Peter Moore on NCAA Football, "We'll Be Back"

[BROman]

Quote: Originally Posted by sXeInYoFace

dare they go to another country and "protest"...they will become a statistic real fast.

That's the beauty of this country- you can love it but still point out its flaws. You can protest things w/o worrying about getting shipped to Siberia or worse.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

No they don't, the NCAA doesn't care at all about "amateur status" as it has no bearing to them whatsoever.

I don't think that the players should be paid by the NCAA or schools. Most probably couldn't afford it. However, I do believe that the players who have a market should be allowed to capitalize on it without punishment. Only few would, anyway. And there is value in attending a USC over UAB. The schools have value as a brand and that can't be lost. The players, if they're good enough, can capitalize on their efforts and the exposure they receive. Seems like a win win. The schools and NCAA continue making their money and they players who are able can grab a piece of the pie.

[sXeInYoFace]

i dont think NCAA will ever pay players because what about all the other athletes who dont rake in big loads of money for the school. the golf team or swim team doesnt have jersey sales or video game sales or sell out a 100,000 seat stadium. i would assume you cant not pay them. i dont know how it would work?

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by sXeInYoFace

i dont think NCAA will ever pay players because what about all the other athletes who dont rake in big loads of money for the school. the golf team or swim team doesnt have jersey sales or video game sales or sell out a 100,000 seat stadium. i would assume you cant not pay them. i dont know how it would work?

I don't see the NCAA paying the players directly. IMO, they shouldn't either. Plus it would get complicated with all the other sports and stuff. But it would be nice if say DeShaun Watson got a little something on the sale of his jersey in the Clemson book store. Or if Nike or Pepsi wanted him to pitch a product. Let him do so and keep his "amateur" status. If someone wants him to sign autographs for a few hundred let him and others like him. Just make the NCAA aware and keep everything above board. My problem with it is that the NCAA Is keeping these guys/gals from earning money on their own all the while they are.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I don't think that the players should be paid by the NCAA or schools. Most probably couldn't afford it. However, I do believe that the players who have a market should be allowed to capitalize on it without punishment. Only few would, anyway. And there is value in attending a USC over UAB. The schools have value as a brand and that can't be lost. The players, if they're good enough, can capitalize on their efforts and the exposure they receive. Seems like a win win. The schools and NCAA continue making their money and they players who are able can grab a piece of the pie.

Then you open the game up to exactly what the NCAA is trying to prevent - boosters paying players.

[FarFromEer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I don't see the NCAA paying the players directly. IMO, they shouldn't either. Plus it would get complicated with all the other sports and stuff. But it would be nice if say DeShaun Watson got a little something on the sale of his jersey in the Clemson book store. Or if Nike or Pepsi wanted him to pitch a product. Let him do so and keep his "amateur" status. If someone wants him to sign autographs for a few hundred let him and others like him. Just make the NCAA aware and keep everything above board. My problem with it is that the NCAA Is keeping these guys/gals from earning money on their own all the while they are.

The problem is that the top players won't be signing autographs for "a few hundred", you will have big time donors offering big bucks to top high school recruits to get them to come to the school they want, and continually paying them for performing well on the field. For these top donors, money is not really an object. Having their team win the national championship is the only thing they care about. The result will be a handful of schools competing for the national championship and everyone else stuck in a land of mediocrity, probably spinning down in a financial death spiral.

I'm not saying that the players shouldn't have a chance to cash in on their name and success, and I always feel bad for the ones that get career ending injuries before reaching a payday. If anything is allowed, it needs to be regulated (a national commercial is worth X, a local commercial is worth Y, an autograph signing is worth Z). NCAA Football is a cash cow for many not on the school's payrolls. However, for many schools, it is only a way to pay for all of the other athletic programs as well, like the Olympic sports. If you look at the overall health of athletic departments, the NCAA reports there are 15-25 profitable programs each year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/spo...-up-the-bills/). No way the schools can afford to contribute to student-athletes in some sports, but not others.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

Then you open the game up to exactly what the NCAA is trying to prevent - boosters paying players.

You'll never get the shadyness out of collegiate sports completely. But I do believe that if players have a way to earn a little cash legally (by legal I mean without running afoul of NCAA rules) then that would cut down on players getting involved with boosters and such. I really do believe these guys want to do right. Just provide a means for them to. Cant blame a guy for seeing the billions get thrown around in TV contracts and coaches raking in millions and not see the big deal in taking a few hundred dollars or something.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcfeenathan

The problem is that the top players won't be signing autographs for "a few hundred", you will have big time donors offering big bucks to top high school recruits to get them to come to the school they want, and continually paying them for performing well on the field. For these top donors, money is not really an object. Having their team win the national championship is the only thing they care about. The result will be a handful of schools competing for the national championship and everyone else stuck in a land of mediocrity, probably spinning down in a financial death spiral. I'm not saying that the players shouldn't have a chance to cash in on their name and success, and I always feel bad for the ones that get career ending injuries before reaching a payday. If anything is allowed, it needs to be regulated (a national commercial is worth X, a local commercial is worth Y, an autograph signing is worth Z). NCAA Football is a cash cow for many not on the school's payrolls. However, for many schools, it is only a way to pay for all of the other athletic programs as well, like the Olympic sports. If you look at the overall health of athletic departments, the NCAA reports there are 15-25 profitable programs each year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/spo...-up-the-bills/). No way the schools can afford to contribute to student-athletes in some sports, but not others.

I 100% agree. That's why I think it should be regulated and the NCAA have specific introductions on who and how players get compensated. Don't like it,then don't sign up to become an NCAA athlete. See if that offer is still there for you without the exposure the NCAA and respective schools provide.

Players choosing schools and stuff will forever be a dirty game I think. Whether that's with boosters or coaches and coaching staffs. I'm moreso talking about once the players actually become college athletes. I don't think the big boosters paying players ala Miami is as prevalent these days. But if they are then I believe that's all the more reason to allow players to earn something on their own. There by diminishing donor influence. There are only a handful of players actually worth any real money, anyway.

If a donor comes up as dirty then the NCAA could forbid their athletes from dealing with them. Then they could lose their eligibility if they deal. I kind of think it would clean thing up a little. If there is someone who wants Watson to sign autographs for 2,000$. Run that company/donor through the NCAA, get clearance, and if everything checks out then good for him. Doesn't cost the NCAA or schools a dime and a good player can be compensated. The 3rd string center isn't getting that offer, if one at all. Free market. They could even cap the earnings and have the rest go to a trust for after the player is done playing collegiate sports. Something along those lines is fair to everyone I think.