i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[orangehomer]

there was a study done and it was discussed on the lebatard show, about the money that is made on college sports and the way it is shared. long story short, pro sports essentially split the money 50/50 between players and owners. college is more like 90/10 between the schools and the players. it's bad, and these kids deserve more. they were saying how for the majority of these kids that won't go pro, these are their prime earning years. it makes plenty of sense, if you think of a kid like trevor cooney. SU has made plenty off of trevor. yes in theory he will wind up with a degree. but he will never be more famous, or have more earning power than he had these last five years at SU. he should be allowed endorsements and a salary, the kid should realistically have like a half mil banked. I think that there should be a max salary, say 150-200K for D1 basketball players, and the recruiting process will be changed to a contract system that is more in line with everything else in professional America. recruiting would be so much better, you want a player? offer them max contract. also a kid getting paid might be more likely to stick in college. on top of that, the college coaches can focus on coaching, rather than watching 4000 horrible aau games.

 

[dasher]

there was a study done and it was discussed on the lebatard show, about the money that is made on college sports and the way it is shared. long story short, pro sports essentially split the money 50/50 between players and owners. college is more like 90/10 between the schools and the players. it's bad, and these kids deserve more. they were saying how for the majority of these kids that won't go pro, these are their prime earning years. it makes plenty of sense, if you think of a kid like trevor cooney. SU has made plenty off of trevor. yes in theory he will wind up with a degree. but he will never be more famous, or have more earning power than he had these last five years at SU. he should be allowed endorsements and a salary, the kid should realistically have like a half mil banked. I think that there should be a max salary, say 150-200K for D1 basketball players, and the recruiting process will be changed to a contract system that is more in line with everything else in professional America. recruiting would be so much better, you want a player? offer them max contract. also a kid getting paid might be more likely to stick in college. on top of that, the college coaches can focus on coaching, rather than watching 4000 horrible aau games.

Great. Now let's cut all the non revenue paying sports because the revenue sports (the 90-10) pay for the other sports. Where exactly are they going to get the money for say, soccer? Or Lax. Even though we might be able to make it, we would have no one else to play.

 

[EastCoast2]

Trouble comes with the equality of programs. If you allow endorsements, there are 100x the number of boosters willing to "hire" these players to make appearances at their car dealerships for $5k / hour at schools like UK, Texas, USC, etc. than the mid-majors. Why would any high school player go to ECU when he can make 10x the amount of side money at UNC.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

I'm for paying kids, but the best option I've heard is just allowing kids to sign marketing deals.

Let the company's pay the kids.

 

[EastCoast2]

I'm for paying kids, but the best option I've heard is just allowing kids to sign marketing deals.

Let the company's pay the kids.

If you do that, you turn every top 100 recruit into an Ebay auction

 

[EastCoast2]

A better solution is to work with the NBA to allow kids to go to the league out of high school. You want to get paid to play basketball? Okay, go be a professional and take that shot right now.

 

[orangehomer]

Great. Now let's cut all the non revenue paying sports because the revenue sports (the 90-10) pay for the other sports. Where exactly are they going to get the money for say, soccer? Or Lax. Even though we might be able to make it, we would have no one else to play.

just to play devil's advocate, what exactly is the point of non-revenue sports again? if a sport doesn't pay for itself, who gives a damn?

 

[orangehomer]

Trouble comes with the equality of programs. If you allow endorsements, there are 100x the number of boosters willing to "hire" these players to make appearances at their car dealerships for $5k / hour at schools like UK, Texas, USC, etc. than the mid-majors. Why would any high school player go to ECU when he can make 10x the amount of side money at UNC.

how is this any different than how it happens now? especially in football

 

[EastCoast2]

how is this any different than how it happens now? especially in football

It happens now, sure, but if you allow this to happen, every top 300 football recruit would be flown on private jets to Tuscaloosa, Austin, Baton Rouge, Columbus, Ann Arbor, South Bend, etc and shown briefcases with literally tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm for paying kids, but the best option I've heard is just allowing kids to sign marketing deals.

Let the company's pay the kids.

You're welcome. That was my idea.

If you do that, you turn every top 100 recruit into an Ebay auction

That's fine actually. There is zero problem with this.

 

[Briancuse]

It would never work with title nine, you would have to pay every single student athlete, and it would be a disaster trying to get kids, schools will be bidding over each other for top recruits. There needs to be a common sense fund for these athletes. Where in an emergency, if they need some money for something, its there for them.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It would never work with title nine, you would have to pay every single student athlete, and it would be a disaster trying to get kids, schools will be bidding over each other for top recruits. There needs to be a common sense fund for these athletes. Where in an emergency, if they need some money for something, its there for them.

Allowing e players to profit from their own name and likeness works under Title 9.

 

[Briancuse]

Allowing e players to profit from their own name and likeness works under Title 9.

Sure, but you have to pay every single student athlete at your school.

 

[orangehomer]

It happens now, sure, but if you allow this to happen, every top 300 football recruit would be flown on private jets to Tuscaloosa, Austin, Baton Rouge, Columbus, Ann Arbor, South Bend, etc and shown briefcases with literally tens of thousands of dollars.

they can't pay every kid. and they wouldn't pay the right kids every time. there would be plenty of room for open competition

 

[orangehomer]

Sure, but you have to pay every single student athlete at your school.

is it wrong to think that smart people could agree that title 9 has been changed into something that it wasn't originally intended for?

 

[djcon57]

If you do that, you turn every top 100 recruit into an Ebay auction

So? What does that matter to the players?

I keep seeing this brought up in the debate..."Well, it wouldn't be fair to ECU (or whomever)" as if it's fair now.

 

[EastCoast2]

is it wrong to think that smart people could agree that title 9 has been changed into something that it wasn't originally intended for?

I think Title 9 is a joke. Some of my female friends in college were on scholarship for lacrosse. Why should they get tens of thousands of dollars for school? It literally generates zero revenue, and costs a ton of money to fly a team of 30 girls + coaches and staff around the country to play these meaningless games.

 

[Briancuse]

So? What does that matter to the players?

I keep seeing this brought up in the debate..."Well, it wouldn't be fair to ECU (or whomever)" as if it's fair now.

Not Ecu, Schools like Syracuse, will get outbidded for recruits by a Kentucky or Unc.

 

[EastCoast2]

So? What does that matter to the players?

I keep seeing this brought up in the debate..."Well, it wouldn't be fair to ECU (or whomever)" as if it's fair now.

So your argument is since it's not 100% fair now, so lets make is even more unfair?

 

[djcon57]

So your argument is since it's not 100% fair now, so lets make is even more unfair?

No, my argument is the debate is "should we pay the players" and you bringing up the "fairness" has nothing to do with the debate,

The answer is to allow making money off their name (or, gasp, allowing some of the lesser known players to get jobs)

The idea of it being unfair to some school because boosters will pay players is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[EastCoast2]

As selfish Syracuse fans, this would be terrible for SU. SU doesn't have the resources or alumni network to bid on Diallo/Green/Bamba like Big Ten/Big 12/SEC schools do. Say goodbye to McCullough, MCW, Fab Melo, Dion, Ennis, Malachi, Battle, etc. We'd have a tough time getting any top 100 recruits. We'd be outbid by the likes of Georgia, Tennessee, and Nebraska,

 

[djcon57]

Not Ecu, Schools like Syracuse, will get outbidded for recruits by a Kentucky or Unc.

*looks at top 10 bball recruits for 2017*

Pssss, I think it's already happening.

 

[EastCoast2]

No, my argument is the debate is "should we pay the players" and you bringing up the "fairness" has nothing to do with the debate,

The answer is to allow making money off their name (or, gasp, allowing some of the lesser known players to get jobs)

The idea of it being unfair to some school because boosters will pay players is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think it's one of the reasons it's not allowed right now: because it would make it 100% unfair. There would be no way to regulate and control. As I've said, if you allow pay-for endorsements, the big 10-20 schools win big time, and SU isn't one of those schools.

 

[djcon57]

I think it's one of the reasons it's not allowed right now: because it would make it 100% unfair. There would be no way to regulate and control. As I've said, if you allow pay-for endorsements, the big 10-20 schools win big time, and SU isn't one of those schools.

The reason is not allowed now is because the boosters are giving money to the SCHOOLS to fight in the facilities arms race. The only difference is the money would go to the players.

Again, SU being good or bad in sports has nothing to do with the debate.

 

[EastCoast2]

The reason is not allowed now is because the boosters are giving money to the SCHOOLS to fight in the facilities arms race. The only difference is the money would go to the players.

Right, you're making my argument for me. If you allow players to be paid unlimited, say goodbye to NCAAB as we know it. If you were choosing between two employers, A & B, your answer would change between scenario 1 and 2:

Scenario 1
Employer A: "Bill Gates donates to our company, and you get a $1 coupon to Burger King because of it."
Employer B: "We get no donations, your salary is your salary, BUT you're closer to your family!"

Scenario 2
Employer A: "Bill Gates donates to our company, you get an additional $25k/month."
Employer B: "We get no donations, your salary is your salary, BUT you're closer to your family!"