The NCAA & College Sports

[CarolinaHerdzilla]

I have mixed opinions on the idea pf paying college athletes. The argument is should universities pay college athletes beyond their scholarships? Football, Basketball & Ladies get full rides at most schools. The question is do you pay a field hockey player the same as you pay football players?

I contend no matter what the decision is... 5-star players & their families [yes I said their families] will get "payola" from various sources to play at "said school" in addition to their scholarships & the school's stipend [I think Marshall pays football & basket players around $275/stipend/month]. Let's face it---college athletics is a multi-billion dollar business. In 2015 the NCAA changed the rules to permit athletic scholarships to include a cost-of-attendance stipend. Those payments vary from $2,000---$5,000 per year (actually I think it's paid over a 9-month period). I have always said the NCAA setup a cancer system. Does star Johny sign to play at a Marshall for an estimated $2500 stipend or attend an Auburn or Tennessee for around $5,000? Not too hard to figure out what color uniform Johny will be wearing! Plus it's an unfair recruiting tool for schools paying higher stipends...in my opinion.

Currently the NBA & NFL set up college sports to be a de facto farm system for professional teams. What ever happened to the term---Student-Athletes? LeBron James recently said on ESPN the NBA should explore expanding their G-League to pattern it after Major League baseball and its farm team systems. I like his thinking.

The current college basketball "one & done" rule drives most fans crazy. You have star players for one year (ie Kentucky)...and off they go leaving fans to gasp for air!

Marshall could be facing this next basketball season if "Baby Shack" proves to be the player than Dan signed to help The Herd become a factor......a One & Done.

I don't have an answer but the landscape is going to change and some coaching heads may be rolling down the roads. The shoes companies & agents funnel thousands to colleges & their players. It sounds a little suspect that assistant basketball coaches are spending $335 for a lunch with a recruit's Mom.

Where will it contiune to go...? I have no idea. Your thought?


HerdZilla22 in Charlotte

 

[Sash19]

Who are you referring to as a "one and done"-sorry, cant picture who you would be referring too? Also, in my mind the two biggest issues the NCAA faces are issues they have NO control over.....the one and done rule and the full and aggressive infiltration of the shoes companies into the AAU game. If a kid wants to take the chance of going straight to the NBA its their decision and their decision alone. Forcing them to go to college for one year only brings more agents, bag men and runners into the college arenas and locker rooms. They are there already but when you force someone to spend one year on a college campus, these people become constants on campus and there is zero chance the coach or AD can keep things "clean." Also with the shoe companies, they have now taken a national brand (Amateur Athletic Union) and made it commercialized. Be it the Nike EYBL or the Adidas Gauntlet Series, the shoes companies are now working to "buy" players to their brand which then translates to their sponsored colleges. Not saying all kids fall into the "go Nike" or "go Adidas" school trap but many do. You also allow the shoe company "grassroots" employees direct and constant access to the AAU program leaders, coaches, players and families. There are many programs that I know of that are run by very good people but as with an AD of coach, they can not be responsible for all people at all times.

Take these two influences and reduce their power or pull and you can at least "start" to get the game back to what it is supposed to be-fun. There is no way to say the game is for the kids anymore given the massive ($1billion +) NCAA tourney tv contracts or the massive shoe deal contracts-all which flow to the NCAA or the schools/conferences.

Do I think you pay players-I think if you can find a system that makes it fair across all sports and all schools then sure, I would gladly support that. However, even if you do pay kids, these outside influences will still find a way to make it uneven. Its just the nature of the beast anymore.....

If you havent read this article from 2014, take a few minutes to read it....Its all true and all true most everywhere.....https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

 

[CarolinaHerdzilla]

Who are you referring to as a "one and done"-sorry, cant picture who you would be referring too? Also, in my mind the two biggest issues the NCAA faces are issues they have NO control over.....the one and done rule and the full and aggressive infiltration of the shoes companies into the AAU game. If a kid wants to take the chance of going straight to the NBA its their decision and their decision alone. Forcing them to go to college for one year only brings more agents, bag men and runners into the college arenas and locker rooms. They are there already but when you force someone to spend one year on a college campus, these people become constants on campus and there is zero chance the coach or AD can keep things "clean." Also with the shoe companies, they have now taken a national brand (Amateur Athletic Union) and made it commercialized. Be it the Nike EYBL or the Adidas Gauntlet Series, the shoes companies are now working to "buy" players to their brand which then translates to their sponsored colleges. Not saying all kids fall into the "go Nike" or "go Adidas" school trap but many do. You also allow the shoe company "grassroots" employees direct and constant access to the AAU program leaders, coaches, players and families. There are many programs that I know of that are run by very good people but as with an AD of coach, they can not be responsible for all people at all times.

Take these two influences and reduce their power or pull and you can at least "start" to get the game back to what it is supposed to be-fun. There is no way to say the game is for the kids anymore given the massive ($1billion +) NCAA tourney tv contracts or the massive shoe deal contracts-all which flow to the NCAA or the schools/conferences.

Do I think you pay players-I think if you can find a system that makes it fair across all sports and all schools then sure, I would gladly support that. However, even if you do pay kids, these outside influences will still find a way to make it uneven. Its just the nature of the beast anymore.....

If you havent read this article from 2014, take a few minutes to read it....Its all true and all true most everywhere.....https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

Sash19......the ONE I am referring to is already on campus and practicing......referred to as "Baby Shack"....all 6'-11" of him. The point I was making...why force a kid to "USE" a school for one year to showcase his talents to enter the NBA.. The Cavs L. James is right....expand the G-League and guys would not be forced to go to college. Not fair to anyone including the fans.

Zilla22 in Charlotte

 

[Sash19]

No chance Levi Cook is NBA caliber....Good kid but no chance.....However, you are correct-enhance the G League and let kids make their own decisions. Lots of problems in the NCAA but sadly not many people at the NCAA that are qualified nor care enough to make changes.

 

[The Real SamC]

What to be anything in healthcare? Not just an MD, but anything, RN, PharmD, x-ray tech, LPN, EMT, anything? Many hours of uncompensated work for hospitals, et al.

What to be a teacher? Many hours of uncompensated work for schools?

Want an advanced degree in a subject outside teaching? Many hours teaching freshman course, uncompensated.

Even lawyers and CPAs are now requiring uncompensated work.

So, want to be in the NFL or NBA? Well that will take a few years of uncompensated work. The main difference being you will not pay tuition, unlike the above mentioned.

For the 1% of NCAA athletes that will go pro, thus, cry me a river. Like other professions, you will have to do some uncompensated work in college. Cry me a river.

For the 80 or so %, IMHO, of NCAA athletes that have the ability to trade their athletic skills into a free, or nearly so, college degree, ask anybody saddled with student loans deep into their middle age if they would have minded playing a sport in return for FREE TUITION. The important point for kids like this is, like everybody else, pick a college that is at your level and a major that yields a degree in an actual vocation. Cry me a river.

For the remainder, the kids who have neither the athletic ability to go pro nor the smarts to really benefit from college, they get 4 years of handholding help, and four years of free room and board, and exposure to the broader and more diverse world. Which is a heck of a lot more than a similar kid w/o such athletic ability is going to get from anybody, no matter who is president or governor. Cry me a river.

As to the "next year" comments about MU having a one and done and being a "factor". No comment.

 

[pdbailey]

I have mixed opinions on the idea pf paying college athletes. The argument is should universities pay college athletes beyond their scholarships? Football, Basketball & Ladies get full rides at most schools. The question is do you pay a field hockey player the same as you pay football players?

I contend no matter what the decision is... 5-star players & their families [yes I said their families] will get "payola" from various sources to play at "said school" in addition to their scholarships & the school's stipend [I think Marshall pays football & basket players around $275/stipend/month]. Let's face it---college athletics is a multi-billion dollar business. In 2015 the NCAA changed the rules to permit athletic scholarships to include a cost-of-attendance stipend. Those payments vary from $2,000---$5,000 per year (actually I think it's paid over a 9-month period). I have always said the NCAA setup a cancer system. Does star Johny sign to play at a Marshall for an estimated $2500 stipend or attend an Auburn or Tennessee for around $5,000? Not too hard to figure out what color uniform Johny will be wearing! Plus it's an unfair recruiting tool for schools paying higher stipends...in my opinion.

Currently the NBA & NFL set up college sports to be a de facto farm system for professional teams. What ever happened to the term---Student-Athletes? LeBron James recently said on ESPN the NBA should explore expanding their G-League to pattern it after Major League baseball and its farm team systems. I like his thinking.

The current college basketball "one & done" rule drives most fans crazy. You have star players for one year (ie Kentucky)...and off they go leaving fans to gasp for air!

Marshall could be facing this next basketball season if "Baby Shack" proves to be the player than Dan signed to help The Herd become a factor......a One & Done.

I don't have an answer but the landscape is going to change and some coaching heads may be rolling down the roads. The shoes companies & agents funnel thousands to colleges & their players. It sounds a little suspect that assistant basketball coaches are spending $335 for a lunch with a recruit's Mom.

Where will it contiune to go...? I have no idea. Your thought?


HerdZilla22 in Charlotte

Schools can only pay the maximum on the cost of attendance that has been outlined by the NCAA for each school. If Auburn is paying $5K then they are only paying the maximum allowable for their school while MU could be paying the maximum allowable for MU. The new system prevents schools from making unfair cost of attendance payments.

 

[JudgeDD]

What to be anything in healthcare? Not just an MD, but anything, RN, PharmD, x-ray tech, LPN, EMT, anything? Many hours of uncompensated work for hospitals, et al.

What to be a teacher? Many hours of uncompensated work for schools?

Want an advanced degree in a subject outside teaching? Many hours teaching freshman course, uncompensated.

Even lawyers and CPAs are now requiring uncompensated work.

So, want to be in the NFL or NBA? Well that will take a few years of uncompensated work. The main difference being you will not pay tuition, unlike the above mentioned.

For the 1% of NCAA athletes that will go pro, thus, cry me a river. Like other professions, you will have to do some uncompensated work in college. Cry me a river.

For the 80 or so %, IMHO, of NCAA athletes that have the ability to trade their athletic skills into a free, or nearly so, college degree, ask anybody saddled with student loans deep into their middle age if they would have minded playing a sport in return for FREE TUITION. The important point for kids like this is, like everybody else, pick a college that is at your level and a major that yields a degree in an actual vocation. Cry me a river.

For the remainder, the kids who have neither the athletic ability to go pro nor the smarts to really benefit from college, they get 4 years of handholding help, and four years of free room and board, and exposure to the broader and more diverse world. Which is a heck of a lot more than a similar kid w/o such athletic ability is going to get from anybody, no matter who is president or governor. Cry me a river.

As to the "next year" comments about MU having a one and done and being a "factor". No comment.

You make some valid points in comparing the scholarship football player and the regular student. But it's not apples and apples. I think the major difference would be what the student is doing during those unpaid hours each week. Football workouts are physically and mentally exhausting. Injury is not only possible, but probable at some point. Athletes miss classes on Fridays during the season, and are pretty much out of touch with their normal living arrangements all Friday and Saturday. And - this is maybe the biggest part - what they are not getting paid for is making money (often millions) for the school.

I have never wanted to pay college athletes like professionals. But I think the cost-of-living stipend was a good start. Personally, I think a cap of $1000-1500 a month would be fair. No one would be getting rich, but athletes would then have money in their pockets to go along with that free education. Nothing will ever completely eliminate some booster from the under-the-table money, but maybe the athlete would be more likely to resist if he wasn't so cash poor.

 

[Sash19]

You make some valid points in comparing the scholarship football player and the regular student. But it's not apples and apples. I think the major difference would be what the student is doing during those unpaid hours each week. Football workouts are physically and mentally exhausting. Injury is not only possible, but probable at some point. Athletes miss classes on Fridays during the season, and are pretty much out of touch with their normal living arrangements all Friday and Saturday. And - this is maybe the biggest part - what they are not getting paid for is making money (often millions) for the school.

I have never wanted to pay college athletes like professionals. But I think the cost-of-living stipend was a good start. Personally, I think a cap of $1000-1500 a month would be fair. No one would be getting rich, but athletes would then have money in their pockets to go along with that free education. Nothing will ever completely eliminate some booster from the under-the-table money, but maybe the athlete would be more likely to resist if he wasn't so cash poor.

So to expand-do you feel that all student athletes, not just football players, should get the same "stipend?" Also, and not directed to you Judge, but if you add the "expense" to the current athletic department budgets around the country-how can schools (especially smaller ones) follow the "rule?" Given the tax law changes on what and how charitable contributions can be deducted, I am pretty sure that sport giving will become smaller and smaller as people see no/significantly lower benefit from it. This might have been the way to help fund the stipend but that is now gone or at least severly hampered. While I agree that student athletes should get something more than their scholarship offerings, there is little to no clarity on who will cover it and how.....Look at a school like Coppin State. They usually play an absolutely ridiculous non conference basketball schedule that has 1 maybe no home games. The "paycheck" games where they are the "buy" game for a bigger school are what keeps their athletic program afloat. They would never be able to do the same as a school like Oklahoma, thus its still an uneven playing field.

 

[The Real SamC]

IMHO, paying the players will not only kill programs like Coppin State, but Marshall and plenty more larger than that.

It is really a myth that college sports is this big money maker. Basketball and football take it in, and everything else spends it, and more. According to the USA Today database, only 13 teams actually take no student fees or taxpayer money. 13.

And Title IX means you have to pay the women too.

IMHO, the deal that athletes get currently is more than generous. If somebody does not think this is for them, then attend college as a regular student, join the service, or get a job.

 

[JudgeDD]

So to expand-do you feel that all student athletes, not just football players, should get the same "stipend?" Also, and not directed to you Judge, but if you add the "expense" to the current athletic department budgets around the country-how can schools (especially smaller ones) follow the "rule?"

I would say to open it up to any scholarship sport you want. Some schools will not be able to afford top dollar. Others may choose to not pay the stipend in some sports. Programs are different. Title IV doesn't always apply. Football is currently the only sport at many schools that has the training table. Some schools are only paying the cost-of-living to certain sports and not others.

As far as schools like Marshall being able to compete with the P5, well they can't now so what is different. Just allow schools to make financial decisions that they can afford. Put a cap on the money that can be paid. The top P5 will meet the cap in whatever sports they feel necessary and will have a recruiting advantage but no more than they already have. Athletes aren't picking Marshall over Penn State now. It won't change if Marshall can pay only $300 a month and PSU pays $1500. Same athletes will end up at each school.

IMHO, paying the players will not only kill programs like Coppin State, but Marshall and plenty more larger than that.

Why will it kill Coppin State? They aren't competing in recruiting with the big boys now. There are plenty of schools that will not have the funds to pay, just like there are currently schools who don't pay the cost-of-living stipend, or only pay a portion of what they are allowed to pay. This is really no different, I'm just suggesting to change the number.

 

[herdfan429]

You make some valid points in comparing the scholarship football player and the regular student. But it's not apples and apples. I think the major difference would be what the student is doing during those unpaid hours each week. Football workouts are physically and mentally exhausting. Injury is not only possible, but probable at some point. Athletes miss classes on Fridays during the season, and are pretty much out of touch with their normal living arrangements all Friday and Saturday. And - this is maybe the biggest part - what they are not getting paid for is making money (often millions) for the school.

I have never wanted to pay college athletes like professionals. But I think the cost-of-living stipend was a good start. Personally, I think a cap of $1000-1500 a month would be fair. No one would be getting rich, but athletes would then have money in their pockets to go along with that free education. Nothing will ever completely eliminate some booster from the under-the-table money, but maybe the athlete would be more likely to resist if he wasn't so cash poor.

What about support staff? You gonna pay the student trainers, videographers, jock washers? The time commitment is just as much for those people

 

[Sash19]

I would say to open it up to any scholarship sport you want. Some schools will not be able to afford top dollar. Others may choose to not pay the stipend in some sports. Programs are different. Title IV doesn't always apply. Football is currently the only sport at many schools that has the training table. Some schools are only paying the cost-of-living to certain sports and not others.

As far as schools like Marshall being able to compete with the P5, well they can't now so what is different. Just allow schools to make financial decisions that they can afford. Put a cap on the money that can be paid. The top P5 will meet the cap in whatever sports they feel necessary and will have a recruiting advantage but no more than they already have. Athletes aren't picking Marshall over Penn State now. It won't change if Marshall can pay only $300 a month and PSU pays $1500. Same athletes will end up at each school.



Why will it kill Coppin State? They aren't competing in recruiting with the big boys now. There are plenty of schools that will not have the funds to pay, just like there are currently schools who don't pay the cost-of-living stipend, or only pay a portion of what they are allowed to pay. This is really no different, I'm just suggesting to change the number.

No offense but that doesnt even remotely help the overall issue. That helps certain sports at certain schools in certain conferences. The purpose was to help keep the "bag men" away from the kids and parents and help these kids have a little more of a "life" but all that suggestion would do is make them worse because they could then allocate their funds easier and almost cast a wider net then they do now. Might as well not do it then because the purpose is to help level out the playing field but that would only enhance the current gap....And dont kid yourself-Title IX does apply here and would end up in a massive lawsuit the first time it wasnt a fair and balanced distribution.

 

[JudgeDD]

My Title IX comment was really just wishful thinking. (I like what Title IX has done for women's sports but not how it is applied)

Really all I'm suggesting is an increase in the money we are already paying our scholarship athletes. I believe the cost-of-attendance (sorry, I typed cost of living earlier) ranges from around $2000 to $6000 per year. This is already being paid by most P5 schools and many G5. I'm just saying to increase the top number to $12-15k. And allow all schools to go to that cap if they want and can afford it.

My thinking is sort of the same as a certain red flag in a security clearance. I may not be able to get a security clearance if I have money problems. Experts say that I am a greater risk to accept money. Maybe the same can be said for college athletes. If he doesn't have a little money in his pocket, if a guy can't take his girlfriend to the movies, if an athlete can only afford to go home one time a year...maybe he will be more apt to accept the under-the-table money.

No, this idea does nothing to level the playing field. And no one will ever 100% stop a booster from trying to influence a recruit to come to his school. But maybe if the athletes weren't so cash poor they would be less likely to step over the line and accept money.

 

[CarolinaHerdzilla]

No chance Levi Cook is NBA caliber....Good kid but no chance.....However, you are correct-enhance the G League and let kids make their own decisions. Lots of problems in the NCAA but sadly not many people at the NCAA that are qualified nor care enough to make changes.

Come on Sash19...you know dang well how I am referring to....not Cook.

Zilla22