College players have started organizing: All Players United

[chris98251]

Isn't the easy solution really to allow players to make the decision whether they want to play collegiate sports, or not play collegiate sports? Oh wait, they already have that option.

I'm perfectly fine with any current player not being happy with what they're receiving, what they don't seem to understand is that there is a simple solution, they don't have to be a player anymore. There are tens of thousands of young men and women willing to fill the spots for what is currently on offer.

According to a USA Today report, in 2012, just 23 of 228 Division 1 athletic departments are self sufficient. Of that 23, 16 (even though they technically didn't need the $) were still receiving subsidies from the University. So 7 out of 228 programs are not taking money from the rest of University to fund their operations. Athletic departments should be investigating ways to drive down costs, not looking for ways to add more.

So you would be fine given a chance at education and expected to work for nothing for 5 or 6 years with the threat of a injury that could limit any future income in that profession. Thats not accepting people in your industry buying dinners or paying for trips and or expenses without someone authourizing everything you do. You could not free lance or market anything about your skill set that could return a revenue. Oh and forget looking for potential employers while in your training program, you would lose the accrued time spent and kicked out of the program and could never enroll in another.

Ok I'll buy that. :sarcasm_on:

 

[JSeahawks]

College athletes should be paid according to the earnings of the school's athletic program including all revenue sources such as Pac 12 broadcasting deals.

The only problem I see with that is that the rich in college football will just get richer (in talent), and the poor will have no chance.

It would turn into MLB where 7 or 8 teams have all the talent.

 

[drrew]

So you would be fine given a chance at education and expected to work for nothing for 5 or 6 years with the threat of a injury that could limit any future income in that profession. Thats not accepting people in your industry buying dinners or paying for trips and or expenses without someone authourizing everything you do. You could not free lance or market anything about your skill set that could return a revenue. Oh and forget looking for potential employers while in your training program, you would lose the accrued time spent and kicked out of the program and could never enroll in another.

Ok I'll buy that. :sarcasm_on:

If you're asking whether I would have traded the student loans, the ridiculous jobs, the horrible food, the worrying whether I'd have enough rent money versus the option where I have tuition covered, where I have my housing covered, where I have my food paid for (at a much higher quality than the rest of the student population), where I have all of my books and supplies paid for, and where I receive a $400/quarter clothing allowance? And in return, I practice and play a sport at which I'm one of the top few percent in the world? And anytime I want if I don't like the arrangement I can quit and I'm not asked to pay back a single penny? That's the trade you're asking me about?

I'd have made that trade at anytime.

I don't really care if these guys start getting more pocket money, but spare me the crap about them being taken advantage of. Every single player knows exactly what he or she is signing up for and they are rewarded handsomely in the arrangement. And I'm not quite sure why this point is ignored, but if they don't like the arrangement, they don't have to play anymore. Problem solved.

Should college athletes have better health care, sure, but so should everyone and they're not anywhere near the top of the list of people I feel bad for.

 

[HansGruber]

College athletes should be paid according to the earnings of the school's athletic program including all revenue sources such as Pac 12 broadcasting deals.

The only problem I see with that is that the rich in college football will just get richer (in talent), and the poor will have no chance.

It would turn into MLB where 7 or 8 teams have all the talent.

That's already the case. You don't think Oregon, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and LSU are paying for talent? *snicker*

At least if the payments were above-board, the NCAA could work out a system of rules to encourage some semblance of parity. The current system where only certain players are paid while the school plays blind, deaf, and dumb creates a much larger gap between the haves and have-nots.

And like I said previously, if they're going to call it "amateur" sports, so be it. Scrap all the billion-dollar TV deals. Force all college games to be played only in front of live crowds. Charge only enough admission to pay for the stadium upkeep and facilities/uniforms/etc. Pay the coaches the same crappy wages paid to the professors (or less, since it's only amateur sports and not an actual education). And MOST OF ALL, force the colleges to apply any profits to reduced tuition for in-state students.

It's hilarious listening to these highly-paid Administrators talk about "amateur sports" while taking chartered flights to exclusive vacation spots for "coach conferences", making 10-20x the salary of the best professors, etc. There is nothing "amateur" about college sports and the idea itself is ludicrous. It's just pure and simple greed, the colleges don't want to pay the players because they don't want to share the loot. They don't want to pay anybody. Colleges and the people who run them are notoriously greedy tight-wads.

 

[Sac]

A players compensation should be commensurate to their value.

So what if they get a scholarship? The monetary value of the scholarship is a pittance compared to what these schools rake in on their games.

Subtract the cost of their scholarship from their market value for the team and pay them the difference.

 

[drrew]

A players compensation should be commensurate to their value.

So what if they get a scholarship? The monetary value of the scholarship is a pittance compared to what these schools rake in on their games.

Subtract the cost of their scholarship from their market value for the team and pay them the difference.

What about the players who have a value less than the value of their scholarship?

Antavius Sims is a WR at the UW and is a pretty good student, is supposedly a good kid, but he's a SR and he's about 8th or 9th on the depth chart. In no rational world can it be claimed he's providing the $50k+ of value to the athletic program that he's costing them. If you're running this like a business, would you prefer he gets stripped of his scholarship, or do you just want him to pay the difference in value between what he brings and what he costs?