News Article: NCAA at the Supreme Court--Paying Athletes

[Padreruf]

I love football. I hope and expect that it will survive all of this.

I think it will...but it will be different in ways we cannot imagine. NO ONE can foresee where this is going...I happen to think that it is over due, but I have no clue as to what this will do to the athlete-university relationship.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Without some strict regulation this is going to get so out of hand. The rich are only going to get richer, and the schools with the richest boasters will dominate recruiting. High profile players will get their pockets stuffed for certain “appearances “. This will just make it easier to funnel players money. Recruiting pitches will go from “come to our school because of this and that”, to “ our RB made $X,000 for an appearance last Friday”. Im all for players getting a piece of the pie, but NIL ain’t gonna work.

I agree in general but trust me - Texas will find a way to screw it up. All that money and no wisdom.

 

[jdua]

Athletes shouldn’t be taken advantage of, nor should they be forced to pretend to be “students”. Let them all go right out of high school or whenever and let the NFL worry about development and safety. As long as the rules of competition are the same for everyone I could not care less if college football is made up of 2 and 3 star players. Nothing about the problem is complicated but money drives the train. College athletics??? Look at baseball or women’s gymnastics ..... that’s how it should work at the college level. The SCOTUS is simply seeing the absurd reality of the NCAA goose that keeps laying the golden egg. I’m a college sports fan, however that ends up shaking out.

 

[KrAzY3]

Athletes shouldn’t be taken advantage of, nor should they be forced to pretend to be “students”

This is the part where I'm kind of hung up. Exactly who is doing this and to whom? If anyone is really being taken advantage of, it's some athletes taking advantage of other athletes. Athletic departments are closed loops, they don't have some billionaire owner or something. They reinvest into the department and have to publicly disclose their finances in almost all cases.

As far as "forced to pretend to be students", why wife is in a class right now with Thomas Fletcher. She is doing it to further her career and while Fletcher might very well be playing in the NFL, he's probably not going to end up so rich he never has to worry about money again. His education can serve him well.

That aside, this forced thing.... are people aware the G-League exists? Do they know players can join them (or go to Europe) at 18? All that's really left is college football. That's it. In the least we have to concede we're talking about a very small sliver of the NCAA. The only real argument left in terms of being "forced" to play college sports would be college football and that's only true because the last semi-pro league folded.

 

[B1GTide]

This is the part where I'm kind of hung up. Exactly who is doing this and to whom? If anyone is really being taken advantage of, it's some athletes taking advantage of the rest. Athletic departments are closed loops, they don't have some billionaire owner or something, they reinvest.

As far as "forced to pretend to be students", why wife is in a class right now with Thomas Fletcher. She is doing it to further her career and while Fletcher might very well be playing in the NFL, he's probably not going to end up so rich he never has to worry about money again. His education can serve him well.

That aside, this forced thing.... are people aware the G-League exists? Do they know players can join them (or go to Europe) at 18? All that's really left is college football. That's it. In the least we have to concede we're talking about a very small sliver of the NCAA. The only real argument left in terms of being "forced" to play college sports would be college football and that's only true because the last semi-pro league folded.

I do not think that college athletes are being taken advantage, but the bolded is absurd.

 

[KrAzY3]

I do not think that college athletes are being taken advantage, but the bolded is absurd.

What part about it is absurd? The funds that the athletic departments make are redistributed throughout the department. So if we really want to ask where the money the football players earn goes, it goes to the other athletes! It goes to pay for travel expenses, facilities and so on. Not only is this factual and thus not an absurdity to point out, it's how the entire system works! It's absurd that someone could claim otherwise.

Where does the money go? To the other athletes!

 

[B1GTide]

What part about it is absurd? The funds that the athletic departments make are redistributed throughout the department. So if we really want to ask where the money the football players earn goes, it goes to the other athletes! It goes to pay for travel expenses, facilities and so on. Not only is this factual and thus not an absurdity to point out, it's how the entire system works! It's absurd that someone could claim otherwise.

Where does the money go? To the other athletes!

If you think that some athletes are taking advantage of other athletes then we have no reason to continue the discussion. Have a good day.

 

[KrAzY3]

If you think that some athletes are taking advantage of other athletes then we have no reason to continue the discussion. Have a good day.

Dude, you're the one throwing the term absurd around. I know what I said and I know what the context was. I didn't say you were wrong, or do anything intended to offend. I just made a point, which I will elaborate on since it seems to offend you.

The argument that was presented and one of the general arguments being made seems to be that college athletes are being taken advantage of. Are we in agreement that some people feel that way? That's in the quote I responded to.

There is, and there's no disputing this from my perspective, an unequal distribution relative to value. I know full well that Tua was worth more to the program than the long snapper. If we placed a earning value one would be higher than the other. However, with the system being a closed loop and putting everything back into resources for the athletes, I don't see this as an injustice. It's just how this voluntary system works.

Now, I do not say any athlete is attempting to take advantage of another. But, without Tua, without the most valuable athletes in the revenue sports, many sports programs simply couldn't afford to exist. This doesn't mean the recipients of the money are trying to take advantage, or are doing so with malice or anything. They are the beneficiaries though. They are the ones who are put at an advantage they otherwise would not have.

 

[B1GTide]

Now, I do not say any athlete is attempting to take advantage of another. But, without Tua, without the most valuable athletes in the revenue sports, many sports programs simply couldn't afford to exist. This doesn't mean the recipients of the money are trying to take advantage, or are doing so with malice or anything. They are the beneficiaries though. They are the ones who are put at an advantage they otherwise would not have.

Being a beneficiary of someone and taking advantage of someone are two entirely different things. Thank you for the clarification.

If you can't see why saying that someone like Tua was taking advantage of his team mates is absurd then

 

[81usaf92]

Dude, you're the one throwing the term absurd around. I know what I said and I know what the context was. I didn't say you were wrong, or do anything intended to offend. I just made a point, which I will elaborate on since it seems to offend you.

The argument that was presented and one of the general arguments being made seems to be that college athletes are being taken advantage of. Are we in agreement that some people feel that way? That's in the quote I responded to.

There is, and there's no disputing this from my perspective, an unequal distribution relative to value. I know full well that Tua was worth more to the program than the long snapper. If we placed a earning value one would be higher than the other. However, with the system being a closed loop and putting everything back into resources for the athletes, I don't see this as an injustice. It's just how this voluntary system works.

Now, I do not say any athlete is attempting to take advantage of another. But, without Tua, without the most valuable athletes in the revenue sports, many sports programs simply couldn't afford to exist. This doesn't mean the recipients of the money are trying to take advantage, or are doing so with malice or anything. They are the beneficiaries though. They are the ones who are put at an advantage they otherwise would not have.

I disagree with the last paragraph. Baseball has proven that you don’t need Mike Trout in college to have a quality sport and the NCAA has proven that you don’t need Lebron James in college either to make money. The NCAA makes tons of money on March Madness and the CWS. The reality of it is there is going to be more players to go the NCAA route than not if you eliminate the pause between high school and pros.

 

[KrAzY3]

I disagree with the last paragraph. Baseball has proven that you don’t need Mike Trout in college to have a quality sport and the NCAA has proven that you don’t need Lebron James in college either to make money. The NCAA makes tons of money on March Madness and the CWS. The reality of it is there is going to be more players to go the NCAA route than not if you eliminate the pause between high school and pros.

A sport will always have its stars though right? So if we accept your premise, which I think has some truth to it (college baseball doesn't earn money for colleges though), a sport will still always have its more valuable athletes and those will almost always reside with the basketball and football team. So if it's not Tua, it's Mac, or someone else, you know what I mean?

I understand and recognize that there's always going to be some guy on the football team that's more important and more valuable than some of the other players. In turn, that person will always be more valuable to the rest of the athletic department. The counter to that, and this is one reason I am wary of change, is that a lot of the value does lie in the station, not necessarily the athlete and I think that's part of your point.

So sometimes we imagine someone to be more valuable than they actually are to a college sports program, merely because the fanbase, support structure and so on is so great that they turn him into something more valuable than he would be in a different environment. Nevertheless there are funds going from certain sports to other sports.

 

[81usaf92]

A sport will always have its stars though right? So if we accept your premise, which I think has some truth to it (college baseball doesn't earn money for colleges though), a sport will still always have its more valuable athletes and those will almost always reside with the basketball and football team. So if it's not Tua, it's Mac, or someone else, you know what I mean?

I understand and recognize that there's always going to be some guy on the football team that's more important and more valuable than some of the other players. In turn, that person will always be more valuable to the rest of the athletic department. The counter to that, and this is one reason I am wary of change, is that a lot of the value does lie in the station, not necessarily the athlete and I think that's part of your point.

So sometimes we imagine someone to be more valuable than they actually are to a college sports program, merely because the fanbase, support structure and so on is so great that they turn him into something more valuable than he would be in a different environment. Nevertheless there are funds going from certain sports to other sports.

Well you can make the argument that most college football fans never saw Jerry Rice, TO, AB, Kurt Warner, Shannon Sharpe, Michael Strahan, or Rodney Harrison. Of course I’m listing non FBS players in limited exposure eras.

But my point is this, even if the ban is struck down it doesn’t change the truth that exposure trumps talent 99% of the time. So it’s going to have to be a Clayton Kershaw or a Lebron James type freak to convince the NFL to draft high. So you may lose out on a Tua or Joe Burrow but there are going to be less folks take the NFL road than college.

Now if the ban is struck down then I would highly recommend the NCAA to put something in place to guarantee that player commit to their decision for a set amount of time. Otherwise you are going to have a lot of one and done players.

 

[CrimsonToffee]

Being a beneficiary of someone and taking advantage of someone are two entirely different things. Thank you for the clarification.

If you can't see why saying that someone like Tua was taking advantage of his team mates is absurd then

I think he meant it the other way around. More like the other athletes would be taking advantage of Tua. For instance, the money Tua and the football team generates helps pay for the tennis teams, so one could say a tennis player was taking advantage of the football player who could be seen as paying the tennis player’s way.

 

[B1GTide]

I think he meant it the other way around. More like the other athletes would be taking advantage of Tua. For instance, the money Tua and the football team generates helps pay for the tennis teams, so one could say a tennis player was taking advantage of the football player who could be seen as paying the tennis player’s way.

Thanks, but even that way they would not be taking advantage of him. They would be the beneficiaries of his greatness and that which comes with it. Let's face it - Tua is not Tua without a team around him - he is just another dude who can throw a ball. In team sports, everyone benefits from the play of everyone around them. Some may be more talented, but that benefits the entire team. And even the weakest player can be the guy who makes the greatest difference on a critical play.

 

[KrAzY3]

Thanks, but even that way they would not be taking advantage of him.

To try to put that part to bed, my response was within the context of what I was replying to. I'm usually overly rhetorical, but in this case I might have been insufficient in my explanation. The poster mentioned being taken advantage of, and what I said along the lines of accepting that premise, if anyone is taking advantage it would have to be the recipients which are in fact other athletes. My entire response was just accepting the premise someone else set forth. It was not intended to disparage anyone.

I think the way the media portrays this situation makes it seems like there's some rich guy just shoveling money these guys earn into his bank account. In truth athletic departments operate under mandate from congress and have to answer for their expenses, so there's a lot of mandated transparency. This is one reason I know that not only is there not a rich guy pocketing the money, in fact there are a few entities that are shoveling money into the athletic departments.

So you may lose out on a Tua or Joe Burrow but there are going to be less folks take the NFL road than college.

I agree with this part and it's one reason I have the position I do. Generally speaking college sports provides a level of support and exposure that minor leagues and semi-pro leagues can not provide. I say this as someone that worked for a minor league team and actually had a fondness for semi-pro football. The underlying financials are pretty bleak, most of these guys would be worse off if college was no longer an option.

I guess a good example would be Jacob Coker. He's someone who as a professional football player had moderate value at best. However, at Alabama he clearly was worth a lot and also was the recipient of a lot of support and exposure and I'm sure some of that will lead to professional opportunities in life. Without college football he has none of that. However, and this is in line with your Jerry Rice argument I suppose, Tua even outside of even Division 1 football is still worth millions on the open market. I don't try to hide that fact. In either case, clearly Coker and Tua are both going to be worth more to the athletic department than the captain of the rowing team.