Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    allow players to market themselves and trade on their celebrity for profit.
    this is an interesting point to consider

    I think the overwhelming majority of players would be very disappointed in the profits they could earn from "their" celebrity...even if it were opened up, a player couldn't sell university stuff (jerseys, signed logo footballs, etc.) without an agreement with the university. I think more of the celebrity of college players stems from the college than from the player.

    It obviously also opens the door for boosters to pay players...I'm sure that would happen, but I really wonder how much...they're are legalities/issues beyond NCAA rules to worry about there.

  2. #12
    reestuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    roanoke, va
    Posts
    59,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    Yeah I'm totally against this proposed stipend stuff. Not because some of them don't need more money or that most of them don't deserve more money (they might and they might - it's debatable). But really just because this is just a way for the NCAA and its big-time sports playing member institutions to buy more time in total control of the revenue streams. They should just let the kids market themselves and make money from their celebrity and association with the team. Stop trying to crack down on "impermissible benefits" that no fan actually cares about. And in exchange for that the NCAA ought to be able to rain hell down on schools guilty of real academic impropriety (ala UNC and their fake classes).

    In short, we don't need to preserve the illusion of amateurism; we need to enforce a reality in which the athletes are actually students in a meaningful way. That's the concept that fans want to get behind for the most part: the idea that these kids are legitimately college students. It doesn't matter if Johnny Manziel gets paid for his autograph as long as he's actually attending class and progressing toward a degree at Texas A&M. That should be the bigger concern.
    Great take. I don't think the schools should give the players anything extra. I also don't think these players should be restricted from making something extra as long as they remain eligible. Their celebrity may go away as soon as they leave school. They should be able to cash in.


    Knowledge is good.

    -Emil Faber
    "Knowledge is good"

    --Emil Faber, 1904

  3. #13

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    It's coming like it or not. (not meant for you domer, but those that posted they don't like it) It has been coming for a very long time

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendomer View Post

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Bugzy, the five big conferences, do not want to share the revenue with the rest, and really make it about them. They want the freedom to operate (if it includes stipends etc.)…NCAA constrains them. If the NCAA doesn't back the demands, these five leave and form their own association, and guess what NCAA becomes a shell of itself. NCAA tourney has no Ky, no Duke no Arizona etc. and guess what no TV Revenues which funds the operation of the NCAA (and the lower level divisions (who operate at a loss).

    The "freedoms" go beyond stipends. Imagine what the "rich" schools could do for themselves if they were unrestrained by the NCAA:
    More scholarships which could provide the personnel depth to play more regular season games.
    Relaxed recruiting rules. Paid recruiting specialists.
    Delay the start of basketball to reduce the overlap with FB.
    Hold the BB tournament later (April/May).
    There are more, I'm sure, that can be added to this list.
    Paying stipends (how much $$ ?) to all scholarship athletes will be too much for many athletic departments. This will be a very exclusive group.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    September 23, 2002
    Posts
    17,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylons View Post
    this is an interesting point to consider

    I think the overwhelming majority of players would be very disappointed in the profits they could earn from "their" celebrity...even if it were opened up, a player couldn't sell university stuff (jerseys, signed logo footballs, etc.) without an agreement with the university. I think more of the celebrity of college players stems from the college than from the player.

    It obviously also opens the door for boosters to pay players...I'm sure that would happen, but I really wonder how much...they're are legalities/issues beyond NCAA rules to worry about there.
    Yeah, I pretty much agree. Your elite players/personalities would be able to command pretty good money for autographs, commercial apperances, etc. Those guys would do much better in a true open market than under the stipend approach. Your other starters and key personnel...they might do a little better in an open market, but you're right that they would probably consistently be disappointed by what they actually commanded. And then of course your rank and file player (which is most of the guys on scholarship) definitely does better with the stipend - fans/boosters aren't going to pay those guys for anything.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
    Bugzy, the five big conferences, do not want to share the revenue with the rest, and really make it about them. They want the freedom to operate (if it includes stipends etc.)…NCAA constrains them. If the NCAA doesn't back the demands, these five leave and form their own association, and guess what NCAA becomes a shell of itself. NCAA tourney has no Ky, no Duke no Arizona etc. and guess what no TV Revenues which funds the operation of the NCAA (and the lower level divisions (who operate at a loss).
    Except they wouldn't have as much freedom outside the NCAA. The NCAA is a non-profit largely because it does redistribute those money's to the non-profitable athletic programs. A new organization would not be guaranteed non-profit status (and could conceivably be taxed). I think the endgame for the P5 is a new division. For one thing, Congress would have some impact on all this. The premier programs essentially subsidize all of college athletics (save for those schools in the NAIA). There are a LOT more constituents with ties to those schools than there are with ties to P5 schools. And the federal government can put any restrictions it wants to on who gets federal funds.

  7. #17
    You know, there's also the possibility that the NCAA went to the Power 5 because the Power 5 make the decisions: it need not ONLY apply to the P5.

  8. #18
    PadrosWindup's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 16, 2003
    Posts
    5,013
    Remember that the decisions will be made by people from the academic side. They will have input from their athletic side. but the final deicions will come from presidents and BOV's. And for every Bama or Texas in the in P5, there are 3 or 4 Minnesotas, Cal's, Kansas States, NC States whose administrations aren't subservient to their football constituencies.
    BCS level college football is a resource war, not a morality play.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    August 07, 2013
    Posts
    91
    Move to cost of attendance closer
    "NCAA president Mark Emmert said Monday there is a "reasonable chance" the five power conferences in college football will be able to offer athletes the full cost of attendance after being granted autonomy to do so sometime after the upcoming NCAA convention.

    Emmert, speaking with a group of reporters following a speech to the American Football Coaches Association, said he senses that providing a stipend to student-athletes seems "less controversial" and "less threatening" than it did in the past year.

    ...
    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...president-says

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by PadrosWindup View Post
    Remember that the decisions will be made by people from the academic side. They will have input from their athletic side. but the final deicions will come from presidents and BOV's. And for every Bama or Texas in the in P5, there are 3 or 4 Minnesotas, Cal's, Kansas States, NC States whose administrations aren't subservient to their football constituencies.
    I like your point that Administrators must not be suberviant to athletics. But I'll bet that some of them (Loh, Gee) who we may see as avaricious promoters of athletics might see themselves rather as exploiting the ADs to the greater good of the school. ...eyes of the beholder.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •