Marshall: Paying players

[oldaufeller 367]

Oh this jinx business.  I couldn't watch the game live this past weekend and we won.  That means.... oh man... I'm getting depressed.

[DAG 33,997]

2 minutes ago, oldaufeller said:

Oh this jinx business.  I couldn't watch the game live this past weekend and we won.  That means.... oh man... I'm getting depressed.

Truly I am interested to see a rebuttal to your posts. It’s very well thought out and written. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

38 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

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.

It's a big reason why I don't believe in the university paying the athletes beyond scholarship/room/board.  But let the players go out and make money on their own via their likeness.  Appearances, signings, etc.

[gravejd 3,270]

I like the idea of the players being allowed to go make whatever money they can on the side versus the university paying them. I think you can still keep some of the amateur feel if you are not being paid for the actual sport you are playing. It also takes the burden off the school for footing the bill. 

I don’t really see it impacting recruiting too much either honestly. Each team only has so many slots. The top schools get the top talent anyway so it’s not like their isn’t already an advantage for those schools. I think a star QB can make about the same in side money being at most power 5 schools. The money is all about the tv time and that evenly divided out. Heck you could even leave the rule in place saying boosters can’t pay players being they represent the university which is strictly not allowed to pay players. 

Maybe I’m missing it but this looks doable to me

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's a big reason why I don't believe in the university paying the athletes beyond scholarship/room/board.  But let the players go out and make money on their own via their likeness.  Appearances, signings, etc.

I'm more open to the likeness. I like you and don't believe anything should come from the university.

Problem I have with that though would be using Belle's example.

So a guy like McCaleb is a big recruit, starts off well. Texas booster three games in approaches him asks him how he is doing financially. Well I get 500 a jersey. Well Mr. McCaleb I can guarantee you double that in Austin with out boosters. You and I both know UT would outspend Auburn without trying. Here is an example and the booster gives him cash. McCaleb hit's Gus's office. Sorry coach, while I appreciate what Auburn has done for me I believe it is in my best interest to move on. I will be leaving the team and entering the transfer portal.

You now have free agency in the first 4 games of the season.

Also if they are receiving payment for anything related to their athletics doesn't that make their scholarships taxable also? Cause they would have to pay taxes on the other income.

[gr82be 14,441]

19 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 . 

Respect and thank you for your part of some good discussion to read tonight. 

[GoAU 1,600]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's a big reason why I don't believe in the university paying the athletes beyond scholarship/room/board.  But let the players go out and make money on their own via their likeness.  Appearances, signings, etc.

The only problem I see with this is that it’s no different than just legalizing booster financed pay for play. 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

8 hours ago, tigerbrotha12 said:

Belle, what do they need to make ends meet for? They are living in free housing with free food and free entertainment while going to school for free, as well as a stipend, often, to spend freely, and athletic gear from the school and bowl games alike. The argument is that college football players are already being paid in the form of all this free stuff. You're right, they have less time on their hands to work a job, but they are not paying expenses like the average college student. 

Do you think that other people on campus don't bring in money to their school? What about students as potential donors to a school one day? You don't think we should pay them now for the money they may bring in later? What about theater and arts students that often put on shows that brings in a few thousand dollars? They shouldn't get a cut of it too? 

The point is that it is a school. These players are free to play college football if they would like, and try their hand at the NFL without going to college. Although it's difficult to do, that is an option for them to choose. There are plenty of things in life that I have to do to ensure my future success in which I don't get paid. Why should college athletes be any different? Because they work hard and generate money for the University? Tell that to all the other students on campus who participate in research projects, SAE Formula team, business competitions, building science contests.. Try telling that to the AU Marching Band who sell albums every year and don't distribute out the money they make freely to all members of the band. Tell that to the Auburn University Singers that hold 3-5 shows every year and bring in roughly $10,000 on the weekend plus money from all other events they do. Students don't see a dime of that to spend as they wish. How about the students that speak at Auburn Development Campaign events that are literally there to raise money for the University by using their business talents and savy speaking and schmoozing to rich donors and don't get paid a lick. 

Plenty of students have talents that make the University money and they don't ever get paid for it. If you're going to make a standard for one group of people, you have apply the same standard to others. 

 

That is good stuff!!  @oldaufeller--wow on your insights, too.  Thank you for sharing!

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

58 minutes ago, Tigerbelle said:

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.

 

 

Name just one 4 million dollar a year side gig.   I doubt there is one fireman, or policeman  that makes anywhere close to a top pro athlete no matter how many side gigs.  I don't know for a fact but I doubt there is anyone in the military making as much as a top pitcher, QB or point guard.  

 

Student load debt and tuition for Academics at a school  of HIGHER LEARNING is the issue.   If  it wasn't the issue,  McCaleb would have had to help his family.  He had most everything paid for.  What happens to the more academically strong student that is not an athlete.   Say McCaleb's smarter younger brother?  He can not even afford tuition let alone a platform to sell his image from.  

Regular student CAN use their talents to make money,  But the school does not back them or give them any kind of platform..  The school does give the athlete a platform.  Regular students do not make  money  using the university name.  Hence a band can  not call themselves Auburn Tigers without permission and fees,  even if they are student. .    The athlete is living off the university name until they go pro. Without it they have nothing.

Any student  with a full ride that has major debt coming out of college did some serious overspending.  Imagine that same student not being an athlete and having to pay for school also.

The point.   The athlete would not be able to sell his image without a university name behind it.  If Joe Blow had NOT gone to university ,  how much could he have sold a signed  jersey for?  I don't have a problem with selling a jersey,  the  problem is  using the university name to back them.  when 1/4 million dollars over 4 years (inflation I know) . was not enough.    All this while the academic student HAS to work just to pay the minimum  toward  tuition.

 

I don't like using McCaleb as an example.

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

LMAO!  my wife just said athletes should be paid out of the coaches salaries.  

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,679]

The "can Auburn put up the same money as (insert bigger schools here)" line was a low blow to win over neutral readers lol

Something that doesn't get brought up, the sport is handled with less love than ever before. The little guy is getting less spotlight, non CFP bowls barely get half a bar, and programs - and players for those programs - that do make money are hogging all the pertinent air time. The playoff era is doing its own "damage" onto the parity of the sport 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,679]

56 minutes ago, gravejd said:

I like the idea of the players being allowed to go make whatever money they can on the side versus the university paying them. I think you can still keep some of the amateur feel if you are not being paid for the actual sport you are playing. It also takes the burden off the school for footing the bill. 

I don’t really see it impacting recruiting too much either honestly. Each team only has so many slots. The top schools get the top talent anyway so it’s not like their isn’t already an advantage for those schools. I think a star QB can make about the same in side money being at most power 5 schools. The money is all about the tv time and that evenly divided out. Heck you could even leave the rule in place saying boosters can’t pay players being they represent the university which is strictly not allowed to pay players. 

Maybe I’m missing it but this looks doable to me

I just dont know who it'd fail in terms of parity, that's the one thing people want to bring up when they say "it'll bring down CFB". The prestigious money bags that hire awful coaches (USC, Michigan, UTk), they arent going to suddenly have BoT that understand how the game is played. I would honestly say theres more parity that could be made for this, as there's money out there in the regions that arent CFB heavy, and not all the teams in those regions are good in basketball, baseball, etc. You could see an elite New England area team. A few more competitive West/Northwest teams. Its not like it could create LESS parity as Alabama-Clemson-Oklahoma-insert top 7 program all time (or MSU, once)

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

I'm more open to the likeness. I like you and don't believe anything should come from the university.

Problem I have with that though would be using Belle's example.

So a guy like McCaleb is a big recruit, starts off well. Texas booster three games in approaches him asks him how he is doing financially. Well I get 500 a jersey. Well Mr. McCaleb I can guarantee you double that in Austin with out boosters. You and I both know UT would outspend Auburn without trying. Here is an example and the booster gives him cash. McCaleb hit's Gus's office. Sorry coach, while I appreciate what Auburn has done for me I believe it is in my best interest to move on. I will be leaving the team and entering the transfer portal.

You now have free agency in the first 4 games of the season.

Also if they are receiving payment for anything related to their athletics doesn't that make their scholarships taxable also? Cause they would have to pay taxes on the other income.

I think you'd have to get rid of the 4 game red shirt rule.  Another option would be to do more partial scholarships similar to baseball.  So if Texas values a kid more than we do, then they offer him a full ride.  Maybe we only offer half a scholly.  Or vice versa.  Let the kids decide what is more important: potential earnings from likeness (which aren't guaranteed) and a partial scholly or a full ride + likeness earnings.  I think this would help the parity conversation too as it would be harder for elite teams to stock up on talent.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

The only problem I see with this is that it’s no different than just legalizing booster financed pay for play. 

Nope.  But that's happening anyway.  Just let it happen in the open.

[aucom96 1,623]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope.  But that's happening anyway.  Just let it happen in the open.

A trickle  becomes a flood. Already the parity in college football has become increasingly fleeting. It would be non-existent after. 
 

Take the numbers off the fan jerseys and let them go pro out of high school if you want “fairness”. I’d be interested to see how the free tuition, food, facilities, board, etc stand up in value against four years of pay in the baseball minors.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, aucom96 said:

A trickle  becomes a flood. Already the parity in college football has become increasingly fleeting. It would be non-existent after. 
 

Take the numbers off the fan jerseys and let them go pro out of high school if you want “fairness”. I’d be interested to see how the free tuition, food, facilities, board, etc stand up in value against four years of pay in the baseball minors.

Having worked in the minors, I can actually answer this.  And the answer is that it all depends on either your draft position or if you are a foreign born player who got a massive contract.  Base salary in the minors for guys on their first contract is minimal.  Most guys in Single-A are only making around $1,200 - $1,600 per month and live 3-4 to an apartment just to afford it.  But if you're a bonus baby (i.e. high draft pick), you would have potentially millions in the bank.

As for your first point, I think some fundamental changes are coming to college football.  But I can't buy the argument that players shouldn't earn money off of their likeness just because it's not good for the sport.  It's wholly un-American to tell people that they can't earn money in a free society.

[McLoofus 35,182]

24 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But I can't buy the argument that players shouldn't earn money off of their likeness just because it's not good for the sport.  It's wholly un-American to tell people that they can't earn money in a free society.

This.

Also, the parity argument is weak. There are only so many 5* guys in the country and they're already split up among a select few schools. The rich have already gotten richer. And a lot of kids will actually sell more autographs and jerseys as the BMOC at a, say, Oklahoma State than they would as another face in the crowd at a blue blood program. And the big prize is still going to be an NFL contract, so these kids are still going to go where they can get on the field and level up.  

Typical fear of the unknown drives so much of this conversation. We're already in the age of "free agency" that everybody lost their minds over and the sport seems to be doing just fine. It's always like this. 

[C'viewTiger 242]

13 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm saying it's America and you are worth what someone is willing to pay you. College football has almost always been about the money and the glorification of a school, not the kids.  In the 1920s when Bama really rose to power, they did so because resources were put into football which in turn helped draw a larger enrollment.  It was never about "getting players an education".

If people are so adamant about the purity of the sport, then go watch Division 3.  There are no athletic scholarships at that level.  

or you do like someone else mentioned and allow them to go pro after their freshman year like basketball.  Or start a minor league team as in baseball and let them make the choice.  they accept the risk and go pro to get paid or stay in college for the education benefits and plan for a future.

College football (athletics) is corrupt enough.  Give the kids the choice to go make money or go to college.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, C'viewTiger said:

or you do like someone else mentioned and allow them to go pro after their freshman year like basketball.  Or start a minor league team as in baseball and let them make the choice.  they accept the risk and go pro to get paid or stay in college for the education benefits and plan for a future.

College football (athletics) is corrupt enough.  Give the kids the choice to go make money or go to college.

Yep. Should probably ban all college kids on scholarship of any kind from obtaining any supplemental income whatsoever. If they want a job, they should choose between that or college. Can't have both. That would be evil and ruin our entire university system. 

 

[C'viewTiger 242]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yep. Should probably ban all college kids on scholarship of any kind from obtaining any supplemental income whatsoever. If they want a job, they should choose between that or college. Can't have both. That would be evil and ruin our entire university system. 

 

Loof, did you even read the comment.  No where did I say ban scholarships.  Supplemental income, get a job.  it's what every other discipline in college does.  Yes I know they put in more hours in the workout room and film rooms than some other disciplines.  They knew that before they signed up.  I was an engineer with a family of 5, I know what time management is about.  This isn't about supplemental income or about taking their girls out.  It's about athletes wanting to get paid for what they do on top of the scholarship.

If the pay you get for doing your job is not enough, you will go else where.  That's why I said something about the minor league or the opportunity to go pro after the freshman year. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, C'viewTiger said:

Loof, did you even read the comment.  No where did I say ban scholarships.  Supplemental income, get a job.  it's what every other discipline in college does.  Yes I know they put in more hours in the workout room and film rooms than some other disciplines.  They knew that before they signed up.  I was an engineer with a family of 5, I know what time management is about.  This isn't about supplemental income or about taking their girls out.  It's about athletes wanting to get paid for what they do on top of the scholarship.

If the pay you get for doing your job is not enough, you will go else where.  That's why I said something about the minor league or the opportunity to go pro after the freshman year. 

Yes, I read the comment. You were arguing with Brad, whose primary point is that players should be allowed to maintain ownership of their own name, image and likeness. Which is very much about supplemental income and not about getting paid more by the university. 

[TigerHorn 1,353]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Yep. Should probably ban all college kids on scholarship of any kind from obtaining any supplemental income whatsoever. If they want a job, they should choose between that or college. Can't have both. That would be evil and ruin our entire university system. 

 

If you'd take the time to read all of Old's posts on this, you'd know that any kid who is on scholarship at the grad level, where any university clearly can profit from their work, cannot have outside jobs. 

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,945]

6 hours ago, aucom96 said:

A trickle  becomes a flood. Already the parity in college football has become increasingly fleeting. It would be non-existent after. 
 

Take the numbers off the fan jerseys and let them go pro out of high school if you want “fairness”. I’d be interested to see how the free tuition, food, facilities, board, etc stand up in value against four years of pay in the baseball minors.

Not sure of the minor league numbers,  but I think baseball  players are still only awarded 1/2 of a full ride scholarship.   At AU, I would guess the scholarships for baseball would be about $30,000 worth per year.  so $2,500 per month or so.

Just a guesstimate.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, TigerHorn said:

If you'd take the time to read all of Old's posts on this, you'd know that any kid who is on scholarship at the grad level, where any university clearly can profit from their work, cannot have outside jobs. 

Well that's just false.  I speak from experience here.  I got my Master's from AU on a full scholarship.  AU also paid me a stipend to teach classes as a GTA.  I wrote papers that were accepted into international academic conventions.  But there was nothing precluding me from working an outside job.  In fact, I was recruited and encouraged by our faculty to be a paid tutor in the athletic department a few nights each week.  Others in my class who were also on full ride tended bar or waited tables.  Wasn't uncommon in the least to have an outside gig.

[oldaufeller 367]

24 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well that's just false.  I speak from experience here.  I got my Master's from AU on a full scholarship.  AU also paid me a stipend to teach classes as a GTA.  I wrote papers that were accepted into international academic conventions.  But there was nothing precluding me from working an outside job.  In fact, I was recruited and encouraged by our faculty to be a paid tutor in the athletic department a few nights each week.  Others in my class who were also on full ride tended bar or waited tables.  Wasn't uncommon in the least to have an outside gig.

The information TigerHorn is referring came from me.  And it is not false.  It is explicitly stated in some scholarships where conflict of interest is a concern.  I happen to have two of those scholarships with each of my children.  That clause is very common in research scholarships where physical or intellectual product is produced.  The scholarship and any associated stipend is considered compensation in the context of "work for hire."  The inherent problem is you working for someone outside the university who may pay you and lay claim for your work under the same intellectual property and work for hire laws that the university has claimed.  Obviously you had a scholarship that did not put at risk university rights, therefore you did not have this clause.  All PhD clauses with stipends that I have seen have it.  My older son had to get a waiver to from the university to be paid $100 for each of two text books he was asked to review for a publisher.  It was very clearly stated that if he accepted payment for any work performed outside of his scholarship that his scholarship would be revoked and he would be at risk for being sued for damages and loss to the university.  The clause was so important that both sons had to initial the section and sign a contract.  Consider it the equivalent of a non-compete clause that is very common. As a genuine question, did your scholarship contract require you to notify the department of your outside job?