Started By
Message
re: Saban addresses question about players union...
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:11 am to meansonny
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:11 am to meansonny
Virtually every program in the country runs in the red yet we want to pay athletes.. It's not just a matter of paying football players either which is majority of posters in this threads focus it seems. The problem is running in the red and having to pay volleyball, tennis, golf players the same as the others.
The amount of NCAA institutions, student athletes, and revenue generated doesn't add up to allow this to happen without a major change
The amount of NCAA institutions, student athletes, and revenue generated doesn't add up to allow this to happen without a major change
2
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:21 am to Rig
Boy little Nicky seems to be addressing everything as of lately. Is he making a push to be Commish of the SEC 
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:28 am to Rig
quote:+1
Virtually every program in the country runs in the red yet we want to pay athletes.. It's not just a matter of paying football players either which is majority of posters in this threads focus it seems. The problem is running in the red and having to pay volleyball, tennis, golf players the same as the others.
The amount of NCAA institutions, student athletes, and revenue generated doesn't add up to allow this to happen without a major change
I'd have to imagine that if the programs running in the black paid ALL of their student-athletes (women too) then they wouldn't stay in the black for very long.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:36 am to meansonny
quote:
That money doesn't go to the ncaa. it goes to the conferences.
The ncaa isn't and hasn'tbeen in the big money (relative to the conferences) in a long time.
I meant to clarify my post with the NCAA and it's member institutions as the schools, conferences, ect are all under some type of tax exempt status.
Also, the money from the NCAA tourney goes directly to the NCAA to be divided among all schools and while it's a huge number once split doesn't amount to much. I believe the tourney is the only thing making the NCAA relevant
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:38 am to RT1941
It really depends on the player. You don't think players like Manziel and Newton were worth millions of dollars per year to their school? The schools and NCAA are making enormous amounts of money off of football players. The same can't be said for other sports, but football players aren't always getting what they are worth -- or anything resembling it.
(Please don't bring up a free education. You can't expect many of these players to come from poor educational backgrounds and pursue a degree worth anything.)
(Please don't bring up a free education. You can't expect many of these players to come from poor educational backgrounds and pursue a degree worth anything.)
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:38 am to AubieALUMdvm
quote:
Great point. I don't know what this has to do with paying players though?
The original case brought forth by the Northwestern players had absolutely nothing to do with getting paid. It was all about long term health issues. The getting paid is a strawman argument people have injected into the discussion to voice their disapproval of unions.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:42 am to Yintros
quote:
(Please don't bring up a free education. You can't expect many of these players to come from poor educational backgrounds and pursue a degree worth anything.)
Regardless of whether or not they pursue it, doesn't mean they haven't received some benefit. And Cam Newton stayed for the one year, I assume if he was getting paid there would be some form of contract. So he likely would not have seen the benefit of his season in cash from the schools, and instead he saw it in the NFL.
I mention that because say the student signs a contract for multiple years, has he foregone the right to enter the NFL early. If it is a single year, will under performing athletes be "processed"?
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:54 am to CheeseburgerEddie
Don't offer scholarships for sports. If an athlete wants to attend a school he/she can apply if accepted then he/she can participate in sports if they so wish voluntarily. The School can offer financial aid to all students if the athletes qualify they would receive the same aid as any student. The Ivy league way.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:57 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Regardless of whether or not they pursue it, doesn't mean they haven't received some benefit. And Cam Newton stayed for the one year, I assume if he was getting paid there would be some form of contract. So he likely would not have seen the benefit of his season in cash from the schools, and instead he saw it in the NFL.
I mention that because say the student signs a contract for multiple years, has he foregone the right to enter the NFL early. If it is a single year, will under performing athletes be "processed"?
It isn't a benefit. Coaches don't encourage the athletes that are capable to pursue more prestigious, difficult degrees. Most players would have to work at academics full time to make up for the education they missed out on prior. It won't work.
The argument isn't that they aren't receiving some benefit, it's that they aren't receiving enough. It's hard to debate that football players don't deserve more than they get, considering the millions they bring in. The problem is that players from other sports will try to weasel into the discussion under the guise of "fairness." Therein lies the problem.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:58 am to Alahunter
Yeah, I'd like to see what happens if his team forms a union.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:03 am to Yintros
quote:
It isn't a benefit. Coaches don't encourage the athletes that are capable to pursue more prestigious, difficult degrees. Most players would have to work at academics full time to make up for the education they missed out on prior. It won't work.
It is still a benefit. If you take your paycheck and burn it, you still have received the benefit.
quote:
The argument isn't that they aren't receiving some benefit, it's that they aren't receiving enough. It's hard to debate that football players don't deserve more than they get, considering the millions they bring in. The problem is that players from other sports will try to weasel into the discussion under the guise of "fairness." Therein lies the problem.
Some players certainly deserve more, some deserve less than the value of their scholarship and other services.
Doing this makes waves that reach out far. As one talking head asked, if they are paid and considered employees, do they pay taxes on the scholarship value?
Most schools can't afford to pay the same as the big schools. Are we going to accept a solution where the big money schools just pay the most for their players like baseball does?
I am just curious as to how everyone feels about these questions because I don't know which way to lean yet.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 9:04 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:03 am to Yintros
quote:
Coaches don't encourage the athletes that are capable to pursue more prestigious, difficult degrees.
Many, many times they actually discourage it as it would cut into their football time.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:04 am to Mulat
quote:
Here is one that I cannot understand why others do not see how serious the problem is. If these guys do not make the pros, life altering injuries may need a lifetime of care, several operations, PT, it goes on and on.
I have injuries just from H.S. ball and these guys get regularly pounded. This is just one of several justifiable issues that need a fair and honest addressing.
Alright, then we put the same warnings on football helmets that we put on cigarette packs. Instead of names on the back of jerseys, we put "volunteer" or "scholarship-participant" instead. Schools shouldn't be FORCED to pay up on this issue. A lot of those that think this is a great idea will be the same ones complaining when their team never gets an easy schedule in the future. Why? Because those cupcake schools will be gone.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:06 am to Johnny4lsu
But how does processing players play into this thought process, is he helping them too
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:07 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:Same here.
I am just curious as to how everyone feels about these questions because I don't know which way to lean yet.
I do not see how Title IX gets overlooked in all of this. You give ANYTHING to the boys, then by law you gotta give it to the ladies.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:09 am to UsingUpAllTheLetters
quote:
Alright, then we put the same warnings on football helmets that we put on cigarette packs. Instead of names on the back of jerseys, we put "volunteer" or "scholarship-participant" instead. Schools shouldn't be FORCED to pay up on this issue. A lot of those that think this is a great idea will be the same ones complaining when their team never gets an easy schedule in the future. Why? Because those cupcake schools will be gone.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:09 am to RT1941
quote:
A lot of those that think this is a great idea will be the same ones complaining when their team never gets an easy schedule in the future. Why? Because those cupcake schools will be gone.
You know Bama will be directly affected by this right
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:10 am to RT1941
It really makes a huge difference, because if Title IX doesn't apply, then they couldn't be classified as student athletes, which opens up a whole new set of possibilities.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:12 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
It is still a benefit. If you take your paycheck and burn it, you still have received the benefit.
Again, most players don't have the background to take advantage of the academic scholarship. Even if they did, it isn't enough.
quote:
Some players certainly deserve more, some deserve less than the value of their scholarship and other services.
Doing this makes waves that reach out far. As one talking head asked, if they are paid and considered employees, do they pay taxes on the scholarship value?
Most schools can't afford to pay the same as the big schools. Are we going to accept a solution where the big money schools just pay the most for their players like baseball does?
I am just curious as to how everyone feels about these questions because I don't know which way to lean yet.
There aren't easy answers. However, if the players get their "scholarship" taxed, I believe the NCAA and its members should lose tax-exempt status. (How the hell the NFL is tax exempt...)
Obviously, in the argument of fairness, there should be a standardized level of compensation.
As for the more "important" players' compensation: let them have a share of the revenue brought in from their jersey sales. That way their "extra" compensation is directly proportionate to their performance.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:15 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:Makes you wonder if folks have really thought this through? Title IX is here to stay and must be considered in all bargaining, negotitation, and consideration for compenstating any student-athlete beyond what they already receive.
It really makes a huge difference, because if Title IX doesn't apply, then they couldn't be classified as student athletes, which opens up a whole new set of possibilities.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News