Started By
Message
re: APU - where do you stand?
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:02 am to Peter Buck
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:02 am to Peter Buck
Hey guys, thanks for a rational discussion of the real world problems of div 1 football.
College ball is "big business" in every use of the phrase, with the exception of the fact that the NCAA has been able to hide behind the monickers of "college football" and "student-athletes" to avoid market forces via-a-vis the players. I don't see this continuing indefinitely, unless colleges can convince congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption.
I read posts on this site all of the time about players being busts, screw ups, etc., which to me shows a lack of understanding of college sports or the athletes. Each and every player on GA's team was a star in high school. Only 22 get to start. How can you not understand the egos and intense competition for playing time. None of those guys want to ride the bench. Even the slackers work like hell.
Yesterday, guys were giving Logan Gray crap about fair catching punts in effect insinuating he wasn't capable of doing anything else. A lot of the posters profess to be ex high school athletes. Surely they understand the realities of team ball.
Why is it so hard to have any empathy for college athletes? Yes, a lot of these guys are prima donnas. There also a ton of good guys. My dad quit college football in the 50's because he didn't want to be owned. I saw this same "ownership" mentality when I was in college, and I suspect it is even worse today. Frankly, I can't imagine that playing college football is any fun - except on game days.
College ball is "big business" in every use of the phrase, with the exception of the fact that the NCAA has been able to hide behind the monickers of "college football" and "student-athletes" to avoid market forces via-a-vis the players. I don't see this continuing indefinitely, unless colleges can convince congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption.
I read posts on this site all of the time about players being busts, screw ups, etc., which to me shows a lack of understanding of college sports or the athletes. Each and every player on GA's team was a star in high school. Only 22 get to start. How can you not understand the egos and intense competition for playing time. None of those guys want to ride the bench. Even the slackers work like hell.
Yesterday, guys were giving Logan Gray crap about fair catching punts in effect insinuating he wasn't capable of doing anything else. A lot of the posters profess to be ex high school athletes. Surely they understand the realities of team ball.
Why is it so hard to have any empathy for college athletes? Yes, a lot of these guys are prima donnas. There also a ton of good guys. My dad quit college football in the 50's because he didn't want to be owned. I saw this same "ownership" mentality when I was in college, and I suspect it is even worse today. Frankly, I can't imagine that playing college football is any fun - except on game days.
0
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:28 am to Peter Buck
quote:
People would still watch and attend, but if the team was not good, there would be less tickets, donations, and apparel, less TV exposure, less Bowl games... Less money...
They let substandard student in to play football because they know it will benefit the bottom line...
You're probably right. However, it's natural to support the "average guy" second stringers so if everyone did it, with the same championship structure, it could be pretty cool to see true student athletes from all schools go at it.
Also, the semi-pro leagues would be a miserable failure so the talent would probably be stronger than you think....unless the NFL developed farm leagues. The trick would be retaining talent that emerges in the college ranks....very similar to baseball I guess.
Also, I agree entirely that once a player is granted a scholarship for sports that it should be irrevocable regardless moving forward - including room and board - subject to some type of oversight. Also, any injuries sustained, including ongoing injuries, should be covered/paid for the athletes.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:45 am to Peter Buck
quote:That's the price he has to pay. These guys are recruited by many different schools and it is up to the players to decide where they want to go in accordance with what is best for their future. It's the same choice all kids have to make when they are deciding on a college, except these kids are getting a full ride.
A football player in college is not allowed to change schools at his discretion and to continue to play football under an athletic scholarship without having to pay his way or sit out one to two years. Is that because they have the best interest of the student athlete in mind?
Regarding "punishing" a kid for changing schools: that's extremely common in the real world. A non-compete clause in an employee's contract, for instance, is meant to make sure employee isn't coming in, learning how everything works, and then immediately running to a competitor (or starting their own business as a competitor).
When a university recruits an athlete and provides them a scholarship, they are investing a lot of time and money into them, which is mutually beneficial to both the athlete and the university. They don't want that investment to walk out the door on a whim. Doing so can also be detrimental to the growth and the development of the athlete.
It might also be in the best interest of the student or athlete to not punish them for violating rules or not making their grades (they could get a 2nd chance) but that wouldn't be in the best interest of the university or the other students/athletes.
Also, the "punishment" for an athlete trying to change schools is a setback for them, but only temporarily. They can go to another school and play football, just not on the same level. So, they can get their reps in and keep growing. If they have to pay their own way for a while, then that's their choice if they want to leave the team. The scholarship was based on a contract they make with the university: they will pay for their tuition (as well as a bunch of other things) in return for playing on the football team.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:49 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
You're probably right. However, it's natural to support the "average guy" second stringers so if everyone did it, with the same championship structure, it could be pretty cool to see true student athletes from all schools go at it.
We got to this point because we wanted to win and so did the other guys and it snowballed. I mean,,think about it, we let kids into a college that do not have the academic merit to get in. D3 football is fun to watch. HS football is fun to watch. Your team getting mouth raped is not...
quote:
Also, the semi-pro leagues would be a miserable failure so the talent would probably be stronger than you think....unless the NFL developed farm leagues. The trick would be retaining talent that emerges in the college ranks....very similar to baseball I guess.
The NFL comes out like a bandit in all of this and semi pro ball would not have near the appeal $ wise. If it did, they'd have it already.
quote:
Also, I agree entirely that once a player is granted a scholarship for sports that it should be irrevocable regardless moving forward - including room and board - subject to some type of oversight. Also, any injuries sustained, including ongoing injuries, should be covered/paid for the athletes.
This is a big one for me. The money for this is in place for the most part. The schools allow players to be processed with the NCAAs blessing and they can literally be kicked to the curb with a ruined knee, and a few college credits.... Meanwhile, the guys who are good at running this system are the highest compensated employee in the school and a lot,of times in the State...
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
A non-compete clause in an employee's contract
That's an interesting concept. Allow them to change schools but they can't compete against any team they've played for or against any team in the same conference as somebody they played for. That way, a player moving won't affect your or other teams in your conference standings at the end of the season. If you square up in the playoffs/bowl games, they're on the bench.
Give us a few weeks and we could hash this whole thing out.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 10:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That's the price he has to pay. These guys are recruited by many different schools and it is up to the players to decide where they want to go in accordance with what is best for their future. It's the same choice all kids have to make when they are deciding on a college, except these kids are getting a full ride.
I see, so if one gets an Academic based scholarship, can they not change schools and get one there ?
Are Academic Scholarship recipients required to pass random drug tests? Are they required to attend study hall? Are they required to spend 20 to 40 hours per week working at that college in addition to their scholastic work?
Posted on 9/24/13 at 11:13 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
APU - where do you stand? quote: A non-compete clause in an employee's contract That's an interesting concept. Allow them to change schools but they can't compete against any team they've played for or against any team in the same conference as somebody they played for. That way, a player moving won't affect your or other teams in your conference standings at the end of the season. If you square up in the playoffs/bowl games, they're on the bench. Give us a few weeks and we could hash this whole thing out.
...or, what if a player does not want to sign a non compete?
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:24 pm to Peter Buck
quote:In 2005, the NCAA mandated universities have some sort of plan for covering the healthcare costs of their athletes. Most universities either have their own policies that cover their athletes or they require the students to have their own policies which cover sports-related injuries before they can play for the team.
1) colleges will be required to pay all health care costs for injuries to the student athlete while under scholarship. If an injury is chronic or has long term affects, the University will provide monies for continued care.
My personal opinion is that all students should have their own insurance plans and that the universities should only have to offer supplemental coverage at a minimum. If they want to offer more, that would be an extra benefit of playing for that university. The kids don’t have to participate if they don’t like the plan.
quote:I disagree with this whole-heartedly. If a student gets an academic scholarship, he/she is required to maintain a certain GPA in order to keep that scholarship. If they screw up (partying, sleeping through class, not showing up, not studying, etc.) and start flunking, they should have their scholarship removed. Same goes for athletes. They are recruited based on their ability to help the team. If they, through their own actions in particular, leave or are removed from the team, they have failed to meet their obligation to the team and should not remain on scholarship.
2) colleges will be required to offer 5 year scholarships to football players. Once signed, a football player will have 5 year to compleat his degree. Even if he is removed from the team by his or the staffs decision.
On the flip-side, the conditions required by the athlete to remain on scholarship should be clearly defined so that he/she can remain on scholarship as long as they are meeting those requirements.
quote:Disagree with this one, too. Caps discourage competition and will leave the best coaches looking for better opportunities (NFL?) rather than considering staying with a program where they have peaked. Not only that, but if universities cannot use money to woo the top coaching talent, they will find other ways, which will defeat the point of the cap or potentially cause some NCAA investigations. Arbitrary caps put artificial constraints on the market and cause inefficient allocation of resources.
3) salary cap for coaches
quote:Sounds great but now the best coaches may avoid most universities altogether. Why should the coach be blamed for misconduct by the university? I would agree with this if the coach was a knowing or willing participant in the violation (depending on the severity of it), but to punish the coach for something that may actually be out of his control will be a barrier to getting good coaches in the university systems who don’t want to risk getting suspended and fined based on something out of his control.
4) coaches whose university break NCAA violations under their watch will be fined 50% of their comp package and will be suspended from the game for 2 years.
Also, would it be for all NCAA violations or just the really, really bad ones?
quote:I hope you also want to increase the number of total scholarships a school is allowed to hand out, then. As stated in response to one of your previous points about 5-year scholarships, this is simply ridiculous since the university can potentially hold up their end of the bargain (scholarship for football) and be hamstrung by immature and irresponsible kids who don’t hold up their end. This is another disastrous suggestion which will not only hurt the universities, but other kids who won’t be able to play for a top school because their potential spot is being used by a punk who was kicked off the team for rules violations.
5) scholarships, once signed, will count against a school for 5 years. if a player quits, gets injured, or does not qualify, this will still count against the schools allotted scholarships.
quote:Every football player? Even non-scholarshipped players? There are over 100 players on UGA’s roster, which would be over 1,000 tickets given away for each team, for each game. That’s a lot of money potentially lot for universities who re-invest that money into the players and facilities and amenities that the players use and have access to. This is also an arbitrary number. Why not 5? Why not 15? Is this based on how many friends/family want to come to the games or is this just another justification for paying the players by encouraging them to sell the tickets?
6) football players will each get 10 tickets to home and away games which they can sell on the free market.
Open up a section in the stands for family of the players/coaches if that is a concern, but letting the kids sell tickets is now just a side-job to give them more spending money.
quote:While enrolled in the university, the athletes are not their own but belong to the university (so to speak). Just like a private company has the right to claim the rights to intellectual property created by their employees (while on the job), the universities have the right to use the likenesses of their students for marketing/advertising purposes. The jersey number especially is a bad thing to pay students for. The jerseys and their numbers belong to the university and not the students. The student can’t retire his own number because it doesn’t belong to him, and those numbers are used for other students at the same time and are used before and after those students are gone. Again, the kids don’t own that property so they shouldn’t get a say in what it is used for, including if money is made off of it.
7) while under scholarship, players will be able to receive royalties for the use of their image and jersey number by the a university, apparel muffs,,and TV.
quote:Disagree with this one, as well. Students represent the universities they play for and should not be compensated based on their relationship to the university without approval of said university. Appearances on behalf of the school are part of what the kids are getting “paid” for (scholarship).
8) College football players can be paid for appearances in media or social events while under scholarship.
quote:I’m against college students having agents. Agents don’t act in the best interest of the kids (like this whole discussion is supposed to be about), but are acting in their own interests to land the top talent as early as possible. Most schools already have information about agents and getting representation and provide opportunities to ask questions of agents prior to leaving the schools. This is just another way to allow the kids to get paid.
9) college football players can receive advances from agents while under scholarship. The advances will be non binding.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:31 pm to FooManChoo
In 2005, the NCAA mandated universities have some sort of plan for covering the healthcare costs of their athletes. Most universities either have their own policies that cover their athletes or they require the students to have their own policies which cover sports-related injuries before they can play for the team.
My personal opinion is that all students should have their own insurance plans and that the universities should only have to offer supplemental coverage at a minimum. If they want to offer more, that would be an extra benefit of playing for that university. The kids don’t have to participate if they don’t like the plan. "
It does not cover long term, chronic injuries or pay for school when a player can no longer play football due to injuries. Some schools do it as a good will gesture
My personal opinion is that all students should have their own insurance plans and that the universities should only have to offer supplemental coverage at a minimum. If they want to offer more, that would be an extra benefit of playing for that university. The kids don’t have to participate if they don’t like the plan. "
It does not cover long term, chronic injuries or pay for school when a player can no longer play football due to injuries. Some schools do it as a good will gesture
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:32 pm to FooManChoo
The arguments you make, including the non-compete/no transfer argument, are the one's the athletes are turning around and using in the O'bannon case, particularly the part about the school owning them during their tenure in college.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:35 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
I disagree with this whole-heartedly. If a student gets an academic scholarship, he/she is required to maintain a certain GPA in order to keep that scholarship. If they screw up (partying, sleeping through class, not showing up, not studying, etc.) and start flunking, they should have their scholarship removed. Same goes for athletes. They are recruited based on their ability to help the team. If they, through their own actions in particular, leave or are removed from the team, they have failed to meet their obligation to the team and should not remain on scholarship. On the flip-side, the conditions required by the athlete to remain on scholarship should be clearly defined so that he/she can remain on scholarship as long as they are meeting those requirements.
It should be a 5 year commitment for an "education" not a 1 yer to play football. As long as a student meets the minimums to stay enrolled in school, it should not be taken away from them because they did not pan out or got hurt. Assuming this thing is about college...
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:37 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Disagree with this one, too. Caps discourage competition and will leave the best coaches looking for better opportunities (NFL?) rather than considering staying with a program where they have peaked. Not only that, but if universities cannot use money to woo the top coaching talent, they will find other ways, which will defeat the point of the cap or potentially cause some NCAA investigations. Arbitrary caps put artificial constraints on the market and cause inefficient allocation of resources.
I see, so the coaches need a free market, but the players should be all processed by a rigid mold. Makes sense....
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:40 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Sounds great but now the best coaches may avoid most universities altogether. Why should the coach be blamed for misconduct by the university? I would agree with this if the coach was a knowing or willing participant in the violation (depending on the severity of it), but to punish the coach for something that may actually be out of his control will be a barrier to getting good coaches in the university systems who don’t want to risk getting suspended and fined based on something out of his control. Also, would it be for all NCAA violations or just the really, really bad ones?
Again, I put that out to show your hypocrisy on the free market and the consequences of your actions with players vs coaches...
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:41 pm to Peter Buck
want to increase the number of total scholarships a school is allowed to hand out, then. As stated in response to one of your previous points about 5-year scholarships, this is simply ridiculous since the university can potentially hold up their end of the bargain (scholarship for football) and be hamstrung by immature and irresponsible kids who don’t hold up their end. This is another disastrous suggestion which will not only hurt the universities, but other kids who won’t be able to play for a top school because their potential spot is being used by a punk who was kicked off the team for rules violations. "
Yep, so they better recruit college students since that is allegedly the business they are in....
Yep, so they better recruit college students since that is allegedly the business they are in....
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:45 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Every football player? Even non-scholarshipped players? There are over 100 players on UGA’s roster, which would be over 1,000 tickets given away for each team, for each game. That’s a lot of money potentially lot for universities who re-invest that money into the players and facilities and amenities that the players use and have access to. This is also an arbitrary number. Why not 5? Why not 15? Is this based on how many friends/family want to come to the games or is this just another justification for paying the players by encouraging them to sell the tickets? Open up a section in the stands for family of the players/coaches if that is a concern, but letting the kids sell tickets is now just a side-job to give them more spending money.
When I was there, scholarship players got 6 tickets and walk ons got like 2. They were not " hard tickets" it was a list you had to put them on by Thursday and they had to show ID. This was so we allegedly could not sell them. So, even if it is 6' why can players not sell them on the "free market"?
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:54 pm to Peter Buck
quote:Each scholarship is a little different and they have different requirements. The universities can set the requirements for the ones they hand out, and private scholarships can do the same.
I see, so if one gets an Academic based scholarship, can they not change schools and get one there ?
Are Academic Scholarship recipients required to pass random drug tests? Are they required to attend study hall? Are they required to spend 20 to 40 hours per week working at that college in addition to their scholastic work?
Someone on an academic scholarship may be able to transfer to a different school and get a scholarship there, but typically those types of scholarships don't have students competing against each other after they are earned. They are completely individualized. Sports scholarships are team-based as well as individualized, so the requirements and restrictions may be different.
Those who are on a non-sports scholarship may have had to met specific criteria (volunteering, for example) prior to receiving the scholarship while others have to continue to meet specific criteria in order to keep it. Drug testing is not a requirement for most scholarships, though if someone else is giving you money to go to school, they should have a say over what hoops you have to do to receive that money.
Football players have to work harder physically to keep their scholarships, but typically they don’t have to maintain a 3.5 or higher GPA, either, like a lot of academic scholarships do. We are just talking about different requirements.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:56 pm to Peter Buck
quote:Sounds harsh but football is a physical sport and the kids should know that they could get injured. No one forces them to play.
It does not cover long term, chronic injuries or pay for school when a player can no longer play football due to injuries. Some schools do it as a good will gesture
Posted on 9/24/13 at 12:57 pm to runningdog
quote:That's fine. Most arguments can be tweaked for or against a particular point of contention.
The arguments you make, including the non-compete/no transfer argument, are the one's the athletes are turning around and using in the O'bannon case, particularly the part about the school owning them during their tenure in college.
What this boils down to is compensation, and I believe college athletes on scholarship are compensated fairly for what they are doing.
Posted on 9/24/13 at 1:00 pm to Peter Buck
quote:The scholarship to study at the university is based on the requirements of playing football for the university, just like the academic scholarships to study at the university can be conditioned on making and keeping a certain GPA.
It should be a 5 year commitment for an "education" not a 1 yer to play football. As long as a student meets the minimums to stay enrolled in school, it should not be taken away from them because they did not pan out or got hurt. Assuming this thing is about college...
The goal is the same (an education), and the financial aid is based on different requirements (good grades vs. playing football).
Posted on 9/24/13 at 1:02 pm to Peter Buck
quote:The coaches are employees of the universities and are subject to the free market just like any employee of any position is. The athletes are not employees of the school (which is the point of amateurism vs. professionalism) and are not subject to the same standard.
I see, so the coaches need a free market, but the players should be all processed by a rigid mold. Makes sense....
Page 4 of 6
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News