Derrick Henry...New Car.....Bama shenanigans?

[LouderVol]

The NCAA and the NFL have a wonderful working agreement. Kids have to play college ball for three years, so the schools get their cheap labor. And the NFL gets to run a developmental league without paying for it. A large percentage of players at major college programs do not care about their higher education. They are there to show off for NFL scouts. There is no degree or board certification that they will ever need, but the NFL forces the issue.

And you think this is a good, justifiable system? Give me a freaking break...

we are human there are no perfect systems, people are exploited. Show me an infallible system and I will tell you to turn to the last page and read the part about them living happily ever after.

As far as a large majority of the players not caring about their education a large majority wont make it into the NFL and then will be doubly screwed. Even if they make the NFL they have limited shelf life, yes lets exploit the players even more but not getting them an education so they literally have no future beyond football. The system is trying to do good and is making some money, not the utterly ridiculous amounts you are mentioning, this is still America and even nonprofits make money. The NCAA is huge, so it makes sense that they make more money than 99% of other nonprofits and pay their president accordingly.

these changes (paying players, allowing the free agent market, giving them money and not an education) being proposed are not making the system any better. therefore in my mind they should not be made.

 

[vol66]

the coaches get 2 hours a most a week out of the 8 hours of strength training, the 2 hours were not tacked on making it 10, the NCAA did not increase the amount of time the kids are spending on football. I am all for increasing the value of the scholarship, it is ridiculous that these guys don't have any money on the side but to give free access to money that doesn't go towards an education would not fix anything. If they get rid of the requirement of the players being enrolled and taking classes do you think the players would do themselves any favors with the cash? The arguements are there and right but until there is an acceptable end game I can't stand any of these proceedings. I will not stand for an action that I do not want to see the end result, because if the players aren't looking for an education they aren't looking to better themselves they aren't going to have a future. If we give them money for four years then the player leaves the school and doesn't get drafted and didn't get an education all we did was create a job-less un-educated individual who went from having money to having nothing. Would the school be responsible if these players didn't find a job afterwards, would the 4/5 years of eligibility still apply? Too many questions for me to accept.

"If we give them money for four years then the player leaves the school and doesn't get drafted and didn't get an education all we did was create a job-less un-educated individual who went from having money to having nothing."

That seems like the current system to me.

Money is not going to fix these issues. My own, personal view as that the cost of attendance, or stipend, or post graduation trust fund or whatever comes out of all this is nothing more than paying the penalty.

This is going to be the price the universities will pay for trying to monetize what ought to be an extracurricular activity or avocation to the absolute hilt. It's the penalty for the inability to say no.

Ultimately, it's the penalty they will pay for obscene coaches pay...I mean it's a little more than ridiculous that a guy who over sees a couple hundred employees and students makes so much more than a president of a university who over sees ten's of thousands. And please...not aimed at you...don't tell me about the free market and coaches pay...Nick Saban may be worth every penny, but that shouldn't set the market for the Lane Kiffins, and Derek Dooley's of the world. Guys who have not performed at a high level shouldn't become millionaires just because "that's the going rate for a football coach in the SEC"...it's ridiculous.

Let's face it, they made so much money, they had to at least LOOK like they were giving back to the student athletes so the built lavish guilt complexes, pun intended.

I suspect not much will change when all is said and done...unfortunately.

 

[bamawriter]

we are human there are no perfect systems, people are exploited. Show me an infallible system and I will tell you to turn to the last page and read the part about them living happily ever after.

As far as a large majority of the players not caring about their education a large majority wont make it into the NFL and then will be doubly screwed. Even if they make the NFL they have limited shelf life, yes lets exploit the players even more but not getting them an education so they literally have no future beyond football. The system is trying to do good and is making some money, not the utterly ridiculous amounts you are mentioning, this is still America and even nonprofits make money. The NCAA is huge, so it makes sense that they make more money than 99% of other nonprofits and pay their president accordingly.

these changes (paying players, allowing the free agent market, giving them money and not an education) being proposed are not making the system any better. therefore in my mind they should not be made.

I am not advocating paying players as if they were employees. I am for either compensating them for the use of their likenesses or the schools should stop exploiting those properties. And players ought to have more freedom to pursue employment on the side without NCAA interference.

But I don't want to hear this crap about how much the schools lose out on providing an education. Scholarship, room, board, and per diem made up 3% of the total revenue that Alabama football earned last year. 3%! That's freaking absurd.

 

[LouderVol]

"If we give them money for four years then the player leaves the school and doesn't get drafted and didn't get an education all we did was create a job-less un-educated individual who went from having money to having nothing."

That seems like the current system to me.

Money is not going to fix these issues. My own, personal view as that the cost of attendance, or stipend, or post graduation trust fund or whatever comes out of all this is nothing more than paying the penalty.

This is going to be the price the universities will pay for trying to monetize what ought to be an extracurricular activity or avocation to the absolute hilt. It's the penalty for the inability to say no.

Ultimately, it's the penalty they will pay for obscene coaches pay...I mean it's a little more than ridiculous that a guy who over sees a couple hundred employees and students makes so much more than a president of a university who over sees ten's of thousands. And please...not aimed at you...don't tell me about the free market and coaches pay...Nick Saban may be worth every penny, but that shouldn't set the market for the Lane Kiffins, and Derek Dooley's of the world. Guys who have not performed at a high level shouldn't become millionaires just because "that's the going rate for a football coach in the SEC"...it's ridiculous.

Let's face it, they made so much money, they had to at least LOOK like they were giving back to the student athletes so the built lavish guilt complexes, pun intended.

I suspect not much will change when all is said and done...unfortunately.

indeed the end result will still have some people at the top making obscene amounts of money. I don't see how any blame goes on the coaches either. They are in the same boat as the players, they are part of the system they did not create and largely have no control over, they get a vote, but how many times have the coaches proposed changes at the SEC meetings then the ADs ignore them. they are allowed to make money on the side but I would say they are the one group that puts in more time the students and it isn't even close.

 

[LouderVol]

I am not advocating paying players as if they were employees. I am for either compensating them for the use of their likenesses or the schools should stop exploiting those properties. And players ought to have more freedom to pursue employment on the side without NCAA interference.

But I don't want to hear this crap about how much the schools lose out on providing an education. Scholarship, room, board, and per diem made up 3% of the total revenue that Alabama football earned last year. 3%! That's freaking absurd.

that 3% is across all sports? if so congrats to bama for making truck loads of money. Not every school has the tradition, alumni support and success on the field as bama. this is where the problem comes in and why we need the NCAA to come up with rules on competitive advantages. thats why i am all for the big 5 conferences having their own division and being able to increase the value of the scholarship to include full cost and if it is decided. If thats all that came from these lawsuits was the changes to the structure of the NCAA I would have no problem but it is naive to think the millions of dollars that will be paid out is actually going to make anything ok.

 

[bamawriter]

that 3% is across all sports? if so congrats to bama for making truck loads of money. Not every school has the tradition, alumni support and success on the field as bama. this is where the problem comes in and why we need the NCAA to come up with rules on competitive advantages. thats why i am all for the big 5 conferences having their own division and being able to increase the value of the scholarship to include full cost and if it is decided. If thats all that came from these lawsuits was the changes to the structure of the NCAA I would have no problem but it is naive to think the millions of dollars that will be paid out is actually going to make anything ok.

I agree with most of that. And I should probably reiterate that when I post on this topic, I'm referring to the major programs. I'm not including the Troys, Idahos, and Eastern Michigans of the world.

 

[vol66]

indeed the end result will still have some people at the top making obscene amounts of money. I don't see how any blame goes on the coaches either. They are in the same boat as the players, they are part of the system they did not create and largely have no control over, they get a vote, but how many times have the coaches proposed changes at the SEC meetings then the ADs ignore them. they are allowed to make money on the side but I would say they are the one group that puts in more time the students and it isn't even close.

There's plenty of blame to go around and sure, the coaches deserve some blame.

If you are the CEO of a college football program you must do two things. Graduate your players and win football games. The order probably should be win football games and graduate your players to more accurately reflect the expectations of fans.

What it has turned into over the last few decades is keep players eligible and win football games.

The shame of low graduation rates forced the NCAA to invent the APR and they use a post season ban as the hammer. In other words, "we know what you coaches care about and if you won't do it willingly, maybe this will get your attention."

The whole thing is a joke.

Level playing field. No.

Protect the student athletes from exploitation. No.

Integration of athletes into the regular student population, hahahahaha. No.

Graduate the majority of men's FB and BB players. No.

Division II and III don't have 100 Million dollar budgets, yet the fund football and basketball and have championships.

I don't know if money will fix it, but the unquenchable thirst for MORE money sure is at the root of what ails D1.

 

[LouderVol]

There's plenty of blame to go around and sure, the coaches deserve some blame.

If you are the CEO of a college football program you must do two things. Graduate your players and win football games. The order probably should be win football games and graduate your players to more accurately reflect the expectations of fans.

What it has turned into over the last few decades is keep players eligible and win football games.

The shame of low graduation rates forced the NCAA to invent the APR and they use a post season ban as the hammer. In other words, "we know what you coaches care about and if you won't do it willingly, maybe this will get your attention."

The whole thing is a joke.

Level playing field. No.

Protect the student athletes from exploitation. No.

Integration of athletes into the regular student population, hahahahaha. No.

Graduate the majority of men's FB and BB players. No.

Division II and III don't have 100 Million dollar budgets, yet the fund football and basketball and have championships.

I don't know if money will fix it, but the unquenchable thirst for MORE money sure is at the root of what ails D1.

that last line, yet giving the players "MORE money" fixes it, or makes it ok?

you are right about players not getting an education but how often do we here about players getting locked up or going broke? That number is going to go up if you remove the requirement for them to go to class and at least pretend like they are working towards a degree. And therefore by removing the requirement of them going to class and just giving them money instead is just making things worse for the players in the long run, yet another reason I am not ok with any of this talk. You are agruing against a system that might help 25/30 of the 85 players on roster, and what you want to replace it with is a system that helps 0 of the 85. WHY? money = fair apparently, smh. I guess its ok that they stayed uneducated and are risking their well being for us as long as we are giving them money, instead of at least trying to prepare them for their future not just an unattainable NFL future for all of them.

I always try to live my life according to one simple belief. Can I live with the choices I have made, because ultimately I am the person I have to live with. So I would at least rather back a system that tries to do good, and makes money; than a system that is openly 100% about making money. If we give the players the NLI and collective bargaining (I think they should get this for rules about the sport but not on the $$) that is just commercializing it more, which is what a lot of people have a problem with.

 

[LouderVol]

I agree with most of that. And I should probably reiterate that when I post on this topic, I'm referring to the major programs. I'm not including the Troys, Idahos, and Eastern Michigans of the world.

thats part of my problem, as far as I am aware the lawsuit is going against the NCAA, an entity which includes the Troys, Idahos & Eastern Michigans. As far as I am aware no distinction has been made. Delany may be the only commissioner called but this isn't a precision strike we are carpet bombing the town to take out a bridge. And it is going to miss and if any thing is standing at the end of this it will be the bridge (the big 5 which are making money)

 

[bamawriter]

thats part of my problem, as far as I am aware the lawsuit is going against the NCAA, an entity which includes the Troys, Idahos & Eastern Michigans. As far as I am aware no distinction has been made. Delany may be the only commissioner called but this isn't a precision strike we are carpet bombing the town to take out a bridge. And it is going to miss and if any thing is standing at the end of this it will be the bridge (the big 5 which are making money)

Perhaps. I'm not as pessimistic.

But the NCAA and its membership created this mess. It's not the players' fault. The NCAA have had every opportunity to clean up their bylaws to reflect the massive changes in the business of college athletics, but they have continually refused to do so. Despite the fact that revenues have exploded across the landscape in the last three decades, the NCAA's "amateurism" model has remained relatively unchanged since the early 60s.

They brought this on themselves. And instead of blaming the players, we should be imploring the NCAA to get their **** together.

 

[LouderVol]

Perhaps. I'm not as pessimistic.

But the NCAA and its membership created this mess. It's not the players' fault. The NCAA have had every opportunity to clean up their bylaws to reflect the massive changes in the business of college athletics, but they have continually refused to do so. Despite the fact that revenues have exploded across the landscape in the last three decades, the NCAA's "amateurism" model has remained relatively unchanged since the early 60s.

They brought this on themselves. And instead of blaming the players, we should be imploring the NCAA to get their **** together.

I am not pessimistic either, until the lawyers get involved. I don't know if that last comment was aimed at me but I don't think I have blamed the players on anything that is wrong with the NCAA.

As far as the NCAA getting its act together this goes back to one of my earlier posts/rants. The NCAA is a victim of its own organization, it is responsible to the schools it represents, the schools get the votes as Emmeret pointed out in the trial. The small schools aren't letting the big ones make the necessary changes. This is why democracy sucks at times. at least 51% of the NCAA is keeping itself from making the necessary changes. So if you are looking for someone to blame look at the small schools. This court case and all the others are just lighting a match underneath the Big 5 into pressing for the changes that need to be made, they have been trying. But unfortunately for them they have been playing by the rules and not running roughshod over the little schools to get what they need and it has taken too long to change.

 

[bamawriter]

I am not pessimistic either, until the lawyers get involved. I don't know if that last comment was aimed at me but I don't think I have blamed the players on anything that is wrong with the NCAA.

As far as the NCAA getting its act together this goes back to one of my earlier posts/rants. The NCAA is a victim of its own organization, it is responsible to the schools it represents, the schools get the votes as Emmeret pointed out in the trial. The small schools aren't letting the big ones make the necessary changes. This is why democracy sucks at times. at least 51% of the NCAA is keeping itself from making the necessary changes. So if you are looking for someone to blame look at the small schools. This court case and all the others are just lighting a match underneath the Big 5 into pressing for the changes that need to be made, they have been trying. But unfortunately for them they have been playing by the rules and not running roughshod over the little schools to get what they need and it has taken too long to change.

I agree in part. But I don't believe that the Big 5 are really aching to either compensate the players' for use of their likenesses, or stop exploiting those properties for their own gain.

 

[LouderVol]

I feel the same. But they want to make the medical, increase scholarships value/stipend and there has even been talk of getting the players to the ability to vote on proposed rules that would affect the game.

 

[bamawriter]

I feel the same. But they want to make the medical, increase scholarships value/stipend and there has even been talk of getting the players to the ability to vote on proposed rules that would affect the game.

If they were to offer all of that, and add on an escrow account for each player to compensate them for the use of their likenesses, payable at the end of their college eligibility, then I think that's absolutely fair.

And I'm willing to bet the players would readily agree to it.

 

[vol66]

that last line, yet giving the players "MORE money" fixes it, or makes it ok?

you are right about players not getting an education but how often do we here about players getting locked up or going broke? That number is going to go up if you remove the requirement for them to go to class and at least pretend like they are working towards a degree. And therefore by removing the requirement of them going to class and just giving them money instead is just making things worse for the players in the long run, yet another reason I am not ok with any of this talk. You are agruing against a system that might help 25/30 of the 85 players on roster, and what you want to replace it with is a system that helps 0 of the 85. WHY? money = fair apparently, smh. I guess its ok that they stayed uneducated and are risking their well being for us as long as we are giving them money, instead of at least trying to prepare them for their future not just an unattainable NFL future for all of them.

I always try to live my life according to one simple belief. Can I live with the choices I have made, because ultimately I am the person I have to live with. So I would at least rather back a system that tries to do good, and makes money; than a system that is openly 100% about making money. If we give the players the NLI and collective bargaining (I think they should get this for rules about the sport but not on the $$) that is just commercializing it more, which is what a lot of people have a problem with.

I'm certainly not suggesting they don't go to class. Nor do I think whatever they come up with in terms of cost of attendance will make some decide not to go...at least not in some greater magnitude than already exists.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they tied the trust fund to actually graduating rather than simply eligibility being complete. An incentive to get a degree for some and a reason for the Tobias Harris's and C. Patterson's of the world to return. A side benefit of something like this would be that some of the border line guys that may or may not get drafted may choose to stay.

They also need to get rid of the rule about players leaving early, not getting drafted and not letting them return to school. That's not helping the kid any.

The goal of the university presidents and chancellors, thusly the NCAA, should be to educate the kids come hell or high water. Absent of the mechanisms college baseball has with the MLB, they should take the high road and let these undrafted kids come back to school. I know we weren't discussing that, but it bugs the heck out of me.

 

[vol66]

I agree in part. But I don't believe that the Big 5 are really aching to either compensate the players' for use of their likenesses, or stop exploiting those properties for their own gain.

That's really the gist of the whole thing. Had the NCAA not been so cavalier, arrogant, crass,, regarding the NLI and the schools hadn't been so greedy we wouldn't be where we are right now.

 

[vol66]

Big Ten presidents call for expanded athlete benefits

Here were the Big Ten's priorities, as outlined in the statement:

•Providing four-year, guaranteed scholarships (the current NCAA athletic scholarship is for one year): "If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be zero impact on our commitment as universities to deliver an undergraduate education. We want our students to graduate."
•Lifetime educational opportunity: "If a student-athlete leaves for a pro career before graduating, the guarantee of a scholarship remains firm. Whether a professional career materializes, and regardless of its length, we will honor a student's scholarship when his or her playing days are over."
•Medical insurance: "We must … provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. We have an obligation to protect their health and well-being in return for the physical demands placed upon them."
•Full cost-of-attendance scholarships: "We must do whatever it takes to ensure that student-athlete scholarships cover the full cost of a college education, as defined by the federal government. That definition is intended to cover what it actually costs to attend college."

"I do think we're headed down the path of increased commercialization, and it needs to come back to be more focused on the student-athlete," Penn State president Eric Barron said. "I think this (statement) adds to what's been a growing effort on the part of the universities."

"This would have come out even absent lawsuits and NLRB proceedings and these external pressures," Daniels said. "But if that's what it took to push some real reform to the fore, that's not all bad."

But if it's too little, too late?

"It might be," Daniels said. "Events might overtake us. If that's the case, it won't be anybody else to blame but those who run the system and allowed it to run out from under us, in a sense."

 

[LSU-SIU]

legal yes, fair no, which is what the NCAA is supposed to determine.

What the NCAA does is the opposite of "fair", what you are talking about does not exist in this reality.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Big Ten presidents call for expanded athlete benefits

I actually think that is a good start but really doesn't address the problem, when I say a "good start", well, I am talking about the mind-set, but they were still way off.

1. The schools should not be colluding as to benefits, compensation, other, etc. by and through the NCAA or division.
2. The schools should be complying with State and Federal law labors, but that does not mean every player should be paid or is an "employee", it depends, get determinations. Duh.
3. Stop interfering with third party employment and compensation... its not anyone's business, in general. I will say in general to this one, I think some limited conduct rules for participating in sports or schools is probably okay, in general.
4. Obtain rights to use likeness and image, should not be tied to the scholarship, but could be tied to an employment contract.

These are some of the way I think some of this can be slowly worked through. What the Big 10 is suggesting is not the solution, as it doesn't address the problem.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Congress hikes scrutiny on NCAA's actions - ESPN

The schools and ncaa are about to get a flogging.

All of this is over, the outcome of a few cases really doesn't matter.

 

[vol66]

I actually think that is a good start but really doesn't address the problem, when I say a "good start", well, I am talking about the mind-set, but they were still way off.

1. The schools should not be colluding as to benefits, compensation, other, etc. by and through the NCAA or division.
2. The schools should be complying with State and Federal law labors, but that does not mean every player should be paid or is an "employee", it depends, get determinations. Duh.
3. Stop interfering with third party employment and compensation... its not anyone's business, in general. I will say in general to this one, I think some limited conduct rules for participating in sports or schools is probably okay, in general.
4. Obtain rights to use likeness and image, should not be tied to the scholarship, but could be tied to an employment contract.

These are some of the way I think some of this can be slowly worked through. What the Big 10 is suggesting is not the solution, as it doesn't address the problem.

I agree. It's the bare bones least they can do and only addresses part of the issue and they had to have their feet held to the fire just to do that. If all they do is work to change the public perception it won't fix anything.

I don't think addressing part is going to get it done because one part is now going to have to go through the court process and the other is going to take soul searching on a grand scale about what College Athletics is going to look like...that is if they want to fix the whole.

Coming up with a workable solution for NLI is not enough. They have to come to grips with the fact that the Big 5 have rigged the system. That the Big 5 are only interested in keeping players in MF and MBB eligible. They must admit that even the best intentioned reforms have been sullied.

College sports programs find multitude of ways to game NCAA's APR - ESPN

Intentionally or not, the NCAA's APR and GSR metrics confuse the media, fans and the general public. Using the GSR and APR to tout graduation success and increased academic standards is undoubtedly savvy marketing and public relations, but these metrics are fundamentally nothing more than measures of how successful athletic departments are at keeping athletes eligible, and have increasingly fostered acts of academic dishonesty and devalued higher education in a frantic search for eligibility and retention points.

College football looks a lot like the NFL because many universities are now recruiting NFL players. If the academic achievement (or lack there of) of a high school athlete is secondary to his size, speed and his overall athletic skill you are no longer recruiting for academic success, but for athletic success.

Take at risk athletes. Couple that with the lowest possible standards. Add to that non-rigorous course work and majors. The ability to leave after one year in MCBB and three years in CFB. A team of people paid to keep them eligible on a five year graduation track, while taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate money.

The perception then is this...The Universities aren't trying very hard to graduate students, but to make money off of athletes.

 

[bamawriter]

The perception then is this...The Universities aren't trying very hard to graduate students, but to make money off of athletes.

You couldn't have summed it up any better.

One small point, though: what you just laid out is not "perception." It's reality. And I don't mean that in the philosophical "perception is reality" way. That is actually what's happening.

 

[vol66]

You couldn't have summed it up any better.

One small point, though: what you just laid out is not "perception." It's reality. And I don't mean that in the philosophical "perception is reality" way. That is actually what's happening.

Honestly I don't feel particularly qualified to say what the reality of the situation is, only what it looks like to me as a fan.

The other side of the coin is many of the athletes know what's going on and they use, exploit, the system. As best I know, there aren't many, if any, current NFL players that did not attend college.

There is no other route so an under the table agreement has been made, even if it's unsaid. Come to college, we will keep you eligible so you can showcase your skills and in return you make a minimal effort in the classroom, we'll make it as easy as possible with assistance (some like the UNC case go further than that), a little effort and you'll be in the NFL in three years. Of course all bets are off if the athlete doesn't get it done on the field.

Then it's down to this. How many men's college basketball players and football players make it to the pros? Very few.

How many leave school with a degree? Some.

What is the number of those athletes that gets neither? I don't know, but I suspect it would be embarrassingly high.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I agree. It's the bare bones least they can do and only addresses part of the issue and they had to have their feet held to the fire just to do that. If all they do is work to change the public perception it won't fix anything.

I don't think addressing part is going to get it done because one part is now going to have to go through the court process and the other is going to take soul searching on a grand scale about what College Athletics is going to look like...that is if they want to fix the whole.

Pretty much agree with you on this. Its a lame attempt at deflecting the real issue.... control. Without control its all over.

Eventually, what the Big 10 is trying to do here in this instance will be used against them in future legal proceedings.

Pay to play is not the real issue, its control. They are still trying to have control over the players.

 

[LouderVol]

What the NCAA does is the opposite of "fair", what you are talking about does not exist in this reality.

fair where I was using it was dealing with on the field stuff, not any of this nonsense.