Started By
Message
re: JFF on the Cover of Time-"It's time to pay college athletes"
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:17 am to TheDrunkenTigah
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:17 am to TheDrunkenTigah
I'm not saying you're lying, but I know ~80% of the chemistry grad students at LSU and I have never heard of this. Maybe you are referring to masters students?
I'm telling you, I've signed the employment contract as a Ph.D. student at LSU and this is not true. I've known someone kicked out for trying to keep a part time job waiting tables. The only exception is tutoring.
quote:
I just meant they're allowed to seek work off-campus if they choose.
I'm telling you, I've signed the employment contract as a Ph.D. student at LSU and this is not true. I've known someone kicked out for trying to keep a part time job waiting tables. The only exception is tutoring.
1
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:18 am to aggressor
what an unsympathetic figure to put out as the reason for change.
The idea might be right, but hitching the paying players wagon that jackoff is a bad move.
The idea might be right, but hitching the paying players wagon that jackoff is a bad move.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:18 am to notsince98
quote:
letting athletes make $ just allows schools with the most boosters buy recruits. How does that maintain a level playing field for college athletics? The sports should be decided by the coaches and players, not booster $.
There needs to be more strict regulation, not less regulation.
Surely you are not this naive. First off, if you think college players at big programs aren't getting extra benefits you are crazy. Some of them are legal and some are not but it's not difficult to cover up either way. The NCAA simply can't enforce the rules on the books now, much less stricter rules.
For that matter, is it really that different that a kid who goes to Bama or LSU or A&M or some other wealthy school that has ridiculous facilities vs a school that is below what some Texas HS's have? It's not a fair playing field and it never will be. The most important rule in terms of fairness is scholarship limitations, at least that can be enforced.
It's better to have fewer regulations that are followed by all than lots of regulations that are ignored by many and followed by few.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:19 am to aggressor
Stupid. Saying thousands need to be paid for the output of a handful is the most retarded argument ever.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:22 am to piggidyphish
quote:
what an unsympathetic figure to put out as the reason for change.
The idea might be right, but hitching the paying players wagon that jackoff is a bad move.
You mean the very player whose saga has rekindled the idea once more?
Yeah, really poor idea
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:22 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
You mean the very player whose saga has rekindled the idea once more? Yeah, really poor idea
yes he's unsympathetic. Why does that get an eyeroll?
You want to make him a footnote, fine, but if you want a groundswell of support go find me a guy who needs to work to support a child (maybe his parents are absent) but can't becuase of football committments...such as that clemson guy (i think it was clemson) a few years ago. That's a much better argument than your walking billboard for bad decisions.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:26 am
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:25 am to piggidyphish
Because it's not about putting a sympathetic character on there. It makes perfect sense to put Manziel there because it's his issue that had the nation talking aboit the issue right now in the first place. He's the biggest, most current name connected to this debate.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:26 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
Stupid. Saying thousands need to be paid for the output of a handful is the most retarded argument ever.
Exactly. Where would it stop?
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:26 am to TK421
Could be masters students, I just know they're not in the same boat as the undergrad co-ops we hire. They come from either the chem or ChE department and are paid for the summer.
We also contract professors who have grad students actually do the projects, but they don't come on site and aren't paid by us, so that may be the situation you're describing.
Eta; also I'm not sure how grad students became the point of this, 99% of football players are undergrad, and I know for a fact undergrads are allowed paid internships at any pay grade they can land.
We also contract professors who have grad students actually do the projects, but they don't come on site and aren't paid by us, so that may be the situation you're describing.
Eta; also I'm not sure how grad students became the point of this, 99% of football players are undergrad, and I know for a fact undergrads are allowed paid internships at any pay grade they can land.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:29 am
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:27 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Because it's not about putting a sympathetic character on there
But you want to get support that's who you go for.
quote:
It makes perfect sense to put Manziel there because it's his issue that had the nation talking aboit the issue right now
No it doesn't...he's unpopular. Look at most landmark changes adn you'll find a sympathetic figure
quote:
He's the biggest, most current name connected to this debate
agreed...make him a footnote.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:30 am to piggidyphish
quote:
But you want to get support that's who you go for.
They don't want support. They want readers. JFF turns heads.
quote:
No it doesn't...he's unpopular. Look at most landmark changes adn you'll find a sympathetic figure
He's not unpopular, just look at this very board for evidence of that. He's infamous. Infamous ppl are like crack for periodicals like Time. Again, makes perfect sense.
quote:
agreed...make him a footnote.
Ridiculous assertion.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:32 am to aggressor
See my avi 
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:32 am to piggidyphish
Johnny is still the most recognized face in CFB by a longshot and he has pop culture status. The point is not about paying college kids so they can get by, it's about paying people what they are worth. They put JFF on the cover because he is a polarizing figure that draws attention, positively or negatively.
They want to sell magazines and get clicks, they don't really care if you agree with the story.
They want to sell magazines and get clicks, they don't really care if you agree with the story.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:33 am to LSUdm21
quote:
Go ahead and try it then. Your school will have lawsuits out of the arse.
Good for them.
They would ultimately lose and possibly kill their sports in the process.
The SECN wasn't created to air women's gymnastics or baseball.
If those get aired? Sure, they get a cut of the TV money. But if they don't? Too bad so sad. If a softball company wants to sponsor the next Jennie Finch at Arizona? Hey, she can get that money now.
Hell, athletic scholarships aren't even close to equal as it is now. Ask an equestrian girl about that. Paying the football players wouldn't change much and scales of value could be worked out.
To say its impossible is a lazy cop out.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:35 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
They don't want support. They want readers. JFF turns heads.
Ok, so its not about acutal change, it's about getting a readers, then yes plaster him everywhere, folks will read.
quote:
He's not unpopular
you're right, he's infamous. He's quite popular for being hated. So if we're just talking about getting readers and not making change, again i agree with you. If you'd like change though i stay away from him as my poster boy
quote:
Ridiculous assertion.
Only since we're in your only getting readers paradigm
I clearly misunderstood and thought his was a discussion about the possible change to paying college football players, not moving magazines off shelves...my bad.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:36 am
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:35 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Eta; also I'm not sure how grad students became the point of this, 99% of football players are undergrad, and I know for a fact undergrads are allowed paid internships at any pay grade they can land.
Someone brought up the fact that grad students don't own their own work while in college, just as football students don't own their own likeness. For example, if I did some amazing work that resulted in Nobel prize, my boss would get the million dollars and I would be lucky if he even acknowledged me in his acceptance speech.
Starting a career in any field requires some sacrifice at some point. For scientists, we live like crap for several year while building a CV to hopefully find jobs after graduation. High profile football players live like kings while in college in preparation of making millions of dollars in the NFL. Most of these guys, especially JFF, are entitled douches already.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:37 am
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:38 am to Dr RC
quote:
Good for them.
They would ultimately lose and possibly kill their sports in the process.
The SECN wasn't created to air women's gymnastics or baseball.
If those get aired? Sure, they get a cut of the TV money. But if they don't? Too bad so sad. If a softball company wants to sponsor the next Jennie Finch at Arizona? Hey, she can get that money now.
Hell, athletic scholarships aren't even close to equal as it is now. Ask an equestrian girl about that. Paying the football players wouldn't change much and scales of value could be worked out.
To say its impossible is a lazy cop out.
Like I said, there's this little thing called Title IX. It would take changes federally to allow this to go on.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:38 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
Stupid. Saying thousands need to be paid for the output of a handful is the most retarded argument ever.
I agree with this.
I can solve the booster problem, the equity problem, the "value" problem, and all the other BS problems with a simple rule.
Players OF ANY SPORT are entitled to royalties off merchandise bearing their name and likeness, based solely on sales generated by the distributors. That's it. It's not paying players for playing at your school, it's compensating them for name and likeness....period.
Some players will get NOTHING. Others will bank....a lot. It sucks to be a second team softball player, but them's the breaks. Play a sport that people care about and be good enough to gain fan support so people will buy your jersey. That's it. Capitalism at work.
Now, here comes a booster who wants to entice a player into coming to Auburn. They agree that the booster will buy 1,000 of players jerseys once he is on the team. Well shite. MORE POWER TO YOU BOOSTER. Everybody got what they wanted. The school got money and the player. The player got paid. The Merch dealers got money. Everybody won. Is it an unfair advantage? YES. Should that matter? NO. THE PLAYER WAS WORTH THAT PRICE.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:39 am to piggidyphish
quote:
Ok, so its not about acutal change, it's about getting a readers
That's what it's ALWAYS about when it comes to widely distributed periodicals.
quote:
you're right, he's infamous. He's quite popular for being hated.
He's a polarizing figure, yes. Not everyone hates him. Damn certain not everyone loves him. His mere image nowadays gets a reaction out of people, and that's why media outlets are gravitating towards him.
quote:
So if we're just talking about getting readers and not making change, again i agree with you. If you'd like change though i stay away from him as my poster boy
Again, not talking about change. Just trying to explain to you the rationale behind putting him on the cover since you asserted that it was not a good idea.
Posted on 9/5/13 at 10:40 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Again, not talking about change
That's fine...i thought we were, this part confused me
quote:
it's also not really about him so much as the point that players should be paid.
but clearly i'm in the wrong thread. Enjoy the record number of time magazines sold.
This post was edited on 9/5/13 at 10:42 am
Page 3 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News