NCAA Football '11-'12

[Valmy]

I agree that something needs to be done, but I admit that anyone that argues that a given player or group of players produces "billions and billions of dollars" makes me suspicious.  One could as easily argue that players split over a trillion dollars worth of educational value, on top of getting to travel and have a chance to play for millions in the pros.

The argument that the players are getting screwed can be countered very simply, really: the fact is that competition for these unpaid positions in extremely intense.  If the situation were so very unfair, this would be untrue.

I think that the salvation of college football probably requires two elements:  the existence of a football equivalent of baseball's minor leagues, so players who have o interest in education (like the entire Oklahoma squad) can still have an entree into pro football without having to pretend to be students; and student-athletes need to receive some kind of compensation for the time they spend practicing and working out.

There is too much money in college football, and that money is ruining the sport.

I just want to say I completely agree with everything you just said.  Especially the part about Oklahoma.

[Berkut]

The NCAA should probably start by not freaking out everytime a none-school person gives a Student athlete money.

Uhhh, yeah, that would be a pretty terrible idea.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that the NCAA actually does a pretty decent job at what they do. It isn't ideal, but it never is going to be ideal - the basic problem is that there is simply a ridiculous amount of money involved in a endeavour that should be not about money, but about education.

Given that basic disconnect, I think the NCAA does a pretty decent job of keeping things about as under control as can be expected. I think the rules suck - but I don't see how the alternative to most of the rules is any better. And there is a clear system for changing those rules based on the will of the member institutions.

It is easy to bitch about how "silly" a lot of the rules are - but then you have to realize that believe it or not, the NCAA doesn't make up those silly rules just to be douchebags - they make them up because at some point someone (almost certainly in the SEC) was trying to fuck up the system by giving some player a bullshit job, or using the "Oh, the player wants to visit his poor grandma..." excuse to funnel them a few thousand dollars or whatever in return for them playing.

The entire system kind of sucks - but I think that is because we insist that we want "student"-athletes to play in what is for all real purposes a professional, for profit sports league. Given that, the system cannot help but be a bit of a mess.

[grumbler]

The NCAA should probably start by not freaking out everytime a none-school person gives a Student athlete money.

You should probably start by not saying silly things. 

The problem the NCAA has created is in response to the desire amongst its institutions for simple rules to fight graft.  Thus, while almost any student at a school can share a ride back to Kansas with another student going that way, the NCAA athlete cannot.  Why?  because the ride might be compensation for playing for "the U" provided by boosters, rather than an innocent favor.  So, no innocent favors lest they be payments in disguise.

Some people claim to have known many athletes in school who had as much folding cash as non-athletes, but I think anecdotes aren't that useful in approaching this problem.  The fact of the matter is that students, except athletes, can get jobs pretty much at will to earn some walking-around money.  Athletes, not so much.  The hours they put into practice are hours they cannot earn a wage, and even in the off-season are expected to work hours a week on "voluntary" conditioning.

Whether they should be compensated further for these sacrifices, or exactly how they should be compensated if compensation is due, isn't easy.  That's why the NCAA rules are so silly in application at times.  But what seems clear to me is that NCAA rules are designed for the benefit of the institutions, not the athletes or even the sport.

[MadImmortalMan]

Can they maybe get a work-study job testing out the gym equipment? 

[Ed Anger]

Ray Small, a former tenant of Tressel's doghouse, just vomited all over the Buckeye program.

[Grey Fox]

@Berkut & Grumbler. So you guys basically agree with me?

[grumbler]

@Berkut & Grumbler. So you guys basically agree with me?

What part of "you should probably start by not saying silly things" indicates agreement with you?  if you agree with my statements, you need only say so.  I have said your statement was silly.  I stand by that assessment.

[Grey Fox]

@Berkut & Grumbler. So you guys basically agree with me?

What part of "you should probably start by not saying silly things" indicates agreement with you?  if you agree with my statements, you need only say so.  I have said your statement was silly.  I stand by that assessment.

Why is my statement silly?

I agree with both what Berk & you said after calling out my post. To me, you are saying the same thing with different & many more words.

[grumbler]

Why is my statement silly?

Because you claim that the NCAA is "freaking out everytime a none-school person gives a Student athlete money" when this is demonstrably untrue; the NCAA isn't freaking out at all, and isn't reacting in any way when parents give their student-athlete children money.

I agree with both what Berk & you said after calling out my post. To me, you are saying the same thing with different & many more words.

If you agree with me, then there's your answer.  It isn't a matter of 'freaking out," it is a matter of creating enforceable rules that accomplish the objective and don't over-react.

[Grey Fox]

Why is my statement silly?

Because you claim that the NCAA is "freaking out everytime a none-school person gives a Student athlete money" when this is demonstrably untrue; the NCAA isn't freaking out at all, and isn't reacting in any way when parents give their student-athlete children money.

I agree with both what Berk & you said after calling out my post. To me, you are saying the same thing with different & many more words.

If you agree with me, then there's your answer.  It isn't a matter of 'freaking out," it is a matter of creating enforceable rules that accomplish the objective and don't over-react.

Oh. Right. I didn't read it that way.

But I would say the current rules are being over-enforced. Plus everything that happened with the Fab Five.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think it's a waste of time to pretend it's not about money. Better to just get everything out in the sun.

[grumbler]

But I would say the current rules are being over-enforced. Plus everything that happened with the Fab Five.

I don't think the rules are over-enforced, but I do think that they cover things that shouldn't ideally be covered, like sales of a player's own possessions.  OTOH, I understand how the rule is designed to prevent schools from paying players by simply giving them possessions that the players can then sell and live off of.  If schools are allowed to do that, then the wealthy schools will simply buy up all the talent and the less-well-off schools will be unable to compete.

Even f you allow players to get paid a stipend, that still leaves the issue of how you allow players to sell their own possessions like regular people, but still prevent the wealthy schools from simply buying players by paying them in "stuff" rather than cash.

[Grey Fox]

I don't follow this this closely but Which schools that have a successfull football/basketball program are less-well-off?

[grumbler]

I don't follow this this closely but Which schools that have a successfull football/basketball program are less-well-off?

Look at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm  Any school that has significant "direct institutional [or state] support" or operates break even or at a loss is less well-off.

The University of Michigan, for instance, gets no direct institutional support (i.e. subsidies for athletics from the state or school) and takes in $107 million a year, while spending $89 million.  It could afford to pay athletes $18 million a year and still break even.

Boise State gets $5 million in direct support, takes in about $32 million on top of that, and spends $37 million a year.  They couldn't afford to pay athletes at Michigan's level unless the state was willing to quintuple its subsidy, which doesn't seem likely.

[Grey Fox]

A little sampling seems to prove that if Players are ever going to be compensated some major restructuring of how these programs are administrated is going to be in order.

Ohio State spends 16 mil in coach salaries? Dudes.