OT: Hunter Dickinson gonna get PAID

[LETSGORU91]

why? you like making people work for free?

They are playing a game of putting a ball through a metal hoop and many are receiving free education plus all the other perks for doing so. How about they pay for their education like the majority do? Then you can make your "work (?lol!) for free claims" for a game they are voluntarily playing.

 

[NickRU714]

They are playing a game of putting a ball through a metal hoop and many are receiving free education plus all the other perks for doing so. How about they pay for their education like the majority do? Then you can make your "work (?lol!) for free claims" for a game they are voluntarily playing.

So if they pay for the education then the Athletics Department will share the $80m/year they will soon earn from the media rights from that game?

 

[LETSGORU91]

So if they pay for the education then the Athletics Department will share the $80m/year they will soon earn from the media rights from that game?

Exactly! Just like every employee should walk up to their bosses and demand more of the profits their successful companies have earned....errr... but the athletes aren't employees. They are students, attending a facility of higher education to gain knowledge and a degree. As such, they are not employed by the university. So there goes that radical idea out the window.

 

[njxchange]

They are playing a game of putting a ball through a metal hoop and many are receiving free education plus all the other perks for doing so. How about they pay for their education like the majority do? Then you can make your "work (?lol!) for free claims" for a game they are voluntarily playing.

doesnt matter if they are doing jumping jacks or putting ball through a metal hoop. they make $$$ for people.
its like any other work. you make money for your boss, they pay for your services.

 

[Russ Wood]

Sometimes it seems posters are vying to get picked up by MBG with ridiculously bad posts. We have one of those on the football board.

RutgersAl has never let me down. Hasn't he been posting message board genius level content long before the Twitter account existed?

 

[njxchange]

Exactly! Just like every employee should walk up to their bosses and demand more of the profits their successful companies have earned....errr... but the athletes aren't employees. They are students, attending a facility of higher education to gain knowledge and a degree. As such, they are not employed by the university. So there goes that radical idea out the window.

well then university should not be making $$$ off their students.

 

[Westcoast]

well then university should not be making $$$ off their students.

They aren't making a profit on athletics. All monies earned go right back into athletic programs - the very same programs these athletes use to showcase their abilities and be taught (via coaching) how to improve their skills in hopes of finding work in their preferred field after college. The athletes are really just funding the very programs they are using to receive free job training - as they should be. You can make the argument that athletes in the major sports are also funding the minor sports, which is true to a degree. But athletes should be the ones funding the programs. They are the ones benefiting from the system via free education and job training at the highest level. How many Americans are crippled by student debt for decades after graduation? Not scholarship athletes.

 

[MiloTalon13]

"free education"

That's not what the word "free" means.
If you have to perform a service and receive something else in exchange for that service, that thing you received was not free.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

So if they pay for the education then the Athletics Department will share the $80m/year they will soon earn from the media rights from that game?

And if you took the same kids playing basketball and they had no affiliation with any university... how much would they be getting paid?

You act like this year's team has more to do with why people want to watch them than all the teams that came before and the universities that supported those sports and those athletes long before any of them helped make a profit for their universities.

Swap out every current athlete on every team throughout college athletics and replace them with students current enrolled and people would still attend the games and pay for tickets and watch them on TV. The athletes knew what they were getting for decades and were happy to get teh opportunities.

 

[FinalFourOrBust]

And if you took the same kids playing basketball and they had no affiliation with any university... how much would they be getting paid?

You act like this year's team has more to do with why people want to watch them than all the teams that came before and the universities that supported those sports and those athletes long before any of them helped make a profit for their universities.

Swap out every current athlete on every team throughout college athletics and replace them with students current enrolled and people would still attend the games and pay for tickets and watch them on TV. The athletes knew what they were getting for decades and were happy to get teh opportunities.

So don’t pay professional athletes either because people will root for the Dallas cowboys no matter what right? Lol silly boomer.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

So don’t pay professional athletes either because people will root for the Dallas cowboys no matter what right? Lol silly boomer.

Now that's a silly counter that doesn't say what you think it says.

My framing of the situation showed that the current athletes are not responsible for the system from which they benefit. To talk about the total money they "generate" doesn't take into account what they need to generate it. The universities names, the facilities, teh coaches and staff.. even the professors. I am saying there is not a professional farm league because it would generate a tiny fraction of what college sports generates.

There is a farm-level NBA now.. and still college ball is king. It is not because the college players are better.. its because of the brands they wear.

Top-level professional sports is no comparison. But there is a reason why no new league built to challenge the NFL has won since the AFL essentially "tied" and merged. You get players who way we are not paid enough, we need everything that the league brings in and they go off and start their own league.. then, yes, the NFL would recast their teams and people would still follow them.

 

[RutgHoops]

They are playing a game of putting a ball through a metal hoop and many are receiving free education plus all the other perks for doing so. How about they pay for their education like the majority do? Then you can make your "work (?lol!) for free claims" for a game they are voluntarily playing.

And if you took the same kids playing basketball and they had no affiliation with any university... how much would they be getting paid?

You act like this year's team has more to do with why people want to watch them than all the teams that came before and the universities that supported those sports and those athletes long before any of them helped make a profit for their universities.

Swap out every current athlete on every team throughout college athletics and replace them with students current enrolled and people would still attend the games and pay for tickets and watch them on TV. The athletes knew what they were getting for decades and were happy to get teh opportunities.

As Justice Kavanaugh correctly opined it is impossible to justify Greg Schiano making $4M coaching Rutgers football and simultaneously argue the players should not be able to receive their free market worth.

"The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing."

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

As Justice Kavanaugh correctly opined it is impossible to justify Greg Schiano making $4M coaching Rutgers football and simultaneously argue the players should not be able to receive their free market worth.

"The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing."

I suppose that depends on how you value education.

Introduce revenue-sharing and put in a lottery-style draft for college players... with salary caps and tiers of "pay". The college game might tolerate that. But that's not what the big-money programs want. They want to spend money on talent however they like the talent wants that too... but the conferences and the competitiveness of games between these moneyed programs and everyone else?.. that will suffer. Gauranteed.

I will say this though.. if Pike gets everyone it looks like he will get for 2024... I might be wrong.

 

[NickRU714]

I suppose that depends on how you value education.

Introduce revenue-sharing and put in a lottery-style draft for college players... with salary caps and tiers of "pay". The college game might tolerate that. But that's not what the big-money programs want. They want to spend money on talent however they like the talent wants that too... but the conferences and the competitiveness of games between these moneyed programs and everyone else?.. that will suffer. Gauranteed.

I will say this though.. if Pike gets everyone it looks like he will get for 2024... I might be wrong.

Why can't education be an added benefit or perk on top of direct compensation?
HC Schiano gets a salary. He also gets a car, clothing stipend and a country club membership.
Also, you can mimic everything you said about the players being replaceable and apply to HC as well.
Replace him with anybody and people will still shown up and support the team at the same levels, right?

Regarding "competitiveness between these moneyed programs and everyone else" - what was the competitiveness before NIL?

Mention conference payouts or direct donor money if you want talk about "competitiveness". See my other thread about Clemson AD raising $135m last year. That had nothing to do with NIL.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Why can't education be an added benefit or perk on top of direct compensation?
...

The post to which I replied specifically said athletes get "end up with little or nothing". And my entire reason to approach this as I did was that supporters of paying teh athletes always suggest the entire revenue stream is because of them. That's simply untrue.

Since the limit of 85 scholarship players on any roster went into place at the top level of college football in the early 90s, most teams have had a supply of non-scholarship players. Players who really do "end up with little or nothing"... if you assume the experience of being a part of a team brings nothing to you. Others were getting "paid" while they were not. Did not hear anyone crying for them.

The effort to pay players is, essentially, an effort to bring about a small NFL-style top-level superconference for college football. No more games between Bama and the little sisters of the poor team. Reliable games week by week which can be sold and teh name teams are now protected from the potential rising up of some challengers.

That 85-schollie limit really hurt the big teams for a time. they used all kinds of tricks, like gray-shirting players at JCs, to get around this limit and brown-bag payments to players and their families to go back to a time when their benches were essentially filled with players who could start anywhere else. That limit, more games on TV, the reach of recruiting magazines and then the internet.. all resulted in more competition and some surprising upsets.

The TV networks and the monied programs and conferences... they couldn't take that risk for very long... so you saw this big push to pay players.. because they could afford to.. and now they will get their choice of players.. at least among those for whom immediate payment is important.

 

[njxchange]

remember?

who made money from all those EA NCAA Football games?

 

[FinalFourOrBust]

Now that's a silly counter that doesn't say what you think it says.

My framing of the situation showed that the current athletes are not responsible for the system from which they benefit. To talk about the total money they "generate" doesn't take into account what they need to generate it. The universities names, the facilities, teh coaches and staff.. even the professors. I am saying there is not a professional farm league because it would generate a tiny fraction of what college sports generates.

There is a farm-level NBA now.. and still college ball is king. It is not because the college players are better.. its because of the brands they wear.

Top-level professional sports is no comparison. But there is a reason why no new league built to challenge the NFL has won since the AFL essentially "tied" and merged. You get players who way we are not paid enough, we need everything that the league brings in and they go off and start their own league.. then, yes, the NFL would recast their teams and people would still follow them.

College is king? Man you really don’t live in reality gramps. This is sad to read.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

College is king? Man you really don’t live in reality gramps. This is sad to read.

Show me where I said that? Just like a millennial to make up a strawman and declare victory defeating its argument.. Trophies for all. That strawman you made told me to tell you it feels butthurt that you called it "gramps".

Oh wait.. I did say college basketball is king compared to NBA developmental leagues. Is that what you think you can make an argument against? Heck, March Madness gets better ratings than the NBA. That is not true in the football equivalents.

I said the college product was built by the colleges and the people that follow it want to follow college football. In the realm of football BEFORE the NFL, college is king. The NFL has more fans of course... it is in all the largest cities. but it is closer than you might think.

If the NFL vs College were a presidential race.. the NFL would win.. but not in a landslide. 293 to 245. Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio and Michigan all have NFL teams but the college game is more popular there.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

remember?

who made money from all those EA NCAA Football games?

Schools got practically nothing.. but the players loved it.

Below is a sample of the revenue schools received from EA Sports licenses in 2012-2013 per my research back then:

• Louisville: “NCAA Football”: $85,845; “NCAA Basketball”: $26,594
• UCLA: “NCAA Football”: $57,230; “NCAA Basketball”: $26,593
• Clemson: “NCAA Football”: $85,845; “NCAA Basketball”: 18,616
• Wisconsin: “NCAA Football”: $143,076; “NCAA Basketball”: $26,593
• Texas A&M: “NCAA Football”: $57,000; “NCAA Basketball”: $18,615.80

 

[MiloTalon13]

Swap out every current athlete on every team throughout college athletics and replace them with students current enrolled and people would still attend the games and pay for tickets and watch them on TV. The athletes knew what they were getting for decades and were happy to get teh opportunities.

Wow, things must have changed since I was in college. Do intramural games draw big crowds? Are they on TV?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Wow, things must have changed since I was in college. Do intramural games draw big crowds? Are they on TV?

Purposefully obtuse, you are being. I apologize for presenting too complex a concept for you to bother with attempting to appear to understand. And if that sentence if too long or complex, no.. I am not calling you dumb or lazy I am saying you choose to not make an effort in order to resort to mockery.

The whole point is that whenever anyone argues FOR student-athlete pay they quote the biggest numbers they can muster for revenue those said athletes generate and that is dumb.

My suggestion was merely to illustrate that a professional minor league could have been created, and one (or more?) actually exists today, and that the revenues and rooting interest such leagues would generate would be a tiny fraction of that of the college game even if the "best" athletes did not attend college. And the proof of this is that the college game exists and football competes decently with the NFL (and would likely crush a farm team NFL) and March Madness beats the NBA playoffs.

So, yeah.. let those players who need pay leave college and go to a minor league and they should have left the college game alone or established a revenue sharing or draft or something because this form of NIL will result in even more imbalance in competition in the long run.

Of course, my assumptions about competition could be wrong.. but I don't think so. We shall see.

BTW.. are intramurals on TV? Yeah.. f'n CORNHOLE is on TV. Pickelball... HS ball, 3 on 3s... womens sports! (cheap shot but makes a related point, but women sports may soon be more competitive since they may all be transathletes... what am I saying.. nah.. they switch from men's to women sports because they are not competitive with males).

 

[RutgHoops]

Purposefully obtuse, you are being. I apologize for presenting too complex a concept for you to bother with attempting to appear to understand. And if that sentence if too long or complex, no.. I am not calling you dumb or lazy I am saying you choose to not make an effort in order to resort to mockery.

The whole point is that whenever anyone argues FOR student-athlete pay they quote the biggest numbers they can muster for revenue those said athletes generate and that is dumb.

My suggestion was merely to illustrate that a professional minor league could have been created, and one (or more?) actually exists today, and that the revenues and rooting interest such leagues would generate would be a tiny fraction of that of the college game even if the "best" athletes did not attend college. And the proof of this is that the college game exists and football competes decently with the NFL (and would likely crush a farm team NFL) and March Madness beats the NBA playoffs.

So, yeah.. let those players who need pay leave college and go to a minor league and they should have left the college game alone or established a revenue sharing or draft or something because this form of NIL will result in even more imbalance in competition in the long run.

Of course, my assumptions about competition could be wrong.. but I don't think so. We shall see.

BTW.. are intramurals on TV? Yeah.. f'n CORNHOLE is on TV. Pickelball... HS ball, 3 on 3s... womens sports! (cheap shot but makes a related point, but women sports may soon be more competitive since they may all be transathletes... what am I saying.. nah.. they switch from men's to women sports because they are not competitive with males).

How do you reconcile the idea that Greg Schiano gets millions to coach Rutgers football and the Rutgers football players should get nothing more than room and board to play? It's the same program and the same revenue. From a legal/anti-trust perspective that argument does not exist. It's free/cheap labor, and in the United States unless the rights of those athletes have been collectively bargained away (like pro sports) than it is illegal. We should be surprised it was allowed to last this long, not that the free/cheap labor model is now rightfully gone.

You use a "professional minor league" as a strawman (imo). Ivy league football doesn't generate the revenue that SEC football does. (IMO) That is because the best CFB players are at Alabama, Georgia and Florida, etc. One can't really think that if the best HS football players in the country went to Harvard, Princeton and Yale and the Ivy League level players went to Alabama, Georgia and Florida that the SEC would still be as popular and lucrative as it is today.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

How do you reconcile the idea that Greg Schiano gets millions to coach Rutgers football and the Rutgers football players should get nothing more than room and board to play? From a legal/anti-trust perspective that argument does not exist. It's the same program and the same revenue. It's free/cheap labor, and in the United States unless the rights of those athletes have been collectively bargained away (like pro sports) than it is illegal. We should be surprised it was allowed to last this long, not that it is now rightfully gone.

You use a "professional minor league" as a strawman (imo). Ivy league football doesn't generate the revenue that SEC football does. (IMO) That is because the best CFB players are at Alabama, Georgia and Florida, etc. One can't really think that if the best HS football players in the country went to Harvard, Princeton and Yale and the Ivy League level players went to Alabama, Georgia and Florida that the SEC would still be as popular and lucrative as it is today.

Well, I personally think the college game would be better with salary caps for staff done on a conference basis. But any coach, not just Greg Schiano... btw, why don't you just start using, say, ANY OTHER COACH who gets paid more?...

I could easily say how do you justify a top recruit getting a million in NIL over those who get nothing? How do you justify any NIL-paid athlete getting money over those who don't who commit just as much time to other sports?

Coaches get paid according to the free market and it has always been like that since there were paid coaches. But college game started before coaches did... before paid ringers and before scholarships and the game has developed and evolved.

This is just another evolution but I think it puts the college game BACKWARDS to the.. what was it.. 1930s.. and the SEC in, well, always... where its just a question of money as to who wins.

MLB baseball.. which still has built-in competitive advantages for the moneyed big-market teams.. has a draft and farm system and salary caps and luxury tax to promote competition. All other major pro sports leagues have MORE.. uh.. limits on how much money can help... all to promote competition for the overall health of the game and how appealing it is to watch on TV.. which generates the money they all share in one way or another.

Right now.. in college football.. we have no such adjustments to benefit the game and maintain the competitive level. And that is why I oppose NIL and player pay as it was proposed and as it exists today. It has nothing to do with thinking the athletes do not deserve *something*.

Heck.. if I were Greg Schiano with millions in the bank.. I know me and mine are taken care of for some time to come.. I find a way to take a million a year and get it into NIL to get key players.. heck.. maybe put everything in there after covering my nut for the year. Find a way to multiply that number.. maybe hire a fundraising consultant to work on NJ and NYC businesses... try to get some money flowing. INVEST.. because if he gets the talent here.. even paid talent.. and he wins.. that money will flow back.. BIG TIME!

As for your Ivy vs SEC thing... yes, SEC would not be as popular as today.. but they would still outdraw Ivy football in seats (maybe not TV) and would still claim they are far and away the best.

But that was not apples to apples... you take, say, all the college players who might one day get drafted. stick them in an NFL minor league... the college game would still be generating a huge following. Maybe not those who want to pay players today.. pay to win.. but the college game would still thrive.

(edit: everyone who wants to root for the best of the best are already NFL-first fans.. the college game is a different animal. You take the "pro" players out of the college game... the college game still thrives).

last thing.. wrong use of "strawman".. example: you are arguing FOR player pay.. for fairness. But I respond to you replying as if you were arguing for something tangentially related, something I might have a winning argument against. I would be arguing against a "star man" that I created myself.

So, I was NOT arguing FOR a "professional minor league".. I was suggesting that if a such a league existed, teh college game would still be appealing and still be fine and would probably be more popular. That would be a hypothetical I used to make a point... which is weak... but since there actually exists, for basketball, an NBA developmental league... there is actual evidence that I am correct.. at least in terms of basketball. And while there are other professional football leagues... which, I suppose, could be thought of as minor leagues (heck, Superbowl-winning QB Kurt Warner, came from one).. they take college players largely. The CFL maybe?

Because of the way football is.. physicality of it.. going from HS to pro is just too hard. But if they created an age-restricted minor league for HS players to flow through to the NFL.... I do not think it would be competitive for college football in popularity or revenues generated. That is hypothetical.. but I can live with that.