Started By
Message
re: Paying players?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:32 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:32 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Hole E shite.
We agree.
We agree.
0
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:32 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I will say this about the free market and people (players) getting paid what they are "worth".
I work for a large firm. My billing rate is a few hundred dollars per hour. Do I take home several hundred per hour? No. But that is what my firm bills for my services. The partners of the firm are the ones making hundreds of thousands and in some cases a million + a year, every year. They aren't the ones doing a lot of the work, it is me. I am the one busting arse and providing value, and I am paid fine, but nothing compared to those above me who in general do not work near as much or even provide as much to the client.
I see college football in much the same way. These athletes are paid. They get shitloads. They get rent and a ton of expenses paid as well as tons of academic support. If they weren't playing ball, they would be busting their arse at a sorry job barely making enough to get by with only a high school diploma. Or they would be in college (not many of them though) racking up tens of thousands in debt without the same academic support or standard of living they receive as an athlete.
They get 4 good years of college and I bet not a one would trade it to work some shitty job right out of high school which is the alternative for most.
It is always the people at the top that get the lions share of the money. You want the big money you work your way up to get it. And it often takes some luck with the hard work. For most of us that means working our way up for years in a profession and few of us ever make it to or near the top. Same for an athlete with the top being making it into the pros.
The people that built the programs for the players to work in (the universities) are the ones who get most of the money. Just like in the real world, the partners that built the firm are the ones that take in most of the money.
It is just how life works. I can see the argument for paying players, but the older I get and the more I see how life works, I do not think they should be paid. They haven't earned big money just because a university makes big money just like I haven't earned big money just because I work for a big firm that makes big money.
Best argument yet!
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:33 pm to asphinctersayswhat
quote:
Should they be paid?
It would bankrupt 99.9% of colleges to pay the players. Title IX is a bullshite law that essentially says that what you do for one, you have to do for all. So for every football player you pay you have to pay some softball player that is on scholarship and losing money for the university already.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:34 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
I don't think anyone is saying the players should get all of the profits taken in by the school. We're just saying the players should be fairly compensated. There are no market scenarios where employees are paid exactly the value they bring to their firm. Everyone receives some wage that is lower than that value. But what many players receive in compensation is still far below what they should actually be paid.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:35 pm to Alahunter
quote:
If they aren't happy with that, they're free to get a job.
Except the monopoly that is NCAA college football suffocates any viable competition.
I'm done for the evening following my closing.
Yes, a college education for free sounds sweet to me. Especially because I can't run fast or jump high. I don't possess or control those skills so in the hypothetical fantasy where I temporarily imagine that I do, I am more than giddy to receive that compensation.
But I don't possess those skills. I didn't put in the work to develop those skills. So who am I to pretend the hypothetical value I place on them is fair?
I mentioned earlier that just because society values the educational opportunity, doesn't mean that person does. Doesn't mean he should (although, in the general sense, he should).
I think people that say its enough, if they're being honest with themselves, realize that is below the market equilibrium if the NCAA wasn't in a monopoly position to be the only amateur football league for kids out of high school.
You take away that monopoly, wage-setting organization, and you know good and well these schools would start bidding.
Whether you think it's right, wrong, good, or bad to allow competitive bidding for talents- you can't really argue that it is a huge economic disequilibrium in the current state. Saying a scholly is enough is ignoring that indisputable fact completely.
That is the only right and wrong that matters to me. I think some of you are trying to force some fantasy that these are normal students that happen to be good at football, yet ignore the monstrosity of a business that college football has become.
quote:
It's not a profession in college. Just like any other student isn't in their profession until afterwards and employed by someone.
Again, you take your point of view on what we're trying to determine in this debate and using it as your argument. That is not valid argumentative logic.
This post was edited on 11/20/12 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:36 pm to Warfarer
quote:
It would bankrupt 99.9% of colleges to pay the players.
Payment doesn't have to come from the schools. What is wrong with players working out their own endorsement deals, or borrowing money from agents?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:37 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
But what many players receive in compensation is still far below what they should actually be paid
Opinion. Can you tell me what the operating expenses are that is taken out of the money that they bring in. Which would include salaried personell that helps train them, housing, food, training equipment, travel, etc etc etc.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:38 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
what many players receive in compensation is still far below what they should actually be paid.
I disagree.
I am not sure a price tag can be placed on what they are compensated, but its' not just tuition books and a free lunch.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:38 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
fairly compensated.
Well, I guess this is the crux of the argument and whether opinions diverge. I do not believe it should matter how much the university makes from the athletic activities. I believe it should be based on what the player should receive without regard to the athletic department revenues.
Now, is everything athletes currently receive enough? I don't really know. I just don't think it should matter how much the university takes in.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:38 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
But what many players receive in compensation is still far below what they should actually be paid.
I don't think a detailed economic analysis would support this. How many players are on a football team? How many are responsible for actual merchandising sales? Did you go to the stadium to see the redshirt freshman RB who's going to tear his MCL 3 games into next year and never be the same? How about the 3rd string senior linebacker?
The number of true revenue driving athletes at a given school are very small in number.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:39 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Opinion. Can you tell me what the operating expenses are that is taken out of the money that they bring in. Which would include salaried personell that helps train them, housing, food, training equipment, travel, etc etc etc.
Can you?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:39 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
What is wrong with players working out their own endorsement deals, or borrowing money from agents?
Are you being for real?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:40 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
Payment doesn't have to come from the schools. What is wrong with players working out their own endorsement deals, or borrowing money from agents?
In other words, be a professional amateur.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:40 pm to asphinctersayswhat
They are paid, they go to school for free. I paid my way to college.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:41 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Doesn't matter. He received the training to make the millions he's making now. Furthermore, he received a chance at education, that many other people can't get, based on physical skill. He and all other athletes are well compensated. If they think they aren't, then they're free to enter the free market and forego college.
I know if I didn't have to make tuition payments, buy books, pay rent, or take student loans my life would be a lot different. I'd have had a leg up, and my ability to start my business would have happened a hell of a lot faster. In 25 years I'll be able to calculate exactly what a full ride scholarship could have saved me and eventually made me. I know it'll be a huge, huge number.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:41 pm to wdeinttown
I cannot. But I'm not saying they're underpaid for what they do. And you can't tell me how much expense there is involved in giving them their opportunity to play ball, on top of the benefits they receive. So you can't really honestly say that they are underpaid, when you don't have a clue as to how much it actually costs to put an athlete through college. It goes beyond the scholarship amount.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:41 pm to wdeinttown
So what about the Olympic model? They are considered amateur athletes yet can sign autographs for cash or sell their own merchandise. Gabby Douglas has made 10 mil on endorsements and projected to make 100 mil more in her lifetime. She is 16. Yet if a college athlete receives a free hamburger, it is a violation. NCAA football 2012 has sold 1.8 million units as of October of this year. At 60 $ a game, that's like 103,000,000. Players don't get a cent of that. The new playoff in CB will net 5 billion over the next 10 years. The NCAA currently has a contract with CBS worth 10.8 million. Give the kids a 1500 stipend per year because they must dedicate their lives to their sport for 4 years and have no time to work a real job and therefore have no cash to pay for everyday things.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:42 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I work for a large firm. My billing rate is a few hundred dollars per hour. Do I take home several hundred per hour? No. But that is what my firm bills for my services. The partners of the firm are the ones making hundreds of thousands and in some cases a million + a year, every year. They aren't the ones doing a lot of the work, it is me. I am the one busting arse and providing value, and I am paid fine, but nothing compared to those above me who in general do not work near as much or even provide as much to the client.
Yet your firm has to compete for your services in the form of competitive salaries. There is no cartel/monopoly system in place saying you can't make more than you do.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:42 pm to Alahunter
quote:
And you can't tell me how much expense there is involved in giving them their opportunity to play ball, on top of the benefits they receive.
Hell, how much is spent on the kid before he even signs?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:43 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I do not believe it should matter how much the university makes from the athletic activities.
Neither do I. Perhaps I haven't been clear on this point, but I am not arguing that 100% of a player's additional compensation should come from the schools. Players like Cam Newton or Trent Richardson, who could sign endorsement deals while still in college, should be allowed to do so. That is part of their value that the NCAA prevents them from capitalizing on.
Let me reiterate, I am not arguing for some university-player profit sharing plan. Many players are fairly compensated. Hell, some are probably overcompensated (Jake Holland, I'm talking about you) but players who are severely under compensated should be able to capitalize on their value while still in school.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News