In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 463
Online now 226 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This was the thread that I read....
blanket statements are pathetic....
This post was edited by Georgem80 13 months ago
A free education to The University of Michigan is nothing?
Even if we assume the absurdly inflated college tuitions accurately reflect the value of a college education, even if we assume spending those years at a university is the best course of action for a future NFL player, Jake Ryan is still compensated about 1/40th of what Dave Brandon makes, or 1/100th of what Brady Hoke makes. I don't think either of those two will be tearing their ACL or suffering a concussion anytime soon.
Nobody forces these kids to play football. They get to do something they love, get a free education while doing so, and get to experience things that a lot of other people never get to in their lifetime.
Also, if their goal is to ultimately play in the NFL, they are receiving top notch training and have access to the best equiptment to prepare themselves for that.
You really want to question the value of a college education? Or question the connections that these kids get, because they are a part of the football program?
you're right that this isn't literally "nothing"
That doesn't mean its fair compensation either. For starters, I can't think of a single plausible argument why Denard Robinson shouldn't get a cut of all the #16 jerseys the university sells, nor a plausible argument for why the lacrosse and women's volleyball players should be compensated at the same level as the football players.
Jake Ryan is a student athlete...student.
It's a very slippery slope. Probably only ~1% or less of college athletics have a legitimate argument for being played. Pay them all? Then it'd be nothing more than what it is now (couple hundred bucks a month stipend) in order to keep NCAA a sustainable org. Pay the football/basketball stars? I pity whoever it is that makes those decisions on who is worthy. To truly pay the ones that have an argument you'd have to take the word Amateur out of NCAA. Then the second these kids are no longer amateurs, college football will turn ugly, recruiting will turn into giving 5 star prospects 6 figure signing bonuses. The current model is terrible, but you can't just start openly paying kids.
I just hope Ryan returns to full health and doesn't have this injury inhibit his future career at all so this doesn't even become an issue.
Unfair advantage for big schools when it comes to recruiting. No matter how good you are, you'll only sell so many jerseys if you go to, say, Syracuse. On the other hand, you don't even have to be a huge superstar to sell jerseys at places like Michigan or OSU.
In addition, since most Michigan jerseys don't have names on them, how do you determine who to give the royalty to? If I buy a #77 jersey because I like Jake Long, how do you determine that the money goes to Long and not, for example, Taylor Lewan?
Which, of course, is a joke.
You do realize the NCAA starting using the phrase "Student Athlete" to help avoid paying worker's compensation to the widow of a man who died from a head injury he sustained playing football?
Either this website doesn't exist or is not currently available.
Its not going to be anywhere near balanced regardless.
While true, just because things are a little bit inherently unfair now doesn't mean that gives us justification to just keep making it worse. Now, keep in mind, I'm a fan of yearly stipends for college athletes, as long as they're equal across the entire NCAA, so I'm not against the kids getting paid. Jersey sales just present some inherent difficulties and create even more inequity. The big schools don't need any more of a recruiting advantage.
Something like jersey sales also takes the power of compensation out of the school's hands. A booster like T. Boone Pickens could just make an informal deal to buy thousands of a certain player's jersey to essentially hand the player cash.
1. The entire system of college football is an unfair advantage for big schools, both in recruiting and in everything else. The only difference between this and, say, the BCS, is that the proceeds actually benefit the players and not ADs and coaches.
2. Think that effect doesn't exist in the professional sports? Play for a big team, sell more jerseys is a thing everywhere, but no one argues that Tony Romo shouldn't be able to profit from his jersey sales just because those sales are inflated by the Cowboy fanbase relative to what a similarly talented QB on a smaller-market team would expect.
3. Obviously that problem would be solved by universities putting names on the jerseys instead of maintaining the absurd position that "we're selling the school, the number on the jersey that just so happens to be the same one our biggest star wears is meaningless." This is the same way that when I buy a Patriots #12 jersey I know its for Tom Brady and not anyone else who's worn that number.
1. Like I said above, I just don't think that the inherent unfairness already present justifies creating an even more unfair system.
2. Of course that effect exists in the pros, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Nobody chooses a team simply based on how many jerseys they'll sell. The NFL also has much more of an even playing field due to the salary cap. If we opened things up in college, it'd be like baseball - the Yankees are a mega franchise and so well-known that they can have a $200M payroll and still be profitable, and the Michigans of the world would take after that model, while other schools would be relegated to the permanent disadvantage of small-market teams - except they wouldn't even have the equalizing benefit of the draft to fall back on.
3. Good luck forcing schools to change such long-held traditions. Many people (myself included) like the aesthetic appeal of nameless jerseys. You'd also run into issues with the service academies. It'd just be impossibly difficult for the NCAA to force every single team to put names on their jerseys, and manufacturers/retailers would also rebel - instead of just holding a stock of #77 Michigan jerseys, they'd have to manufacture/stock jerseys with different names for every good player to wear a certain number.
lol "a little bit" inherently unfair. If you're not one of the 10-15, maybe 20, elite programs in college football your chances of ever winning a national championship are basically nil in the current system. That's 85%+ of FBS that is eliminated just by virtue of who they are. All the money in CFB flows into five conferences, nearly all of the best recruits flow into a handful of schools.
I think it's unseemly for the fans of one of the primary beneficiaries of this system to be completely fine with all the advantages we get that make our athletic department the second largest generator of revenue - allowing our coaches and ADs to bank huge sums of money - and then suddenly draw the line when our players might start to reap the benefits of the money they generate.
And if T. Boone Pickens wants to buy thousands of jerseys a year, why not let him? It's his money. Is this really so different than him dropping millions of dollars upgrading Oklahoma State's athletic facilities and building a stadium and everything else he does to try and get Oklahoma State on a level where it can compete with the Oklahomas and Texases of the world?
1. And I don't think "unfairness" to the players at Syracuse (by the way, you think Donovan McNabb wouldn't have sold jerseys at Syracuse? Think RG3 wouldn't have sold jerseys at Baylor? Players from small schools can become stars and benefit) justifies robbing Denard Robinson of money that in any other athletic context would be his.
2. Players absolutely choose teams based on the size of the fanbase, which is what we're talking about here. Probably they don't care about a marginal bump in jersey sales, but they absolutely do care about the increased exposure and more favorable position for endorsement deals that a larger market or more visible franchise can give them. (And again, I can't see any reason that Denard Robinson shouldn't be allowed to appear in adidas commercials, if that's what he wants to do).
3. This argument is just absurd, sorry.
Again.. nobody is forcing these kids to go to college.
Go to the CFL if you want to get paid right away.
Go train at a private facility.
The NFL has it's age limit, and they have every right to. You don't want to go to college for the 3 years you have to wait to play in the pros, find another way to get there. Fact is, if more kids valued their education more, you wouldn't see such a high percentage of professional athletes go broke, despite making more than most do in a lifetime in the span of 5-10 years.
Personally I have no problem with the way the system is at the moment, all the "well-meaning" reform proposals would (and probably will) kill college football (and other revenue sports). Nobody *wants* another minor league pro system, but that is what you are going to get .
I think it's funny that we always hear how unfair it is, yet there is no shortage of people out of their free will choosing to engage in it. And I tell you why that is, because what is currently offered is a *major* incentive for most people. In reality, collegiate athletes are very, very fortunate to get what they get.
I'm just saying, I have nothing against players getting stipends and compensation in that way, I just don't think jersey sales are an effective way to compensate players.
Well, I don't think it's the *only* way, just one of the most obvious ones. Like I said, I think its absurd that the players in non-revenue generating sports get the same compensation as the football players. I also think it's unjust that football players don't see any of the millions - maybe billions - that they generate. Both of those problems would remain if the only compensation was royalties from jersey sales or endorsements, both of which would really only benefit the stars.
Last year, the New York Times published a plan that I liked a lot. Something along those lines is what I'd like to see
The corrupt, contrived sentimentality of big-time college sports has created a glaring, and increasingly untenable, discrepancy between what players get and what everyone else in their food chain reaps.
I like some elements of this plan, but reducing scholarships from 85 to 60? No way. We already see how teams can be devastated by injury even with 85 on the roster - dropping it to 60 turns the game into "Who can stay healthy this year?"
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports