Nigel Hayes takes case against NCAA to ESPN College GameDay Set
- Thread starter Da-news-now
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,938
- Reaction score
- 5,733
What I'm hearing here from those in favor of allowing these kids to get paid is a system where donors, or booster groups, do the paying, and it's unlimited. Are you guys kidding?
I've never heard anything more disparaging to the sports, or the schools. Can you imagine Mark Cuban and a few other of his friends from the University of Indiana will pay some guys $50,000 to show up and sign a few autographs, and give them a new Bentley to drive during the year so they can get back and forth to their "engagements."
There are so many pitfalls in this whole theory of paying these kids that it's scary. You'd be undermining everything the NCAA did to get rid of the bad taste in everyone's mouth from situations like USC had.
Sorry! I've seen what happened at Wisconsin when the "booster club" was calling the shots during the Hirsch administration of sports. It nearly destroyed the entire Badger sports program.
You can argue in favor of paying them until you're blue in the face, and it isn't going to work. If these kids don't want to go to college and learn their skills, opt to go pro out of high school, and climb on a bus in Turkey, or even China. But please, don't even think you have the right to screw up college sports.
I've never heard anything more disparaging to the sports, or the schools. Can you imagine Mark Cuban and a few other of his friends from the University of Indiana will pay some guys $50,000 to show up and sign a few autographs, and give them a new Bentley to drive during the year so they can get back and forth to their "engagements."
There are so many pitfalls in this whole theory of paying these kids that it's scary. You'd be undermining everything the NCAA did to get rid of the bad taste in everyone's mouth from situations like USC had.
Sorry! I've seen what happened at Wisconsin when the "booster club" was calling the shots during the Hirsch administration of sports. It nearly destroyed the entire Badger sports program.
You can argue in favor of paying them until you're blue in the face, and it isn't going to work. If these kids don't want to go to college and learn their skills, opt to go pro out of high school, and climb on a bus in Turkey, or even China. But please, don't even think you have the right to screw up college sports.
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
No I said let the TV revenue help fund a stipend. Never did I suggest boosters pay unlimited money. But based on your rational it's ok for boosters to help pay a coaches salary and in many cases help pay his buyout? Which by the way is common practice. You think it's ok for coaches to get comped a Mercedes to drive around because they are a a sponsor? Yes it is common practice.
Boosters own major programs now. They get coaches hired and fired. But they (boosters) schools and the NCAA do squat for the kids who drive the revenue. The word "student athlete" is a farce without these kids there are no billion dollar tv deals. No corporate sponsors paying high 6 figures to "support" the school.
There is a big difference paying a stipend and what happened at USC. And truth told the Power 5 a schools are fed up with the NCAA. The rules are archaic. The guidelines so out of touch with reality. It's a big reason college coaches want out and would rather go pro. Less regulations less BS
Boosters own major programs now. They get coaches hired and fired. But they (boosters) schools and the NCAA do squat for the kids who drive the revenue. The word "student athlete" is a farce without these kids there are no billion dollar tv deals. No corporate sponsors paying high 6 figures to "support" the school.
There is a big difference paying a stipend and what happened at USC. And truth told the Power 5 a schools are fed up with the NCAA. The rules are archaic. The guidelines so out of touch with reality. It's a big reason college coaches want out and would rather go pro. Less regulations less BS
- Messages
- 6,938
- Reaction score
- 5,733
I'm totally aware of how coaches are paid, and how the system works. Wisconsin was a pure program years ago. Coaches were paid within the wage structure of the University. Good coaches were gone in a heartbeat. Finding someone to come in and run a program was difficult. To keep up with the SEC and other conferences that were paying outrageous off the books salaries, Wisconsin had to go outside the box as well.
I didn't get into this discussion to talk about coaches. That's another matter all together. I was talking about college athletes, and only college athletes. In essence, they do get a stipend. They get meals. And if you know the system, a lot of them have jobs that aren't really jobs, where they essentially get paid for doing nothing. It's been one of those things that the NCAA has turned their eyes away from for years. It's only when it gets out of hand like Reggie Bush, that they get involved, or when it comes a "recruiting tool," that includes getting Daddy a great job, and instant credit to buy that home at a low price, which had been out of reach before the kids signed his letter of intent. That, I'm afraid, is "stipends," and it's happening all the time. Put more money in play and we're going to see some really serious problems.
Of course the Power 5 schools are fed up. They don't want to be told the rules apply to them too. They want it all. They believe they "own" the game. But beware of what you ask for. It can bite you in the rear. If you end up with roughly 60 to 80 teams being the "elite," and the rest aren't part of the system, you're going to end up with more games like Cumberland College's loss to Georgia Tech in 1916. Tell me how that would be good for the game, or either school, for that matter?
Now, let's assume you want to offer stipends to athletes. Let's take Wisconsin. I'll agree to it. In fact, I'll agree to giving them $600 a week. That's a fair figure. They should then pay their tuition, books, meals, and lodging. They can pay that off by check, prior to the start of each year, and if they don't play well enough, the school can fire them between seasons. Now, that's what it's all about. You want to be paid, you also pay your own way. Now, the next thing that we need to ask. What do we charge them for using the facilities, like weight rooms, etc.? Think that's an unfair figure? Well over half the people in the US earn less than that each hour for their work, and they aren't playing a game, they're sweating their arses off for the rest of their lives, just to make ends meet.
Anyhow, just my opinion. I know it's a strong opinion, but I've seen it up close and personal, and know exactly how corrupt the system can be right now, even with the controls that are in place. Not intending to offend anyone, just offering my personal opinion/beliefs.
I didn't get into this discussion to talk about coaches. That's another matter all together. I was talking about college athletes, and only college athletes. In essence, they do get a stipend. They get meals. And if you know the system, a lot of them have jobs that aren't really jobs, where they essentially get paid for doing nothing. It's been one of those things that the NCAA has turned their eyes away from for years. It's only when it gets out of hand like Reggie Bush, that they get involved, or when it comes a "recruiting tool," that includes getting Daddy a great job, and instant credit to buy that home at a low price, which had been out of reach before the kids signed his letter of intent. That, I'm afraid, is "stipends," and it's happening all the time. Put more money in play and we're going to see some really serious problems.
Of course the Power 5 schools are fed up. They don't want to be told the rules apply to them too. They want it all. They believe they "own" the game. But beware of what you ask for. It can bite you in the rear. If you end up with roughly 60 to 80 teams being the "elite," and the rest aren't part of the system, you're going to end up with more games like Cumberland College's loss to Georgia Tech in 1916. Tell me how that would be good for the game, or either school, for that matter?
Now, let's assume you want to offer stipends to athletes. Let's take Wisconsin. I'll agree to it. In fact, I'll agree to giving them $600 a week. That's a fair figure. They should then pay their tuition, books, meals, and lodging. They can pay that off by check, prior to the start of each year, and if they don't play well enough, the school can fire them between seasons. Now, that's what it's all about. You want to be paid, you also pay your own way. Now, the next thing that we need to ask. What do we charge them for using the facilities, like weight rooms, etc.? Think that's an unfair figure? Well over half the people in the US earn less than that each hour for their work, and they aren't playing a game, they're sweating their arses off for the rest of their lives, just to make ends meet.
Anyhow, just my opinion. I know it's a strong opinion, but I've seen it up close and personal, and know exactly how corrupt the system can be right now, even with the controls that are in place. Not intending to offend anyone, just offering my personal opinion/beliefs.
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
who makes money for the University.? Student-athletes but they share in zero of the revenue. So it's ok for boosters to subsadise coaches but not players? You don't think Alvarez got paid by Reebok or Beilema got paid by Adidas? Yes like it or not the Power 5 control the game. They dictate tv money. We've had games vs FCS team for years. Why? Why risk a loss vs Power 5 and lose Bowl money or a Chance at a championship. Why do you think bama won't take a return game.? It's not money. It's risk losing. Other than LSU name mean sec school that travels north. Looks the BTN deal and the espn and cbs deal the conference has. It's a cash cow. Do the players benefit? No. You think a student athlete an elite one would pay his own way to Wisconsin or ucla with out so state tuition? Hell no
Clean the system up
Clean the system up
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 182
So if you pay athletes do you do it in all sports? I would think you would have to. Here is an interesting article that may give you second thoughts Pack man. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...ran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/
Just saying.
Just saying.
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
It would be interesting to see what the NCAA considers as revenue. Does it include booster donations? Local sponsorships deals? Local media rights? Or do they just look at National TV revenue?
As to coach pay. Are they looking at the base salary number or total compensation?
Fact is the NCAA and it's member schools and conferences make billions off these kids.
- Messages
- 562
- Reaction score
- 80
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 482
Here's my question (s)......
My basic understanding is that for most schools that it's either their men football or basketball program that pays/ supports all the other sports. How is this still going to be possible if athletes get paid from the said football or basketball program generating that income to pay for the programs?
My basic understanding is that for most schools that it's either their men football or basketball program that pays/ supports all the other sports. How is this still going to be possible if athletes get paid from the said football or basketball program generating that income to pay for the programs?
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
eWhat the NCAA study fails to address is how other University "programs" subsadise the athletic department for shortfalls. Stipends need to be a joint effort by the schools, conference and the NCAA.