Terrelle Pryor, four teammates suspended first five games of 2011

[hondo]

Give all athletes 10% of the gate when they play a game on top of their scholarships.

If you have 50,000 people paying $50 each, that is $2,500,000. Ten percent of that is $250,000 split amongest 200 kids (more or less) or about a grand a game for football players. You want to raise it higher? So be it.

I would use gate because it is the quickest way to get money back to the athlete. The university would have all the funds by the time the game has ended. TV money is too complicated and jersey sales are not cut and dry either.

Your sport does not draw, then you don't get shirt.

That is where I would draw the line, though. You start letting them sell their image or their gear, then you are starting a feeding frenzy. "Hi. This is Cam for Teddy's Titty Bar on I-10..."

Sorry, but it would never work that way -- if you sport doesn't draw, "then you don't get shirt." Title 9 doesn't differentiate between sports that are financially successful and those that don't. I had an attorney who specializes in litigating federal law who told me that the day the NCAA starts paying football and basketball players only, there would be an entire cadre of lawyers lining up to sue the schools to pay the volleyball players and gymnasts. Everything has to be equal: 20 hours of practice, scholarships, etc. Because of that, you'll never see college football or basketball players get paid. Period. End of sentence. Everyone needs to quit wringing their hands over this and accept it. If kids want to get paid for playing sports, become a professional. If they can't get paid for playing professional sports, learn to do something else.

Which is why I like my plan. The schools just give the scholarships, but the athletes are free to get whatever else they can get.

Of course, this would mean the Jennie Finches on the softball team would get endorsements while the sixth outfielder gets nothing. But oh well.

But don't you get it? If any kind of payment for college athletes began, the Jennie Finches, the sixth outfielders and the backup single sculls rower at Amherst will have lawyers going to bat for them to get paid. So no one is. Of all the causes media and fans get on the bandwagon for (kill the BCS, etc.), this is one everyone needs to drop. Ain't never gonna happen.

The schools would be treating them all equally. It's the boosters and the people giving endorsements that wouldn't be.


And there's nothing in Title IX that can make an individual have to treat athletes equally, just like there's nothing in there that says that the media have to provide equal coverage of men's and women's basketball.

Oregon, for instance, can provide the same amount of scholarships for males and females. But if Phil Knight wants to give a million bucks to Oregon's quarterback, there's nothing in there that says he has to give a million bucks to an Oregon women's volleyball player.

The parity issue is a legit concern, but wealthier schools already have an advantage, with nicer facilities, better-paid coaches and staff, etc.

I agree, the media and the fans won't get the players paid. It will be up to the players themselves to fight for their cause. As someone said on this thread earlier, it would be great if Pryor just walked away from Ohio State now and said screw the bowl game. It would show the power that these athletes (or at least the stars) truly have. Just like when Michael Jordan's kid refused to wear his school's sneakers. The school had to give in.

Except NCAA rules prohibit him from giving the Oregon quarterback a million bucks.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Give all athletes 10% of the gate when they play a game on top of their scholarships.

If you have 50,000 people paying $50 each, that is $2,500,000. Ten percent of that is $250,000 split amongest 200 kids (more or less) or about a grand a game for football players. You want to raise it higher? So be it.

I would use gate because it is the quickest way to get money back to the athlete. The university would have all the funds by the time the game has ended. TV money is too complicated and jersey sales are not cut and dry either.

Your sport does not draw, then you don't get shirt.

That is where I would draw the line, though. You start letting them sell their image or their gear, then you are starting a feeding frenzy. "Hi. This is Cam for Teddy's Titty Bar on I-10..."

Sorry, but it would never work that way -- if you sport doesn't draw, "then you don't get shirt." Title 9 doesn't differentiate between sports that are financially successful and those that don't. I had an attorney who specializes in litigating federal law who told me that the day the NCAA starts paying football and basketball players only, there would be an entire cadre of lawyers lining up to sue the schools to pay the volleyball players and gymnasts. Everything has to be equal: 20 hours of practice, scholarships, etc. Because of that, you'll never see college football or basketball players get paid. Period. End of sentence. Everyone needs to quit wringing their hands over this and accept it. If kids want to get paid for playing sports, become a professional. If they can't get paid for playing professional sports, learn to do something else.

Which is why I like my plan. The schools just give the scholarships, but the athletes are free to get whatever else they can get.

Of course, this would mean the Jennie Finches on the softball team would get endorsements while the sixth outfielder gets nothing. But oh well.

But don't you get it? If any kind of payment for college athletes began, the Jennie Finches, the sixth outfielders and the backup single sculls rower at Amherst will have lawyers going to bat for them to get paid. So no one is. Of all the causes media and fans get on the bandwagon for (kill the BCS, etc.), this is one everyone needs to drop. Ain't never gonna happen.

The schools would be treating them all equally. It's the boosters and the people giving endorsements that wouldn't be.


And there's nothing in Title IX that can make an individual have to treat athletes equally, just like there's nothing in there that says that the media have to provide equal coverage of men's and women's basketball.

Oregon, for instance, can provide the same amount of scholarships for males and females. But if Phil Knight wants to give a million bucks to Oregon's quarterback, there's nothing in there that says he has to give a million bucks to an Oregon women's volleyball player.

The parity issue is a legit concern, but wealthier schools already have an advantage, with nicer facilities, better-paid coaches and staff, etc.

I agree, the media and the fans won't get the players paid. It will be up to the players themselves to fight for their cause. As someone said on this thread earlier, it would be great if Pryor just walked away from Ohio State now and said screw the bowl game. It would show the power that these athletes (or at least the stars) truly have. Just like when Michael Jordan's kid refused to wear his school's sneakers. The school had to give in.

Except NCAA rules prohibit him from giving the Oregon quarterback a million bucks.

Of course they do, now. They're still clinging to this amateurism ideal that went out in the 1920s. I don't know if everyone at the NCAA truly believes the BS. I figure most of them know that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Loosen the rules too much, or tighten them too much, and the schools will balk, and maybe bolt.

I use the Phil Knight example as a way for the NCAA to get around the Title IX demand that everyone gets treated equally. The schools can treat the athletes the same. But if boosters are allowed to pay the athletes themselves, there's no law that says that the booster also has to pay a women's swimmer as well.

 

[outofplace]

Give all athletes 10% of the gate when they play a game on top of their scholarships.

If you have 50,000 people paying $50 each, that is $2,500,000. Ten percent of that is $250,000 split amongest 200 kids (more or less) or about a grand a game for football players. You want to raise it higher? So be it.

I would use gate because it is the quickest way to get money back to the athlete. The university would have all the funds by the time the game has ended. TV money is too complicated and jersey sales are not cut and dry either.

Your sport does not draw, then you don't get shirt.

That is where I would draw the line, though. You start letting them sell their image or their gear, then you are starting a feeding frenzy. "Hi. This is Cam for Teddy's Titty Bar on I-10..."

Sorry, but it would never work that way -- if you sport doesn't draw, "then you don't get shirt." Title 9 doesn't differentiate between sports that are financially successful and those that don't. I had an attorney who specializes in litigating federal law who told me that the day the NCAA starts paying football and basketball players only, there would be an entire cadre of lawyers lining up to sue the schools to pay the volleyball players and gymnasts. Everything has to be equal: 20 hours of practice, scholarships, etc. Because of that, you'll never see college football or basketball players get paid. Period. End of sentence. Everyone needs to quit wringing their hands over this and accept it. If kids want to get paid for playing sports, become a professional. If they can't get paid for playing professional sports, learn to do something else.

Which is why I like my plan. The schools just give the scholarships, but the athletes are free to get whatever else they can get.

Of course, this would mean the Jennie Finches on the softball team would get endorsements while the sixth outfielder gets nothing. But oh well.

But don't you get it? If any kind of payment for college athletes began, the Jennie Finches, the sixth outfielders and the backup single sculls rower at Amherst will have lawyers going to bat for them to get paid. So no one is. Of all the causes media and fans get on the bandwagon for (kill the BCS, etc.), this is one everyone needs to drop. Ain't never gonna happen.

Allowing athletes to get endorsements does not open the door for lawyers to force colleges to pay them. Those are two separate things.

I remember when I was this naive. I was about 10 years old.

Snark with nothing to back it up. Well, that's nothing new for you.

Where is the army of lawyers insisting that the U.S. Olympic committee pay athletes? They aren't restricting those athletes from accepting endorsements. Is it an exact comparison? No. But it is as close as we have seen.

Allowing the athletes to earn money any way they can on their own is one thing. Having schools pay them directly is another. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to grasp.

Title IX doesn't apply to the USOC bright boy.

As has already been pointed out, the minute it's announced that football and men's basketball players are going to be paid, a battalion of Title IX lawyers will descend on courthouses across America to file suit against the NCAA and its member schools on behalf of women's college athletes.

Anyone who believes otherwise is a forking fool.

Where did I say the lawyers wouldn't try? Oh, that's right. I didn't. Next time try understanding what other people are posting before you go on the attack.

Title IX guarantees equal opportunity. I'm not suggesting that the NCAA only allow male athletes to pursue endorsements. Female athletes would have the exact same right to attempt to profit from their endeavors as the men. It isn't the NCAA's responsibility to guarantee them the same success.

Anybody who can't grasp that is the real fool.

If you are still having trouble keeping up, see Baron's post. He gets it.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Baron, you really want to open the can of worms of open season on 18-year-olds for boosters? You want society's priorities to be more forked than they already are? And for what? About 3-4 dozen players, none of whom are 100 percent certain of amounting to anything on the field. Again, they are compensated materially to the tune of six figures and the gold standard of connections and networking.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Wise words for a guy with only 17 posts

 

[outofplace]

The day paying college athletes for their services arrives, so too will arrive the day college sports cease to exist. Athletic departments, as pointed out already, mostly lose money. This would compound that loss. Since most schools' athletic departments can't afford this, who pays? The general student population? That's going to go over real well at a time when tuition is constantly on the rise, the economy sucks, etc.

Which is one among many reasons colleges never will, nor should they, pay their athletes. But someday, I'm guessing they will allow others to pay them.

 

[dixiehack]

The day the schools either pay direct stipends or allow boosters to pay players directly, the tax exemption that holds this house of cards together melts away.

 

[93Devil]

So it seems to me that the real reason why these kids will never get paid is it's too complicated with all the potential legal and tax problems.

When I tried to come up with the simplest solution, I knew it would get cut down. Nothing wrong with that because I like the scholarship idea the best.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Baron, you really want to open the can of worms of open season on 18-year-olds for boosters? You want society's priorities to be more forked than they already are? And for what? About 3-4 dozen players, none of whom are 100 percent certain of amounting to anything on the field. Again, they are compensated materially to the tune of six figures and the gold standard of connections and networking.

Why not?

I can see the concern over having a player accept money from, say, a gambler, and then being force to shave points or throw a game.

In that case, then make the boosters get registered with the NCAA for any gifts over, let's say, $100. That way, the NCAA won't be wasting their time going after kids who are accepting a free hamburger, and the kids can still profit.

The day the schools either pay direct stipends or allow boosters to pay players directly, the tax exemption that holds this house of cards together melts away.

The tax exemption should already have melted away. Like it or not, college sports is a business. Time to treat it that way.

If it means that schools can't afford to pay their coaches $3 million a year, oh well.

 

[golfnut8924]

I remember when Rick Majerus was coaching Utah basketball and he got in trouble by the NCAA. Keith Van Horn's dad had just passed away unexpectedly and Van Horn was trying to catch a flight home. Majerus drove him to the airport and they then went out to eat at a diner near the airport while Van Horn waited for his flight and Majerus paid for the meal. NCAA somehow found out and came down on Majerus for it. Ridiculous. As much as I favor the NCAA's side about not paying athletes, sometimes I wonder if they have a soul.

 

[heyabbott]

I remember when Rick Majerus was coaching Utah basketball and he got in trouble by the NCAA. Keith Van Horn's dad had just passed away unexpectedly and Van Horn was trying to catch a flight home. Majerus drove him to the airport and they then went out to eat at a diner near the airport while Van Horn waited for his flight and Majerus paid for the meal. NCAA somehow found out and came down on Majerus for it. Ridiculous. As much as I favor the NCAA's side about not paying athletes, sometimes I wonder if they have a soul.

If Van Horn had to play on a bowl game, he would have been suspended for next season's games against St.Leos and Florida Southern

 

[outofplace]

The day paying college athletes for their services arrives, so too will arrive the day college sports cease to exist. Athletic departments, as pointed out already, mostly lose money. This would compound that loss. Since most schools' athletic departments can't afford this, who pays? The general student population? That's going to go over real well at a time when tuition is constantly on the rise, the economy sucks, etc.

Which is one among many reasons colleges never will, nor should they, pay their athletes. But someday, I'm guessing they will allow others to pay them.

They've allowed others to pay them in the past, which is what led to them not being allowed to be paid or have jobs now. Athletes were getting paid to do jobs like "water the field," when it was AstroTurf (as well depicted in some cheesy Robby Benson movie in the 70s). It's a Pandora's box that must stay closed.

Or, just regulate it as Baron suggested so everything is above the table (cut down on the risk of fixing games). Sure, that would take time and resources. So does what the NCAA does now.