How much would you pay for signatures from KVN or TH?

Just wondering. Mark Emmert, NCAA president, says it won't happen but the NCAA is considering allowing athletes to market themselves in other ways. The guys a moron though - see the last paragraph about how that would factor into recruiting.



http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10119750/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-insists-pay-play-model-coming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I think the guy who lost out the most on this was Jimmer. He would have cleaned up in college selling autographs or doing TV commercials.

jvquarterback wrote:
Just wondering. Mark Emmert, NCAA president, says it won't happen but the NCAA is considering allowing athletes to market themselves in other ways. The guys a moron though - see the last paragraph about how that would factor into recruiting.



http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10119750/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-insists-pay-play-model-coming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I think the guy who lost out the most on this was Jimmer. He would have cleaned up in college selling autographs or doing TV commercials.

I collect autographs, but on principle I wouldn't ever buy one from a college athlete.. athletes get compensated just fine with degrees, free tuition, books, room and board...

I have never saw the point of autographs. I just don't pay for any of them.

It's fun to get the BYU poster signed every year and put into my BYU room but pay for one Noway...I would pay for a jimmy Mac signed BYU item..

$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

hawkwing wrote:
$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

^^^This. 100% this. Just because these athletes don't see a bank account filled with $$$ doesn't mean they aren't being more than fairly compensated for their play. If I could have played a game and received a free college education for doing so, I'd call that a deal where I felt like I made bank off my school. Seriously, athletes like this need no further compensation in any way.

Ungoy wrote:

$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

^^^This. 100% this. Just because these athletes don't see a bank account filled with $$$ doesn't mean they aren't being more than fairly compensated for their play. If I could have played a game and received a free college education for doing so, I'd call that a deal where I felt like I made bank off my school. Seriously, athletes like this need no further compensation in any way.

Emmert mentioned colleges "spend" about $100-250,000 per football athlete per year. But let's be honest, the "educations" these kids receive are for the most part worthless whatever was paid on their behalf - just like nearly 50% of college educations have a negative value when considering lost earnings. Really - how many of these guys are getting engineering or accounting degrees?



It is ridiculous for anyone to say college athletes are compensated "fairly." When talking about fair compensation for anything else, people mean market value. Whenever I hear person A say person B should be happy with X amount of dollars because person A would have been happy with with X dollars, it reminds me of King Benjamin telling the poor not to covet.



To be honest, I think that is mostly what the failure to compensate athletes is about. It must rub athletic directors raw to think that an 18 year old kid has more value than they do.

jvquarterback wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

^^^This. 100% this. Just because these athletes don't see a bank account filled with $$$ doesn't mean they aren't being more than fairly compensated for their play. If I could have played a game and received a free college education for doing so, I'd call that a deal where I felt like I made bank off my school. Seriously, athletes like this need no further compensation in any way.

Emmert mentioned colleges "spend" about $100-250,000 per football athlete per year. But let's be honest, the "educations" these kids receive are for the most part worthless whatever was paid on their behalf - just like nearly 50% of college educations have a negative value when considering lost earnings. Really - how many of these guys are getting engineering or accounting degrees?



It is ridiculous for anyone to say college athletes are compensated "fairly." When talking about fair compensation for anything else, people mean market value. Whenever I hear person A say person B should be happy with X amount of dollars because person A would have been happy with with X dollars, it reminds me of King Benjamin telling the poor not to covet.



To be honest, I think that is mostly what the failure to compensate athletes is about. It must rub athletic directors raw to think that an 18 year old kid has more value than they do.

I disagree. I think these kids have far less value than their egos believe. If there were such a high demand for a mid-range league of half talented players that league would exist. There's no law that 18 year old kids have to go to college. Nor does one need to have played in college to get to the NFL, they just have to be X years removed from High School.



Lets just say that a league like the XFL or AFL formed and took kids out of high school and played in AFL arenas. How much would you be willing to pay to go watch them play? Lets even say that all the best players in Utah schools decided to go there rather than go to college and play. How much would you be willing to pay for season tickets to watch those games? I maybe would pay $2 - $5, but honestly wouldn't be that interested. Because 99% of the value of college football is tied up in the institution and the college they play for, not the players themselves.



This is what makes college football so great. The players are a part of something much larger than themselves. The team as a whole is only a fraction of what makes people come out and enjoy the game.



That's the true value and draw of college football.

I would love for the NFL to swoop in and solve this problem. The NFL agrees with 64 college football teams. Each NFL team can sponsor up to two programs. They can pay those players as much/little as they want. In return, each NFL team would get rights of first refusal for up to three players each year from each program. Those not "retained" by the NFL club would enter the NFL draft.



I think something like that could work.

hawkwing wrote:

Ungoy wrote:

$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

^^^This. 100% this. Just because these athletes don't see a bank account filled with $$$ doesn't mean they aren't being more than fairly compensated for their play. If I could have played a game and received a free college education for doing so, I'd call that a deal where I felt like I made bank off my school. Seriously, athletes like this need no further compensation in any way.

Emmert mentioned colleges "spend" about $100-250,000 per football athlete per year. But let's be honest, the "educations" these kids receive are for the most part worthless whatever was paid on their behalf - just like nearly 50% of college educations have a negative value when considering lost earnings. Really - how many of these guys are getting engineering or accounting degrees?



It is ridiculous for anyone to say college athletes are compensated "fairly." When talking about fair compensation for anything else, people mean market value. Whenever I hear person A say person B should be happy with X amount of dollars because person A would have been happy with with X dollars, it reminds me of King Benjamin telling the poor not to covet.



To be honest, I think that is mostly what the failure to compensate athletes is about. It must rub athletic directors raw to think that an 18 year old kid has more value than they do.

I disagree. I think these kids have far less value than their egos believe. If there were such a high demand for a mid-range league of half talented players that league would exist. There's no law that 18 year old kids have to go to college. Nor does one need to have played in college to get to the NFL, they just have to be X years removed from High School.



Lets just say that a league like the XFL or AFL formed and took kids out of high school and played in AFL arenas. How much would you be willing to pay to go watch them play? Lets even say that all the best players in Utah schools decided to go there rather than go to college and play. How much would you be willing to pay for season tickets to watch those games? I maybe would pay $2 - $5, but honestly wouldn't be that interested. Because 99% of the value of college football is tied up in the institution and the college they play for, not the players themselves.



This is what makes college football so great. The players are a part of something much larger than themselves. The team as a whole is only a fraction of what makes people come out and enjoy the game.



That's the true value and draw of college football.

I'm not talking about what an 18 year-old believes he can be paid - I'm talking about what an 18 year-old can actually be paid right now, which, if they are a DI football player, is a lot more than just a worthless tuition waiver. If a free market existed (meaning one in which state funded institutions didn't form a cartel to reduce wages), many of these guys would make more money than I do and I'm fine with that. Now if you are in favor of socialism I can understand the covetous arguments outlined by others in this thread. I'm sure in every other regard other poster's abhor state ownership of production, so you have to ask yourself - why not in this?



Here you have all of the power 5 conferences saying they want to pay athletes (though still at artificially low wages) and the best conference among them openly arguing to allow players to market themselves the same way they are teaching other students to in their business schools. But then you have the covetous lower tier schools using government channels to try and block other teams from paying players a fair market wage.



And just because you are part of something bigger doesn't mean you shouldn't be paid your true value. Imagine your boss trying to pull that one on you.

By the way, if a kid plays in college and does not get a useful degree they have no one to blame but themselves for their poor life choices. The chances any individual kid is going to play in the NFL is almost so low as to be non-existent. Maybe we should stop fluffing these kids egos by telling them how great and important they are and let them know what a great opportunity they have to set themselves up for the rest of their lives by playing a game.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
$0.



These kids are getting a college education valued anywhere from $20,000 - $250,000 depending upon the school. The idea that they need more than that is pure ignorance.

^^^This. 100% this. Just because these athletes don't see a bank account filled with $$$ doesn't mean they aren't being more than fairly compensated for their play. If I could have played a game and received a free college education for doing so, I'd call that a deal where I felt like I made bank off my school. Seriously, athletes like this need no further compensation in any way.

Emmert mentioned colleges "spend" about $100-250,000 per football athlete per year. But let's be honest, the "educations" these kids receive are for the most part worthless whatever was paid on their behalf - just like nearly 50% of college educations have a negative value when considering lost earnings. Really - how many of these guys are getting engineering or accounting degrees?



It is ridiculous for anyone to say college athletes are compensated "fairly." When talking about fair compensation for anything else, people mean market value. Whenever I hear person A say person B should be happy with X amount of dollars because person A would have been happy with with X dollars, it reminds me of King Benjamin telling the poor not to covet.



To be honest, I think that is mostly what the failure to compensate athletes is about. It must rub athletic directors raw to think that an 18 year old kid has more value than they do.

I disagree. I think these kids have far less value than their egos believe. If there were such a high demand for a mid-range league of half talented players that league would exist. There's no law that 18 year old kids have to go to college. Nor does one need to have played in college to get to the NFL, they just have to be X years removed from High School.



Lets just say that a league like the XFL or AFL formed and took kids out of high school and played in AFL arenas. How much would you be willing to pay to go watch them play? Lets even say that all the best players in Utah schools decided to go there rather than go to college and play. How much would you be willing to pay for season tickets to watch those games? I maybe would pay $2 - $5, but honestly wouldn't be that interested. Because 99% of the value of college football is tied up in the institution and the college they play for, not the players themselves.



This is what makes college football so great. The players are a part of something much larger than themselves. The team as a whole is only a fraction of what makes people come out and enjoy the game.



That's the true value and draw of college football.

I'm not talking about what an 18 year-old believes he can be paid - I'm talking about what an 18 year-old can actually be paid right now, which, if they are a DI football player, is a lot more than just a worthless tuition waiver. If a free market existed (meaning one in which state funded institutions didn't form a cartel to reduce wages), many of these guys would make more money than I do and I'm fine with that. Now if you are in favor of socialism I can understand the covetous arguments outlined by others in this thread. I'm sure in every other regard other poster's abhor state ownership of production, so you have to ask yourself - why not in this?



Here you have all of the power 5 conferences saying they want to pay athletes (though still at artificially low wages) and the best conference among them openly arguing to allow players to market themselves the same way they are teaching other students to in their business schools. But then you have the covetous lower tier schools using government channels to try and block other teams from paying players a fair market wage.



And just because you are part of something bigger doesn't mean you shouldn't be paid your true value. Imagine your boss trying to pull that one on you.

You're reliance on propping up strawmen in your arguments shows the weakness of your case.



If these kids are truly worth what you claim they are there is no reason why a professional league wouldn't form and snatch them up. But the truth of the matter is they have no worth outside of playing in the system of college football.

I wouldn't pay for an athletes autograph. (I've got groceries and gas to buy). But could not care less if an athlete makes money through marketing.



Not sure why so many people are against this?



JVQ, maybe you and I should start a semi-pro football league where players come out of high school (or before) and are paid. I could see it destroying college football as we know it. And then college football would be for those who truly have a love for the game, as most fans claim they want it to be.

BroncoBot wrote:
I wouldn't pay for an athletes autograph. (I've got groceries and gas to buy). But could not care less if an athlete makes money through marketing.



Not sure why so many people are against this?



JVQ, maybe you and I should start a semi-pro football league where players come out of high school (or before) and are paid. I could see it destroying college football as we know it. And then college football would be for those who truly have a love for the game, as most fans claim they want it to be.

I would absolutely love for someone to do this. You'd go broke in no time but it would prove whether or not these athletes deserve to be paid.

hawkwing wrote:

I wouldn't pay for an athletes autograph. (I've got groceries and gas to buy). But could not care less if an athlete makes money through marketing.



Not sure why so many people are against this?



JVQ, maybe you and I should start a semi-pro football league where players come out of high school (or before) and are paid. I could see it destroying college football as we know it. And then college football would be for those who truly have a love for the game, as most fans claim they want it to be.

I would absolutely love for someone to do this. You'd go broke in no time but it would prove whether or not these athletes deserve to be paid.

I hadn't really thought of it like that before, but I tend to agree with Hawk. I follow the players I do because of the college they are associated with. If it were some pretty talented kids that might make the pros some day, I might go to a game or two, but I wouldn't be following them religiously like I do now because of my affinity for BYU. The best example I can think of is the local AA baseball team. I go to about one game a year--the 4th of July because of the fireworks, not because I know any of the players. But they might make the pros some day. Some of them have come through here. But, I have no real connection with the program, so I don't really care for the players. A paid minor league system would only work for football if it were sponsored by the NFL like the minor leagues is sponsored by MLB. MLB doesn't do the minor leagues to make money, because they actually lose money on most teams. They do it solely for development of players for the major league teams. No, if college football is to be interesting, it would still have to be tied to college. Otherwise it is just another arena league type game that no one really wants to watch because there are no bragging rights or ties to the teams like there are with college football teams.

hawkwing wrote:

I wouldn't pay for an athletes autograph. (I've got groceries and gas to buy). But could not care less if an athlete makes money through marketing.



Not sure why so many people are against this?



JVQ, maybe you and I should start a semi-pro football league where players come out of high school (or before) and are paid. I could see it destroying college football as we know it. And then college football would be for those who truly have a love for the game, as most fans claim they want it to be.

I would absolutely love for someone to do this. You'd go broke in no time but it would prove whether or not these athletes deserve to be paid.

The thing I want to see (and I've said in the past so excuse the re-rant) is the CFL grab a few five-star NFL-bound recruits and offer them $200k/year to play a two-year contract before they are "allowed" to declare for the NFL draft.



1. Zero risk to the CFL, it's an established league already

2. CFL gets to make a marketing splash by "stealing" kids from bama etc.

3. The kids get to make WAY more than they they would in school AND

4. They don't have to go to class or pretend to care about education AND

5. They can sign all the autographs and endorsement deals they want AND

6. They're getting better NFL preparation than the NCAA



I think you'd see the NCAA come around lickety-split and/or you'd see the NFL do away with the absurd minimum age requirement that smacks of collusion with the NCAA anyway.



Why this isn't happening already I don't know.

BerliNY wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:
I wouldn't pay for an athletes autograph. (I've got groceries and gas to buy). But could not care less if an athlete makes money through marketing.



Not sure why so many people are against this?



JVQ, maybe you and I should start a semi-pro football league where players come out of high school (or before) and are paid. I could see it destroying college football as we know it. And then college football would be for those who truly have a love for the game, as most fans claim they want it to be.

I would absolutely love for someone to do this. You'd go broke in no time but it would prove whether or not these athletes deserve to be paid.

The thing I want to see (and I've said in the past so excuse the re-rant) is the CFL grab a few five-star NFL-bound recruits and offer them $200k/year to play a two-year contract before they are "allowed" to declare for the NFL draft.



1. Zero risk to the CFL, it's an established league already

2. CFL gets to make a marketing splash by "stealing" kids from bama etc.

3. The kids get to make WAY more than they they would in school AND

4. They don't have to go to class or pretend to care about education AND

5. They can sign all the autographs and endorsement deals they want AND

6. They're getting better NFL preparation than the NCAA



I think you'd see the NCAA come around lickety-split and/or you'd see the NFL do away with the absurd minimum age requirement that smacks of collusion with the NCAA anyway.



Why this isn't happening already I don't know.

The CFL has not marketed itself as a feeder program for the NFL. $200,000 would be a great sell, but it isn't reality for CFL teams. The last I checked, they have a salary cap of about 4 million dollars. Divide that among their 46 players, only 19 of which can be imported, and that's not very much money--especially when QBs are going to take the biggest chunk of what is left of the salary pool--approximately 86,000 if all players were paid equally. Usually what happens, though, is the QB and a couple of other players get the $200,000 contracts, and the rest is divided up. So it is more likely to get a contract for about $79,000. Compare that to the cost of room, board, tuition, and the value of a degree over time, and I believe college makes more financial sense.



Furthermore, there are only 9 teams. Assume CFL would rather take at least half of their imports on experienced college players, though that is likely too low, and you only have about 90 players nationwide that would even have a chance at a CFL roster. So, it is not really a viable solution unless the CFL goes to great lengths to reorganize their league, raise the salary cap, and allow more imports on the team, and larger teams. Frankly, I just don't think they have the revenue stream to do so, as evidenced by the fact that the salary cap has remained around $4,000,000 since 2007. There just aren't enough Canadians wild about the CFL to make it worth their while.



The NFL has a free feeder system through the college ranks right now, so I don't see them creating a minor league system a la MLB.



I tend to agree that a degree can be worth an awful lot if the student takes it seriously (My two degrees will end up being worth approximately $5-$6 Million dollars when all is said and done). That seems like sufficient remuneration for playing football. I would be in favor of scholarships providing the full cost of attendance plus a small stipend of a couple hundred bucks a month beyond those necessities (food, room, board, tuition, and books) to keep kids from feeling it necessary to find jobs or other ways to scrape cash together during the season, becuase a lot of their time is used up with practice.



The truth is, it is a very small minority of college players that have NFL talent. To change the whole system to suit them seems like too sweeping of a change. Perhaps allowing them to earn whatever they can from their own endorsements is okay so long as they do not use the name of the University or the NCAA in their endorsement.

hawkwing wrote:
If these kids are truly worth what you claim they are there is no reason why a professional league wouldn't form and snatch them up.

The non-profit univerisities would be at a 30-40% advantage right off the bat just in decreased taxes. That's not even taking into account the subsidies most universities receive from government.



Try running a profitable company when your competitor has an advantage like that. My main competitor (a community hospital) has a 15% advantage in reimbursement from medicare (and everyone else because every insurer sets prices based on the medicare price) in addition to their tax advantaged status and it makes business very difficult.



You never addressed the bigger issue though - the first three posters to give a reason for not paying athletes and they all gave essentially the same reason - they don't need it or deserve it - in other words, envy and covetousness are the primary reasons for the desire to not pay college athletes. This should be obvious as the best producers of the college football product (the SEC and the rest of the big 5) all want to pay athletes while the poorer producers are all trying to use government channels to shut down competition.



Brandon Jennings netted $3M (after taxes from salary + endorsements) for one year in Italy before going to the NBA draft. To say these kids have no more value than a worthless sociology degree is willful blindness. Of course the sponsoring institution should make money, but that doesn't mean the kids who work for them shouldn't receive an honest, free market wage.

The biggest issue has nothing to do with envy or covetousness. I'm opposed to paying players because the player as an individual and their own level of talent has no value to me. My reason for watching college sports is to cheer BYU. I would cheer BYU whether or not they had Kyle Van Noy or Taysom Hill. I'd cheer for them if they just had a scrappy Riley Nelson who wasn't the most talented but gave it his all.

jvquarterback wrote:

If these kids are truly worth what you claim they are there is no reason why a professional league wouldn't form and snatch them up.

Brandon Jennings netted $3M (after taxes from salary + endorsements) for one year in Italy before going to the NBA draft.

Fantastic, so whats stopping these other kids from playing arena league ball or going into basketball? I doubt foreign leagues would be willing to take on more than 4 or 5 players a year, probably 2 or 3 at most.



For example, I could see Wiggins and Jabari getting foreign ball deals this year, but certainly not Mika or any of the other freshman. So, where's all this supposed value?