First I am not nor never will be in the camp of paying.If the post about the rule chande is correct how can anyone argue the point of "their getting a free education"?Sounds like they get one year free education depending.How would any of us like to be in a situation like that.Forget the paying.Lets say a honest person were to show up at your house to talk with one of your own.This honest person tells you and your child we would like you to attend our university But,depending on how things go we will reevaluate our universities committmint to your child on a year to year basis.Wouldn't most of us treat the person nice then hope you never see them again after they leave?I can still remember the first time I realized how screwed up/corrupt the ncaa really is.Back when northwestern made their first run at having a good football team(the year usc blew them out in rose bowl)They had a very good "college" running back.There was a huge uproar over that kid getting a part in some 'B" movie and it being a PAID deal.Nothing to do with football.His major was in the dept. that many,many famous actors have graduated from.(Forget the exact name of dept. I don't think its NW world famous journalism school but maybe) The point is this kid was involved with his major had made a couple of bucks from it and now the ncaa says that by doing that he is now not a amature anymore.If our kids play a sport where money could be involved but need 3-4 years of maturing getting better before theres any money theres no other place to go but a college.Yes its the percentages are small with those playing after college.But if things were looked into I would bet the % of the kids getting the shaft are higher than most of us realize.I don't know how many of you have heard of ed ? bannoin(probably not spelled rite) he went to ucla I am pretty sure they won a championship in basketball.He had a average or slightly less time spent in the nba.He had retired and was settling into life.He buys a ncaa game cartridge for nephew bday.They start playing his nephew tells him hey your on here (ucla team) now this guy been out of school for over ten years.We should all have a problem with this type of behavior.
The NCAA doesn't exist for the protection of the athletes. It exists to protect colleges from each other and themselves.
Originally Posted by Swampboy:
Originally Posted by throw'n bb's:
They already get paid. A free college education, housing, food, free apparel, free tutoring, free use of facilities etc. etc. also where do you propose the money come from? non revenue sports will start being canceled at record pace. If a player doesn't think enough is offered in a scholarship don't go to school.
There is a vast difference between getting paid and receiving a discount, even a 100% discount, on the purchase of overpriced goods and services.
Overpriced goods and services? Does that happen because professors like Senator Warren are paid 375K per year to teach one course?
When Steve Alford, UCLA coach was playing at Indiana he was suspended for four games for allowing his face to be used for a Men of Indiana calendar where all the proceeds went to charity. That's absurd!
My question is if/when college athletes start getting paid to play, how quickly will that same argument trickle down to high school?
Originally Posted by RJM:
When Steve Alford, UCLA coach was playing at Indiana he was suspended for four games for allowing his face to be used for a Men of Indiana calendar where all the proceeds went to charity. That's absurd!
Actually, it was one game. But still incredibly stupid by the NCAA.
While these kids are getting their education paid for, a lot of these kids don't have any spending money. If you look at most of the recent incidents, it is not multimillion dollar deals. It's selling stuff to make a few bucks for spending money. How else can they hit the late night Taco Bell. The NCAA really needs to look at itself in the mirror.
You don't hear a top coach blast the NCAA about player treatment very often.
Steve Fisher of SDSU did late last night. After SDSU beat NMSU in an overtime game which ended just after 11pm, PDT, Fisher disclosed the NCAA would not allow the NMSU team to stay overnight in a hotel. The team was "required" to leave immediately, which meant a 2:40am flight out of Spokane to Las Cruces. I would expect at least one connection and probably 2 so those players might just be getting back to school
When the video gets to the point where he calls out the NCAA and, in effect, where are the stuffed shirts and why are they not on that plane with the student athletes, he could have added "who generate the revenue to pay your salary."
It is quite refreshing to see a top coach challenge the NCAA on a topic such as this rather than Pitino whining about playing the Jaspers.
.
http://collegebasketballtalk.n...tgame-presser-video/
For those who have never had a son/daughter in post-season play, the NCAA makes the travel arrangements and literally pays extra to get the team out on the first plane/bus possible, upon elimination.
Originally Posted by coach3:
My question is if/when college athletes start getting paid to play, how quickly will that same argument trickle down to high school?
Why shouldn't a top HS prospect be able to have a Nike contract?
Originally Posted by coach3:
My question is if/when college athletes start getting paid to play, how quickly will that same argument trickle down to high school?
Already happening. Won't be long for Football and Basketball before ESPN is televising the "National Championship" But if you think some of the preps in basketball are not paying players so they get to be on ESPN....stop it ...your killing me.
When there is a $100MM deal between ESPN and the NFHS to you will have the same kind of creeps there that are at the NCAA. At the trough exploiting young men and stealing their labor and images.
And we'll watch it all from Disney in Orlando as they have all kinds of film of the kids with Mickey & Co.
JH,
Thank you for posting the link to the decision. While the appeals are going to take several years, an immediate question(at least in the legal arena) is whether efforts will be made in different States to extend the "employee" concept of scholarship-athletes to workers' compensation with the colleges/universities being fully responsible for providing and covering all costs of injuries occurring while practicing, competing or training, including lifetime medical care.
Here is an article that puts the ruling/reasons into plain language. This is going to get interesting.
What effect does this ruling have on the amateur status of the players? Now that it has been decreed they are being paid to play football, they are essentially professional athletes. Will the NCAA declare them all ineligible?
im wondering when its going to hit them that as employees their income (scholarships and such) will become taxable....you know the tax man is going to come a-knocking!!
Originally Posted by Swampboy:
What effect does this ruling have on the amateur status of the players? Now that it has been decreed they are being paid to play football, they are essentially professional athletes. Will the NCAA declare them all ineligible?
No. When you write the rules you can make them mean anything you want to. The NCAA has it's own definition of amateur, which they adjust to suit their needs. They will continue to define these kids as amateurs/student-athletes. To do anything else would define the NCAA out of existence.
Don't let the media frenzy get you all excited. What you have here is one administrative law judge reading the statute to say what he decided it would be kinda neato if it said. I have a feeling this will get overturned as things move on through the process, if not at the full NLRB, then potentially in federal court on appeal.
Originally Posted by Midlo Dad:
Don't let the media frenzy get you all excited. What you have here is one administrative law judge reading the statute to say what he decided it would be kinda neato if it said. I have a feeling this will get overturned as things move on through the process, if not at the full NLRB, then potentially in federal court on appeal.
Uh, no. This one is pretty solid.
Originally Posted by JustaBBMom:
im wondering when its going to hit them that as employees their income (scholarships and such) will become taxable....you know the tax man is going to come a-knocking!!
Not necessarily. It remains to be seen what the decision on that would be, but if employer-provided education is a necessity for a position, it's generally not taxable.