It may surprise you to learn there’s a new rule allowing current college football players to receive compensation for working on-campus summer football camps, but it shouldn’t, because the whole deal is so NCAA.
In the past, college coaching staffs have mainly relied on high school coaches and even lower-level college coaches to assist with summer camps.
A veteran director of football operations in college football told CoachingSearch.com today that the NCAA has yet to inform institutions about the payment policies.
At the moment, coaches suspect that the compensation will be very similar to the way in which high school coaches are typically paid for working camps – either hourly or by the camp session.
So now coaches can bring some of their student-athletes into a setting under their watchful eyes and control, and allow them to make a few bucks. Order is preserved! And the catch, such as it is, is laughable.
No colleges will be allowed to advertise that a star player will be serving as an instructor during a summer camp. For example, if Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston were to serve as part of the staff for Jimbo Fisher’s football camp, the Seminoles staff is prohibited from advertising that Winston will be present and/or coaching a group of quarterbacks.
That’s so… so pure, NCAA. I can’t wait for the soon to come Nick Saban interpretation of “advertise”, either.
Funny how nobody seems to be overly concerned about some players getting paid for this and some not. Then again, it’s for the good of the school, no?
I wonder who will be the first coach to point to this as another reason the players don’t need to unionize.
16 responses to “Working for the man”
What’s taken so long? Basketball guys were able to do this 10+ years ago.
This is just like the “unlimited” meals deal from a couple of weeks ago. Unlimited meals packaged with 8 hours/week of mandatory supervised training.
So you give us more of your time and talent and we will share a small piece of the treasure.
Probably $100 per camp to the players or something like that and in exchange coaches get 30 hours of supervised instruction time with players and probably get a nice boost to the attendance of the camp.
Paying players to attend very exclusive camps with only elite athletes. More recruiting time between current players and recruits and more supervised instruction time. Be nice to host a camp every single day of the summer until fall camp starts. Can we do that? All for a little walking around money.
Saban has already hire 6 interns, I mean, analyst to manage his new camps.
Life on the plantation is so tough on these poor athletes. Can’t imagine how terrible it must be. I am all in favor of playing a $100 a week for spending money, and providing them with adequate insurance protection, but the attempts to make them sound like abused slaves is getting tiring. So many students, and old fans, would love to have the opportunity they have. Do the practices and limitations on free time intrude? Of course, but that is been true of every successful athlete over all time. These young men are not to be pitied, we just need a smarter group of folks making decisions at the top.
And in the continued absence of that?
Continue to give them raises!
I agree with Mac on the treatment. It seems they are getting the hint and making some moves. I’d say the odds are better at getting results this way than the union way. Things are at least moving. If you are so bent on unionization either you work with the union side of things or you are not very familiar with what happens when that becomes part of the process. The spoon full of sugar does not last very long and it comes with a whole pole of shit – for everyone involved, including the players.
Let’s say the union talks the players into striking. Some of the players don’t want to and they cross the lines (they are not doing it for pay anyway, just better treatment and insurance). Each individual who crosses the lines can be fined $1000/day (whatever the union decides and puts in it’s contract – whether the players agree or not), and there is not a damn thing they can do about it. It will hold up in court every time. If they signed that card saying they wanted to at least vote to be represented by a union, prior to the vote and it passes, they are locked in (that is in a right to work state, in a union state everybody is obligated). No matter what the union decides their new direction should be, the players are stuck. The union member has about a one day window each year with a lot of complicated procedures to get out, and that is in the south. It is not good on anyone.
Even in pro sports, the unions don’t work the way the United Steel Workers do in industry. In pro sports players do not bargain collectively on everything. They would break the union in 5 minutes if that happened.
I think I’m going to have to beg to differ with you on that one.
I’m not bent on unionization. I think the players aren’t being treated fairly and deserve better than they’re getting. If the union is the only way to get the attention of the schools and the NCAA, whose fault is that?
They are considering and beginning to move on things they would have never thought of before. That is a start. Yes, I read the other post, and am just thinking about where the USW’s meeting was held the same week, as I’m sure it was equally as nice. It is hard to tell a man sitting on a pile of money that he is doing something wrong (ask Edwards Deming – American businesses were getting unionized and he went to Japan). The NCAA and Athletic departments have been fat, dumb, and happy for so long that they overlooked those that got them there – I agree. I think the players aren’t suffering, but could certainly be treated better. If it was that miserable, they wouldn’t do it. I think it is fine that the union is scaring the NCAA, and more power to it, just don’t pull that trigger. It is hard to put that Genie back in the bottle.
Enjoy your day, Senator! They Players Championship is under way!!
I think there has been movement in the right directions for years on issues such as player safety, better training techniques, and there was a significant move last year toward adopting a player stipend at every single conference media day events, beginning with the SEC. As we all know, there are some significant hurdles to be dealt with because of Title IX and the rich/poor issue of various schools. While it could be pushed harder by leaders, it wasn’t going to happen overnight, and not everyone, including me, we are anywhere near a “plantation” atmosphere, or agree with individual players getting royalties from the use of their names, or image. I welcome the conversation but feel the continual attitude of it being characterized as slavery, or working for the man as being way off base.
It doesnt matter if some fan would have “loved” to be a varsity athlete. Chances are he didnt EARN that right. I dont know why you think people should be rewarded based on what they would “love” and not what they have EARNED. It is a pretty simply concept in America.
I think you miss the point, while I happen to have EARNED the right to have a personal knowledge of being a successful NCAA scholarship athlete, fans can easily see how privileged that experience might be without having to be “in the arena”. You don’t have to be a female to know rape is wrong, or be born black to know slavery was/is wrong. Athletes today have even more recognition and special treatment than in the days I played collegiate sports, and it wasn’t at the level accorded UGA football players for sure, it isn’t something to be pitied. So I think it is fair to assume their belief that is pretty damned cool and special even if they never had to endure the, almost, year round devotion of spending hours every day preparing themselves.
Are there things that should be added in recognition of what is “:right” for the time they spend? Absolutely, but it is far better to be in that position, than not, imo. We may not all agree with what should be added but to characterize it as them being considered a slave with the upside not offsetting the downside is just incorrect. And bringing down the entire Big Tent to make this happen immediately is reckless and will have significantly more downside than the short term gain.
So where are the title 9 people on this? Based on what I’ve been hearing about that excuse, shouldn’t the school have to provide the exact same opportunity to women for women’s sports?
Or is it that revenue generation opportunities that arise from market demands don’t need to be rolled out equally?
You favor the rule, no? This allows players to benefit on their status as an elite athlete (even if it’s not advertised).
I don’t have a problem with the rule, other than more NCAA hypocrisy.
New lexicon entry? ‘NCAApocracy’ Inept self serving management coinciding with ludicrous post hoc window dressing’