IF players start getting paid,will it be ok to .....
Shame and belittle players when they play poorly without remorse knowing they're amateurs?
That is what I was expecting to see when I opened this thread.
Pay the players. Then we can boo them.
they're
Fixed it, but still ashamed
If the schools become salary distributors, then it'll be fair to expect salary-type contracts, including baseline obligations.
If, as I prefer, the NCAA merely opens the player rights package to include profiting off their own likeness in any form -- local commercials, EA sports games, dollar handshakes, etc., all rigorously accounted for tax purposes, then the disincentive to sit out games may be that some of those payments/royalties cease when the player sits out, as would be the case for dollar handshakes and the running of certain local commercials.
Perfect response. Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try.
Take your upvote.
If the schools become salary distributors, then it'll be fair to expect salary-type contracts, including baseline obligations.
Not if they don't want to play college football anymore. You can't prevent a guy from quitting the team. He just won't get paid.
This isn't strictly true, right? You can have a penalty for breach of contract that the Universities could pursue. Like when coach's leave schools before their contract is up, they have to pay said University their buyout.
Owww, coach, my pinkie hurts too much to play.. I'm feeling woozy. I have the 24 hour cootie bugs. If they don't want to play they won't and there will be nothing to do to stop them. Additionally, if a school tries other schools will use that to negatively recruit against them and it'll be a pretty good play.
Leaving for another job would be a breach of contract, but quitting isn't. They wouldn't be leaving for the NFL, since the draft doesn't occur until April, three months after the end of the season. They'd just be quitting the team.
Even if it somehow constituted a breach of contract, the pro franchise would just pay it.
You are incorrect. Quitting a job is a breach of an employment contract. It allows the employer to stop paying the employee. It does not allow the employer to force the employee to work. But quitting is still a breach.
Even in license agreements, royalties or payments could be structured to stop if someone quit a team.
Yes. We're basically saying the same thing. The employee can't get paid but can't be forced to show up, either.
The problem is going to be how team moral is affected. Skill players will get most of the benefit while those in the trenches get overlooked. Reality is the people most likely to help the team win gets left out in the pay department under the pay for likeness example.
As for dollar handshakes, I'm pretty sure they go on everywhere so to make them income is going to present problems. How many of these players are going to be able handle their finances so they don't get in trouble with the IRS. They are going to be independent contractors in all those instances and will be responsible for saving money to pay taxes and also pay into social security.
The bottom line is that the school with the most rabid and richest fan bases will still win out without guidelines to follow. For example, a player has an autograph signing to make money. Certain school's fan bases may to willing to pay significantly more than other schools. This is similar to stipends currently being passed out to players. For example in 2015-16 Texas A&M had a stipend of $3,528 and ranked ahead of only UTEP in Texas schools offering a stipend. Two years later that figure was $6,294 and was now at the top almost $800 more than Houston and $1,400 more than Texas. More relevant to us per CBS sports for the 15-16 school year Michigan was dead last of reporting schools in the B1G (NW didn't supply figures). Wisconsin had the largest stipend at $4,916 while we were at $2,354. 7 MAC schools (3 didn't report) had higher stipends than Michigan including EMU.
I haven't read or seen the CBS report. If EMU provides more in stipend than UM, then there is something not right about the reporting.
Stipends aren't based on how much Michigan is willing to pay. They are calculated based on cost of attendance figures that apply to all students. They pay the maximum amount that's allowed based on that.
Thanks for the explanation. What I said is that reading only the stipend number doesn't give the full picture. Going by purely the stipend number, EMU would be a preferred destination over UM.
It's not as simple as skill position vs lineman. It's also about need and scarcity. I know of one 5 star defensive end that was offered $200,000 as well as having his parents bills paid for during his college career. The coaches understand what they need to win, and target those guys at a high level.
I'm all for letting players take money from EA, getting paid the going rate for commercials, shoe contracts and the like. I fear an unregulated system.
College isn't like pro sports. The big money from boosters is to sway HS players to come to their schools. That isn't going away, it will just become an open bidding process. Maybe that's good, but I wonder what some of those boosters would do next. If they are willing to pay 6 figures under the table now without getting a tangible benefit, what would they pay players from rival schools to transfer or to sit out a big game against their team? What's to stop players from accepting?
It is currently an "unregulated" system. All rules are gentlemen's agreement. Once it is brought to light, IRS will be able to tax each and every transaction. The high of doing something clandestine and playing godfather will be gone. It will become meh. That may not be a bad thing by itself. That might bring down the amount of unaccounted for money sloshing around in the sports.
Welp, Russian bots are now posting on MGoBlog.
NOW???
Did you miss the WLA era? Also Hotel Putingrad says Hello.
But are they virgins?
You should start a thread just in case
There is so much wrong here it's hard to tell where to start dissecting it.
We’re talking about pating players
I'm not concerned about people paying for players, but pating for them is too much.
Someone's celebrating Cinco de Mayo early, I see.
Did you know that Cinco de Mayo is just a spicy St. Patrick's Day?
Some like it hot!
#1. This is a terrible title. There is no reason ever to have a clickbait title on this blog.
#2. It depends on how students are paid. Are they paid on a game to game basis where there is an incentive to play each game? That would really put a question to "amateurism" aspect of college football. Or would it just be a monthly/semester stipend, in which case there is nothing stopping students from simply saying they have an injury and sitting out.
Personally, I don't particularly care if a player sits out for a meaningless bowl game. If they sat out for a playoff game, then there would be an issue. But a player has a lot more to lose by playing in a bowl game that doesn't matter than we as fans do.
Even if players are paid on a game-by-game basis, one game's salary is probably not going to be that much, especially for a guy projected to be a high draft pick. You realistically are not going to give a player enough financial incentive to play in a bowl. The main change you can make is to the postseason system itself to make the games more meaningful.
Bowl games aren't meaningless. Every snap of football is precious. If you're part of the 0.001% of players who get to play in the NFL and are only concerned with money then maybe, but for everyone else I want to see my team beat your team. If we curb stomped Florida this year people would be significantly happier.
I agree some people would have been happier, but most couldn't really care less. The bowl games are mere exhibitions done weeks after the season is over. If they were truly meaningful games they would happen one week (or less like in other sports) after the regular season ended like the meaningful play-off games in just about every other sport.
That time off makes those games not as true of a reflection of the ability of the teams as the regular season games did.
If they weren't exhibitions shouldn't they occur in cold weather stadiums (more than a couple of even less meaningful ones) to reflect where the game is played?
It'll be okay to.... Post dumb topics.
It’s NEVER going to happen and there has been atleast 15 different threads on this, do you realize how complicated it would actually be to pay collegiate athletes?
TL, DR
Pay on a per-game basis if you are going to pay them straight up. More realistically, the NCAA should just let athletes make money off of their own likeness.
I think it should be a requirement for a student athlete to have their degree before they’re eligible for professional sports.
So do I.. but the NFL loves thugs, more press.
I bet you use the N word a lot
That's weird, my cousin didn't need a degree to become an electrician, he just needed the proper training and guidance. Once he was good enough, he was able to do whatever.
Bill Gates dropped out of school because he had a plan in place and a skillset perfect for monetizing the market. He didn't need a degree.
College is supposed to help get a great job in a great field, if you can get it without finishing, why not take it.
If I'm paying you, you work for me!!!
Pay for play ball would turn this into a money game... with institutions then turning away from their basic edict of education. I think you'd see the big name universities going in one direction with their own league, and the smaller universities having their own league.
One of the most exciting parts of college football is that there's such a diverse set of circumstances, and on any given day one team can beat another, the rise and fall of dynasties is relatively quick in comparison to the NFL. Collegiate game would lose it's excitement from my perspective... I'd discontinue watching any of it.
Though I will say with all of the money UM makes, the program would be right on top... Would be a different story if they opened up the criteria to allow players to make money off of commercials, their likeness etc., then I think you'd see some correction in the current landscape, and the SEC teams wouldn't have the traction that they currently do. Kids would then go to schools where they were going to acquire the skills necessary to compete at the next level etc. There could be problems with that I'm not anticipating though. Who knows...
With the rampant cheating going on they have already lost my eyeballs in basketball, and with all of the news coming out in the trial the past few weeks, I'm getting less and less inclined to watch college football. Everyone is cheating... it isn't pure. At least put the money on the table, or stop being the minor leagues for the NFL and the NBA. Game would be a lot more pure!
If you thought the game was more pure at any point in time, you're just being hopelessly naive. Teams and colleges have been cheating since before the NCAA was formed.