Kenny Bell and NCAA Reform

[Saunders]

 

 

Kenny Bell ‏@AFRO_THUNDER80 22m

 

Next tattoo planned and scheduled. I'm gonna be out of room on my upper body soon. Only left ricbcage, right bicep, and forearms r left.

[Warrior10]

 

 

Kenny Bell ‏@AFRO_THUNDER80 22m

 

Next tattoo planned and scheduled. I'm gonna be out of room on my upper body soon. Only left ricbcage, right bicep, and forearms r left.

Was about to post this.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The council also approved a measure to create a three-hour break between preseason football practices.

 

All changes would take effect Aug. 1.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=10787521

[kchusker_chris]

Kenny Bell ‏@AFRO_THUNDER80 22m

 

Next tattoo planned and scheduled. I'm gonna be out of room on my upper body soon. Only left ricbcage, right bicep, and forearms r left.

Wow, dude isn't doing himself any favors. Granite countertops, 15 dollar t-bones. I bet all students live a similar life.

[StPaulHusker]

@NCAA: NCAA member schools approve unlimited meals and snacks for all Division I student-athletes: http://ow.ly/vPndV

why this was not always the case, we will never know.

Because the NCAA is reactive not pro-active. They try to get away with anything until someone calls them out on it. Remember the football jersey situation from last year?

[GSG]

@NCAA: NCAA member schools approve unlimited meals and snacks for all Division I student-athletes: http://ow.ly/vPndV

why this was not always the case, we will never know.

 

jared lorenzen ‏@JaredLorenzen22 19h

I'll tell u what the NCAA really lucked out that I don't have any eligibility left.

[kchusker_chris]

jared lorenzen ‏@JaredLorenzen22 19h

I'll tell u what the NCAA really lucked out that I don't have any eligibility left.

classic

[Lava]

The biggest misconception in this whole debate is that the players should only care about what they need. This debate should really be about what they deserve. Everyone in the US could survive on a $20,000/year salary - that's all they need. However, because people have skillsets that allow them to generate revenue in excess of that amount, they are compensated with money above and beyond what they need; that is, they are paid what the deserve based on the economic value they provide to their employer.

 

What someone needs is irrelevant when determining the compensation they receive for the work they put in. You pay them what they deserve based upon the supply and demand forces in the economy. Bringing that back to how college football players should be compensated at Nebraska, it's clear that they've earned more than they currently receive. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the profit generated by the football program, as well as the athletic department as a whole. If college athletics were allowed to be a truly free market, there is no doubt that the football players at Nebraska would earn more than the scholarships they currently receive. However, of course, when the NCAA and other institutions must be considered and that's when things get complicated.

 

In summary, I encourage you all to think not of what the players need, but what they have earned and deserve based upon the value generated by the work they do.

 

 

Why should they have to? College athletics are a billion dollar industry. Plenty of money right there.

And you think all that money is just pocketed? You know they spend money to make the players wanna be there too right? Whether it's facilities, coaches players want, other sports that aren't as popular to watch and root for but are just as important. The money is needed (not all, mind you. But then again the players already get excess from beyond just their tuition) to keep the university going. So basically just because person A is more athletically gifted than person B, that person A deserves more and person B should have to work twice as hard to stay afloat in college only to be in massive debt once they're done? Talk about labeling. Who knew genes still dictate someone's place in the world....

 

Glad to see you've discovered how capitalism works. If you don't like it, perhaps the United States isn't the place for you.

[Landlord]

@NCAA: NCAA member schools approve unlimited meals and snacks for all Division I student-athletes: http://ow.ly/vPndV

why this was not always the case, we will never know.

 

 

Probably something to do with how every other college student has to pay for a finite amount of them, including kids on scholarship, I don't know.

[Army_Allen]

The biggest misconception in this whole debate is that the players should only care about what they need. This debate should really be about what they deserve. Everyone in the US could survive on a $20,000/year salary - that's all they need. However, because people have skillsets that allow them to generate revenue in excess of that amount, they are compensated with money above and beyond what they need; that is, they are paid what the deserve based on the economic value they provide to their employer.

 

What someone needs is irrelevant when determining the compensation they receive for the work they put in. You pay them what they deserve based upon the supply and demand forces in the economy. Bringing that back to how college football players should be compensated at Nebraska, it's clear that they've earned more than they currently receive. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the profit generated by the football program, as well as the athletic department as a whole. If college athletics were allowed to be a truly free market, there is no doubt that the football players at Nebraska would earn more than the scholarships they currently receive. However, of course, when the NCAA and other institutions must be considered and that's when things get complicated.

 

In summary, I encourage you all to think not of what the players need, but what they have earned and deserve based upon the value generated by the work they do.

 

 

Why should they have to? College athletics are a billion dollar industry. Plenty of money right there.

And you think all that money is just pocketed? You know they spend money to make the players wanna be there too right? Whether it's facilities, coaches players want, other sports that aren't as popular to watch and root for but are just as important. The money is needed (not all, mind you. But then again the players already get excess from beyond just their tuition) to keep the university going. So basically just because person A is more athletically gifted than person B, that person A deserves more and person B should have to work twice as hard to stay afloat in college only to be in massive debt once they're done? Talk about labeling. Who knew genes still dictate someone's place in the world....

 

Glad to see you've discovered how capitalism works. If you don't like it, perhaps the United States isn't the place for you.

Oh how you make me wish the Russians wouldn't have corrupted Communism.

[Ulty]

The biggest misconception in this whole debate is that the players should only care about what they need. This debate should really be about what they deserve. Everyone in the US could survive on a $20,000/year salary - that's all they need. However, because people have skillsets that allow them to generate revenue in excess of that amount, they are compensated with money above and beyond what they need; that is, they are paid what the deserve based on the economic value they provide to their employer.

 

What someone needs is irrelevant when determining the compensation they receive for the work they put in. You pay them what they deserve based upon the supply and demand forces in the economy. Bringing that back to how college football players should be compensated at Nebraska, it's clear that they've earned more than they currently receive. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the profit generated by the football program, as well as the athletic department as a whole. If college athletics were allowed to be a truly free market, there is no doubt that the football players at Nebraska would earn more than the scholarships they currently receive. However, of course, when the NCAA and other institutions must be considered and that's when things get complicated.

 

In summary, I encourage you all to think not of what the players need, but what they have earned and deserve based upon the value generated by the work they do.

 

Supply and demand and the prices/costs involved are not based on what someone deserves. Lots of employees provide value to an employer in excess to what they are paid, but if there is a large supply of employees waiting to do that job, the employee who may deserve more is not going to get paid more.

 

In college football, there are tons and tons of players out there who would love a scholarship. If you are going purely on economic forces, programs can survive and still put a good football product on the field because players are willing to do the work in excahnge for a scholarship, or even less than that if you are a walk-on. From a profitability standpoint, not every athletic program is profitable, so if we start paying players, many programs will have to fold.

 

An athletic scholarship and the perks that come with it are more than enough to cover what a player both needs and deserves. As far as the deserving part, if a player is a superstar and can take their marketable skill to the NFL, their college experience will have given them that opportunity that they might not have otherwise had. If a player cannot survive on the perks of a scholarship alone, or they think they can get better scratch elsewhere, they can certainly leave and do something else. That's the market at work for you, right there.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The biggest misconception in this whole debate is that the players should only care about what they need. This debate should really be about what they deserve. Everyone in the US could survive on a $20,000/year salary - that's all they need. However, because people have skillsets that allow them to generate revenue in excess of that amount, they are compensated with money above and beyond what they need; that is, they are paid what the deserve based on the economic value they provide to their employer.

 

What someone needs is irrelevant when determining the compensation they receive for the work they put in. You pay them what they deserve based upon the supply and demand forces in the economy. Bringing that back to how college football players should be compensated at Nebraska, it's clear that they've earned more than they currently receive. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the profit generated by the football program, as well as the athletic department as a whole. If college athletics were allowed to be a truly free market, there is no doubt that the football players at Nebraska would earn more than the scholarships they currently receive. However, of course, when the NCAA and other institutions must be considered and that's when things get complicated.

 

In summary, I encourage you all to think not of what the players need, but what they have earned and deserve based upon the value generated by the work they do.

 

 

Why should they have to? College athletics are a billion dollar industry. Plenty of money right there.

And you think all that money is just pocketed? You know they spend money to make the players wanna be there too right? Whether it's facilities, coaches players want, other sports that aren't as popular to watch and root for but are just as important. The money is needed (not all, mind you. But then again the players already get excess from beyond just their tuition) to keep the university going. So basically just because person A is more athletically gifted than person B, that person A deserves more and person B should have to work twice as hard to stay afloat in college only to be in massive debt once they're done? Talk about labeling. Who knew genes still dictate someone's place in the world....

 

Glad to see you've discovered how capitalism works. If you don't like it, perhaps the United States isn't the place for you.

 

I'm not concerned with what they deserve, I'm more concerned about the effect their "entitlements" could have on other college athletes, who also have a "particular skill set".

 

Also...Kenny Bell talking about how they barely have enough to eat at nights then tweeting pictures of new ink, ink that would have paid for 500-750 McDoubles (I know...unhealthy, but I needed easy math), tells me one of two things:

 

1) There's some serious NCAA violations going on (paying less for a tattoo because you're an athlete).

2) Kenny Bell is trolling.

3) Kenny Bell is actually a hypocrite.

 

I'm hoping it's 2.

[Lava]

Supply and demand and the prices/costs involved are not based on what someone deserves. Lots of employees provide value to an employer in excess to what they are paid, but if there is a large supply of employees waiting to do that job, the employee who may deserve more is not going to get paid more.

 

In college football, there are tons and tons of players out there who would love a scholarship. If you are going purely on economic forces, programs can survive and still put a good football product on the field because players are willing to do the work in excahnge for a scholarship, or even less than that if you are a walk-on. From a profitability standpoint, not every athletic program is profitable, so if we start paying players, many programs will have to fold.

 

An athletic scholarship and the perks that come with it are more than enough to cover what a player both needs and deserves. As far as the deserving part, if a player is a superstar and can take their marketable skill to the NFL, their college experience will have given them that opportunity that they might not have otherwise had. If a player cannot survive on the perks of a scholarship alone, or they think they can get better scratch elsewhere, they can certainly leave and do something else. That's the market at work for you, right there.

 

 

In regards to this statement, what do you say to players such as Eric Crouch or Colin Klein who provide value that far exceeds the scholarship they receive in college but have skillsets that don't translate to the professional game?

 

And in regards to the college experience providing opportunities they might not have otherwise had, that's certainly true. However, that doesn't mean that they haven't earned more money than the scholarship covers. Think of it like this - if you're working at a job that's providing you opportunities to develop skills that will allow you to obtain a higher paying job elsewhere down the road, does that mean that you don't deserve to be compensated by your current employer? Or that your salary provided by your current employer should be capped?

[Landlord]

 

In regards to this statement, what do you say to players such as Eric Crouch or Colin Klein who provide value that far exceeds the scholarship they receive in college but have skillsets that don't translate to the professional game?

 

 

Eric Crouch has made himself a career because of being the Heisman trophy winning quarterback at Nebraska.

[NUpolo8]

Supply and demand and the prices/costs involved are not based on what someone deserves. Lots of employees provide value to an employer in excess to what they are paid, but if there is a large supply of employees waiting to do that job, the employee who may deserve more is not going to get paid more.

 

In college football, there are tons and tons of players out there who would love a scholarship. If you are going purely on economic forces, programs can survive and still put a good football product on the field because players are willing to do the work in excahnge for a scholarship, or even less than that if you are a walk-on. From a profitability standpoint, not every athletic program is profitable, so if we start paying players, many programs will have to fold.

 

An athletic scholarship and the perks that come with it are more than enough to cover what a player both needs and deserves. As far as the deserving part, if a player is a superstar and can take their marketable skill to the NFL, their college experience will have given them that opportunity that they might not have otherwise had. If a player cannot survive on the perks of a scholarship alone, or they think they can get better scratch elsewhere, they can certainly leave and do something else. That's the market at work for you, right there.

 

 

In regards to this statement, what do you say to players such as Eric Crouch or Colin Klein who provide value that far exceeds the scholarship they receive in college but have skillsets that don't translate to the professional game?

 

And in regards to the college experience providing opportunities they might not have otherwise had, that's certainly true. However, that doesn't mean that they haven't earned more money than the scholarship covers. Think of it like this - if you're working at a job that's providing you opportunities to develop skills that will allow you to obtain a higher paying job elsewhere down the road, does that mean that you don't deserve to be compensated by your current employer? Or that your salary provided by your current employer should be capped?

 

All of your points about this boil down to this,

 

-if they truly feel this way, I invite them to go on strike, quit or sit out a game in some sort of demonstration.

 

They might be surprised to find out the next step beyond that.