Wolverine247 Board

I read threw the thread and most of them were being pretty mature and wishing him a speedy recovery but there were a few guys in there that were complete idiots. Calling Jake Ryan a thug?haha have they seen their team??

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.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/how-the-ncaa-has-used-the-term-student-athlete-to-avoid-paying-workers-comp/

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. 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.

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.

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.

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