College Sports Forum

College Sports Forum

College sports discussion.

Student. Athlete. The rest is your business.

elffir's picture
April 7, 2014 at 3:13pm
49 Comments

We, the University, agree to provide you, the Scholarship Athlete, with a free or reduced cost educational program.

You, the Scholarship Athlete, agree to remain academically eligible to continue attendance at the University.

You also agree to abide by the team rules of your Scholarship sport.

Thus, as long as you do not get kicked off your team and you don’t flunk out of school, we will continue your scholarship.

What you do with your free time, and with whom you associate, and how you might earn income is not our business.

Among the things included in “not our business”:

  • Whether and when you choose to sign with an agent or a professional sports organization.
    • Implication: Yes you can sign with an agent/or a pro team and play college ball anyway.  Or play college ball after you’ve played as a  pro.  
  • Whether or not you license your name or image to commercial interests
    • Note that the University retains rights to its own trademarks.
  • Whether or not you sell stuff that you own

Money the University gets from ticket sales and local media rights will used according to policies set by a University Council, which will include direct representation of the Scholarship Athletes.  This Council would also deal with issues about income from common properties (such as a game jersey with your name and our logo on it).

Similarly, money that the Conference or the National Organization of Conferences (think NCAA) gets from the sales of media rights for the sporting activities of the teams will be used according to policies set by a National Council which will include direct representation of the Scholarship Athletes.  This Council will also be responsible for setting minimum academic standards for the member Universities (subject to enhancement by the Conferences and individual Universities), and for other national policy making.

Other policy making would include such things as eligibility rules (i.e. 5 years to play 4),  Transfer rules, etc.

( One would hope that the National Council would not be set up as a confrontational body with the traditional powers on one side and the Scholarship Athletes on the other.

Ideally, it would include the larger set of interested parties.  For example, a representative of each of these:

National Organization of Conferences
University Presidents
University Student Organization
National Media
Local Media
Scholarship Athletes
Professional Sports Association
(Fan’s representative somehow???)
Medical Advisor )

The Scholarship Athletes have the right to collective bargaining, including the right withhold their services.   Conversely, the University, Conference or National Organization has the right to suspend or terminate their support of teams or of entire sports (subject to Title IX considerations). 

Note that the participation of a Scholarship Athlete in any authorized collective bargaining action shall not be considered breakage of team rules.

----

I see very little likelihood of this resulting in massive upheaval.   The point is to give the Athletes a seat at the table, and to let them control their own lives and careers beyond the basic requirements of remaining in good standing on the team and in the classroom.

Like any collective bargaining situation, if one side gets overly zealous and begins to ruin things for everybody, it tends to self correct with consumer backlash.

And yes, this will result in deep pocketed Boosters and Corporations funneling money to the benefit of their favorite schools and ignoring the lesser schools.   Which is exactly what happens now.  And all the best players will end up signing with all the richest Universities.  Which is exactly what happens now.

Unlike before, the players may be getting a chunk of that money directly, above board.  Is that so terrible?    They’ll be privileged stand-outs among their student peers.  As they are now.                                                                                       

What you won’t have is the NCAA sniffing around for evidence of people other than them trying to make money at the money-making-machine that is College Sports.   They’ll spend their time looking for academic fraud, which is what they should be doing now.

---

Taken to logical extremes, then:

     There’s some High School ballplayers that are  REALLY good, but the NBA isn’t ready to put them on court just yet.   So they get drafted by the NBA, sign contracts as they see fit, but opt for college anyway.  Some college really, really wants to win championships, so they also fork over money to these kids.  They go to that school, get much better as the year goes on, and when it’s over go play pro.   How is that different than what Kentucky did this year?   Except that the boys make money legally, without risking their entire life’s livelihood playing for nothing for a year.

                Lesser players would get less money or no money.  With the NBA or NFL being there in the background, college teams wouldn’t end up with “Salary Cap” issues, since a player of sufficient talent will always get a greater amount of money from the professional organization, either to stay in school and improve, or to jump up to the pros.  Teams like, say, Kentucky, would have to balance the desire for instant gratification that comes from recruiting one-and-done players vs. the continuity of having less great, but more experienced players.  Same as now.    

                Weak teams will rely only on scholarships as an incentive for their players.  Same as now.  And sometimes they’ll beat the big boys anyway.  Any maybe occasionally, they’ll migrate up the food chain and become elite.  Again, same as now.

In summary, we end up with – in one sense – a development league for the NBA or NFL.   A league populated at the top with players whose main interest is preparing for their professional careers.    Alongside these elite prospects are some players that are good enough to compete with them, but not likely to make the next step.    And then there’s a whole lot of other guys who have no chance at a professional sports career, but want the experience and the free education.   Same.

It seems to me that this or something like it is where we’re going to end up anyway, so why not plan it.

Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

Dude did you say they could sell stuff they owned like trinkets,rings,and jewelry? That's a little over the top.

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+3 HS
Killer nuts's picture

My attention span refused to let me read this

+9 HS
Horvath22's picture

Personally, I'd rather see basketball be the same as football and, I think baseball and hockey. You sign an LOI for three years or go direct out of high school.

+1 HS
buckskin's picture

Agreed 100. I have said this for years. If you think you're ready out of high school, go for it.

+1 HS
elitesmithie's picture

I heard an interesting question today. Why havent we heard from other athletes, such as female or baseball etc about these issues. It seems its only football and basketball. So if players are starving in Football how are they doing fine in track? Seems if they were being taken advantage of(as far as lack of food etc, not making money) we would hear equal issues with other gender or sports. All sports have practice in the off season and travel in season so there is no difference there. So why are football players allegedly short on food and wrestlers arent?

+2 HS
Jack Fu's picture

Football and men's basketball players generate substantial revenues for their universities. Gymnasts and wrestlers and field hockey players, etc., don't. The issue isn't that football players are "starving"; the issue is that their labor is being exploited for enormous monetary gain, and they have no say in the issue of whether or not they can get any of the money their labor is generating.

+1 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

It's not really a case of "Oh, track athletes have it better than football players" or vice versa. Think about it this way.

You work for an awesome company, and they pay you, oh, let's say $40k per year.

You're getting paid the same as that asshole Dave over in accounting.

You find out that the people in your department make the company a lot more than Dave's department does. Let's say that, per person, the company makes $400k per person, but for Dave's department, the company only makes about $20k per employee.

Oh, you also happen to have a cult following due to your work with the company, and people will pay you for autographs, but if you sign autographs and get paid for it, the company will fire you.

This is my oversimplified portrayal of what the whole "paying football players" thing is really about. Yes, they get scholarships, access to facilities, food, whatever. That stuff's all great. But, here's what a lot of people aren't really understanding.

The universities and the NCAA make such an insane profit off of the football/basketball teams that the players aren't actually getting what they're worth.

They don't have time to work part time jobs and they're not allowed to anyways, plus they can't profit from their image, despite the NCAA, ESPN, CBS, their athletic conferences, etc. are making millions of dollars from it.

No football player is "allegedly short on food" as you said. Simply put, they're worth a lot more to the university than the wrestlers are. Doesn't mean that the wrestlers don't deserve their scholarships.

Universities make a ton of money off of their football and basketball players. They do not make any money off of their non-revenue athletes.

Let's say that football revenue is a beer in a keg. Every athlete gets one cup, ESPN gets 200 cups, the university gets 300 cups, Gene Smith gets 50 cups and the Big Ten gets 100 cups. The football players simply want more than one cup, because after all, they're the ones who brought the keg to this party in the first place.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+3 HS
elitesmithie's picture

Actually last night Napier said he goes to bed starving. So how is it that apparently only mens basketball and football players are hungry? There have been two arguments; should they be paid for their value and should their benefits be raised such as an increased stipend, guaranteed schollys etc. Well if we are talking about the second argument; how come these other sports don't have problems with food etc?

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

Once again, that's not the argument. Quit beating this strawman.

+2 HS
elitesmithie's picture

If its not the argument why do they keep saying it?

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

People say things.

OSUStu's picture

How do you know the players in other sports do not have issues with food?  It is more likely that they have the same issues but nobody is interviewing wrestlers and field hockey players regarding those issues.

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+3 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

Oh my god, people, that's not what Shabazz said.

He was talking about the postseason ban from last year and how the Huskies were hungry to get back to the Final Four. Hungry. Like, metaphorically.

If Urban said, after the bowl ban, "Oh, coming off of the bowl ban, we're really hungry," would everyone be like "OH MY GOD URBAN'S HEALTH AND WE NEED TO GET A NEW NUTRITIONIST AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH"

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

d5k's picture

Considering there was recently a thread about Braxton voluntarily taking a redshirt year to "develop"...

OSUStu's picture

I'm sorry man, but no.  Napier was not speaking metaphorically.  He was speaking literally about hunger from lack of food.

"We do have hungry nights when we don't have enough money to get food."

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+2 HS
buckskin's picture

Napier gave 2 interviews.  One right after the game when he was speaking as hunger being a driving factor as a result from the sanctions from the NCAA and another one (here) where he talks about actual hunger.  I find it odd that he blames the NCAA when the sanctions were based on poor academic performance.

M Man's picture

I'd really like somebody to investigate that.  Find out how many "hungry" nights he's had in his time at UConn.  That is, since his prep school days at the private Lawrence Academy.

Like Chris Webber's "hungry" days.  After leaving the private, elite Detroit Country Day School and entering Michigan.  Chris Webber, it is pretty well known now, was lying.  His quasi-biographer, Mitch Albom, who helped broadcast Webber's lies, was as clueless as Webber was dishonest.

 

+3 HS
OSUStu's picture

Actually, Dave's department while still valued by the company actually loses a considerable amount of money.

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

TheBadOwl's picture

I.E. every non-revenue sport ever.

If you get a full-ride for, say, golf or wrestling, great. The value of your scholarship is going to be exponentially higher than any value you're providing the university.

Meanwhile, if you're Braxton Miller, getting a scholarship of equal value, you're helping the university make millions of dollars. The value that, say, Braxton Miller provides the university is much higher than the amenities given to Miller by the university.

That's why the whole "Oh, well we're not hearing wrestlers complain about not getting paid, so why should we pay football players?" argument is ridiculous. Non-revenue athletes get a pretty sweet deal. But football makes so much revenue that the players are actually underpaid.

Not that scholarships aren't great. Some football players utilize their scholarships better than others, but that's pretty subjective. A stipend is absolutely feasible and can be done outside of Title IX. Just consider it a separate stipend that comes from revenue sharing. 

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+3 HS
elitesmithie's picture

My point was people arguing to pay players have several arguments. One is, they provide a higher value than they are being "rewarded". Another is they are not being paid enough to be able to make basic functions work like eating and because of this are "forced" to take money from boosters etc. My question was not in regards to argument one, it is to the second. If all these athletes are going hungry, why don't we hear from all sports. I would imagine, if I wanted to push my agenda of paying student athletes, I would get both men and women, and a range of sports saying " I can't even afford Ramen". But we don't hear that. It makes no sense.

-1 HS
Norwalk's picture

It isn't college football or basketball's fault that there aren't viable professional minor leagues in the USA for their sports. The problem is that many college athletes (basketball and football) have lived lives of entitlement because they were told they were special talents all their lives. Very few of them live up to the hype and make it in the pros. The NFL won't take these kids because they know their bodies would get dismantled by bigger stronger faster grown men (well not really, Adam Viniteri is the only guy 40 or older). The NBA doesn't want the kids because of their immaturity and difficulty in evaluating their talent. If we start paying players and allow our successful alumni and patrons to lure kids to college with endorsement deals then college sports will become irrelevant (just another minor league sport). I believe most college football fans enjoy the games because they share the illusion that they are watching amateur student athletes compete against one another. Once players start getting payed like pros then that illusion will be gone. Ohio State and all of the minor league college teams will have to lower ticket prices and have dime-a-dog nights to attract fans.

+2 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

Honestly, does anyone have a problem with football players getting a stipend of like $2000 per semester as a sort of "Thank you" from the university/NCAA for making them extra money?

Or just let them sign autographs at sanctioned events. There was an AMA on /r/cfb of a memorabilia dealer who pays college athletes for autographs and then re-sells them for huge profits. Just cut out the middleman, have the athletes sign a certain amount of memorabilia for a certain price, re-sell the merchandise at double the price, and donate half to charity. They could easily regulate it, making sure that those are the only copies in circulation. That way, you don't have boosters paying $50k for an autographed napkin.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+3 HS
gm3jones's picture

I am in favor if paying these guys, but affraid of what would happen behind closed doors like you stated with the signing of a napkin. I love your idea. UV to you sir.

There is nothing more remarkable as learning to think better.

M Man's picture

So here is my position on this, through the prism of "rivalry."

I think this is a shared problem.  And, it is one that we -- the Michigans and the Ohio States -- have helped to create together.  Look; the one and only valid thing that the Northwestern case is exposing (and that entire case is mostly a waste of time in my view) is that football players devote large amounts of supervised and non-supervised time to football.  They don't do that because the NCAA requires it.  And not, really, because Northwestern requires it.  They do it because the competition requires it.  Northwestern players are spending 50 hours a week on football and another 40 hours on scholastic work, because that is what the guys at Michigan and Ohio State are doing.  Plus, the guys at Michigan and Ohio State started out as 4-star recruits.

Everybody loves to poke fun at the NCAA.  But if the problem is that student-athletes are acting like professional athletes and not like students, let's fix that problem directly.  Treating them more and more like NFL/NBA professionals doesn't solve anything at all.  It only increases the gap and the distance and the separation between athletes on campus and the rest of the student body.  And the NCAA has tried -- sometimes clumsily, sometimes making laughable errors in judgment, sometimes being hypertechnical -- to keep the concept of "student-athlete" alive.  The NCAA has a pretty horrible job to do.  They have had to make ridiculously byzantine rules.  All of those rules are the result of member institutions trying to get a competitive edge, and the NCAA trying to keep things from getting out of hand.

I'm very tired of the recent direction of college football, which I love so dearly.  I'm with my friend John U. Bacon.  We could do more, to make college football better, for everybody.  (Everybody, that is, except the pro-league owners, agents, union reps, and wannabe players.) And it wouldn't involve a college football players' union, or a collective bargaining agreement, or agents for the student-athletes. 

A good place to start, would be a joint press conference, with Gene Smith, David Brandon, Jack Swarbrick, Bill Battle, Bernard Muir, and who knows who else, to set forth a joint recommitment to treating all athletes -- including those in the "revenue" sports -- like college students.  And carefully recognizing the cost of collegiate athletics can't continue to explode with "revenue" sports paying the freight for all of it.

+1 HS
OSUStu's picture

The NCAA has a pretty horrible job to do. 

A former NCAA president created the concept of the "student-athlete" so that they could classify all athletes the same.  There are no football players, basketball players, and wrestlers in their eyes, just student-athletes.  The horrible job the NCAA has to do was their own creation.  It is deserving of the public ire it has received.  

treating all athletes -- including those in the "revenue" sports -- like college students. 

Out of curiosity, what would this entail?  Removing the special benefits that athletes currently receive?  

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

M Man's picture

No more freshman eligibility is the one that John U. Bacon likes; I'm okay with that.  Five year scholarships, too, with some kind of repayment to the university by a professional league that drafts any player early; I like that.  I hate the NFL and the NBA and the more that they can be chiseled to support collegiate athletics, the better.

Anyway, back to the NCAA; I don't think that the NCAA promulgates crazy rules for the fun of it.  They promulgate crazy rules because member institutions do crazy things to try to gain advantages in recruiting, in training, in competition, you name it.  Crazy rules lead to crazy enforcement actions, and some of those enforcement actions do seem crazily out of step with reality.  There's no denying it.  Just remember what caused it.  Not some bad motive on the part of the NCAA.

It is the inter-collegiate competition that drives the arms race in spending.  And people keep throwing more money at it.  Like most things in American university life.  What a concept, eh?  We keep finding new ways to pay for ever-increasing college costs... and the costs keep going up.  Precisely as any economist would have predicted.  

The day that Michigan has a player's union and a collective bargaining agreement, I'm out as a booster. I'd like to see a large group of OSU and UM boosters all get together and say the same thing.  They need us!  They ought to listen to us.  If the Michigan Athletic Department is to be believed, booster support is their second-largest revenue component after ticket sales.  Bigger than tv.  Bigger than apparel licensing (and Michigan's apparel licensing is one of the top five in the country; we've got the single biggest adidas contract in college sports).

Seattle Linga's picture

Oh my - WWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

buckskin's picture

Maybe I'm old school, but I can't get over playing a game that I dearly loved and brought myself and my teammates great joy, happiness, and lifelong memories and friendships being referred to as labor.

+5 HS
Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

That's because it's not.

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

The National Labor Relations Board disagrees.

+1 HS
buckskin's picture

I could care less what the NLRB agrees with when it comes to college football.

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

So you do care, is what you're saying?

And besides, that's the great thing about laws: they exist whether you care about them or not.

+1 HS
buckskin's picture

I care greatly about OSU football, which is the main priority of this site; NLRB does some good things, but in regard to college athletics - NO.  They can stay the heck away from college athletics because if they get deeply involved, it will be ruined and look like a Detroit wasteland in the end.

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

Correction - Peter Orr disagrees.

FROMTHE18's picture

The fundamental quality of this situation that is often overlooked: These guys CHOOSE to play football and CHOOSE to participate in this situation. If they don't like it, then bail and be regular students. Ive never understood why these players would think they have any real bargaining power? They agree to a contract with the school that in return for their athletic services they receive tuition and other payments, not to mention all of the free travel, food, lodging, expert physical care, extra academic advice, set up for life with career connections, etc. etc. If they choose to void their end of the contract, then the school takes away all of those benefits and can just hand them over to someone else. I'd like to see how those NW football players would pay for tuition and fees at Northwestern without their scholarships. I'd also be willing to bet many wouldn't have academically qualified if put through the same application process as normal students. These guys get a hell of a lot for playing a damn sport. The US is really the only place that puts so much value into student athletes at the University level, sure it provides a huge amount of funding (at a lot of schools anyways), but these football players should feel lucky to be able to be in the position they are in. Michael Bennett's comments on it are far more realistic than this unionizing crap going on. 

+1 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

So, if you CHOOSE to work at a company that pays you $20k, when your work nets them, say, $200k, you wouldn't ask them for a raise? I mean, you did CHOOSE to work there.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+1 HS
AndyVance's picture

So, if you CHOOSE to work at a company that pays you $20k, when your work nets them, say, $200k, you wouldn't ask them for a raise? I mean, you did CHOOSE to work there.

Actually, this is a pretty silly example - most people work for wages that dwarf the "value" they bring to their employer. Consider sales professionals - I've worked in segments of the profession in which a good rep is paid as much as 35% of his sales, and in other segments where he might earn as little as 2%. Similarly, consider another unionized profession: the auto manufacturer in Detroit. What's a good union job pay at one of the Big Three? I'm not at all certain, but let's say it's $50k. How many cars does one guy touch in a year, and how much money did GM or Ford rake in from those cars? A lot more than $50k if they're doing anything at all correctly.

So the notion that if you're only making 10% of the value you bring to the company then you should ask for more money is not necessarily the best example to illustrate your point. Remember that businesses, in a strictly economic sense, exist to generate a profit. Absent a profit, there is no economic incentive to do business; ergo, if GM paid its employees 100% of the profits it generated in a year, it should - rationally speaking - cease doing business (and actually, that's pretty much why Detroit got its proverbial tit in the wringer, because bloated pensions and benefits plans meant the companies were paying out more than they could afford).

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

Choosing to engage in an activity doesn't forfeit your legal rights. They chose to play football, which, per the NLRB's ruling, sure looks like a job. These players spend 40-50 hours per week on football-related activities, which are completely separate from their obligations as a "student." Their labor nets their institutions millions and millions of dollars (as Deadspin pointed out yesterday, Alabama's athletic department generated more revenues last year than all 30 NHL franchises and 25 of the 30 NBA franchises. They made more money than corporations specifically designed to make money off of athletics). Their "employer" institution and its coaching staff have rigorous rules and regulations that the players have to adhere to. They meet the definition of employees. They should have the same rights as other employees, including bargaining.

Try and divorce the decades and decades of rhetoric about the value of "amateurism" from the reality of the situation as laid out by the NLRB. Here's an great hypothetical from Brian Phillips:

Let’s say, as a hypothetical, that you have a cousin/daughter/friend/niece named Julie. Bright kid. Fiddling around in her dorm room junior year, she invents a new kind of combustion engine that makes cars 50 times more fuel-efficient. It’s worth a billion dollars. Julie wants to sell it to GM, but — whoops — it turns out the university owns it and she gets nothing, because she’s on an engineering scholarship. Tough break, but Julie can’t really complain, right? Because at least she got the college experience.

Or say Julie has a brother named Max. Max writes a novel sophomore year that’s the biggest thing since Harry Potter. Months on the best-seller list, major movie deal, the works. Only Max not only can’t see a penny from his work — that all goes to the school; thanks, English scholarship! — he also makes the mistake of selling an autographed copy at a book fair. Boom, Max is banned from writing for a year. Not touching a pen will teach Max discipline, because Max obviously has character issues. Probably comes from a troubled home.

Now, if Max and Julie were your cousins/kids/friends/whatever, would you be OK with this deal for them? Of course not, right? In any area other than sports, where decades of rhetoric have beaten us down till we can’t see the obvious, you would say that someone who creates a product of enormous value from their own talent and hard work is entitled to many, if not all, of the rewards resulting from that product. You would say that any contract that worked like an athletic scholarship is padded-wallpaper insane.

If Max or Julie was a friend or family member (or if you were Max or Julie), would you say "eh, you got a scholarship out of it, that should be good enough"?

M Man's picture

Two preposterous examples.  Who is Brian Philips, anyway?

Because the real example would NOT be Julie "fooling around in her dorm room" to invent a new kind of engine.  No; the better example would be Julie's working 5 hours a week in $250 million nuclear reactor laboratory, in company with faculty, graduate assistants and with special grant for her work.

And the problem with Max's work is not that it isn't his own work; it is.  Max is going to get rich someday if his talent is as extravagant as you suggest.  But Max isn't working in a competitive team environment.  Max could quit college and go to Hollywood or New York.  The only restriction on Max is if he wants to keep writing on a college scholarship.  He could pay for his own college and stay in school.  Or he can pursue his career outside of college and forego a degree.  Max's only problem  is if he's pulling down a six figure salary and working with editors and script doctors and at the same time turning in work at school for prizes and grades.

+3 HS
Jack Fu's picture

Because the real example would NOT be Julie "fooling around in her dorm room" to invent a new kind of engine.  No; the better example would be Julie's working 5 hours a week in $250 million nuclear reactor laboratory, in company with faculty, graduate assistants and with special grant for her work.

You changed the hypothetical. You may find it "preposterous," but that's an issue of scope. The point stands: what if she invented something of tremendous value other than an engine? She could sell the product of her labor and make money. A college athlete cannot, and for no logical reason.

Max is going to get rich someday if his talent is as extravagant as you suggest.  But Max isn't working in a competitive team environment.  Max could quit college and go to Hollywood or New York.  The only restriction on Max is if he wants to keep writing on a college scholarship.  He could pay for his own college and stay in school.  Or he can pursue his career outside of college and forego a degree.  Max's only problem  is if he's pulling down a six figure salary and working with editors and script doctors and at the same time turning in work at school for prizes and grades.

First, in your scenario Max has other practical, viable options to pursue his craft. A college football player does not. Second, as with the first example, you are adding facts that are not present in the hypothetical. Third, you are missing the entire point of the hypothetical. There would be no such restriction on Max, because he's not an athlete. He could sell that book that he wrote, and make money off of it, because he's not an athlete.

buckskin's picture

We've gone pretty far to compare college football players playing a game to people inventing things or writing books.  This is really comparing apples to oranges.  I get the point of hypotheticals, but they really need to be on the same page to be effective.  Instead of changing the whole college athletics model, the NCAA needs to put the choice back into the hands of the athletes.  In every sport, a policy should be adopted that allows athletes the choice to go pro right out of high school.  If some think they can make it at the pro level, then all the power to them.  BUT, if they decide to go to college, they must stay 3 years at the collegiate level (either at that school or another).  I am tired of these players being referred to as employees because they are not.  This way when players bring up issues once they are in college, the NCAA can point back to their signature on the LOI and say "you already made a decision."

If all else fails, we can have Mike Bennett have a postgame speech tour around the Big Ten this coming year on the virtues of humility, unselfishness, thankfulness, and genuine appreciation.

 

M Man's picture

Of course I changed the hypotheticals, Jack.  I changed them to make them more comparable to the realities of college football.  Where the NCAA limits how much time schools can require players to participate in football and basketball.  But where hyper-competitive athletes spend much, much more than that.  What do you propose to do about that?  I'd be seriously interested; it's not a rhetorical question.

I wish I had proofread my post better, too.  "5 hours" should have been "50 hours."  Among other typos, et cetera.  Not my best writing.

+1 HS
Jack Fu's picture

I still think you're picking nits rather than arguing the actual point raised by the hypotheticals: other students, in spite of being on scholarships, can make money off of the fruits of their labor. College athletes are arbitrarily prevented from doing this. If you divorce the idea from the decades of rhetoric about the "value of amateurism," it's a patently ridiculous and unfair situation.

+1 HS
BoFuquel's picture

Just so The NCAA dies, and that'sacomin'. It's gonna be a Brave New World and you ain't gonna like it. But you can't stop progressive change. The world of college athletics will never be the same, and that is good. Buckle up the ride will be rough, for the times they are a changin'. Get on board or get run over. If your smart make some money from the change and quit cryin' about it. GO BUCKS!

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

-1 HS
Squirrel Master's picture

blah, blah, blah....blah blah.....blah blah blah.

this is not a commentary on this post, just my position on something that won't be settled anytime soon!

and really, I'm just a dumb sports fan.

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

+7 HS
Jack Fu's picture

Upvote for honesty.  ;-)

Seattle Linga's picture

Most/some of us are - dumb - has beens - old - cranky but love our Buckeyes.

buckskin's picture

My thoughts exactly Squirrel.  Tired of it already.

+1 HS