The player strike you never heard about

Greedheads.

Two Stanford football captains sat out a week of summer workouts and meetings last year in protest over the university’s delay in providing players scholarship money, according to a recent Stanford player.

Rollins Stallworth, a Stanford wide receiver whose eligibility expired after last season, revealed the protest Tuesday while serving as a panelist at a forum by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Stallworth said the decision by the captains, whom he declined to name, happened after Stanford was late in providing players with stipends for the third straight summer.

“So we were expected to be at meetings at 7 in the morning, go to practice for three hours, go to classes for another three hours and have nighttime meetings without having our stipend or our money — with literally no compensation,” Stallworth said. “At that point, two of our team captains stopped coming to practice, stopped coming into meetings for almost a week or a week-and-a-half as protest.”

Hey, I thought those were voluntary!  (The meetings and practice, not the stipend, that is.)

By the way, you can probably guess the punchline.  The sit out got results.

In an interview after his public remarks, Stallworth said the stipends arrived about a week after summer workouts started. In the past, he said, the stipends took a couple weeks to reach players.

Stallworth, who is chair of the Pac-12 Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said the protest might have sped up the delivery. Stanford officials were concerned about the protest and only the two captains participated, he said.

“It was a mistake, a human error on the filing of our stipends that occurred,” Stallworth said. “But the thought process was, if we’re not being compensated on our end (and) you’re not holding up your end, we shouldn’t hold up our end as well.”

Stanford athletic department communications director Alan George said via email, “The delay in providing summer school financial aid was due to problems with administrative procedures that were impacted by financial aid office processing activities and the timing of when students enrolled in courses. The matter was addressed when it occurred and procedures for providing summer financial aid have since been changed.”

Which is why you’ll see more of this down the road.  The hard part isn’t using your leverage.  It’s realizing you have leverage in the first place.

108 Comments

Filed under Look For The Union Label

108 responses to “The player strike you never heard about

  1. I'm right, you're wrong

    What continues to kill me about all these posts of yours are when the kid says things like “with literally no compensation,”…really? Guess that bed you slept in, the food you ate at the dining hall, the books you carried to those 3 whole hours of class and the knowledge imparted to you don’t count as compensation. Sounds like pretty amazing compensation to me and compensation that most kids would kill to have in exchange for playing a game.

    Give it a fucking rest already.

    • Tell me something. If the NCAA’s cartel power ceased to exist tomorrow and the free market dictated compensation, do you think all these kids would continue to get would be the same bed, food and education?

      Thanks for your polite suggestion, by the way.

      • I'm right, you're wrong

        Tell me something, if the world was completely fair and everyone got exactly what they wanted al the time…blah blah blah. What kind of fucking candy land do you live in? Life’s not fair! For anyone! So quit dealing in what ifs and deal in reality. The reality is these kids are getting a great fucking deal, one that most kids who are taking on tremendous student debt would kill for.

        • Have you not noticed the antitrust threats the NCAA is dealing with? I don’t think I’m the one living in Candyland, man.

          Maybe you can convince Jeffrey Kessler that the players have never had it so good.

          • I'm right, you're wrong

            It’s hilarious how you think some money grubbing lawyers hold the moral high ground…you must be one. There are no suits over moral justice, pawns like you are just used to crow about it while the lawyers chase money. Again, 99.9% of college students would kill for the deal student athletes get and that’s a fact.

            • Who said anything about moral high ground? The free market isn’t about morality.

              You can keep grousing, but here’s some more reality for you: every time we hear something about player push back, it gets results. The lawsuits, the unionization attempt at Northwestern, the threat by the Mizzou football team and now this have all caused a school or the NCAA to react. And that won’t change because the schools need what the players contribute.

              Capitalism is a bitch. Too bad you don’t like that.

              • I'm right, you're wrong

                It’s so cute how just because schools and NCAA are forced to respond to lawsuits or because some fucking players protest, you think that is some proof for the “cause”. Of course they react…they have to. Bloodsucking lawyers want a price of the money and have found a willing “victim” for the suit. Just because someone sues over something and just because some liberal, woman judge agrees, doesn’t make them right. Just admit that this is simply your opinion and quit trying to say that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or on the wrong side of history. Again, I have 99% of students in America on my side, you have a bunch money grubbing lawyers and some kids who’ve been told by those lawyers that they’re not getting enough. I’m real comfortable with who is on my side.

                • Just because someone sues over something and just because some liberal, woman judge agrees, doesn’t make them right.

                  Really? Maybe the NCAA should base its appeal on that.

                  • I'm right, you're wrong

                    That mentality is exactly what’s wrong with America’s justice system. Anyone can sue over anything with zero consequence and biased judges, especially women, rule based on emotion and their perception of social justice and not the rule of law. Now I know you’re a trial lawyer.

                    • Red Cup

                      You sir, do not seem to have an understanding of the American justice system. If you keep your mouth shut more no one will know.i guess it is ok for corporations and the likes of Trump to have lawyers but everyday working men, and women, do not.

                    • Now I know you’re a trial lawyer.

                      Wrong again, sport. But keep lobbing those insults. They really add gravitas to your argument.

                  • Tim In Sav

                    Well I’m convinced that “I’m right, you’re wrong” is Derek in drag, at least they have the same vocabulary.

                    • Derek

                      Is your imagining me in a dress a reflection of a lascivious interest in trans-sexual men?

                      BTW: you may live under a rock with just your drag queen porn mags, but lots of people use various forms of the word “fuck.” For example, I played no role in the 569 various uses of the word in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. That’s one every 19 seconds btw. In short, neither Martin Scorsese, Jonah Hill, nor Leo are me in drag although, if the thought intrigues you, who am I to get in the way of you and your fantasies?

                      Perhaps you should watch the movie as it is very good and it might help you get over your fucking puritanical obsession over the word fuck. Maybe it would help you find something original to say other than your repeated refrain of “golly gee, some people sure do say ‘fuck’ a lot around here. Are they all the same person, te-hee, te-hee….”

                  • Bazooka Joe

                    Senator – I think this guy is Donald Trump incognito…. sure sounds like him !

                • CB

                  Yeah Senator, stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and be more like this guy who clearly knows what he’s talking about and isn’t a condescending ass clown who doesn’t have a clue how college athletics works. Also, don’t you see that 99% of students in America are on his side. I’ll bet that’s proven statistic and not something that he just made up. Shame on you Senator. I expect better… We all do.

            • 3rdandGrantham

              So what. 99%+ of college students don’t have the athletic skill that the NCAA and participating teams envy — which in turn leads to their play on the field that brings in billions of revenue yearly. I personally don’t have the athleticism of top athletes or the intelligence of top captains of tech like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison. Should I demand a portion of their wealth (or outright confiscation) since I would kill for the deal they have?

              “Life’s not fair! For anyone! So quit dealing in what ifs and deal in reality.”

              Your utter hypocrisy and laughable irony almost makes me wonder if you’re simply trolling us, in which an hour or so from now you’ll let us all know that you were just screwing around. By the way, exactly who gets to determine whether these athletes are getting a “great f****** deal”? You’re arrogantly espousing that you are a better judge of whether something is fair or a ‘great deal’ than the actual free market itself.

              • Im right, you're wrong

                It’s an opinion. You disagree. I like who is on my camp. There’s not as how’re long enough or hot enough for me to be able to be with who is in your camp.

                • I'm right, you're wrong

                  A shower

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  Are you taking any sort of medications?

                  • Russ

                    Well, I’ve learned that the problem isn’t just liberal judges. Nope, it’s liberal WOMAN judges.

                    Is the Vent leaking again?

                    • Forget it…he’s rolling.

                      This is what I love about coming here: Every once in a while we get a real soothsayer with a bolder-than-yours handle that writes things that the rest of us are just too dumb to realize. I would like to extend a hearty thank you to I’m right, your wrong. I really appreciate your keen insight–and I believe that if only we had more thinkers like you at the helm–by golly we really could make America great again.

                      You keep those posts coming…and I’ll keep reading them.

                  • @3rd: Not are, but how many.

  2. 3rdandGrantham

    I welcome more of this down the road, and I hope to read about similar such stories in the months to come due to various, ahem, ‘administrative procedural delays’ or such. The fact that athletes at top academic institutions like Northwestern and Stanford are taking the lead in all of this is quite telling as well in terms of the merit, if not downright virtuousness of the overall cause.

    • W Cobb Dawg

      Agreed. But those Lilliputians have kept Gulliver tied down a long time. You don’t have to be a CEO to see players investing in revolts have been getting some pretty good returns. No doubt some of those players at Northwestern and Stanford have more money savvy than a lot of ADs.

  3. JCDAWG83

    This is a classic unstoppable force/immovable object scenario. At some point, a large enough group of players is going to walk out that the program will be forced to forfeit some games. When that happens, the school will revoke scholarships and the media will go crazy. Too many people in the media and some in the public, along with some of the athletes have adopted the attitude that the athletes have some sort of entitlement to a scholarship. A lawsuit will follow and some San Francisco judge will decree that the athletes are employees and deserve all the benefits and protections of employees and the scholarship does not count as any form of compensation because the athletes have a “right” to the scholarship. The ticket buying/donation sending public will become disgusted and the money will start leaving the college sports goldmine and the televisions will start being turned off. At that point, some serious changes will occur.

    My thought is; the change will involve colleges moving to a model where athletes must first be admitted to the school like every other student before they can be given a scholarship. The current model of bringing in marginally qualified students simply because they can run fast, jump high and throw or catch a ball and giving them full scholarships is not sustainable. Once the current sham of a system is destroyed, the NFL and NBA will create farm systems and those academically marginal, highly talented athletes will have a venue to audition for the world of pro sports.

    • Im right, you're wrong

      +1000 and it will be a sad, sad day.

    • The ticket buying/donation sending public will become disgusted and the money will start leaving the college sports goldmine and the televisions will start being turned off.

      Bullshit. Greedy MLB players and owners cancelled a World Series and the fans came back. The fans always come back.

      The problem you have with clinging to the romance is that the schools and the NCAA don’t believe it themselves anymore and haven’t for a while.

      By the way, if only one school revoked scholarships, it would be suicidal.

      • I'm right, you're wrong

        Yeah, MLB baseball is a real juggernaut. Have you seen the stands at an MLB game lately? Major cities in the northeast is its only saving grace…the south and midwest have all but abandoned it…and guess where the majority of college football fans and donors reside?

        • MLB isn’t the only sport that’s dealt with paying players and player strikes and survived.

          The South and Midwest have abandoned MLB? Did anyone tell the Cobb County commissioners that?

          By the way, if asses in the seats is your complete measuring stick, perhaps you should take a closer look at the stands during a mid-majors CFB game sometime. Or Bobby Dodd Stadium. 😉

          • I'm right, you're wrong

            Ok, look at tv ratings in markets anywhere other than major northeast markets…they’re almost no -existent. This is a loser of an argument for you using any metric. The strike changed baseball forever and it is a pro sport. A College sport will be infinitely more negatively impacted because of the emotion tied to “your school” or your “alma mater”. You’re crazy if you don’t think it will devastate college football attendance, ratings, donations, tv, etc. Every game will be like watching Dartmouth play Yale because all the boys who can run, jump, throw and catch will be in a farm system.

            • Every game will be like watching Dartmouth play Yale because all the boys who can run, jump, throw and catch will be in a farm system.

              That’s the point… or, if you prefer it in your vernacular, the fucking point. The players bring value to the sport. They’re the entertainment. That has a great deal of worth in the eyes of our society. Just because you and your imaginary college friends don’t want to pay that doesn’t mean others aren’t willing to and would if the NCAA were no longer able to operate as a cartel.

              • Im right, you're wrong

                Wait, what happened to your MLB comparison? It was such a good one for me.

                • You finally lost me. Surprised it’s taken this long.

                  Are you saying I’m only allowed to make one argument, or that you can’t keep up with more than one argument?

            • 3rdandGrantham

              L.A. and S.F. beg to differ. Also, in 2015, the Cardinals, Mariners, Royals, Padres, and Diamondbacks were the highest rated prime time programming in each of their respective markets on a consistent, weekly basis. Perhaps my geography knowledge isn’t the best, but I don’t believe any of those teams are in the northeast U.S.

              According to every research poll that has been done in relation to baseball, the overwhelming concern for baseball has nothing to due with the strike, in which ’94 was a distant memory, but instead the relative slow pace of the game itself, in which younger viewers (those who were mere babies back in ’94) yearn for something faster paced with more action.

              You’re literally just slinging crap against the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

              • I'm right, you're wrong

                Keep comparing MLB and college football tv ratings, please. I emplore you.

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  Let’s please stick to your argument that MLB is dwindling in both attendance and tv ratings. In fact, you said it was non existent outside of the northeast. When presented with actual facts, yet again you’re moving the goalposts.

                  You truly are an idiot.

                • CB

                  The strike isn’t even the most relevant metric to use for comparison. MLB ratings have risen since the late 60’s when Curt Flood busted open the gates of free agency. Furthermore baseball has an antitrust exemption which the NCAA does not.

              • 3rdandGrantham

                Oh yea, as for actual attendance, in 1995, the year after the strike, the total attendance for all MLB teams was 50.4 million. In 2015, the total attendance was 73.8 million.

                Yep, those fans sure stayed away after the strike. Indeed attendance is dwindling (outside of NY and Boston) and things will never be the same again. Oh yea, the Dodgers led the MLB in attendance last year. Funny…how are they able to pull off that beautiful weather despite being located in the northeast?

                • I'm right, you're wrong

                  As stated, it was already a pro system, moron. You seriously don’t think the impact to college athletics will be exponentially greater?

                  • 3rdandGrantham

                    “Ok, look at tv ratings in markets anywhere other than major northeast markets…they’re almost no -existent. This is a loser of an argument for you using any metric. The strike changed baseball forever and it is a pro sport.”

                    Please address just this quote of yours alone; otherwise its pointless continuing with someone who keeps moving the goalposts as his espoused nonsense is kept proven wrong. Fact is attendance and tv ratings for MLB have never been higher. Heck, I was just out in San Diego and watched a horrible Padres team at a quite full Petco Park midweek. 15 years ago attending Padres games was like going to a Braves game cica 1987.

                    • sniffer

                      I can top that, 3rd. Oakland-Alameda for an A’s game in July and the place was three quarters full on a 55 degree day against the Mariners. Not only is that shit hole the worst park in America (I think), those were the ugliest people I’ve ever seen and I’ve been to a race at Talledega.

                    • Hell – there are two cities in Missouri that are absolutely crazy about baseball. Y’all might have heard of them. They sure as shit aren’t major northeast markets.

      • JCDAWG83

        MLB is a pro league, the fans expect the players to be paid. SOME fans came back, I know many people who lost interest in MLB after the strike. I’m not a good example because I have never been a big MLB fan but I haven’t watched three consecutive innings of an MLB game since the strike and really don’t care what happens in MLB. The fact the Braves are getting a new stadium is baffling to me.

        I’m not clinging to any romance. I recognize that the current college football and basketball system is a sham and I think more and more people are realizing that as well. I do think if college sports become nothing more than minor league pro teams playing on college campuses, wearing college colors and uniforms, the majority of college sports fans will turn their backs. College fans are a different animal than pro fans, one trip to an NFL game will show you the difference.

        As to revoking scholarships being suicidal. I think it will happen because a school’s options will be; revoke the scholarships and take a stand or cave and create a monster that will rise up again and again. The athletes get the scholarship to play the sport, if they refuse to play the sport, they can’t expect to receive the scholarship. This goes back to my “entitlement” thought. The athletes and some fans, like yourself, have the mindset that the athletes have some sort of “right” to the scholarship simply because they are talented. For the athletes, this mindset is somewhat understandable. For years, the kids have had everyone worshipping them and giving them whatever they wanted because they were good at a sport. I guess for some fans the idea of saying “no” to these gifted athletes when they ask for anything is unthinkable because the athlete might not go out on the field or court and provide the fan with entertainment.

        • MLB is a pro league, the fans expect the players to be paid.

          This may be a generational thing, but I grew up in the ’60s, and believe me, while fans knew players were paid, they didn’t expect them to be paid much. A lot of players back then took jobs in the offseason to make ends meet. Fans also didn’t expect players to have control of their destinies in terms of where they played.

          Free agency was an enormous sea change for MLB. And a lot of fans were upset by it. But they learned to live with it.

          There’s a great book on the owner-union struggle called Lords of the Realm. Highly recommended, if you’re interested.

    • My thought is; the change will involve colleges moving to a model where athletes must first be admitted to the school like every other student before they can be given a scholarship. The current model of bringing in marginally qualified students simply because they can run fast, jump high and throw or catch a ball and giving them full scholarships is not sustainable. Once the current sham of a system is destroyed, the NFL and NBA will create farm systems and those academically marginal, highly talented athletes will have a venue to audition for the world of pro sports.

      Otherwise known as Jim Delany’s Division III threat.

      Don’t you think this would have a serious impact on the schools’ athletics cash flow? If not, why haven’t they embraced this already?

      • I'm right, you're wrong

        Are you dense? Of course it will have a negative impact on the school and its revenue which is exactly why they haven’t embraced it. Your push to pay student athletes will end college football as we know it. Like I said above, every game will be like watching Dartmouth play Yale because all the athletes that cannot qualify or don’t understand the value of an education will be in a farm system.

        • Turn on your sarcasm meter, bro. It was a rhetorical question.

          Again, you’re perfectly willing to acknowledge that the players bring value to the sport. You just don’t want to pay them fairly for it. Neither does the NCAA.

          • JCDAWG83

            Senator, I think this little post really sums up your and my difference on the issue. You don’t think the scholarship is fair compensation for the players and I do. We could argue forever about it and neither of us would change our minds.

            I think the only solution is to raise admission requirements and stop letting kids into college based solely on their ability in a sport. I agree there are some players on ever team who are “working” for less than the value of the scholarship. Gurley, Chubb, Deshaun Watson and those type players could definitely make an argument they would be able to command more in income than the total value of the scholarship and the extras scholarship athletes receive. However, I would venture 90% or more of college football and basketball players could not exceed the value of the scholarship in actual income if they were able to take their talents to the open market.

        • I'm right, you're wrong

          Hope you enjoy cheering for the Macon Farmhands, the new Atlanta Falcons farm team. I hear Macon is a lovely place to see semi-pro football game.

          • Hope you enjoy cheering for the Macon Farmhands, the new Atlanta Falcons farm team. I hear Macon is a lovely place to see semi-pro football game.

            You’re missing the point.

            My enthusiasm for CFB has been on the wane ever since the last round of conference expansion and realignment took place, all of it driven by the chase of the almighty dollar. If the people running the sport don’t care about tradition or anything else that makes the sport special because they assume the fans will put up with the bullshit, why should the players feel any different?

            You and I are both being treated as suckers. The difference between us is that I’m aware of it.

            • I'm right, you're wrong

              No, you’re missing the point. You’re in the minority in terms of your warning enthusiasm. The Bulldog Club brought more cash in last year than ever before. Start paying players and college football as we know it is over. Period. Sadly, you have taken the side of a bunch of lawyers who see an opportunity get rich and have found a willing victim in a bunch of kids who have grown up in an entitlement, victim based society with no understanding of the value of the education they are receiving, and your just a mouth breather for those lawyers. You actually think these attorneys give one rat’s ass about these kids? You’re adorable. Tell me, what’s with more, a college degree or whatever compensation a right guard will receive in your fair market farm team system? Teach a man to fish and he’ll never go hungry, give a man a fish…

              • Start paying players and college football as we know it is over. Period.

                Players are already being paid. I think they’re still going ahead with the 2016 season as planned, though.

                • I'm right, you're wrong

                  Seriously? That’s the best you can do? Saying they’re already being paid? Your post was about compensation beyond stipends, which I think very few have a problem with. You are advocating for “fair market value” compensation and now you’re argument is they’re already being paid? Man, now you know you’ve lost the argument. That sounds like a great defense for the NCAA, “your honor, there already being paid”. I like it…and agree with it.

                  • Maybe you should think about phrasing your argument more accurately than “Start paying players and college football as we know it is over. Period.”

                    My bad for taking you at your word, I guess.

                  • Gaskilldawg

                    What started your rant was the article about Stanford not paying to the players a stipend the rules already permit it to pay, payments you just said you are fine with them getting.

                  • CB

                    *They’re

                    Sounds like somebody just finished their first semester of Sport Management school. He got a B- in Sports Law and is not to be trifled with.

                • I'm right, you're wrong

                  Again, what’s worth more? A college degree or whatever compensation a right guard may get in your fair market farm system?

                  • This is a straw man argument. Why does there have to be a choice?

                    • Im right, youre wrong

                      It’s not a straw man argument. It’s just one you simply can’t refute. If you pay players, we will head to a farm system, so it will be a choice of education, versus pay. The players who cannot qualify to get into college like all the rest of the students, will be headed to your form system, because you were hellbent and determined to declare that there was no value in the education they were receiving, or at least not value enough for the 12 games a year they played on the football field. So again, I as you, what’s worth more?

                    • How do I refute an assumption (“If you pay players, we will head to a farm system, so it will be a choice of education, versus pay.”) you’re making?

                      You win – if the world turns out the way you say it will, then the world will turn out the way you say it will.

                    • I'm right, you're wrong

                      You’re making an argument that college football will remain the same if you pay players and I think it will change drastically. They’re both speculation. Why can’t you just concede that?

                    • I’m not making any such argument. The sport has already changed dramatically in the wake of conference realignment and postseason expansion and yet kids are still going to school.

                      All I’m saying is that the sport is awash with money and players aren’t being fairly compensated in that setting. As for where that goes, that depends in large part as to how the schools adapt if the rules are changed. Other sports have survived that sort of thing, so it’s not out of the question that the colleges could, as well. But how it goes, I have no idea. I certainly don’t take your point of view as a given, though.

                  • Again, what’s worth more? A college degree or whatever compensation a right guard may get in your fair market farm system?

                    The problem with people like you when it comes to this discussion is that you are biased to believe that all college degrees have a high level of worth. For some folks, it does. For some, it doesn’t. I know a bunch of baristas at Starbucks that got their college degree. Their degree sure as shit ain’t worth more than their hourly wage.

                    In a system that is incentived to merely keep athletes eligible (not educate them, mind you) and allows colleges to admit athletes that have ZERO business business being in college, that fair market wage is worth far more to them than any degree in a bullshit major (i.e. consumer economics, underwater basket-weaving, etc.) that only exists to keep them eligible will be worth. Why don’t you ask the athletes that went to UNC how much value they got out of their college degrees.

                    The whole underlying discussion of player compensation is one rife with nuances like that, but you want to argue it in black & white terms.

                    It’s also hilarious (and quite predictable given how these threads usually go) that you would insult “liberals” and “social justice” while espousing the most socialist of socialist views when it comes to college athletics. Bernie Sanders would be proud of you, my man.

                    • I don’t think people like him are arguing in favor of socialism. They’re more old school than that. What they’re arguing for is feudalism. Serf’s up!

                    • I'm right, you're wrong

                      Hey moron, Bernie wants to give the kids who are saddled with student debt a free education. You know, the kind these players are getting now.

      • Derek

        Once again, I don’t buy this at all. Given what little your average fan understands about football, the idea that most of them would notice a change such that they quit watching is just inaccurate. If you put the New England Patriots in georgia uniforms and Denver broncos in Alabama uniforms, I don’t think most fans would notice the difference.

        What is at risk isn’t entertainment value. What is at risk is ensuring compliance. Will Alabama and auburn admit illiterates anyway and claim that admissions let the kid in legitimately? Quite possibly.

        Who would go along with the change and who wouldn’t? If the big five went for it and all of a sudden your Troy states and Georgia southern’s become the new homes of the best players who can’t get into a big five school, it does deny you the ability to play 3 or 4 weak sisters a year.

        However, if all of the big five agreed to the change and agreed to a transparent admissions process and they agreed that wouldn’t play teams who didn’t abide by the admission standards, I don’t think they see a revenue decline at all. What will it take to get there? Probably a player strike.

        The players have some leverage because of the interest in maintaining status quo. However that leverage is far from unlimited in my opinion. The dynamics of a strike in a pro league would be far different in big time college football. Strikers get too little sympathy from the public as it is. College players striking would quickly lose all sympathy when the schools offer 85 free educations to the best football players on campus and your average fan can’t tell the difference.

    • Macallanlover

      You are right, the extortion, gun to the head, sit-outs, protests, strikes, etc, always work some in the beginning but the underlying philosophy will make the host so weak they will ultimately fail. The fans will not always come back. I don’t hate the idea of limiting scholarships to qualified students and watching something less than D1 football. I just want it competitive, free of the histrionics, and an end put to the continual whining.

      “Compensation” is the key word in the athlete’s complaint, it was never meant to be that. Form an NFL-lite feeder system and get rid of the cancers that are beginning to poison the host. I never had any problem with adding some expense money to a full scholarship IF the program had profits to pay the additional $500 a month, but notice the route that was chosen: an arbitrary cost of attendance BS number to be toyed with and drive further dissension. The problem isn’t just the lawyers that drive this sport toward the ground, it is the greedy, entitlement folks who will never be satiated.

      • I'm right, you're wrong

        +1000. Our good host has cut off my ability to reply to his last post, so I’ll do it here. He again, states that “players aren’t being fairly compensated”. Says who? The lawyers? The kids who have no understanding of the value of all they’re already being compensated with? It’s simply your opinion. That’s it. You have no moral authority, just an opinion. Stop treating it as anything other than that by saying anyone who disagrees with you is for feudalism or is a modern day platation owner because a handful of cash hungry lawyers have found willing victims and one judge has ruled based on her sense of social justice. My opinion is that they are being more than compensated and that paying these kids cash will forever ruin the game of college football. I don’t claim a moral high ground like you, just an opinion.

        • Our good host has cut off my ability to reply to his last post, so I’ll do it here.

          If by “our good host”, you mean WordPress, that’s because it only allows ten comments in a particular chain thread. You’re not the first person here that’s happened to.

          If by “our good host”, you mean me, just chalk it up as something else you’re wrong about.

      • Russ

        “The problem isn’t just the lawyers that drive this sport toward the ground, it is the greedy, entitlement folks who will never be satiated.”

        Are you talking about the greedy, entitled players, or the greedy, entitled university officials? Lots of greed out there, but the money’s only on one side.

        • Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like the only people making tons of money off this whole enterprise are working real hard to keep it from going to the people that do all the work. Smells like entitlement to me.

          • I'm right, you're wrong

            Yep, disagreement = “going off the rails”. Typical. You’ve added so much substance to the debate too. Thanks for weighing in.

            • One can disagree without dropping “f” bombs and insulting people. Your definition of debate and mine differ, brother.

              • I'm right, you're wrong

                I’m so sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities with my f-bombs Miss Charlotte. How ever do you find the will to leave the house knowing that there are “tribalistic” men out there with opinions that may be different from yours?

            • 3rdandGrantham

              This, coming from the guy who continues to run away from debates above when proven wrong, who also ignored a simple request to defend just one bold statement. You kept comparing MLB to college, and incorrectly stated that both attendance and ratings for MLB were basically trivial outside of the northeast these days. When presented with facts that prove otherwise, you of course run away and start new arguments elsewhere. (btw, of the 5 MLB attendance leaders last year, 4 of them were teams west of the Miss. river).

              • I'm right, you're wrong

                Now there’s a straw man argument. It’s a major league sport where the players were already being paid. And yes, the strike did have a major impact. The argument was that paying players in college football would have an even greater one. Try and keep up.

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  “Have you seen the stands at an MLB game lately? Major cities in the northeast is its only saving grace”

                  “Ok, look at tv ratings in markets anywhere other than major northeast markets…they’re almost no -existent. This is a loser of an argument for you using any metric.”

                  I’m still waiting for you to address these quotes you made above, in which you were arguing with SB while using MLB’s “decline” (sic) due to the ’94 strike. The ’94 strike certainly had a major impact — TV ratings have never been higher and 25 million more fans attended MLB games last year compared to ’95. Also, LA, SF, SL, and LAA were 4 of the top 5 attendance leaders last year, with 8 of top 10 overall also located outside of the northeast.

                  But alas, you keep deflecting while still slinging your nonsense elsewhere. Its akin to you saying the sky is green, we point out that its actually blue, then you immediately go off on a tangent about the deleterious aspects of a Keynesian style economic system.

      • Mac, what you are neglecting to mention here is the fact pattern at hand. These kids didn’t strike over something they didn’t have. They struck over something they were promised and didn’t receive. And their actions got results. That’s the real point here.

        • Macallanlover

          You are right Senator, and I have no issue with people getting what they have earned, or were promised, in a timely manner. Stanford is simply sloppy on that front, and while that, for an educational institution, doesn’t surprise at all, I am not condoning it. My response was to the discussion surrounding the post, not the specific tardy payment, and I stand by my comments.

      • Don in Mar-a-Lago

        “the extortion, gun to the head, sit-outs, protests, strikes, etc,….it is the greedy, entitlement folks who will never be satiated.”

        Extortion, gun to the head, sit-outs, protests…All good things!

        Without greed, how could universities exist as NFL minor league members? How could agents put food on their customers’ families?

        Without satiated apex predator entitlement folks in management, tycoon medievalism would cease to exist. And without that, what would a university be? Nothing. Sad!

        http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/05/andrew-carnegie-tycoon-medievalism

        So much has changed since then

        Any resemblance to a plantation is completely coincidental.

  4. DawgPhan

    when i saw this post I though…oh boy it will be fun to watch someone’s head explode over this.

    I didnt think it would be this dramatic.

    thanks everyone..

    • Russ

      Yeah, you have to wade through the spittle and froth, but our newest bridge dweller certainly entertained.

    • There’s always one in these posts that will predictably go off the rails. I’ve come to realize that discussing player compensation is like discussing Obama or George W. Bush with some people. The mere mention of those words/names freezes any rational part of their brains and they just start spouting off angry, talking points. Any semblance of nuanced debate will be replaced with tribalistic anger. Frankly – it’s a fascinating study of human psychology.

      • Normaltown Mike

        WHATEVER DISNEY DAWG!!!!

      • 3rdandGrantham

        This is precisely why I rarely if ever discuss politics anymore among my friends, family, etc. I used to be naive enough to believe that I actually could change someone’s opinion or viewpoint, but sadly the overwhelming % of people only want to hear what they already believe to be true. And even if you prove their viewpoint wrong or otherwise, they then lash out emotionally while holding onto their viewpoints in an even tighter fashion, thus pushing them further away from not only your own viewpoint, but from continuing any such discussion whatsoever.

        • charlottedawg

          At the expense of sounding incredibly naive and idealistic I’m always saddened and disappointed in how rare it is find genuine intellectual curiosity. Very few people are interested in learning new things and ideas and asking hard questions and engaging in healthy debate with the goal of gaining knowledge and arriving at the truth however messy it may be. What you see are people who either want to confirm their pre-existing world view or at best are just too lazy to ever desire learning and bettering themselves.

          • I don’t find that naive, but definitely idealistic. Fear drives many people to not ask the hard questions or learn new things about the world. Bias confirmation is a real thing that has only been exacerbated in the cable news / internet world. If you hear the thing you believe enough times, you’ll never be convinced it’s not true despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s much easier to live in an echo chamber than it is to face the hard reality that a cause / idea you may be emotionally invested in or committed much of your life to is incorrect or false.

            As complex as our human emotional make-up can be, we are also incredibly simple beings. X scares me so I’m going to avoid X. I agree that it’s disappointing and I hate myself sometimes that default response is that those people are stupid. While some of them certainly are stupid, there are other behaviors at play for why they prefer to live in a bubble that doesn’t challenge their world view. There’s really good research out there about group identity being central to the human existence. We like to include ourselves in certain groups where we know we’re right and all those other groups are wrong or bad. Interesting stuff.

            • Derek

              This is why life is a journey not a destination. While many people are very rigid in their thinking and resistant to all strains of facts that are inconsistent with their prejudices, I’ve never thought it hopeless to try and converse with people you disagree with. Changing minds shouldn’t be the goal anyway. If you 1) learn something about your own position 2) learn how to better argue your position 3) leave your opponent less convinced in his own bullshit, you’ve accomplished something. I’ve found that more people are open to listening than you might think. We’re curious creatures and, as a group, we’re constantly advancing and only sometimes retreating. Just 200 years ago it was a radical thought to think of races as being equal for example. While not entirely eradicated, that notion has largely died and is in the extreme minority. Even the racists don’t rest their arguments on superiority any longer. That didn’t happen because people were afraid to challenge each other. In a very real sense it died, at least in part, due to what some would call “political correctness run amok.”

              • 3rdandGrantham

                When I mentioned changing one’s mind above, I simply meant the other person merely being open minded to or considering my point of view; nothing more or less. Unfortunately, in my experience those both on the far left and far right are the ones most likely to be narrow minded in their views; whereas those who are in the middle or consider themselves moderates tend to be more accommodating overall. YMMV of course.

                • Derek

                  True dat. Ideologues of all stripes know the answer before the question is asked. The solution is always the same no matter what the problem is. Some confuse that rigidity with having principles. I think that rigidity inhibits one’s ability to think through complicated problems.

                  People should be willing to have their own views challenged as frequently as possible. Unfortunately people are more invested in “being” right than having the humility to understand that they don’t know shit and that they are supposed to be on a journey to be as right as they are capable of being. The truth for all of us is that if you had everything worth knowing in one pile and everything you know in a pile next to it, we would all be about equally embarrassed. The distance between what I know and the biggest moron and the greatest genius in the planet is minuscule compared to all that is knowable. You begin with that premise aand you’re suddenly very open to competing ideas.

            • 3rdandGrantham

              Great responses from both you and CD. I have to admit that I once was a member of the rather sad group of people who refuse to consider viewpoints outside of their own entrenched beliefs. Mind you, I was only in my early to mid 20’s at the time, so I’ll give myself a bit of a pass and chalk it up to immaturity.

              “It’s much easier to live in an echo chamber than it is to face the hard reality;” truer words have never been spoken. In my experience, those who actively seek out other points of view, are malleable to new ideas and change, and generally are curious in nature while having a bit of a contrarian bent are the ones who are the most intelligent, successful, and happy overall. After rubbing elbows with enough people with these traits over many years, I realized they must be on to something worth exploring further.

        • @3rd:about all one is left to do is get down to their level. Trying to keep a logical train of thought is useless with these folks. Just have to get down in the sand box, sad to say. Nothing else works so just sling shit. There is no way in hell im right is ever going to see anything but what he/she sees.

  5. Cousin Eddie

    What surprises me is that STANFORD has all these smart people, according to their head coach, which are so much smarter than the rest of the College Football world (see the SEC) but yet in the south the players get paid on time. And in some instances (see auburn) under the table on time.

    • In some instances? Way more than some. I just think Newton and Tunsil are the only ones dumb enough to tip their hand. Didn’t Auburn take the football team to a casino where all the slot machines were rigged to pay out? I would bet most scholarship players are getting paid under the table somehow or another–especially in the SEC. If they weren’t, the coming mutiny would have happened years ago.

      • And the mutiny isn’t an if thing it is a when thing. Now if they were really smart–it would be everyone from every team sitting out at once. They could demand anything at that point. One team sitting out could force a school to bend. Every team sitting out would break the cartel before what would have been halftime of the Noon games.

  6. sniffer

    My thought is that any player valuable enough to earn money off their likeness, signature or appearance at an event, etc., should get it by any means possible. I wouldn’t be for paying players just because they play a game that benefits their school. If I want to buy a signed football from the 4th string, walk-on punter, and he gets the money for it, so be it.

  7. ApalachDawg

    FYI – teams that are good, their top players ARE already getting paid.Example, you’ll never see Alabama/Auburn/LSU/UF/UGA, etc on strike – why because those top players are getting paid today. So this fantasy of an all team strike will never happen (at least not at the OSU/UM/Bama/OU, etc) – except in places where it doesn’t matter – like NW or Stanford, etc.
    I think the closest thing to a ‘strike’ that you will see from the top players – is Exhibit A – Laremy Tunsil type of activities in their last year of eligibility or junior season when it is obvious they will go pro.
    Nick Saban is a great coach but he gets more talent than anyone else (a la bobby bowden in the 90s).He gets that talent not by his wonderful persona but by the machine in Bama called the Red Elephant club. The blueprint that he laid down at LSU is still in force there but the boys in bama take things to a different level. And that is the true reason that bama can get all those top 5star recruits and truly reloads every year. Nick Saban is not a coaching god he just has powerful brokers behind him that feeds the ‘Process’ machine. Combine good coaching with the best talent and you’ll have a perennial winner (as long as the under the table cash flows, this will never change.

    I guarantee you, if players start getting paid more than the current stipend, ie a real workers wage. The boosters are still going to be paying people under the table.

  8. ApalachDawg

    Just to clarify, when I say getting paid, I don’t mean ‘college tuition’, I mean crisp green american dollars (or ‘lost debit cards’ or misplaced ‘casino chips’…)