Ladies and gentlemen, the life of a P5 college football player:
“This is the one month out of the year where we encourage them to slow down, take a deep breath, enjoy being a college student.” Kirby Smart said in May. “Because when June 1 rolls around, coach (Scott) Sinclair, you know the guy that’s always pulling me back on the sideline, he’s going to be the guy out there snatching them and running them and working them. He and his staff do a great job with our young men in June and July.”
Remember, it’s not a job. It’s an educational experience.
Get The Picture 
They don’t have to play. Thy are chasing their dream and getting a free education.
LikeLike
And how is that different from any other college student on full scholarship?
LikeLike
In many, if not most, cases, if a student on scholastic scholarship doesn’t maintain a B average, they lose the scholarship. At least the football scholarship guys aren’t held to that standard.
LikeLike
Seriously, this is your defense?
LikeLike
Never said it was a defense. It’s just a difference.
LikeLike
Seriously, Senator, if it’s such a terrible life, why do the players keep choosing it?
LikeLike
What are their other options? It’s the best they’ve got, but it doesn’t mean the schools aren’t being hypocritical in how they describe the amateur life.
Do I really need to say this again? It’s a job.
The issue isn’t whether players are compensated. It’s whether they’re fairly compensated.
If amateurism were abolished tomorrow, do you think the players would receive greater compensation in an open market? If you’re going to make the kinds of demands on their lives they’re making, at least treat them fairly for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Other options? If you’re a football player and your goal is to play professionally, I guess college football is by far your most attractive option. Unfortunately, playing college football in 2019 requires many hours a day and many days a year spent in practice and study, time for which the college player is barely compensated. Maybe that’s not fair; but maybe football is just one of those career choices that requires an inordinate amount of sacrifice, before a person can realize his goal.
LikeLike
How fatalistic of you. It’s only that way because the schools and the NCAA illegally collude.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Other options for a kid right of HIGH SCHOOL….get a job. Many folks do it…
LikeLike
Sure, PTC, a high school senior should evaluate what talents of his are most marketable and then choose to do a low paying job that doesn’t use those talents. Not an economically efficient model.
LikeLike
The Senator seems to be the one complaining…the players, not so much.
LikeLike
I’m sure if Jeffrey Kessler wins, they’ll all refuse the money.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call their education free. They are earning it, at a very, very low pay scale compared to the open market. The colleges are very close to getting free labor. When the cartel is broken up, and it will be, the players will get paid a lot more than they do now.
LikeLike
LMAO free labor. That is a joke. An education, premium food and housing and medical and athletic training and stipend… is lets say on the cheap side $40,000 per year or could be up to $60,000 total in state. Where can an 18 year old kid earn that kind of money? And if they can, then go do it….
LikeLike
I take it “a college athletics where the NCAA and schools don’t illegally collude in the labor market” isn’t one of your options.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a totally different discussion. That wasn’t the point of his comment his comment was they were free labor which is absolute BS. I have always agreed with you its a corrupt system. But where you and I differ is that these kids are being abused or that they have no choice in how to spend their time or earn their money.
LikeLike
These kids aren’t being abused. They’re being taken advantage of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, let me rephrase. Taken advantage of. What is your definition of that? Go to a third world country, go anywhere in the world and tell someone I will give you a free education (that many would not qualify for), incredible meals, free athletic training, very good housing, a monthly stipend, access to counselors and tutors, some travel experiences, bowl gifts…..and present that and also include they have the ability to willingly do so or choose not to–which is a critical pointy–….and then show me how they are being taken advantage of…..could certain players earn more with their likeness and jerseys etc….absolutely. They need better health insurance. The stipend could be larger. They could establish and fund to receive after leaving for a % of money from jersey sales etc….it certainly needs to be adjusted and reviewed. But to say they are free labor is an absolute joke.
LikeLike
Evidently I do have to keep repeating myself.
If amateurism were abolished tomorrow, do you think the players would receive greater compensation in an open market? If your answer is yes, they’re being taken advantage of. If you answer is no, why do you care whether amateurism is abolished?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t care if its abolished I have never once said that. Do whatever they want. But don’t shove this “poor kids” or they are being so taken advantage of by the system narrative down our throats. I have seen behind the curtain and I promise you they are receiving many many benefits. Would they receive more in your perfect system, yes. The amateurism discussion is a good one, completely agree with you the system needs a complete overhaul. But the “repeating of yourself” ….and let me stop and say, possibly not you but others saying the poor kids….is just ridiculous.
LikeLike
My perfect system is merely the same one that you and I operate under.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That same system is a volunteer one. I don’t like it I don’t do it.
LikeLike
No, it’s a system where each side has some control over the terms of employment, rather than one side dictating to the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not agree with your conclusion that just because a very few of them might receive more that they are being taken advantage of.
LikeLike
If abolishing amateurism wouldn’t make any difference, then why do you care if it’s abolished?
LikeLiked by 1 person
90% would receive less compensation in an open market. I am a firm believer that the top 10% should support the rest of the population. Its called paying their fair share.
LikeLike
Alright Bernie Bro, peddle your failed ideological-economic theories somewhere else. This isn’t the Playpen. 😉
LikeLike
Then the schools are literally wasting hundreds of millions of dollars defending amateurism against antitrust claims.
Not only that, why wasn’t that the case when they started paying the COA stipend after O’Bannon?
LikeLike
I thought this was the playpen. This post appears once every week and we all get to argue the same points over and over again.
LikeLike
If people would quit saying stupid shit in public, I wouldn’t have to keep posting about it. 😉
LikeLike
As a serious reply to your question. If we are going to operate this as a business, why would schools/athletic departments raise the compensation level for a bunch of sports that lose money? No business increases funding to non-critical, money losing departments. Football and basketball players (at most schools, many of these programs lose money too) would likely receive significantly more money and they deserve it. Every other sport would see scholarships cut and many programs dropped in my opinion.
LikeLike
Because as non-profit enterprises, I believe they recognize they have to do certain things in order to retain their tax-exempt status.
But you know what? If there’s a non-revenue sport you want to see sustained, contribute your own money to that end, rather than requiring some poor black kid to do so.
LikeLike
Pay them what they are worth and let the other athletes starve. We need to make college sports great again.
LikeLike
Nobody says it’s a binary choice. Schools can do what they want. They could even fund non-revenue student-athletes out of reducing administrators’ salaries (gasp!).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hope and Change. I am sure this will work well for the kids.
LikeLike
I said “very close to free” but you did exactly what you accused me of… “free education”! No it’s not free. The kids work for it and are underpaid. Stop the collusion of the colleges and watch the kids wages rise. The wages are being illegally suppressed.
LikeLike
With the schedule the way it is, how and when do these guys meet the experiential learning requirement needed to graduate? I guess they do some service learning around Athens because they don’t have time to get an internship or study abroad.
College football? It’s not a job … it’s an adventure.
LikeLike
My assumption is this has actually gotten better for the SA over the years. Up until the 70s scholarships were unlimited and it was until the 90s that our current limits were set. I can only imagine timeline for practices/contact etc were similar (the fabled two-a-days come to mind). Not to say there isn’t room for continued improvement (and I whole-heartedly support paying them what they are worth), but I feel like we act like this is some recent problem.
LikeLike
I heard football players actually used to go home for the summer and work a job. They definitely don’t do that now. The playbook is much thicker now and filmwork and private coaching are huge. It’s not the practice schedule that’s changed. It’s all the off-field work they have to put in to succeed that makes it a job.
LikeLike
No, there were scholarship limits before the 1970s. The limits were not NCAA limits but conferences could, and did, set limits. Remember that Tech’s justification for leaving the SEC was that it wanted to award more scholarships than the SEC allowed.
I was a UGA student from 1972 until June, 1979. I would return to Atlanta every summer for summer jobs and it was not uncommon to see or work with a Georgiaor Tech player earning summer money.
LikeLike
Has anyone done the work to find out how much the coaching these players get costs, outside of just the coach’s salaries?
Like, on the free market, if each player paid for the 3-4 years of strength coaching, position coaching, coordinator coaching, and team coaching, how much would it cost them?
Not every player gets to the NFL, of course, but the coaching these players receive has value outside of the football field. The lessons they learn, if applied correctly, can set them up for success in life in ways no other student at Georgia has access to during their time in school. Plus, I would hazzard a guess that if a player attended UGA and was given coaching by this staff, he’s probably more likely to attain his NFL dream than almost any other player at any other school, increasing the cost of the coaching he receives.
It’s disingenuous to discuss things of this nature without having an understanding everything they get that others don’t.
LikeLike
One more time: If amateurism were abolished tomorrow, do you think the players would receive greater compensation in an open market?
LikeLike
One more time… has anyone done the work to figure up the cost?
It’s an honest question, not one that begs a fight or an answer with a strawman I’m not arguing.
LikeLike
I’ve posted many times that it’s almost impossible to calculate school costs because of the way the books are cooked. But you go right ahead, if it’s important to you.
LikeLike
You don’t think it’s an interesting question? I see it as part of the entire picture.
If players are to be paid, and that’s going to happen at some point in some form, then you must calculate the cost of what they receive; the totality of that cost. To not do so would be extremely fiscally irresponsible by the schools and conferences, and even by the representation of the players themselves. It would help set a baseline in both directions of what would be considered fair compensation.
I mean, my degree is in History, but even I know that’s business 101.
LikeLike
Okay, sharp guy: what’s the actual cost to the school of a scholarship? (HINT: less than you think.)
Schools will pay what they want to pay. If coaches’ buy outs haven’t taught you that lesson, it’s time to go back to school. 😉
LikeLike
The way Title IX works, schools won’t be able to just pay what they want to pay. Male football players cannot, by federal law, be paid more than female equestrians, even though the former are worth far more economically than the latter.
This of course, can be avoided if the schools themselves are not the ones doing the paying, which is 100% the reason why I foresee this likeness rights council or whatever it’s called, will come back with the recommendation that the Olympic model (being able to profit on you likeness) go foward.
I believe they see that if they let players, any and all players who can, profit off their likeness rights while in school, this issue of payment will hit the backburner so they would not have to collectively bargain payment.
LikeLike
The law is not nearly that clear cut on that point.
LikeLike
It would be argued in court by representation for female athletes that it is, causing even more issues and problems. So yes, technically, they schools could decide to collectively bargain with football players, and likely the other “money sports” athletes of men’s basketball, baseball, and women’s basketball so they can point to paying women’s basketball players the same as football players, but don’t you think Tom Mars or someone like him would go to all the softball players, gymnists, equistrians, volleyball players, etc. and represent them against the schools so they get their federally-mandated fair share, too?
If the schools don’t include their field hockey players and female rowers along with their football players, they are inviting years of lawsuits on individual and collective levels.
Again, that’s why I foresee their great hope is the idea of name and likeness rights goes through. They can, and will, trumpet that as “fair,” where the Tuas and Fromms and Zions and [insert name of female college athlete here] of the world can profit off their name and likeness while in school, receiving fair market value for those name and likeness rights.
LikeLike
I will bet you have never read Title Nine of the Educational Amendment Act of 1972 and the regulations interpreting it.
By the way, I have never been in a medical school building let alone in a classroom, but I know brain surgery because I have read pundits.
LikeLike
@Gaskilldawg… you would lose that bet. Which makes your assured condescension all the more hilarious.
I admit it’s been about 5-6 years since I have, though, so I probably could use a refresher. I do remember it was an Andy Staples column that made me want to look it up.
Lost in all the ad hominem of your reply is the fact that you don’t address the point I was making: representatives for female athletes in non money sports WILL SUE. Or they’ll do so individually, if they are not treated equally. If you don’t think that’ll happen, you’re delusional.
People sue all the time for any reason. You’re saying they don’t have a case because of how Title IX is written? Well the Senator says it’s vague, so it’s likely not as certain as you believe.
Either way, anywhere there is vagary in law there is an opportunity for exactly what I describe.
LikeLike
Haven’t noticed you mention the three prongs of Title IX compliance in any of your epistles on the subject. It’s a pretty basic tenant for application.
LikeLike
@CB… if you think I’m wrong, and deciding to pay football players, or paying just the money sports players, won’t invite lawsuits, including lawsuits brought under Title IX, WHICH IS THE POINT I’M MAKING, then say so.
I’ve noticed you have not done that. Instead you’ve decided to take another path. That of the a-hole. It’s your right of course, but it’s not a great path, Bob.
LikeLike
Why do amateurism romantics love to talk about the nebulous, unforeseeable Title IX implications of player compensation, but completely ignore the cut and dry federal laws against cartels, collusion, and trusts that are blatantly being violated by the NCAA? Either you like federal laws of you don’t.
LikeLike
I’m not an amateurism romantic, I’m a realist, which people on both sides of this argument never are.
As to those rules laws, it is up to the courts to enforce them, or Congress to strengthen them.
LikeLike
A realist with a strange knack for ignoring all the court cases coming down the pike against amateurism as well as the congress members on both sides of the aisle who are speaking out against it.
On the laws that courts and Congress are responsible for, does that just include Title IX or does the Sherman Act qualify as well?
We all think we’re realists, but some of us are wrong.
LikeLike
By the way, do you really think schools will open their books to players and their reps for an honest accounting of costs?
LikeLike
I think this guy raises some good questions, there’s no need to be redundant and condescending. We all know the football team is a huge cash cow for the university but what about the other sports that don’t generate profit? As I understand things, the revenue of the profitable sports still isn’t enough to cover the expenses of the non-profitable sports (most of these being women’s athletics) so universities fund them with extra student fees. One might say good riddance to those sports since they don’t pull a lot of $ and only make our kids’ college education go up. But schools are legally obligated to provide them under title IX and they do benefit the young women who are offered those opportunities.
So when we’re talking about paying our college athletes (and the current situation is untenable) the question of what their market value would be does matter. And until we know how much money the athletics associations actually have, we can’t assume there are mattresses full of cash that Jere and Greg are hiding from the public that can be used to pay these kids. If there are buku bucks like you think, then let’s pay the kids a working wage. I know you don’t think scholarships have much value considering how much they cost the school but they do mean something for the kids and families who receive them. If there isn’t enough money to pay the kids their market value, how would you propose restructuring college athletics and how could alternatives be provided to athletes who want a better deal?
LikeLike
You miss my point. I don’t know what schools will pay. What I do know is that there is no reason to treat college athletes differently than anyone else in the American market place. What I care about is that whatever compensation arrangement comes about, it’s the result of something other than the schools colluding.
This idea that we’re entitled to see the books in order for the schools and players to come to an arrangement is puzzling. I’ve been on both sides of the table, and the idea that before one accepts an employment offer, it should be SOP to demand a look at the books to determine if it’s fair, is something that would be laughed out of the room. And rightfully so.
Schools competing for talent would pay would they felt they could pay, just as they do for administrators and coaches. The idea that we have to go through all these twists and turns for student-athletes is just another way of saying they should be treated differently because they’re student-athletes.
And again — Title IX mandates equal opportunity, not equal spending. All you have to do is look at what Georgia is spending on its men’s and women’s basketball coaches to get some idea it’s not as clear cut as many of you insist.
You don’t want to pay the players, that’s fine with me. Just don’t try to dress it up with all these quasi-economic concerns that aren’t particularly credible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve recently become more in favor of paying players (how much, I’m not sure, but their time commitments and value are comparable to pro athletes so something needs to change). Thank you for clarifying, though, I think I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from. If we do decide to pay these players, it wouldn’t be fair for them not to negotiate their terms, but such a drastic change would flip the proverbial board which is why people like me have been pumping the breaks (but fair is fair, so you’re right to call us on that). There will be birthing pains, for sure, though. I’m interested in seeing how this affects not just college athletics but higher ed in general, as it seems the whole institution has been under scrutiny over the last decade or so.
LikeLike
“You don’t want to pay the players, that’s fine with me. Just don’t try to dress it up with all these quasi-economic concerns that aren’t REMOTELY credible.”
FIFY
LikeLike
Admiral, don’t cry for UGAA Athletic Association having to fund non-revenue sports. Do you know how much taxes UGA AA pays on it revenues in excess of expenses? Zero. Nada. Zilch. That saves UGA AA a whole lot of money on federal taxes, state taxes and local property taxes.
Why does UGA bother funding mens golf oross country, or other non-revenue sports? Because without a roster of sports UGA AA would risk being able to qualify for tax exempt status. Pay federal, state and local taxes versus paying to fund a bunch of sports? Easy call, especially the actual cost of the 12 softball scholarships is not has high as you think it is.
Also, those “equivalency” sports’ scholarship rules allowing dividing a scholarship between two or three players results in a student on a half a scholarship enrolling and PAYING THE FULL BALANCE OF THE ENUMERATED TUITION.
Using softball as the example, say UGA spreads 12 scholarships out among 18 players. That means that UGA is collecting full tuition and fees from the equivalent of 6 kids. Again, the marginal cost of each of the 12 scholarships is low (UGA is going to have the expenses of running a dorm and providing freshman English classes whether UGA admitted 12 players on full softball scholarship or not.) Add the numbr of players on the non-revenue sports squads and subtract the number of scholarships allotted to those sports and it will tell you how many tuition paying bodies those sports provide to UGA.
Sponsoring those sports enables UGA AA to be a member of the SEC. Being in the SEC generates tons of money, plus this important benefit: UGA has the exclusive right to field an SEC football team in Georgia. Nick Saban can’t decide to move the Alabama Crimson Tide to Conyers and compete for fans in Georgia.
While the ‘non-revenue sorts” do not generate gate receipts and television money, those sports do contribute to the financial well being of the UGA AA.
LikeLike
Can’t disagree there.
LikeLike
“One more time: If amateurism were abolished tomorrow, do you think the players would receive greater compensation in an open market?”
Not sure. Go ahead and establish your marketplace, & then we’ll see.
LikeLike
My marketplace already exists. It’s just being corrupted by the NCAA and its member schools.
LikeLike
Why would the players at UGA pay the coaching staff or strength and conditioning staff or for food at the football facility?
Do NFL players pay for the privilege?
LikeLike
That’s not what I said, nor is it what I meant. I wasn’t talking about NFL players paying coaches. I was talking players paying private coaches outside of a team setting. For the coaching they receive, say at Georgia, from all those different coaches in all those different contexts, how much would it cost them to pay for it on the free market? That is cost that would need to be built into what they would theoretically get paid because you know who would be fitting both bills? The UGA AA.
Any business that pays employees does so off of an equation that plugs in a ton of variables. That equation lets them know how much money they can pool together for payroll on a monthly basis, and how many people they can employ, while still keeping themselves in the black.
It’s basic economics, man.
LikeLike
“I was talking players paying private coaches outside of a team setting.”
You mean like pretty much all of Georgia’s NFL draft eligible players did this spring? Point being, if this is such a huge benefit then why did the players leaving the program in 2019 decline to continue to use the staff for free? Not only did they use somebody else they paid to do so, and I doubt it was cheap.
LikeLike
No it just didn’t make sense because you are equating coaches that are on staff at the University are acting as private trainers which is not the case. NFL teams have S/C, position coaches etc on their staffs just like colleges do.
If a player in college or the pros wants to work a private coach (plenty do hence the unattached QB gurus) then they go ahead and work with them now and pay them now.
Heck HS kids have parents etc who are paying for private coaching.
LikeLike
There is a cost to that, over and above what the coaches are paid. That would need to be factored into any table to figure out how to pay players fair compensation and still maintain a healthy profit. Why is this so difficult to understand?
LikeLike
Because your point makes no sense … the coaches are paid a salary both in college and the NFL. They are paid to coach and any intrinsic life lessons are just passed along for free.
Coaching is coaching whether it is college or professional. In fact there have been numerous cases some of them changing jobs from the collegiate level to the professional level and back again.
Which NFL owner is recruiting free agents by selling the intrinsic life lessons of the coaching staff and in return for these life lessons a free agent should take a reduction in salary?
The type of stuff is the realm of colleges but its the kind of stuff that is lost when coaches move for more salary, a better chance to win and better job title – all the while expecting the type of loyalty from the players that most coaches are unwilling to give themselves.
LikeLike
I was trained under weight coaches at UGA as well as a smaller university for free. 10 years later I’m not sure that I could tell you what the extra success is that I accumulated as a result. Perhaps I “applied incorrectly”?
LikeLike
Being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic is never a good look. You know exactly what I mean.
For decades people have praised the life lessons they learned on the football field and how it made them better men, helped them find success after football, etc. If you want proof, go listen to Adam Carolla’s podcast. It’s all he talks about when he isn’t talking about his terrible family or telling the same ten stories on rotation.
LikeLike
Yeah, let me go listen one of the founders of the Man Show who played football at one point so I can gain some perspective on playing football like I didn’t play football for 10 years myself.
“Pedantic means “like a pedant,” someone who’s too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It’s a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.”
If you’re using the actual definition of “pedantic” then your use of the term is pedantic in and of itself. Perhaps you were thinking of a different definition (or different word). Oh look, now you’ve got me being all pedantic lol. That’s double irony.
LikeLike
No asshole, you’re pedantic because you’re talking about taking literal lessons about weight lifting and applying it to every day life, like a smart ass.
So my use of pedantic is 100% correct. Congratulations, though. Now I know you’re 100% an asshole. 🙂
LikeLike
No, I’m trying to figure out what this mysterious intrinsic value is. Unless you’re suggesting that the training staff that pretty much all of our early NFL draft entries declined to use as they prepared for their combines and Pro Days is somehow worth millions of dollars. In which case your use of pedantic would still be wrong, but your point would be idiotic.
LikeLike
And 100% a dumbass. 😉
LikeLike
I might be dumb, but I’m not out here using words I don’t know the definition of. Maybe that’s been the real problem throughout this debate. We’re trying to have a discussion on free markets, federal law, and the basic tenants of economics and you’re jumping in with questionable grasp of 12th grade vocabulary. Maybe sit out a few rounds and acquaint yourself with Adam Smith.
LikeLike
The only one here not understanding the definition of and how to us “pedantic” is you. As to the other, I’m familiar, and AGAIN, I’m not making the argument you seem to think I’m making.
Which means your reading comprehension level falls well below 12th grade. Right now, I’d put it about 5th. Go ahead though, write some more and let us see how far it can drop.
LikeLike
“Go ahead though, write some more and let us see how far it can drop.”
I don’t believe we’ve met, you must be new here.
“The only one here not understanding the definition of and how to us “pedantic” is you.”
Ah, the “I know you are, but what am I defense.” Classic. You still used the word wrong unfortunately.
“As to the other, I’m familiar”
Now, I’m convinced!
“I’m not making the argument you seem to think I’m making.”
Feel free to elaborate, and be sure to google any big words before using them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You seem to be arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t need to elaborate here, because I literally did elaborate in another response. Someone as smart as you seem to believe you are should understand exactly what I’ve said, so then I can only conclude one of two things:
You’re not as smart as you seem to believe
You’re trolling
Either way, I’m good. You’re an asshole. Got that loud and clear. 🙂
LikeLike
Almost all of your responses are clear indications that you believe Title IX is the only federal that factors in here (when in fact it literally doesn’t factor in at all until after a ruling against amateurism is levied), or that you don’t understand economics. Then there are the quite unclear references to either an intrinsic or intangible value of the training that all of the NFL draftees from UGA chose not to use on their way out the door. I’m not sure which value you’re arguing for, but apparently the players leaving the program prefer to pay for alternate training options as opposed to using Georgia’s for free, so how do you explain that? The rest of your comments are insult laden and filled with butt hurt. I never claimed to be smart, but I know I’m not overly sensitive, and that’s good enough for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
federal law*
LikeLike
@CB… no, they’re not. You’re filling in blanks with assumptions. I simply said there will be consequences in the form of lawsuits if schools decide to play just football players or just the money sports athletes, and that Title IX will be used as the reason. Equal opportunity. That is the vagary that exists that will allow those lawsuits to be brought.
Whether it’s good legal footing or not, is literally immaterial. That’s not the point I made. I’m saying it WILL happen. I’m not saying those lawsuits will succeed. I’m not saying anything other than they WILL happen if only football players are paid or only money sports players are paid. If you think otherwise, that’s fine. You’re entitled to be wrong, just as everyone is, and just as I’m sure I often am, just not about how there will be lawsuits.
The other point I brought up was the cost of the coaching players get. It remains a curiosity, in that it’s far more than the coaching someone would get in draft prep. It’s total coaching from every aspect. What’s the cost of that? Just a question, nothing more. And then the assertion, which is true, that there are valuable lessons in football coaching that can set someone up for a lifetime of success also seemed to upset you in some way.
So. Yep. Anyways.
LikeLike
I believe this is the rub for the Senator.
The Athletic Departments of major schools are effectively money making businesses. Is there another Department that is even slightly comparable to AD’s in that regard? Is there even another Department that operates in the black? Pays for itself and has millions left over to distribute to the school?
It’s a lucrative business, with highly compensated “executives” and even junior executives (coaches and assistant coaches). It’s the reason we have recruiting and facility wars, cheating scandals and playoffs. What television makes and pays is crazy.
But this business doesn’t compensate it’s producers fair monetary compensation. And the NCAA/School won’t even allow the athlete to make a few bucks selling his own signature, popularity, fame, etc. They own that. The NCAA is more than a little bit over the line in it’s supervision over college athletes’ personal lives and fortunes (until that fortune goes south with an injury or something.)
This whole discussion has so many ins and outs…Some kids don’t really care that much about the educational aspect. They just want to keep their grades high enough to stay on the team. If they could play football and never attend class they’d do that. If there was a minor league they could go to and make enough to get by on, they’d leave college in a heartbeat. (ATHLETE/student)
(This would suit me just fine, too. College football would shrink at first, then the commercialism would die down and it would be a great re-birth of college athletics)
Some kids care more about their education than they do playing football (most of those are buried very deep on the depth chart). If they could get an academic scholarship they’d quit football. They realize that without the compensation of a sheepskin, they would have labored for little.(STUDENT/athlete)
Some (maybe most) care a lot about both. (student/athlete)
Some, if they really put their education first, could play for an academically elite school that could use a few four or five star players..but choose a big-time program. Some will choose Vandy or NW or Duke…because they realize the compensation is hugely valuable.
Point is, we can’t just call them all “employees” because for some the educational aspect (paycheck) of their college time isn’t important to them while for some it’s very important.
To be sure it’s complicated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the NCAA implemented the Olympic model and allowed student-athletes to do the same thing every other student on the campus has the ability to do (be compensated for their name, likeness, and image), this entire issue would go away tomorrow. Throw in a guaranteed 5-year scholarship, post-eligibility medical care for injuries sustained, and liberalized transfer rules, and the “college sports is the modern day plantation” drivel would go away as well. Sure, Jeffrey Kessler may decide that’s not enough and continue to pursue his “burn it to the ground” strategy with the NCAA, but he would definitely not have the court of public opinion on his side.
The Olympic model wouldn’t cost the universities one additional dime over what they currently pay out to provide educational opportunity to student-athletes and would protect them from any Title IX claims. If a women’s softball player can earn money modeling for the local women’s clothing store, great. If the star QB signs an agreement with the local BMW dealer to appear in a commercial in exchange for the use of a vehicle, fine. If the one-and-done basketball player gets paid to go sign autographs at a local sports memorabilia store, who cares? As long as all of the taxes are paid to federal and state jurisdictions, it doesn’t matter one bit.
LikeLike
“If amateurism were abolished tomorrow, do you think the players would receive greater compensation in an open market?”
Dear Senator,
I am very afraid there would be NO market. If every school in the SEC sent all of the players home and asked for volunteers to play football I would bet about 100 students would show up for the first practice. They would not be very good, but they only have to play other schools in the SEC that will also be playing volunteers. Your market is going to be gone.
LikeLike
/yells loud enough for the crowd in the back to hear
THE SCHOOLS ALREADY PAY THE PLAYERS A STIPEND AND FOR SOME STRANGE REASON A BLACK MARKET STILL EXISTS
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t guess we’re going to solve this puzzle today. Maybe next time.
LikeLike
I know there are both sides to this argument but my son played college baseball of which he got 50% of his tuition paid. This did not include books, meals or housing. It would have been a blessing to my family to have what the guys get that play football. Top of the line everything and all of it is 100% paid for. I get that the school makes a ton of money but to say they are being used is a bunch of baloney. If you add up all they get per year it probably adds up to a 100K a year not to mention all the free publicity for the job audition at the next level if you are good enough.
LikeLike
So, you’re saying that if amateurism were abolished, football and basketball players wouldn’t receive any more compensation in an open market setting?
LikeLike