Yeah, while the NCAA makes billions off the tournament using these kid's labor and likeness, the kids get $12 a day for meals. Totally in proportion.

 

They get a free scholarship. That is something like $30,000 a year. Heck at NW that might be $50k a year.

Even if we accept the claim that everyone gets paid in proportion to what they generate at face value (lol no), in "adulthood" the entire employment market isn't controlled by one cartel that completely forbids you from any form of outside compensation while turning around and profiting off of the very same celebrity. And you can unionize.

 

These players can't shop their services around, they can't negotiate compensation packages, they can't sign endorsement deals on the side or often even take a regular part-time job without jumping through a bunch of hoops.

 

I am curious how many people in the world are profiting off of their celebrity.

I am curious how many people in the world are profiting off of their celebrity.

NCAA athletes? Zero. NCAA coaches, AD's, conference radio/TV networks, sports apparel companies, etc.? A lot more than zero.

 

Why do you favor the artificial restriction of these athletes to earn what the market will pay them? It's not like the only options are status quo or salaries from the school, either. Why shouldn't Manziel be able to sell his autograph?

If you "open up the market", Texas and Notre Dame have the deepest pockets and are going to have the best teams nearly every year.

NCAA athletes? Zero. NCAA coaches, AD's, conference radio/TV networks, sports apparel companies, etc.? A lot more than zero.

 

Why do you favor the artificial restriction of these athletes to earn what the market will pay them? It's not like the only options are status quo or salaries from the school, either. Why shouldn't Manziel be able to sell his autograph?

 

I would get fired if I tried to profit off of my "fame" that I garnered through my place of work, as I suspect most people would.

If you "open up the market", Texas and Notre Dame have the deepest pockets and are going to have the best teams nearly every year.

What are you, a socialist?

If you "open up the market", Texas and Notre Dame have the deepest pockets and are going to have the best teams nearly every year.

 

This assumes two things, that these sorts of backroom payments don't already happen on a massive scale and that we don't already have a system where the best teams generally stay at the top. The best programs attract the best recruits which make them the best programs. But how well does that work out for the Yankees every year? How much parity is there in the uncapped MLB versus the NFL (Patriots in AFC champ game 8 out of last 13 years) or NBA (lol East)?

 

I don't see why a desire for competitiveness should override the student-athlete's concerns, anyway. If the only way your league can function is by systematically underpaying your biggest source of labor by a huge amount, then your league is dysfunctional.

What are you, a socialist?

 

Not at all a socialist, and as much as I'd love to see Notre Dame have that kind of competitive advantage, it would ruin college athletics. There has to be some kind of system that ensures that there are at least a few dozen schools that have legitimate chances to win championships.

 

That doesn't mean that the system has to pay the players zero, but you can't go 100% the other way and make it a free for all.

 

I would get fired if I tried to profit off of my "fame" that I garnered through my place of work, as I suspect most people would.

 

No financial regulations enforcement officer (I think that's what you do?) is "famous" from their work, so the comparison doesn't really work. People who have public jobs (actors, radio personalities, TV personalities, sports stars, etc.) very much do not get fired for signing endorsement deals.

 

I don't see any justification for why Manziel should be barred from selling his autograph.

They get a free scholarship. That is something like $30,000 a year. Heck at NW that might be $50k a year.

Now you're backtracking. I've already said the scholarship is out of proportion to the revenue generated.

Not at all a socialist, and as much as I'd love to see Notre Dame have that kind of competitive advantage, it would ruin college athletics. There has to be some kind of system that ensures that there are at least a few dozen schools that have legitimate chances to win championships.

 

You generally find the same teams in the Top 10 recruiting class rankings year after year. Alabama has had the #1 recruiting class every year since 2008 except for 2010, when they were #5. This also pretends that boosters and schools aren't breaking rules left and right already, sort of like MLB turning a blind eye to PEDs in the late 90's.

Now you're backtracking. I've already said the scholarship is out of proportion to the revenue generated.

The revenue generated pays for all the OTHER sports that don't make money. Like women's basketball, wrestling and so on. Why do you hate women's basketball?

The revenue generated pays for all the OTHER sports that don't make money. Like women's basketball, wrestling and so on. Why do you hate women's basketball?

Maybe they should have been better in other sports. This is America, right?

The revenue generated pays for all the OTHER sports that don't make money. Like women's basketball, wrestling and so on. Why do you hate women's basketball?

 

It also pays for multi-million dollar coaches' and AD salaries, SEC/Big10 etc. TV network salaries, shiny new sports facilities, etc.

 

And again, it's not like the only option in play here is "salaries from the schools." That's not even what these NW players are organizing for. And if you let Manziel sell his autographs, it wouldn't affect funding for any other sports at all.

It also pays for multi-million dollar coaches' and AD salaries, SEC/Big10 etc. TV network salaries, shiny new sports facilities, etc.

 

And again, it's not like the only option in play here is "salaries from the schools." That's not even what these NW players are organizing for. And if you let Manziel sell his autographs, it wouldn't affect funding for any other sports at all.

The obvious counter-point no one has mentioned about letting Manziel sell his autographs is the guy who pays $50k above market value for Manziel to throw a pick-6 late in a game allowing the opposing team to cover the spread. You know 100% well that would happen in almost every game.

The obvious counter-point no one has mentioned about letting Manziel sell his autographs is the guy who pays $50k above market value for Manziel to throw a pick-6 late in a game allowing the opposing team to cover the spread. You know 100% well that would happen in almost every game.

 

1) Point-shaving already happens, so...

 

2) Why doesn't this same argument apply to the NFL?

 

3) What you suggest is already very much illegal.

The obvious counter-point no one has mentioned about letting Manziel sell his autographs is the guy who pays $50k above market value for Manziel to throw a pick-6 late in a game allowing the opposing team to cover the spread. You know 100% well that would happen in almost every game.

They can do that with out with an autograph. I don't see the correlation.

1) Point-shaving already happens, so...

 

2) Why doesn't this same argument apply to the NFL?

 

3) What you suggest is already very much illegal.

At least in the NFL you can make the case that the amount most people would take in from shaving points is small compared to the league minimum wage for guys on the field.

 

The people who played something like 2/3 of the snaps for Florida State's national championship team will never see a 6 figure salary for playing football. That's a big difference.

 

And if you're letting people sell merch anyway, it's going to be really hard to prove that the extra $10k they bid was actually tied to performance and not just a guy really wanting a piece of merch he has an attachment to for some reason.

But all of that can still happen today, and points-shaving schemes aren't detected because a player suddenly has a bunch of money but through other methods. It's not like the people fixing games want these things to ever be detected, so they're going to seek out players that can keep their mouths shut and keep the cash hidden away anyway. All that your scenario does it kinda-sorta change it a little bit but with ultimately the same outcome.

But all of that can still happen today, and points-shaving schemes aren't detected because a player suddenly has a bunch of money but through other methods. It's not like the people fixing games want these things to ever be detected, so they're going to seek out players that can keep their mouths shut and keep the cash hidden away anyway. All that your scenario does it kinda-sorta change it a little bit but with ultimately the same outcome.

Kinda-sorta change it = creates an incredibly obvious way to make it happen and look legal.

Kinda-sorta change it = creates an incredibly obvious way to make it happen and look legal.

I don't think the FBI (and other betters/bookies/casinos) are as dumb as you're portraying them to be.

How about universities drop athletics and focus on education? Why should they field teams? It's a silly tradition started a hundred years ago. Have intermural sports and let those serious athletes hook up with pro teams. It may hurt the universities, but it will be much fairer to all the athletes who are being ripped off by this system. They can be pro athletes and not worry about going to classes or getting a degree.

 

 

How about universities drop athletics and focus on education? Why should they field teams? It's a silly tradition started a hundred years ago. Have intermural sports and let those serious athletes hook up with pro teams. It may hurt the universities, but it will be much fairer to all the athletes who are being ripped off by this system. They can be pro athletes and not worry about going to classes or getting a degree.

 

So, you want to get rid of multi-multi-multi billion dollar industry (and the jobs, tax revenue and local economic impact) just to save like 1% of college players that are being "ripped" off by a system that provides them with exposure/experience that also gets them paid by the professional leagues?

 

That makes no sense.

Telander was on Mac & Speigs a little while ago talking about this issue, and he also has an article out:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/25245552-41...lain-labor.html

Also, I'm completely unsympathetic to Colter's tweets from this afternoon about potential medical problems. You signed up for that s***, you took the risk. No one forced you to play football at NW and get a pretty sweet (and free) education out of it.

Edited January 29, 201412 yr by Jenksismybitch