College Footall Scholarship Suit

[otterinbham 0]

Personally, I'm not for it. Recruiting is bad enough as it is without having bidding wars for 18-year-olds. However, this issue may be forced onto the game soon enough. I'm just curious about everybody's thoughts here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...ourt/index.html

"Has the NCAA illegally fixed the price of an athletic scholarship below the cost of a college education? Or, is the NCAA trying to protect amateurism and competitive balance for its member schools?

A jury in Los Angeles will answer these questions in a trial that will begin on June 12. The jury's answer could be expensive for the NCAA. Very expensive.

Lawyers representing all Division I football and basketball players (there are 11,500 of them) claim that the athletes are shortchanged an average of $2,500 a year because of an arbitrary NCAA limit on scholarships.

If they're right, the athletes are entitled under anti-trust laws to triple damages, a potential liability for the NCAA of more than $86 million for a single year. If the trial includes four years of scholarships, as the players' lawyers suggest, the damage multiplies to $344 million. The NCAA's annual budget is $465 million.

The class action lawsuit is based on an NCAA rule that specifies what may be included in a "grant-in-aid," the NCAA's term for a full-ride scholarship. The GIA does not include school supplies, recommended text books, laundry expenses, health and disability insurance, travel expenses and incidental expenses. Studies of GIA economics have shown that the shortfall averages $2,500 per athlete.

NCAA officials claim the GIA must be limited in order to produce a balance of competition among Division I schools and to protect amateurism.

"For us to produce fair and interesting competition for consumers and fans, we must have a level playing field," said Elsa Cole, the NCAA's top lawyer. "If we eliminate the limit on GIAs, the playing field will not be level. The wealthier schools will be able to recruit and to accumulate all of the better players. The poorer schools would be dropping sports or cutting back on sports because they could not pay the increased GIA."

Cole also defended the GIA cap as a method for ensuring amateurism. "We do not want to pay any more than the cost of education," she said, "because we do not want to make our student-athletes professionals." "

[AUman43 5]

This is an interesting issue. There are others as well that COULD come up any time in this crazy world we live in. It could also be argued that the sudden upward spiral in coaches salaries are not consistent with an "AMATEUR" sport such as college football. It does look like athletes are being taken advantage of for a "mere scholly" when these jokers are making 30-40 million over about the same time period these guys are eligible to play, not even considering how many millions the colleges rake in from ticket sales, concessions, endorsements, etc. Yet another specter on the horizon is black athletes claiming they are essentially "modern slaves" for predominately white colleges who use

their talents. On the other hand, whites could file suit claiming discrimination because approximately 70-80 percent of athletes on division one college football teams are minority athletes. Are whites given an equal chance anymore? Perhaps not!

As you can see, there are a multitude of issues out there just waiting to come through the door. Isn't life interesting?

[SouthLink02 8]

No. I don't think we should. I understand the amount of money they are bringing to schools but I also know that they get ridiculous benefits as football players, free tuition, free food, free study halls with tutots, free stardom with the students and lord knows what they get at bars when they are recognized.

Though paying players X amount may seem like a good idea, I just can't even imagine how many schools would find ways around to give more OR bend rules in so many corners.

[TigerGlide 1]

I could claim that just because I wasn't big enough, fast enough, strong enough or have the athletic ability required, I was discriminated against. I agree that these kids need not have to pay for any school related expenses, but the "money sports" are subsidizing the whole athletic department, it's not as if the money is being pocketed by a group of old guys in the back room (except in the case of Nick Saban...(sarcasm alert)).

[CircleDrill 178]

The article says that players say they are discriminated against because the NCAA puts a cap on the amount of aid they can receive, where the normal student does not have said cap.

They may have a point here. Probably what would make more sense instead of saying "if you play a sport you can only get X-amount of aid each semester" would be to say "if you play a sport, you will live in our dorms, eat in our cafeterias, and get your tuition paid for free...if you don't want to do that, then pay for it yourself." Which is what many schools already do.

I understand the NCAA is trying to avoid the exploitation of loopholes by different schools (Alabama). This is interesting.

All that being said... the purpose of a university is to get an education. A school should teach and research to move society forward. Kids should not come here to get rich. They should get rich after they leave because their education and networking while they were here was sufficient to make those gains.

[SouthLink02 8]

All that being said... the purpose of a university is to get an education. A school should teach and research to move society forward. Kids should not come here to get rich. They should get rich after they leave because their education and networking while they were here was sufficient to make those gains.

Let me take the OTHER side for a second

While I do agree that colleges are for learning....I do think that statement in REALITY just isn't correct....kids these days obviously aren't going to colleges to become NFL players in the future. Everyone? Of course not but everyone that does play wants to be picked in the draft and play in the future.

If schools weren't making SO MUCH FRIGGIN money....I wouldn't say that. Take Virginia Tech for instance. Their school, campus, and city of Blacksberg has exploded in the last 10 years with millions of donation money and increased students, building, bars, ext....the whole city/school benefits from a winning team thus schools IMO are somewhat forced to bend the rules (ie let in kids who wouldnt originally get in) to field good teams...so in essence...they are brought in for football with education second

Did that make sense?