There's No Money For The Players: 69 Million In Buyouts This Year
It's time for everyone involved in college football to admit that it has changed.
Power 5 programs are paying a combined $69.01 Million in buyouts this year alone...you could give every Power 5 football player around $10,000 with that money...Institutions of higher education are paying $69,010,000 to seven individuals for them to not work #crazy
— Joel Klatt (@joelklatt) December 12, 2017
December 13th, 2017 at 11:50 PM ^
laws are never changed
December 14th, 2017 at 9:53 AM ^
I was pretty sure that title ix having anything to do with paying players was the red herring. Something about profits and revenues generated having nothing to do with equality of federal aid.
On top of this, laws can be changed, especially "unjust" ones. It could be argued that not allowing adults to have a share of the revenues they help generate is pretty unjust.
December 13th, 2017 at 10:46 PM ^
I used to be against paying players since they are already being paid, in a way. But as I've gotten older I realize how ridiculous it is to say that an adult, in America, can't make a profit off of their abilities if people want to pay them.
These leagues aren't amateur leagues and they haven't been for quite some time. Anyone who thinks that there is any comparison between UM, OSU, Bama, USC, etc. and Bowling Green or WKU is fooling themselves. Nicer facilities, better food, better gear, better coaching better education and more are all ways that better football schools provide "payments" for their players. EMU is never going to win a Natty, they don't have the money to buy the things necessary to attract the recruits and coaches necessary to play at that level.
Paying players doesn't change anything about the league except maybe trimming off the bottom 2/3'rds to 3/4's which are just "cupcakes" anyway. On top fo that, anyone who thinks these kids are loyal to a colllege because of the college they chose to attend doesn't pay any attention to recruiting. Sure some kids go to a school they've built a loyalty to, but most just go to the best school offering them (Where best means; coaching, facilities, academics, etc.).
Having to figure it out because it's complicated or having to change things around that might not make it the way some "get off my lawn" types want it to be should never be a reason not to change things.
As it stands right now, I'm not really sure how these kids don't have a viable lawsuit against the NCAA for anti-trust violations anyway. Other than "well they have to agree to it" which is ridiculous, there are all kinds of contracts that aren't legal because of their absurdity, this should be no differen't.
And to end, I don't see why we shouldn't allow women to play ncaa football. If you're skilled enough and physically capable of playing, let em play and let em profit. If you're skilled enough.
December 13th, 2017 at 11:27 PM ^
Again: if there is such a market as you claim, then players are stupid if they play for universities when they could be paid by this market for their talents that you claim exists. Where is this market, and how do the players sell their skills in that market?
December 14th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
Uhmm. is this a serious post? The market is d1 college football, or at least, the top x number of schools. The players currently play in this market because they are "paid" with coaching, an education, and the best path to the NFL that is available (given the 3 years out of high school requirement). The players "sell their skills" via performance in high school and things like "hype tapes", grades, and extra curriculars.
The entire thing literally already exists. Sure not for "every school", but not every school is truly competetive in CFB.
December 13th, 2017 at 11:16 PM ^
Then you can bring back the NCAA Football game!
December 14th, 2017 at 12:26 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 2:58 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
NBA already use Duke, Kentucky and some other one-and-done schools to do this for them for free.
Lebron signed a $90 million/10 year contract with Nike and went straight to NBA from high school. If NFL allows the jump from high school directly, a lot of people would try that. Maurice Clarrett tried it.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:31 AM ^
Major companies don't make a habit out of hiring a kid that left school without a degree but the NFL does the NBA does the NHL does this is leading to the "I want to get paid" attitude and killing college sports! My daughter played college softball between the academic and athletic money given to her she is debt free when she's done not to mention the amount of clothing given to her. On the road nice hotels, Applebees or better meals and the memories and friendships made and now paying for her masters and rent and utilities, groceries to be a grad asst. We have no fucking complaints here! " she got paid" as far as we are concerned. Just talkd to her about this and she says no way do you pay athletes
December 14th, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^
"My daughter did not need to be paid more than she is/was, therefore others do not need to be paid either" is not a great take (Red Herring). AGREED on the rights of players to own their own image...
Read Taylor Branch's The Shame of College Sports if you have not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-colle…
December 14th, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^
"My daughter did not need to be paid more than she is/was, therefore others do not need to be paid either" is not a great take (Red Herring). AGREED on the rights of players to own their own image...
Read Taylor Branch's The Shame of College Sports if you have not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-colle…
December 14th, 2017 at 10:39 AM ^
Did your daughters team generate profit for the school or did it cost the school money? There's a pretty big difference.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^
yet i dont see anyone complaining about the students doing the actual research being hosed out of their piece of the pie.
The athletic departments bring in a fraction of that money into the university, but all the people involved in athletics walk away debt free, while the science kids leave 200k in debt for all their hard work procuring those funds for the University.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
1) Strawman
2) Football website
3) I don't see anyone arguing that those kids shouldn't be paid the same as I see people arguing that players shouldn't be paid.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:23 PM ^
they are there to get an education. Whether they take advantage of the oppurtunity is on them.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:08 PM ^
No they are originally there to play football. They have to maintain a minimum grade to ensure they keep getting that opportunity.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
This is another strawman.
What does them being there to get an education have to do with whether or not they should be able to be paid?
December 14th, 2017 at 1:06 PM ^
If I recall correctly, most of the research money is brought in by the professor or the primary investigator. The undergrads and the grad (masters and doctoral) students don't have much to do with winning the proposal. For every proposal that a PI wins, University takes a cut. It used to be about 50%. So when a professor writes a grant, it would show that the student doing the research will get paid $X/year + his/her tuition + University portion. This was the case for grad students in engineering. I can't talk about how it works in humanities and other departments.
So no, the students themselves had nothing to secure those grants.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
I wish there was a way for them to profit off of their likeness and do commercials/sponsorships etc. but I'm not sure how you'd prevent the $200,000 "autographs"' from a "big fan" just after a recruit commits to the school.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
I'm not sure why you need to prevent the autograph scenarior. It's a free country, if someone wants to pay someone to do something legal then they should be allowed to.
This whole argument comes down to telling legal adults that they can't profit off of their legal skills because they are amateurs when everyone else around them is a professional profiting off of those kids skills.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:51 PM ^
And most of these worthless, fired coaches getting paid not to do a job will probably get a big ol' tax break if this bill goes through! AMERICA!
December 14th, 2017 at 5:36 PM ^
I love people who use the "they are paid in an education" argument. Football players getting "paid" with an education is the equivalent of a Nurse getting paid with tuba lessons. Useless. The education we were paid in = the classes you can squeeze into your 8 a.m.-1 p.m. window where you don't have practice, meetings, mandatory study tables, and workouts.
According to the NCAA, we didn't get paid because we were amateurs, and we were amateurs because we didn't get paid.