Can only quickly find a couple of articles on CFL teams yearly profit totals, both of which were a couple of years old... neither of them are anywhere close to even Nebraska on that list from ESPN. You're right that college football isn't pro football, but it's still big business.
lol the funny thing is that a party animal is having a hand in drawing attention to the hypocrisy of the ncaa . Not robert smith, ex vikings runningback, that used to cram medicine books like doogie howser m.d and still managed to practice but johnny football of all people! I find that a little funny and disturbing at the same time. I think the NCAA should just allow the athletes to "work" at a booster's business and get it over with. Paying the athletes, even a stipend, is almost an impossible task. It will still be the have and the have nots, as UTSA wouldn't be able to afford anything let alone the other sports in the athletic department, let alone female sports. Are they going to pay the qb more than the line who keeps him up right. I might let the defensive end get by me if that were the case. Then, you're back to the whole, all college athletes are created equal some are just more equal than others.
You said in a business, there are profit centers and cost centers. In business, the talent also negotiates its value. In that dynamic, Johnny Manziel's value dwarfs that of any athlete at A&M but in this system his monetary compensation is that of a men's volleyballer or a women's tennis player on scholarship. That's the thing though, big college football pretty much is pro sports. It is continually packaged in such a manner as to generate as much revenue as possible like a business. To call it simply a collegiate setting I think is a misrepresentation. These aren't college students so much as revenue generating athletes, many of which get special treatment to not only get into these colleges but to maintain eligibility to be on the field.
Major already showed why this is wrong. The percentage of players who go on to play in the pros is very small. Also, they ARE college students. I was finishing my degree at A&M when Brandon Stewart was QB. He had real classes, did real work on a group project we had and gt a real degree.
Exactly. At least 90% of student athletes don't go pro...this is a number I might have heard but it doesn't sound too far off.
A poster on another message board said something interesting this morning: there is a difference between th gs like cars, money under the table, etc that will get a recruit to go to a specific school and money for autographs later where a school is not going to benefit in recruiting. To expand on that, in the context of the debate regarding salary, if we allow players to negotiate a salary, the wealthiest schools will be able to money whip these kids. We have seen what happens to baseball when the Yankees and Red Sox do it. It destroys the product. Perhaps the solution into keep the recruiting rules in tact, but allow the kids to make money off of personal appearances, autographs, etc once they have garnered enough fame to do so.
The counter argument to that is boosters can always promise kids things and then pay them later under the guise of "personal fame". It's hard to track and enforce. Not saying it can't work or it's not worth the effort, certainly it's better than what we have now, but it presents a new problem.
Good point. The for pay autograph signings, etched could only be allowed in connection with organized and advertised events, such as Tri Star shows. Or, if individual dealers wanted to pay a kid, they could register with the school free of charge. Boosters, or anybody connected to a booster, would not be allowed to participate.
this exactly is the main issue with people jumping on board saying lets' just let the kids profit off of autographs and jersey sales. it would be impossible to enforce these rules. who is to say that person A is a booster and person B isn't. it sounds great in theory, but in the end would cause even problems as far as enforcing the rules go. you can't set up any system where any one college athlete can make more money than another college athlete. it would turn into a ***** show
I think what he is getting at is the more legitimate ways you give kids to earn money in college, the less of a 'black market' there will be for them to be influenced by outside factors. If a kid can earn money honestly, he's far less likely to take bribes and other shady dealings. The risk would not be worth the reward when there's a legal option on the table.
You could fix it by not allowing anyone to profit from the jersey sales or anything else. It's funny, everyone is trying to figure out how to get these kids money, how about instead, the "righteous" NCAA and schools stop using their players as marketing tools to generate revenue? That would be just as fair and end the "slave labor" comparison. **** like this, while it's great for TAMU, just ain't right.
Exactly. **** no we cant play college players right? That would ruin the sport, its not traditional, they're getting an education. Flip the coin, try and keep anyone from profiting or using players and then what, oh hell no that's crazy, we need our money to build ridiculous **** like this. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf...ies-look-imperial-headquarters-183723787.html Get the **** out of here NCAA with your multilevel marketing BS.
Am I missing something? That article credits alumni donations as behind the payment of those facilities. The school didn't use program profits to build them.
**** like that. Not that. But look how crazy it is, it illustrates the point better. And Nike gives the school a ton of money also. And I don't care if player generated revenue goes towards AIDS research at the university, it ain't right.
there are 450,000 division 1 ncaa athletes from foosball to swimming. let's say each one gets around 1,200 for the semester and they each have to get the same because otherwise it's the same B.S as the 'slaves' not getting paid... that would come out to around 540,000,000. I guess it can be done, just jack up admissions for the students. it's not like they're going to cure aids anyways. =/
What you proposed is communism. Again, I'm not saying pay anybody, just burn the revenue then or pay the national debt.
If you really think that, at most universities, there are just piles of athletic revenue lying around, you have no idea how college athletic departments operate. We are just four years removed from the athletic department at A&M wondering how, or if, they were going to repay a $16 million dollar loan from the university general fund. College athletic departments generally hope just to break even.
Title 9, keeping non-revenue generating programs around, etc... that's why. I don't agree with that either. The whole mother****ing thing needs restructuring not just 1 aspect. Bye bye women's lacrosse.
