Fair Pay to Play Act Signed into Law in CA
- Thread starter B1GTide
- Start date
The schools' value is only diminished by the relative talent of the players. I.e., it's not how good the players are but how good they are relative to the other programs. The reason for the enthusiasm was not that Bama got more talent but because the team improved relative to its opponents.
My point is that this is almost completely ignored although it is the most important factor in college football's popularity.
I disagree. My point was that for many, it has little to do with the quality of the product but primarily, not exclusively, about the school. Look at the NBDL. NBDL teams would destroy most college teams but their attendance is nothing compared to the NCAA product. Their TV market hardly exists because no one cares even though the basketball skill is far greater. Not only that, probably half of the attendance is simply because of hometown loyalty.[/quote]
Obviously, you can't have games without players and the absolute abilities of the players do matter some but the primary draw for most is their relation to the school and its success - not how good the players are. And this is never mentioned in the national discourse. It's presented as though it is all about the players and my contention is that for many or most, it is primarily , not exclusively, about the school and how it fits into the college football "context". History and culture and loyalty.
Btw, I'm not arguing for or against any particular proposals. I don't know enough yet to make a decision. I'm usually for the players and have to weigh that, at least in this case, vs a selfish desire for things to continue more or less as they are, as well as irritated by the ignoring of what the schools bring to the table. They are usually portrayed as voracious predators of innocent and helpless children. (Most schools don't even make a profit, nor should that be the goal.) But the platform which they have provided, which is greater than what the players provide, is almost completely ignored.
Also, as Krazy indirectly pointed out, they are not content with providing an alternative to college athletics but are willing to drop an "atom bomb" onto an existing system whose popularity is primarily built on the "context" to which I've referred. They want to steal from this "unjust" system because they want the platform, the spoils, they have created for 150 years. E.g., put the top 5% of HS D1 recruits into a development football league and see how little it affects the college game, may even help it indirectly, and how little support that the new league(s) will likely garner. Not many will be interested in the Chicago Newbies or the Birmingham Bungles. Much of the interest in the NFL is because Bama guys or AU guys are playing for a particular team - not most, but much of it. The NFLDL won't even have that.
Absolutely disagree. How are kids who are not stars going to feel about the QB getting paid when all they get is a scholarship? This will lead to even more focus on the individual and not the team. Anyone who thinks they are taken advantage of can simply declare as pro as basketball as does now essentially out of high school. There are going to be semi pro type leagues that are alternatives to the NFL. The 1% of kids who do make money from endorsements may only make it as long as they don't get hurt.
On top of these issues, imagine how schools like Auburn are going to conduct themselves in recruiting based on the sales of a kids jersey. Yella fella will buy thousands of them. Kids already get a sizable amount of money plus their scholly. With the stipend and the pell grant many kids get, they are literally making fairly decent money for an eighteen year old kid. The term fair pay is based upon their view of the NFL model which is really only a minuscule number based on the total number of kids who play collegiate football. I think the NCAA will fight it tooth and nail because it is for their very survival as an organization. They may require all the member schools not to play schools from California. Leave it to California to do something stupid.
Kyler Murray was an individual millionaire last year on his OU squad due to his baseball signing bonus. Didn't seem to affect how his team rallied around him. Seems like those OL "playing for free" were pretty adamant about protecting him.
Totally different situation. Murray was one kid who signed a contract not for the sport he was playing at the time. Every team including Alabama will have numerous kids who get the endorsement money. What happens when the non endorsed players cry foul and demand the same treatment and pay which will happen. What happens when a female gymnast,crew member, or softball player believe they deserve the same money. Title 9 requires an even playing field when it comes to both sexes. Are the player making millions going to share it? Ahh, no! Small schools will simply give up athletics altogether because they simply can't the cost.
Hahaha, if the jersey represents Alabama, then I'll watch. I enjoy team sports where the name on the front of the jersey means more than the name on the back. However, going fishing or golfing or four-wheeling or just hanging out with family and/or friends are all options that sound better and better.
I’m 100% behind the idea a kid should have control over use of his image, but I agree with others that reference unintended consequences. I’m searching for text of the actual bill, as it might address bamaslammer’s point above. But if it doesn’t, this consequence alone will potentially be a quagmire.
If the school uses the kids likeness on a media package or a game program, does that open the door for schools negotiating (paying) with players directly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the only tenable way to do this is unfortunately going to really only further the divide between have and have not schools:
Schools act as a quasi-agent for the athletes and there is some degree of revenue sharing between the schools and players.
Schools act as a quasi-agent for the athletes and there is some degree of revenue sharing between the schools and players.
I regret posting the thread given how upset some seem to have been made over the topic.
We all love college football, and we all want what is best for the sport, our schools and the players. We just disagree on what that looks like. Let's remember that we are all family here. We can agree or disagree without getting emotional about it.
I respect the opinion of everyone on this board - even those with which I disagree.
Roll Tide!!!
:cheers2:
We all love college football, and we all want what is best for the sport, our schools and the players. We just disagree on what that looks like. Let's remember that we are all family here. We can agree or disagree without getting emotional about it.
I respect the opinion of everyone on this board - even those with which I disagree.
Roll Tide!!!
:cheers2:
So the players aren’t the driving force behind the money? What would Alabama be with Yale’s 2019 roster then?
Let's look at this another way.
Why is is that the AAFL, with better talent than the SEC's teams couldn't muster a fraction of the popularity? The fans follow teams that they care about, not players, otherwise the G-League would be more successful than NCAA basketball and the AAFL would have been more popular than college football. That's why California has to inflict this new law on college sports specifically, because this isn't about giving these athletes professional opportunities. Rather, it is about hijacking what college sports and we as fans have built.
I and almost everyone here have loyalty to Alabama football. Not some other semi-pro team in the Alabama area, not some particular player, and as long as Alabama is successful relative to their peers (under these new rules that might not be the case as Alabama could become a "small market" team, if the sport isn't torn in two) they will always have a better following than some semi-pro offering, even one with demonstrably better players.
So if a “can’t miss 5 star recruit” hasn’t hit the two deep depth chart by start of his junior and someone puts his picture on the side of milk carton, is he entitled to endorsement money?
Asking for a friend....
Asking for a friend....
If all the really good players in college football stopped going to college, we’d be fine. We would still get the top recruits who did go. No, those teams wouldn’t be as good as what we have now, but it would still be Alabama football.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some are exercised about this subject for they see it possibly destroying college football as we know it. That remains to be seen. But stopping discussion does not seem the way to go. I've detected little venom in this thread and remember many more explosive topics.
In my case, while I believe there is a major pertinent aspect that is mostly ignored, I am undecided as to the proper path to take. I appreciate the ideas posited here almost all done so in a reasonable tone. It's a place where reasonable people can express themselves on the most important issue facing the sport.
As far as starting this thread, this topic was going to be broached by someone - it's far too important to ignore. Your regret is almost like telling your wife that you are sorry you mentioned that you want a divorce because you knew it would disturb her
.
My regret is that I started a divisive conversation. Everyone seems to want to take a side on this issue. I guess that is just where we are as a society - pick a side and then defend it. Even I have been guilty of that in this thread.Some are exercised about this subject for they see it possibly destroying college football as we know it. That remains to be seen. But stopping discussion does not seem the way to go. I've detected little venom in this thread and remember many more explosive topics.
In my case, while I believe there is a major pertinent aspect that is mostly ignored, I am undecided as to the proper path to take. I appreciate the ideas posited here almost all done so in a reasonable tone. It's a place where reasonable people can express themselves on the most important issue facing the sport.
As far as starting this thread, this topic was going to be broached by someone - it's far too important to ignore. Your regret is almost like telling your wife that you are sorry you mentioned that you want a divorce because you knew it would disturb her
Phrased another way using your own words, are you an advocate of "free market capitalism" ? I ask that because of some of your comments on the NS forum. My impression was that you were not, at least not enthusiastically so. My memory or interpretation of what you said may be faulty - this was from a few years ago.
I'm usually opinionated but unclear on this issue, at least unclear about the resolution. (I do have opinions about aspects of the issue.) But don't find that it is wrong to take a side on this issue or any if one has objectively thought it through. The comments have been interesting and in some cases helpful to me.
IMO, conflict or disagreement is not the problem, but being kind, understanding and civil can enable a reasonable discussion. I guess you are referring to socio-political debate (I avoid the NS forum) where the other side is full of fools and/or the wicked. I haven't seen that in this thread, though socio-political overtones hover and things can degenerate quickly.
No one can truly know what this will do to college football, but just about everyone claims to know. The side that they choose is based on their knowledge of the unknowable. It isn't a debate of the issues or the facts. It is a debate of political ideologies.
So, IMO, taking sides on something like this is unhealthy.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 23
-