NCAA Will Not Renew EA Sports Contract, NCAA Football Series is Dead in Name Only

[Quint75]

Quote: Originally Posted by seasprite

Will be interesting to see how the CLC handles a license with EA, whether that be exclusive or not.

Probably won't be exclusive but will be expensive enough to keep anyone else from trying. EA says the NCAA series is profitable but hardly a cash cow. Not sure it would be worth anyone else's time to pay for the license and try to make a profit off of it. Guess we'll have to see but I would doubt it.

[BenGerman]

Quote: Originally Posted by inkcil

Bah! University Greedy-Greed Nets the following annually: A.) $50 million off its football program B.) $10 million off its men's basketball program C.) $100,00 off its men's tennis program Now, "who in the world" would still be confused as to who should get more than who? Calculations 100 times more complicated are made in offices, institutions and markets ev'hour by people on their lunch break with their eyes closed. And *gasp* some of those people even work in Division One front offices. On top of that, the "value" of an education is HIGHLY subjective and is valueless without a job which is valueless without money, which is used to get the things people need like food and water and shelter and clothes and videogames. And let's face it, college diploma don't = job no mo. This ain't the 1970's.

My whole argument is that it shouldn't be about the business of the whole thing. If athletic programs want to separate themselves and be part of a business, that's something else. But for now, ALL student athletes - NOT just football players or basketball players - have to work really hard all year long. Of course some sports make more than others, but each and every student athlete is dedicating a lot of time to their university, and is getting screwed because of it.

Like I said, money should come in the form of a stipend. I think it's inevitable before we see something like that.

Let me just try to quell both sides of the argument here:

1) IF you are proposing players should be paid for their likeness, you are accepting the fact that college sports (football and basketball in particular) will become a business for both the athletic programs AND the players themselves. Soon, players would be choosing their schools based on a business decision, rather than where they might feel its best to get an education.

For example, a middling football recruit is trying to decide between Vanderbilt (a prestigious academic university) and LSU (which obviously doesn't have quite the academic standards that Vandy does). While this player knows he could get a better education at Vanderbilt, the promise of making more money off of his likeness is too much of a draw. At that point, it really becomes about which team can MARKET you better, and less about being a student athlete.

2) If you are proposing athletes not be paid at all, there is certainly an argument to be made. No one wants to open a can of worms where student athletes are being paid a ton of money and universities are losing out on money. The problem is, these student athletes are working their tails off. Most student athletes are on a 50% or less scholarship, so while some may think everything is being paid for, it really isn't for most students. On top of that, even those that do have full rides, are left not having any extra spending money.

So that means no movies with the friends, no dinners, no video games, etc. They don't have time for a job on top of school and the sport, so it's really impossible to earn anything extra.

Fortunately, we could move to a stipend where these athletes are paid on a $50 a week allowance, and no one has to suffer from it. Schools could choose between upping tuition costs (at about $16 dollars a year, for standard sized school. Less than that for standard sized D1 schools), OR their athletic department could pay for it.

I say all of this as someone who is currently on an academic scholarship. I've had time for a job, time for an internship, and time to spend with friends. I get the same advantages a student athlete does, when they are working four-six more hours in a day than I am for 0 money. Honestly, I think that sucks.

Anyway, I know all of this stuff is off-topic, so that's the last I'll say about it. It's certainly a riveting topic!

[inkcil]

Quote: Originally Posted by BenGerman

I say all of this as someone who is currently on an academic scholarship. I've had time for a job, time for an internship, and time to spend with friends. I get the same advantages a student athlete does, when they are working four-six more hours in a day than I am for 0 money. Honestly, I think that sucks. Anyway, I know all of this stuff is off-topic, so that's the last I'll say about it. It's certainly a riveting topic!

Excellent summary, especially this last paragraph. A lot of us here are in high school/college or (if not in school) just in early 20's/late teens. But for those of us (like me) who've finished college and have worked 10 years or more and can look back at how things play out, we realize that anyone without connections who wants to work for more than $15 dollars/hour after graduation has to put in 1-2 years full time interning while a junior and senior in college. And what big time program D-1 athlete has time for that? Because without that JOB experience the DAY you graduate, your education is meaningless. You'll be "settling" for a job at Home Depot/UPS, playing catch-up to the guy who skipped college and now has 4 years experience there. And he'll get that manager/supervisor job before you do. Trust me!

Now, with your fancy "Business Administration" degree you see you should have been interning in the "Home Depot/UPS Corporate Office summer internship program for Future Leaders" instead of sweating your time away on a hot practice field playing backup Fullback.

[thinkjoey]

Wow that was a lot of reading to catch up

Not sure why we are talking about the lawsuits...shouldn't that be in it's own thread?

Anywho..The contract with NCAA is just for NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games as well as advertisements. - Which I know has been discussed, but people keep bringing it up each and every page

So people can stop thinking it will affect the current settings on suspensions/tearing the post down/etc

All of that will be handled by the CLC (Which we should all know now is willing to keep doing business with EA despite NCAA's decision) - aholbert32 has made this clear countless times over

I understand that is a lot of reading to do in order to catch up...but coming in here and stating something that was answered in X page is like walking in on a few people having a discussion and yelling out your opinion on the first thing you hear...Does not work out then...it will not work out here

**Want to know if your question was answered? There is a thread search function so search key words**

[killrnut]

Quote: Originally Posted by inkcil

Bah! University Greedy-Greed Nets the following annually: A.) $50 million off its football program B.) $10 million off its men's basketball program C.) $100,00 off its men's tennis program Now, "who in the world" would still be confused as to who should get more than who?

In theory, your stance seems to make sense. But in reality, its a Title-IX lawsuit waiting to happen, as I guarantee you the men will always be making more than the women. And we're talking about Universities here, which are supposed to be about equal opportunity for all, regardless or gender, race, background, etc.

[killrnut]

Quote: Originally Posted by BenGerman

Like I said, all student athletes should be given a stipend (think allowance), because they aren't able to get a job and have extra cash to spend. What if they want to go out to dinner with friends? It's not like the university pays for that. Another thing, if football athletes are getting paid, why shouldn't other student athletes be paid? That's ridiculous. They all put in similar work loads for their university.

First of all, I am not entirely against the idea of them getting a small stipend. Dont some of them already get one? I've heard of football players buying stuff with their scholarship checks.

Second, I never said other student athletes shouldn't be paid. The point of my argument was if and when they do get paid, how do you balance it fairly.

[TDenverFan]

I think a stipend of maybe 40 bucks a week for all athletics would be OK. Singly because being a D1 athlete events you from working a job. Tuition would have to increase between 12-40 dollars for ever student, depending on the ratio of athletes to non athletes.

Paying athletes a large salary I don't agree with, since most sports (even football) lose their schools money. 22 D1 football teams made a profit in 2010. 200ish lost money. So, paying them a salary doesn't make sense to me.

[bigbob]

Quote: Originally Posted by thinkjoey

Wow that was a lot of reading to catch up Not sure why we are talking about the lawsuits...shouldn't that be in it's own thread? Anywho..The contract with NCAA is just for NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games as well as advertisements. - Which I know has been discussed, but people keep bringing it up each and every page So people can stop thinking it will affect the current settings on suspensions/tearing the post down/etc All of that will be handled by the CLC (Which we should all know now is willing to keep doing business with EA despite NCAA's decision) - aholbert32 has made this clear countless times over I understand that is a lot of reading to do in order to catch up...but coming in here and stating something that was answered in X page is like walking in on a few people having a discussion and yelling out your opinion on the first thing you hear...Does not work out then...it will not work out here **Want to know if your question was answered? There is a thread search function so search key words**

NO. IT. IS. NOT.

The contract with the NCAA has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

ZIP.

NADDA.

ZILCH.

To do with schools, stadiums, teams, advertisements.. or anything else that has to do with the schools themselves.