What are you supposed to learn in college anyway?

I meant to post this DN article when I read it yesterday. The end of the NCAA cartel is coming in Ed O'bannon's court case unless they can buy him off first. When that happens the professional athletes colleges are now keeping as indentured servants will start to make a lot of money. After that, it's just a matter of time until they start to make a lot more money.

For better or worse, paying NCAA athletes will be the end of nearly all college sports. Once employment laws and employer liabilities and all of that kick-in and Title IX gets it's say and the players unionize, there won't be enough money in the kitty to run the "non-revenue" sports anymore.

If I'm an NFL GM/owner and NCAA players are now paid, I'm asking to buy the Alabama Crimson Tide or Florida Gators or Texas Longhorns, and making all their players my employees and it is now my minor league team.

jvquarterback wrote:
I meant to post this DN article when I read it yesterday. The end of the NCAA cartel is coming in Ed O'bannon's court case unless they can buy him off first. When that happens the professional athletes colleges are now keeping as indentured servants will start to make a lot of money. After that, it's just a matter of time until they start to make a lot more money.

I can't stand the players should get paid argument. If players want to get paid right out of high school they can go join a pro or semi-pro team. If they want a great education and great coaching they can go to school. If the pay the athletes crowd wins out (which is married to the let the athletes transfer crowd) college athletics will lose all of its appeal to me. College football would just become the NFL with lower quality athletes.



(With that said, I do think there's an argument for the players to get something in a situation where their likeness is being used in a video game or jersey sale after they graduate. However, I don't know how to stop booster from buying 1,000,000 video games of a player so he indirectly is paying the kid. Does that make me a hypocrite? :utard: )

There is no good argument to pay college players. It will ruin college sports forever.

jvquarterback wrote:
I meant to post this DN article when I read it yesterday. The end of the NCAA cartel is coming in Ed O'bannon's court case unless they can buy him off first. When that happens the professional athletes colleges are now keeping as indentured servants will start to make a lot of money. After that, it's just a matter of time until they start to make a lot more money.

Indentured servents? Please! Come back when you have a real point to make.... :whistle: ;) PS go read a history book

ABYUFAN wrote:

I meant to post this DN article when I read it yesterday. The end of the NCAA cartel is coming in Ed O'bannon's court case unless they can buy him off first. When that happens the professional athletes colleges are now keeping as indentured servants will start to make a lot of money. After that, it's just a matter of time until they start to make a lot more money.

Indentured servents? Please! Come back when you have a real point to make.... :whistle: ;) PS go read a history book

They forced me to pay in the Rose Bowl!

hawkwing wrote:
There is no good argument to pay college players. It will ruin college sports forever.

I'm all for amateurism, as long as the coaches are also unpaid and the NCAA officials are volunteers. The fact that the millions and millions of dollars that the athletes generate is going to everybody BUT the athletes is ridiculous, especially given how disadvantaged many of the athletes are. There are a million ways to work it that could preserve some vestige of amateurism, but the status quo is clearly full of $h!zz.

The poor, disadvantaged athletes on full ride scholarships?

BerliNY wrote:

There is no good argument to pay college players. It will ruin college sports forever.

I'm all for amateurism, as long as the coaches are also unpaid and the NCAA officials are volunteers. The fact that the millions and millions of dollars that the athletes generate is going to everybody BUT the athletes is ridiculous, especially given how disadvantaged many of the athletes are. There are a million ways to work it that could preserve some vestige of amateurism, but the status quo is clearly full of $h!zz.

I'm completely for unpaid staff and coaches as soon as college professors, deans, janitorial staff and everyone else also go unpaid.



Students don't get paid to go to college, they pay for the chance to learn. Athletes pay with their talents instead of their check books.

hawkwing wrote:
Students don't get paid to go to college, they pay for the chance to learn. Athletes pay with their talents instead of their check books.

Then the football and men's basketball players sure pay a lot more than anybody else going to BYU.



As for the indentured servitude comparison I think it's pretty close. Most of the kids get signed before they are of age by their parents, just like indentured servants. Their masters give them room, board and clothing for about 4 years. The masters sell the indenture to the highest bidder (ie ESPN, FOX or EA sports). If you play for Bob Knight or Mike Leech you are subject to the violence of the master. I guess it is a little different in that at least indentured servitude was usually a contract with a private individual rather than a government cartel but I'll let that part slide - that and college athletes are usually allowed to marry without their masters permission.

In that case, we should start paying high school football players, too, or is that different for some reason?

Like any contract your parents sign, when you turn 18 you have to option to disavow your NLI if your parents signed it, so the indentured servitude falls apart there.

JV, stop making ridiculous claims like "indentured servitude" and things like that. You are weakening your argument by overstating it.



i don't think that college athletes should be paid, because they sign multiple contracts saying they won't accept money.



I do think that they should get certain rights afforded to coaches, like be allowed to transfer without being penalized (sitting out, etc). If coaches can do it, then they should be allowed to as well. It makes no sense that a kid playing for Tennessee signs up to play for one coach, and by the time he is a senior he is seeing his 4th coach. That, or the coaches shouldn't be allowed to transfer. IF you are going to run it like a business on one side then the kids should be allowed to run it like one on the other side of things. But, like I said, if they sign a contract that they won't receive money then they shouldn't get any, it is dishonesty and cheating.



(I am *all* for these kids getting paid for their talents, however, like in a semi-pro league or something, if that is what they choose to do.)

snoscythe wrote:
Like any contract your parents sign, when you turn 18 you have to option to disavow your NLI if your parents signed it, so the indentured servitude falls apart there.

You still lose a year of eligibility.



Of course like any comparison it falls apart at some point but if you don't see it it's only for your blindness. What the schools do is worse though because they can only do it by forming a government cartel to undermine the competition so the schools are really worse than any of the masters of the indentured servants.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I believe you only lose eligibility if you actually attend the university.



It's a letter of "intent." You intend to go to the school. But if you don't intend to go there and only signed the intent because your parents made you, I don't think you would lose any eligibility if when you turn 18 and choose to go somewhere else.

jvquarterback wrote:
The football and men's basketball players sure pay a lot more than anybody else going to BYU.

Because $0 is a lot more than $10,000s... :roll:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I believe you only lose eligibility if you actually attend the university.



It's a letter of "intent." You intend to go to the school. But if you don't intend to go there and only signed the intent because your parents made you, I don't think you would lose any eligibility if when you turn 18 and choose to go somewhere else.

Once you sign, you will lose a year if you transfer.

scott715 wrote:

I believe you only lose eligibility if you actually attend the university.



It's a letter of "intent." You intend to go to the school. But if you don't intend to go there and only signed the intent because your parents made you, I don't think you would lose any eligibility if when you turn 18 and choose to go somewhere else.

Once you sign, you will lose a year if you transfer.

Did that change? Because I thought you had to actually attend the university. You may not be able to play that first and play immediately, but I don't think you lose any eligibility. How can you transfer from a school you haven't attended.



Did Aaron Roderick leave BYU and go back to Utah? I know coaches are different, but can you transfer/leave a program you're never really a part of?



I think you lose a season, but may not lose eligibility.



Either way, college athletes are NOT indentured servants.

jvquarterback wrote:

Students don't get paid to go to college, they pay for the chance to learn. Athletes pay with their talents instead of their check books.

Then the football and men's basketball players sure pay a lot more than anybody else going to BYU.



As for the indentured servitude comparison I think it's pretty close. Most of the kids get signed before they are of age by their parents, just like indentured servants. Their masters give them room, board and clothing for about 4 years. The masters sell the indenture to the highest bidder (ie ESPN, FOX or EA sports). If you play for Bob Knight or Mike Leech you are subject to the violence of the master. I guess it is a little different in that at least indentured servitude was usually a contract with a private individual rather than a government cartel but I'll let that part slide - that and college athletes are usually allowed to marry without their masters permission.

Just exactly how was Mike Leach violent? If you are referring to the Adam James situation then you have bought into a story that a lot of others did before they knew the facts.