Compensation

[skersfan]

I think the money the University makes should do something for them in the future. You graduate, complete your scholarship, money for a business loan, medical treatment along those lines are deserved. They would not be making NFL salaries if it were not for their initial scholarship. If they do not make the NFL, a fund possibly for helping them with life success is justified. But it should be available to all students to. With out the general population paying their way, there would not be any athletic scholarships.

 

Some programs do not make money in the long run.

 

I am sure there are a lot of Sailors, Marines, Soldiers and Airman the same age, that would gladly change places with them. They really do not have it too tough if you ask me.

 

I also think the used the wrong terminology for a winning battle. Not a lot of people are real happy with Unions anymore. The word overpaid comes to mind for most.

[Enhance]

At least at Nebraska, graduating athletes also have access to a pretty unreal network of employers and opportunities, if that's what they decide to do instead of go to the NFL. Each graduate has the opportunity, pre-graduation, to sit down with athletic department advisors and go over options available to them (through those former player connections) that nobody else on campus has access to.

[Count 'Bility]

This whole notion that guys like Wiggins "brought" that much money to a place like Kansas is absurd. Look, I dont care how many people bought Wiggins jerseys and such. Those Kansas fans were going to buy someone's jersey anyway. They were gonna watch the game anyway. they were gonna go to the game anyway. Same goes for Kenny Bell and his jersey sales. If Kenny Bell played for Ohio St, is HuskerFan still gonna buy a Kenny Bell jersey? Seriously. Saying a player is worth this and that to a program/school is so subjective, and frankly, bullsh#t. There's always the next guy up.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

#1. Allow universities to fully fund their athletes educational opportunities with scholarships that fully cover the full cost of attendance. The average $3,285 increase per player would be enough to free many from poverty and reduce their vulnerability to breaking NCAA rules to make ends meet.

 

 

A $3,285 scholarship increase would cost approximately $32.7 million for 85 scholarship players from each of 117 FBS football teams, and $14.4 million to do the same for 13 scholarship players on each of the 338 Division I basketball teams that offer scholarships. The total would be about $47 million annually. Should Title IX compliance require that provisions be made for female athletes to receive a similar benefit, that amount can be doubled for a total of $94 million annually. To put this in perspective relative to the new revenues that are available throughout NCAA sports, the new ESPN FBS football playoff deal will average about $345 million per year in new revenue above and beyond the previous BCS TV contract. New revenues could be distributed so that schools would not have to come directly out of pocket for the increase.

 

 

http://www.ncpanow.org/news/articles/body/6-Billion-Heist-Study_Full.pdf

[methodical]

If they are employees can we fire ones that aren't working out or are loudmouths or harm the brand of the university? Can we trade for better players, I like that idea, division 1 football goes down to what like 30 teams? If so I'm fine with where things are going.

 

If not, well the NFL needs to create a farm league for 18 year olds a knee injury away from bagging groceries because they don't need to be in enrolled in school if they want to be treated like they are in a business. Why not go all the way with this?

[caveman99]

#1. Allow universities to fully fund their athletes educational opportunities with scholarships that fully cover the full cost of attendance. The average $3,285 increase per player would be enough to free many from poverty and reduce their vulnerability to breaking NCAA rules to make ends meet.

 

 

A $3,285 scholarship increase would cost approximately $32.7 million for 85 scholarship players from each of 117 FBS football teams, and $14.4 million to do the same for 13 scholarship players on each of the 338 Division I basketball teams that offer scholarships. The total would be about $47 million annually. Should Title IX compliance require that provisions be made for female athletes to receive a similar benefit, that amount can be doubled for a total of $94 million annually. To put this in perspective relative to the new revenues that are available throughout NCAA sports, the new ESPN FBS football playoff deal will average about $345 million per year in new revenue above and beyond the previous BCS TV contract. New revenues could be distributed so that schools would not have to come directly out of pocket for the increase.

 

 

http://www.ncpanow.org/news/articles/body/6-Billion-Heist-Study_Full.pdf

A few questions on this one, why is it ok to just address the Men's BB and Football teams? Why not baseball, track, etc.? Which women's teams will get the $47mm to match? Will any women's sports be left out? Proposals like this seem like great ways to close a perceived equity gap, but in reality it creates new ones.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

[caveman99]

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

[sker_echo]

 

 

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

And I thought it was about athletes going to bed hungry, not about how much revenue is generated? What about other sports that don't even get full scholarships but are still restricted as far as employment? They don't get anywhere close to the true cost of attendance.

[caveman99]

 

 

 

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

And I thought it was about athletes going to bed hungry, not about how much revenue is generated? What about other sports that don't even get full scholarships but are still restricted as far as employment? They don't get anywhere close to the true cost of attendance.

Exactly

[Ulty]

 

 

 

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

And I thought it was about athletes going to bed hungry, not about how much revenue is generated? What about other sports that don't even get full scholarships but are still restricted as far as employment? They don't get anywhere close to the true cost of attendance.

Exactly

 

That's one of the reasons why paying players won't work. You can't just give to football players or revenue athletes when ALL athletes put in the same time and effort into their own sports. You can't just give benefits to certain male athletes and not be equitable with female athletes - that's federal law. And you can't base it on a number that is impossible to calculate based on how much revenue an athlete supposedly generates for the university on its own. Then you are basically advocating bidding for players' services.

 

If you can't pay everyone, you can't pay anyone. And not every university makes a profit, even with a football program, so not everyone could do it, let alone maintain equity for all of their scholarship athletes. It's basically unworkable.

 

The only option would be if the few profitable programs formed their own minor league sponsored by the universities, not even a collegiate league, and paid for their own players before they were NFL ready, without the charade of amateurism. And that would change football and all of college athletics as we know it.

[caveman99]

 

 

 

 

 

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

And I thought it was about athletes going to bed hungry, not about how much revenue is generated? What about other sports that don't even get full scholarships but are still restricted as far as employment? They don't get anywhere close to the true cost of attendance.

Exactly

That's one of the reasons why paying players won't work. You can't just give to football players or revenue athletes when ALL athletes put in the same time and effort into their own sports. You can't just give benefits to certain male athletes and not be equitable with female athletes - that's federal law. And you can't base it on a number that is impossible to calculate based on how much revenue an athlete supposedly generates for the university on its own. Then you are basically advocating bidding for players' services.

 

If you can't pay everyone, you can't pay anyone. And not every university makes a profit, even with a football program, so not everyone could do it, let alone maintain equity for all of their scholarship athletes. It's basically unworkable.

 

The only option would be if the few profitable programs formed their own minor league sponsored by the universities, not even a collegiate league, and paid for their own players before they were NFL ready, without the charade of amateurism. And that would change football and all of college athletics as we know it.

Great post

[skersfan]

That is pretty much spot on.