW,  Content makes me angry not you posting it.   

Yup, they used the guise of if students ate on campus they would study more. Anything you didn't spend went into building that and supporting that Wellness Kitchen.

[DAG 33,997]

5 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

It is most certainly NOT "pure speculation" and I have reason to know that it is a fact. You have no idea what information I have.

But even besides my own personal knowledge.......those decisions are already being made for the exact reasons you are saying could happen. It is already a factor, and you are naive if you think a kid from Hawaii and his entire family moved from paradise to Alabaster,AL because they just love bammer.  The U of Hawaii would never be able to offer the financial package that the nickster has backing up his recruiting. Too far from home? We'll just move Mama and the kids with you.....a la Trent Richardson. 

 

 

I am going to ask you nicely not to call me naive ? I want to have a very respectable debate, but based off the last thread about crow , I am going to just bow out of this because the energy you are giving me is going to make me want to match it . 

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

10 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

 McCaleb could sell a jersey for $500 to help his family.   the regular student from the SAME family,   with academic scholarships,  has to pay $30,000 per year hurting their  hard up families extremely hard.... often indebting  them for decades.   It is my only problem with capitalism.   We have people making millions of dollars because they can throw a ball 100 MPH,   or hit a ball into a hole 300 yards away.  While our police force, firemen and military are putting their lives and families future on the line every day for a "living wage". 

 

What would McCaleb have done if he had to pay tuition?     

That is completely beside the point. He had some talent that he has used to lift his family out of extreme poverty. Good for him for taking that opportunity and making the most of it. 

A student of modest means can also use whatever talent they have to make money without fear of reprisals for them or their school. Policemen have side gigs, as do firemen. 

Student loan debt is a separate issue, and college athletes do have some student loan debt as well.

[oldaufeller 367]

3 minutes ago, DAG said:

I am going to ask you nicely not to call me naive ? I want to have a very respectable debate, but based off the last thread about crow , I am going to just bow out of this because the energy you are giving me is going to make me want to match it . 

Hi DAG!! BTW we're 4-0.  You can take the bag off your profile.  Just sayin'

[DAG 33,997]

So anyhow I am not going to waste my time arguing about what institute pays whom and who is cheating or whatever?

I do want to get back to the discussion and the points @oldaufeller

[DAG 33,997]

Just now, oldaufeller said:

Hi DAG!! BTW we're 4-0.  You can take the bag off your profile.  Just sayin'

Haha this bag is the reason we are 4-0. Reverse jinx since the first game. Now I must keep the bag on.