College football players union
- Thread starter Abdullah the Butcher
- Start date
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Count 'Bility
Banned
Now that my angry rant is over, I'm gonna comment on this with a more calm outlook. What do you think this will do to the sport on the long term? I know right now it is a big money business. It is. But so many schools have so much money coming in from football that pays for so much for the school-both athletic and educational. it's a big deal. Now, what would happen if college athletics become so commercialized that players have unions? Where does it end. If where paying players, what law says they even have to attend classes? Theyre paid to play football. What's next? Contracts? Free agency? Trades? Salary/wage cap? Seriously. Where does it end? This sh#t is what the pro game is for. College sports are amateur, intercollegiate, extracurricular activities. Sorry that the schools are making so much money on the players and their performances. But that money also does a lot for those players as well as many other to make their college experience that much better. But it's simple concept. If you dont want to take part in it, then dont. Do without it. This may be a pretty hard-assed viewpoint, but seriously. Who needs who here? I personally think the NCAA/Conferences/universities/whatever should just call the bluff and say "no, we're not frickin doing it. You get paid with your education and that's the bottom line". Dun.
I held out for a long time but I've realized (accepted?) the fact that the players will end up getting paid more one way or another. If some agreement isn't reached, a court will force it. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Not millions but at least the "cost of attendance" and maybe a little more.
The biggest problem is who gets what. Do the football and basketball teams get it and no one else? Does the starting quarterback get more than the third-string kicker? My guess is they can make a good argument to pay all the players in the revenue sports the same, but it won't be decided until a dozen lawsuits (or more) run their course.
The biggest problem is who gets what. Do the football and basketball teams get it and no one else? Does the starting quarterback get more than the third-string kicker? My guess is they can make a good argument to pay all the players in the revenue sports the same, but it won't be decided until a dozen lawsuits (or more) run their course.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Exactly. Hence.............WHERE DOES IT END?
Simple fix-We're not doing it. It's staying the way it is. You can either have the education and have that be enough, or dont. It's up to you. College sports are college sports. They are not professional. High schools make some money off their athletics too at some places from attendance to booster clubs and such. Will they get paid? Probably not. Those players chose to play...........
I don't disagree with you, but I just think if some agreement isn't reached, some court somewhere is bound to rule that the players aren't being fairly compensated for the revenue they are generating. Thus, I would probably be in the schools' best interest to find some way to increase what the players are getting.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you either Mav. And I do see the point that maybe the players should receive a little more based on how much is being made. I'm just in a strong opposition that is should be anything resembling simple hard cash. That's not what college sports are, and I'm just afraid-and certain for that matter-that one little step in doing so completely flips upside down the integrity of college athletics and will send us down a road that is simply unstoppable. These guys with this union may very well have some simple, best interests in mind, but it never ends there. Give a mouse a cookie.................
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Let's first make something clear. The players are paid right now. I had an interesting conversation with a guy I know that coaches track at a major university. I brought this topic up and he just rolled his eyes and said..."they are paid".
Along with all of their normal scholarship tuition and fees that are paid, they are given a certain amount anytime they go out of town for an event. The example he gave was that a track athlete might get $100 per day when on the road. if the kid is smart, he can come back form a weekend with $200-$300 in his pocket depending on how many days they were on the road.
So, the argument isn't IF they should get paid but HOW MUCH they should get paid.
Along with all of their normal scholarship tuition and fees that are paid, they are given a certain amount anytime they go out of town for an event. The example he gave was that a track athlete might get $100 per day when on the road. if the kid is smart, he can come back form a weekend with $200-$300 in his pocket depending on how many days they were on the road.
So, the argument isn't IF they should get paid but HOW MUCH they should get paid.
Landlord
Banned
Ahh okay - so you are saying we should reign back what they currently get and give them less.
Landlord
Banned
I know what you were referring to - but the reality is if we want to provide student athletes with strictly the true cost of attendance, then we should be taking away money, not giving more, because they already get more than that. Per your article:
Tuition? Paid for.
Fees? Paid for.
Room? Paid for.
Board? Paid for.
Books? Paid for.
Food? At least 20 meals per week paid for.
Personal Expenses? Ahhh now we get into the debate. But look.
Football players get a $500 clothing stipend per year. No strings attached.
Further, every athletic department has a fund of $200,000 or so to help student-athletes with whatever needs they have. Gas, plane rides home, clothing, etc.
Not only that, but there is also a special assistance fund, in addition to the above fund, for the same purposes.
Not only that, they can also receive occasional meals paid for by boosters.
Not only that, but they also receive dozens of shirts, pants, shorts, shoes, jackets, coats, bags, and accessories.
Not only that, but they receive several hundred dollar prize packages from bowl games and get to travel across the country all expenses paid.
Not only that, but they have free and unlimited access to personal trainers, nutritionists and tutors.
NOT ONLY THAT, they can also qualify for a Pell Grant in addition to their athletic scholarship up to $5,500 a year. That's over five grand to go towards whatever the hell they want because they don't have any school-related bills to pay.
NOT ONLY THAT, but room & board is much pricier than ~$300 rent between a few roommates off campus, which is custom for student-athletes. Since their full scholarship is set at the cost of room and board, every athlete that lives off campus pockets the difference per month, which is usually a few hundred dollars.
If we're going to pay student-athletes the true cost of attendance, then we need to hold back a few thousand dollars more than they already receive. Why should student athletes not only get the benefit of having significantly lower admission standards and graduation rates, but also having more money and services provided to them than anyone else?
And why are people (not you Mav) arguing that they need more? It's disgusting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Count 'Bility
Banned
Nice work Lanlord. Basically, leave the system alone?
Not for all,each conference is different. For one only the big 10 guarantees a four year scholarship. Medical is not covered after playing
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord
Banned
I didn't bold anything about a four year scholarship, but if you'd like me to unbold the post-career health benefits (because all employers offer that don't they?) okay. Point still stands for the rest.