yort2000

43 minutes ago, Husker Poyer said:

"You can't pay players, it just wouldn't be fair" - Billion dollar organization who makes all of it's money off of unpaid labor

Ugh. NCAA is nonprofit and makes most of its money from the NCAA basketball tournament and most of the revenue it generates gets redistributed to the universities.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Where Does the Money Go-WEB.PDF

6 hours ago, Undone said:

Maybe some will be interested in looking at some of these plays. I know it's painful.   

 

 

Here's third down. We have a man that looks like he's going to get open over the middle, but we get sacked:

 

 

 

What do you guys think of that second & 20 run when Adrian jogs out of bounds?

The thing you should be looking at on this third down play isn't if he could have hit someone running open down the middle.  The main takeaway from that play is how confused our O-linemen are and 5 of them end up blocking 2 guys and let 2 guys run right at the QB untouched.  

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Frost has said exactly what the told the team.  

 

"One of two things is going to happen a)  We go out, let up and let Colorado back in the game...or...b) we go out, stay focused, score some points in the third and put the game away."

 

He seemed as surprised as we are which they chose.

Psychology 101, you shouldn't even put that thought in their mind.

3 hours ago, Undone said:

I made a bunch of posts yesterday in one of the threads where somebody had posted the 40 minute version of the game. I set the video to the specific time of specific plays (can't remember which thread it was now).

 

On the re-watch, I didn't see any kind of lack of effort. Martinez had a couple of missed passes on our second possession - how in the hell is that any kind of example of "not knowing how to win?" Same goes for the pass that went through Wan'Dale's hands. You think that kid isn't laser focused and playing with intensity to go out there and do whatever he can to win the game?

 

A couple series later, our receivers make a tremendous effort to block on the edge and Washington makes an incredible display of individual athleticism to scorch CU for a long touchdown. 

 

I think it was just a small run of bad luck on two or three series in the opening of the third quarter. If the team had no idea how to come out with intensity, being focused on winning, would we have been 17-0 at half? Probably not; we probably would have been down 17-0.

Under Scott Frost, Nebraska is 1-6 in games decided by 5 points or less.  That is the stat of a team that doesn't know how to win.

47 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Honestly I think frost is sometimes his own worst enemy by feeding into the preseason hype and in season comments. It gets the fan base extra expectations. Best practices ever, best qb ever, way ahead of last year, strength and conditioning hype. Again that’s all fine I am just observing that stuff probably gets people expecting more than we are getting. 

 

Personally the the talk of hey we are learning how to win bla bla. I don’t buy that. It’s year 2, we turned the corner last year and went 4-2. Why is that team not translating to this year or even better? 

I think he is trying to build the team's confidence by saying those things to the media.

3 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

It went for 7 yards. The play worked martinez screwed up.

Sometimes players on the other team make great plays.  Doesn't mean Nebraska guys screw up. That was a picture perfect hit.

On 6/30/2019 at 12:07 PM, REDFANATIC said:

So he qualified and enrolled at TCU his freshman year, redshirted then transferred to Kilgore JC for red shirt freshman year. Could he be be added to 19 class since he qualified at TCU?

I don't think Nebraska can add anyone to the 2019 class as I believe they have maxed out on the 25 initial counters you are allowed per year by the NCAA.

22 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t read much of their stuff. I just don’t remember a whole lot of negativity when Riley was here. 

In 2016, Dinardo said a good goal for the team would be to get to a bowl game.  I think in 2015 they commented about the practices being "west coast" practices, which I assumed was a hint at them being pretty soft.  I don't remember what year 2015 or 2016 that Howard made a comment about players need to get up off the ground.

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I have done research.

 

You’re talking about NCAA revenue. You were replying to a post about money in college football. Thus I brought up broadcasters. Do you think broadcasters are breaking even with what they pay the conferences and NCAA?

No I was replying to the reply directly quoting the $1.1 billion that the NCAA "made" and how he liked the idea, even though it was a dumb idea because most of the money already goes back to the universities.

Broadcasters don't deserve the right to make money to provide the service of letting you watch the game on TV?  They are paying for the right to do so and it is up to them to figure out to make money over their expenses.  That money they pay goes to AD budgets and is used for the benefit of the athletic programs and the student athletes.

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You were responding to Nebfanatic talking about the money surrounding athletics. I highlt doubt the majority goes to benefit the student athletes. I imagine the majority goes to the broadcasters. 

Broadcasters?  A majority of the NCAA's revenue comes from television and marketing rights for the NCAA baskeball tournament.  Do some research.  In one of my previous posts I detailed where the money goes.  Interestingly enough, the NCAA puts on 90 championships and only 5 make money.  So the NCAA basketball championship is subsidizing 85 other college sports championships also.

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Does it?

Yes.  $130 million is used for NCAA expenses and the rest is distributed to universities through one program or another.

17 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I like this.

 

Edit: all of this money surrounding athletics goes somewhere, and while the student athletes get great benefits from the university, ultimately they are getting a disproportionate piece of the pie given their contribution in this equation.

Most of this money already goes back to the universities and benefits the student athletes.

4 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

My opinion: athletes should be paid. My opinion on how this should happen: the NCAA made $1.1 billion last year. With this amount of funding, it allows them to subsidize a monthly stipend for every scholarship Division 1 athlete, across every sport. These funds are distributed equally to every school and the school distributes the funds to every scholarship athlete on campus, from football to volleyball, baseball to track and everything inbetween. This helps prevent schools from setting their own levels of funding for athletes (i.e. Alabama paying their football players more than Auburn, or Nebraska paying their volleyball players more than Penn St). Then, schools set aside an equal portion of the money brought in by merchandise sales and pay this out to players on the basis of graduation; if you transfer, leave school, or go pro, you forfeit this money. 

Doesn't this already happen with the NCAA?  My understanding is that the NCAA generates most of their revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament and that about $220 million goes to Division I athletic departments for sports scholarships, $160 million goes to Division I basketball conferences and independents based on their basketball performance over a certain period of time (again getting into Division I AD budgets), $100 million goes directly to teams in the tournament to cover their expenses to participate in the tournament, $380 million to other funds, education programs, grants, and Division II/III allocations, and $130 million used to cover the NCAA's general and administrative and other association expenses. 

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t like the latter argument. It’s not really a choice if you try to empathize. These players found something they are really good at, and in order to get paid well to do that, they essentially have 1 thing they can do (except in rare circumstances), which is to join an NCAA team so they can end up in the NFL.

 

With almost every single other career in the U.S., there are multiple paths for individuals to take to get to where they want to end up. Your option is telling them to give up instead of trying to improve things where they are because that’s their only way of continuing to play football. Everyone else could just switch to a different organization and have about an equal shot of their career goals. That isn’t the case with football.

 

There’s a question of whether the players are getting screwed over or if it’s unfair, and if it is unfair there’s the question of whether it should be fixed. If they’re being treated unfairly the answer is to fix it, not tell them to stop playing football.

Yeah, let's change the rules for 100s of thousands of student athletes each year to fit the agendas of the 1,696 athletes that make NFL rosters every year, which probably only works out to about 520 athletes a year since the average NFL career spans 3.3 years.

I don't think they are being treated unfairly.  Why do you?

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

This isn't about schools paying players its about players being able to use thier likeness to command compensation. If someone else can make money selling #2 Husker jerseys with the name Martinez slapped on the back, why can't Adrian Martinez? Currently because of NCAA rules.

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

So what do you suggest we do? Because the current system doesn't work. 

Chicken and egg somewhat here also.  Martinez brings value to that shirt, but the University of Nebraska also brings value because of its rabid fanbase.  If college football doesn't exist, than that jersey doesn't exist either.  So, this comes back to my original point and is full tuition, a stipend, 3 to 6 years of meals and housing, and many other perks not offered other students enough compensation?  My view is that it is enough and that the current system does work.

 I wanted to come back to the often used argument that people are making millions, so the student athlete should have to opportunity to benefit on top of what they are already getting compensated.  The only people making millions at Nebraska are Scott Frost, Fred Hoiberg, and Bill Moos (and severance to Eichorst, Riley, and last year to Pelini).  The July 1, 2018 Nebraska athletic department fiscal year budget (revenue includes licensing agreements that would encompass the sale of that AM jersey) had a surplus of $6.6 million.  $5.4 million went to the UNL administration for academics (supporting non-athlete students),  $800,000 to start new athletic programs (more student athletes benefiting), and $400,000 added to the AD dept. rainy day fund.  So, besides what some may consider too expensive coaching/AD salaries, there is not a lot of money being bandied about that isn't directly going to support the athletic programs, the student-athletes themselves, and other UNL students.

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

You're missing the point. This is about the right to do it not what the 3rd stringer should do. I'm pretty sure someone in Nebraska would pay to have Kade Warner come out to an event. And the fact of the matter is right now some players do get paid. Alot. And its been that way since the 80s and probably before then. So how exactly is it fair to Kade Warner, or any other student athlete that doesn't get paid under the table, that they can't even TRY to use their likeness for compensation. You are making alot of assumptions about what players can do with their likeness even if they aren't a star player. If given the opportunity to use his likeness, the 3rd stringer on Moorehead state may be creative and be able to use it in a way to make some money on the side while continuing his passion of college football. Point is, some players are getting paid big bucks on the low and others are banned from the opportunity to try. 

That's all well and good, but what comes out at the other end of that type of system won't be what exists today.  And, in my opinion, it won't be for the better.

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

Some people care about fairness to the athlete when everyone around them is making millions of dollars off of them and they can't go sign some T shirts for money. On top of that, kids are getting bookoo bucks under the table and they have been for a long, long time. How exactly is it fair to the 3rd stringer on Moorehead State that Alabama pays their best recruit 200k to commit and the 3rd stringer is banned from using their likeness for profit. So if we want to talk about fairness, I think the current system isn't going to hold up too well.

LOL.  Nobody is going to be paying for the autograph of the 3rd stringer at Morehead State and if he had an opportunity to make money, but it was banned by the NCAA, I'm sure he would just give up football and pursue the money making endeavor because he is FREAKING 3RD STRING AT MOREHEAD STATE.  If your worth the money, it will find you.  And as far as getting paid for your likeness, only a handful of athletes at each school would actually have enough status to make money anyway as a majority of the roster at most schools are just going to be made up of Joe Schmos.   

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

? Ok. They get paid by their school and are allowed to make money outside of that. Are you telling me you don't think schools give full rides for band? Because I'm sure I can find one that does, and I'm am positive that student would not be banned from using their likeness to make money. If we don't want to use band, why don't we just use a regular student who recieves a full scholarship. They are getting 'paid' by the university, but that doesn't ban them from becoming an entrepeneur and using their brand for money.

Nobody is fighting over band members and the $250 at UNO is probably an enticement to get people to join band so that they can actually have one.  Totally different situations.  There are rules for college athletics to keep the playing field as level as possible that don't exist for band or any other extracurricular activity.   Some people don't care about trying to keep as much "fairness" as possible in "amateur" athletics and some people do.    If it continues on this path, it will morph into just another professional sports league and college football will no longer exist as most universities will not be able to pay all the football players and every other college athlete on campus.

6 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Does this legislation force schools to pay players or simply allows players to use their own likeness to get paid? Because there is a big difference.

I think this is because of one of the NCAA rules that states college athletes can be entrepreneurs, but they can't use their likeness to promote their business.

From:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/10-ways-college-athletes-can-get-paid-and-remain-eligible-for-their-sport/

10. Self-employment. This NCAA rule still says an athlete may establish a business only if his or her name, photo, appearance or athletic reputation are not used to promote the business. But the NCAA now tackles this issue on a case-by-case basis and has said it will grant appropriate waivers if athletes have similar opportunities as other students for entrepreneurial aspirations. Most famously, Minnesota wrestler Joel Bauman tested the NCAA in 2013 by promoting that he was an NCAA wrestler on a music video he produced. Bauman declined to remove his name from any songs and eliminate any promotion of his status as an NCAA athlete. He got declared ineligible, a firestorm erupted, and he brilliantly turned the publicity into a marketing job.

7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Funny because a quick search turned up that all UNO band students recieve a scholarship or cash stipend. I'm sure its the same at many other schools around the country. Does this ban them from making money outside of band?? No.

https://www.unomaha.edu/news/2016/04/scholarships-available-from-the-uno-bands.php

 

LOL. $250.  Keep trying.  You have no argument.

6 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

Do professional players get paid when a media outlet publishes their picture?  I don't think so.

That wasn't the question you asked.

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Using the example above, band members also recieve compensation no? They get scholarships for band, and likely food stipends on trips. That doesn't stop them from being able to play their cello on the weekend for some money. That is what we are talking about here, a players ability to use their own likeness to make money. Its like the UCF player with the youtube channel. Why should he not be able to profit off of that? The schools and the NCAA use the players likeness for profit all of the time. Why is the player banned from being an entrepeneur using their own brand? Any other college student can do this, including ones who get 'paid' with scholarships, some of which are full.

Band members don't get scholarships and actually have to pay tuition to be in band.

How much does it cost to be in a band?

Each of the band ensembles is a one credit hour course and you must pay tuition for that course. If you perform in more than one band per semester you may take the second band for zero credit. That band would appear on your grade transcript but would not figure into your GPA and you would not pay tuition.

In most cases, the University pays the travel expenses for all of the bands and provides the uniform and some instruments for the marching band. Marching band members must purchase shoes, gloves and some small personal items, and pay for uniform cleaning. Members of the concert and jazz ensembles must provide their own concert attire. Big Red Express pep band members must purchase a band shirt. The University owns some instruments that students may rent for a minimal fee.

6 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I totally get what you are saying but my answer to that, and it is harsh, is who cares?

 

I mean...the only reason a person is a fan of Ohio or Bowling Green or USF or Temple...is because the either went there for school or had a family member that played on the team.  We know that every season there are about 30 teams that have a chance to make the playoff (before that it was probably about 20 teams that really had a shot) and that is not going to change if they are paid or not because they are getting paid right now.

 

Shoot back in the 80's The Boz said his part time job was "watching oil derricks go up and down" and that he would either sleep or just not show up and of course still get paid.

 

The top 25 to 30 teams already get all the talent.

As with any divisive issue, about 50% are going to land on one side or the other depending on background/beliefs. 

The whole part-time job thing is nothing unique and is definitely going on today.  (There were a couple of basketball players on my floor in the late 80's early 90's that had "jobs" at car dealerships that they just had to show up and get paid.)  The difference though is every university has rich alumni/boosters that are providing these "jobs" to their top prospects, so it is not causing the same disparity that would be caused by rich universities being able to pay all their athletes.  I guess it is a question of if you don't want it to get more top heavy than the current situation or you don't care, especially as Nebraska would be a likely beneficiary.   

7 hours ago, Hans Gruber said:

I changed my mind 5-10 years ago on players getting paid. I used to be against it and thought it would mess up amateur sports.

 

Then I changed my mind after realizing that everyone on a college campus is allowed to be paid for anything, except the athletes.

 

If Johnny Trombone can get paid while on a music scholarship to go play his instrument places, why can't Jimmy Football get paid to be in a local restaurant commercial? Jimmy Football probably does more for the university anyways.

 

I think the idea of amateurism had been long gone for 30-40 years, at least in terms of Division I basketball and football. I think it was fair that players weren't paid in the early 80s when the top college football coaches made 200 grand. Now, Chris Ash gets over 2 million a year at Rutgers. If mediocre to bad coaches can get paid so much, I don't have a problem with players profiting off their likeness and being allowed to do commercials.

In my mind, college athletes are getting paid.  Not only do they get their tuition paid, they now receive a stipend, and they have the opportunity to have all of their meals and housing for the 3 to 6 years that they attend college completely subsidized.  For a lot of schools, that is all they are going to be able to afford based on their budgets, so I consider not allowing any additional type of payments to college athletes as a makeshift salary cap.  Otherwise, the top 25 to 30 revenue schools are going to run away with all the talent and create a bigger disparity between the haves and the havenots. 

11 hours ago, K9Buck said:

 

I'm not aware of anyone getting paid for a player's likeness.  Are you?