End of NCAA College Football?

[MyBloodIsRed16]

I played at the Div III level.  Although I got a bunch of money in "presidential" scholarships I was in quite a bit of debt when I graduated.  Now this was a pretty good school academically but I essentially paid to play football.  I could have probably gone to a small school somewhere and got my education paid for but didn't.  I dont think college kids should get paid.  Half these kids can't stay out of trouble as it is.  Throw in spending money and it gets worse.  I received a 1k scholarship from the IHSFHOF for being good and also getting good grades.  Did I spend that money on books?  Nope,  bought me two semesters worth of beer.  Div 1 athletes get enough perks they dont need to get paid 

[southernoregonhusker]

7 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Ah, the classic class-warfare example.

 

Would it make you feel better if he was making $50,000 per year and the remaining $1,999,950 was divided among the 179,200 student-athletes so they each got an extra $11.16?

No, it would make me feel better if kids got paid for the product they produced on the field.  Emmert makes millions on the backs of unpaid workers.  Millions because there is a lot of money in college athletics.   

 

Let me ask you this:  If the NFL and NBA had real minor league systems that took all of the top prospects, do you think 90K would still show up at Memorial Stadium every football Saturday?  Would the TV money be in the same ballpark as it is now?  The answer is no.  90K aren't showing up to Doane games.  People want to see high level athletics and high level athletics are put forth by high level athletes.  They should be compensated with something more than food, books, an eduction they may or may not use (Hello North Carolina) and use of a building to sleep in.  Baseball has a minor league system.  Now take a look at college baseball.  Besides a few schools in the SEC, nobody is putting 5K butts in the stands.  Not even my national champion Oregon State Beavers.  As for TV money, there's some for the playoffs.  Why?  Because the top kids aren't playing college baseball.  Same goes for FCS, DII and DIII football and basketball.  Heck, I went to grad school at a NAIA school.  The local high school football games had bigger crowds.  In Europe, all of the sports are run by local clubs (Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona are sports clubs).  All of these clubs have mens and women's soccer teams, basketball teams, handball teams, etc..  "School kid" sports have virtually no spectators and certainly no TV money.

 

As for the fallacy of a free education, room and board, what is the real cost/salary?  Don't give me tuition numbers because they are meaningless.  Stanford's tuition costs more than Nebraska because it's Stanford, not because the cost to produce that education is X% more.  What does it really cost a university to have student athletes?  If student athletes are no longer on campus, are classes going to be cut?  Teachers laid off?  Is History of Western Civilization no longer going to be offered at 8 AM on every campus in America.  To me, those are real numbers as well as electricity, paying down the bonds for athletic dorms, stadiums, workout centers, etc.  What is the real cost?  Is the "salary" of a Northwestern football player 250K for four years while a kid at DONU half that (or whatever the numbers are)?  Is that what we're trying to convince ourselves of?     

 

There is no doubt that the whole thing is complicated because of Title IX, non-revenue sports and schools who don't produce much money from football and basketball like my Oregon State Beavers lol.  Want to know what would really kill NCAA football?  A minor league system because the NCAA is truly the minor league system now.  The thought alone should get the "never payers" pause.     

 

         

[southernoregonhusker]

2 hours ago, dvdcrr said:

This makes me think it is going to take a lot of ad revenue to justify that, so get ready for even more commercials.  Personally, I wonder when most folks will just tune out.  I have already gotten to that point.  I've got over 150 channels, smart TV, movies and kids to go outside and play with.  I don't have to try and stomach the 2018 Ad pack.  

Is it possible to have more commercials?  Holy cow.  It's amazing to me how many more commercials are ran these days.  

 

I was going through the guide on DirecTV the other day and noticed The Wolf of Wall Street was on from 4 to 8.  Four stinkin' hours for a movie that runs three hours. I've also noticed we're missing pitches on televised baseball games.  I've noticed a lot of 1-0 or 0-1 counts coming out of commercial.  

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, southernoregonhusker said:

Is the military making billions of dollars?  Also, the players are responsible for the "product" in college sports.  They should share in the profits from the product.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the military is yuge! And the players do share, they get a pretty sweet freaking deal. If you want to argue about the merits of them being able to use their own likeness that's fine, but they are fairly well compensated at the moment.

[teachercd]

It is crazy how it has changed...for years your HC retired and basically became AD...shook hands, played golf, told stories and went drinking with boosters to drum up money.

 

 

 

[Mavric]

9 hours ago, southernoregonhusker said:

No, it would make me feel better if kids got paid for the product they produced on the field.  Emmert makes millions on the backs of unpaid workers.  Millions because there is a lot of money in college athletics.            

 

They are not unpaid.  They are explicitly paid.  Plus they get benefits that are worth thousands of dollars each year.  It might not be as much as you think they should get but continuing to spew propaganda like this is a pretty sad agenda.

[InOmaha]

Paying players might eventually turn the Universities into NFL farm teams.  Would players even need to go to the school or could it just be a job until they made it to the majors?

 

If they get paid a salary, then make them pay for the education, food, and housing themselves so they understand the costs the rest of the students have each semester.  That's the way my job worked.  Walkons might no longer be walkons and could simply be paid less.

 

I would have traded all my years of work during school for a full ride athletic scholarship.  I know a Creighton woman basketball player that got a roughly $250,000 education out of the deal.  Seems fair.

 

What would the going rate be at Nebraska?  $35,000?, $50,000/yr? per player to cover their college expenses then turn them loose to charge your kid $25 for an autographed ball or poster.  Or does the QB make more then the wide outs and linemen since they are more valuable?

 

Texas A&M would get really good for a really long time given their pool of money.  They paid $100 million to get a new coach.  I bet they'd outbid everyone for the best talent's services by a large margin.

[Husker NoNo]

Student-athletes deserve to get paid for the services they provide to the University.  It will not be what they expect/want, but they do deserve compensation for what they do.  During my education within the University of Nebraska system, I worked as a graduate teaching assistant for both of my graduate degrees.  I provided a service to the university. As a result, I got a tuition waiver and a small stipend (about $1000 a month).  My education was not free (I have the student loan debt to support that fact), but I was generously compensated by the University. 

 

In my case, my service was research and teaching classes.  With athletes, they bring in millions of dollars in enrollment and fan support. Every school will have a different model, but it is time to explode the amateurism myth for what it is. "Amateurism" is simply a way for "non-profit" organizations like the NCAA and its member schools, to get free labor without having to pay for it.

[In the Deed the Glory]

10 hours ago, southernoregonhusker said:

As for the fallacy of a free education, room and board, what is the real cost/salary?  Don't give me tuition numbers because they are meaningless.  Stanford's tuition costs more than Nebraska because it's Stanford, not because the cost to produce that education is X% more.  What does it really cost a university to have student athletes?  If student athletes are no longer on campus, are classes going to be cut?  Teachers laid off?  Is History of Western Civilization no longer going to be offered at 8 AM on every campus in America.  To me, those are real numbers as well as electricity, paying down the bonds for athletic dorms, stadiums, workout centers, etc.  What is the real cost?  Is the "salary" of a Northwestern football player 250K for four years while a kid at DONU half that (or whatever the numbers are)?  Is that what we're trying to convince ourselves of?

You do know that the Athletic Department has to pay the university the tuition for those players, right?  It isn't free.  Every athlete at Nebraska (or any other school) is paying full tuition.  Some pay it themselves, some have it paid for by the Athletic Department, and some have other sources footing the bill (some are a combination).