Terrelle Pryor, four teammates suspended first five games of 2011

[golfnut8924]

I belong to the crowd that believes college athletes should not be paid and here's why.

1.) They are being paid x amount of money per year that it costs to go to such a school. Many people cannot afford to go to Ohio State and those that can will be left with decades of student loan debt. Athletes like Pryor wouldn't be going there because A: they can't afford it and B: they aren't smart enough to go there without football talent. It's not my fault these athletes don't recognize how valuable a free education is and pish it away most of the time. So yes, they are being paid, they just take it for granted.

2.) So you aren't getting paid to play in college ----- okay, so do you want to go back to your old life? Go back to your hometown where you are living in an apartment with 4 cousins and five siblings? (I know this is singling out the inner city, lower-level income kids and perhaps that's not fair but for the sake of this argument). For a lot of these kids, their lives at college are MUCH better than what they have at home. Their dorm rooms are probably nicer and more comfortable than what they had at home. They all have meal plans for the dining hall so they are getting three hot meals every day -- better than what they had at home. They can walk around campus and feel safe, not having to constantly look over their shoulder for trouble --- a luxury they probably didn't have at home.

Besides, do you really think putting a bunch of cash in the hands of guys like Pryor is a good idea? They already can't stay out of trouble at the bars and clubs, do you really want to add a pile of money to the equation to make it worse?

If they want to get paid, tell them to work hard for four years, graduate and if you aren't NFL talent, actually use your degree and get a forking job like the rest of society.

 

[dooley_womack1]

As for this Cam silliness: Auburn sold out its games as easily at 3-9 as it did at 13-0. The school, not the player is the draw. I would ask for Mizzou gear whether Chase Daniel or Chase Patton is the QB. The notion that any one player adds enough value to be worth hundreds of thousands above their valuable scholarships is absurd

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

As for this Cam silliness: Auburn sold out its games as easily at 3-9 as it did at 13-0. The school, not the player is the draw. I would ask for Mizzou gear whether Chase Daniel or Chase Patton is the QB. The notion that any one player adds enough value to be worth hundreds of thousands above their valuable scholarships is absurd

This.

And I'm not against players being paid; I think it's a worthwhile discussion when people bring views and ideas to the table. And "They bring in so much MONEY!!!!!" simply isn't valid, as dooley expresses above.

 

[Gues#t]

On ESPN--I caught this on the fly, surely I'm wrong--Mark May says that Ohio State got a big break here, that the Big Ten and Pac Ten get special treatment and the SEC always gets hosed.

It's too good to be true--tell me I'm wrong--Mark May knows about Cam Newton, right?

Far be it from me to stick up for the SEC and bash the Big Tenlve, but I thought May had a valid point.

Perhaps you're confusing the Pac Ten as a whole with USoCal. Many people do.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

As for this Cam silliness: Auburn sold out its games as easily at 3-9 as it did at 13-0. The school, not the player is the draw. I would ask for Mizzou gear whether Chase Daniel or Chase Patton is the QB. The notion that any one player adds enough value to be worth hundreds of thousands above their valuable scholarships is absurd

This.

And I'm not against players being paid; I think it's a worthwhile discussion when people bring views and ideas to the table. And "They bring in so much MONEY!!!!!" simply isn't valid, as dooley expresses above.

I'd say it depends on the school. For a school like Auburn, with a long tradition, they will draw fans regardless.

But if you were to take a school like Boston College, their football team essentially was nothing until Doug Flutie came along. I'd argue that, while BC has a well-renowned academic reputation, that Flutie had a major impact, not just on the football team, but in terms of getting more applicants and more endowments.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I like that, too, though the legal fight if they started paying players out of the gate would be interesting. Title IX guarantees equal opportunity, but would it guarantee equal pay? Seems to me that would be open to interpretation.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Any liberalization of the current rules leaves us with "rich get richer, poor get poorer" bullshirt.

NCAA foots, for example, has improved markedly since numerical scholarship numbers were lowered.

Parity is king. See: the NFL. If you're not morons and aren't maniacal cheapskates, you can compete. It drums up interest like nothing else. And anything that hampers it, blows.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.