Got a question for you about paying student Athletes

Donate To GopherHole
GSUsTALON

GSUsTALON

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
568
Points
113
TrueBlueDrew
https://www.wtoc.com/2019/10/23/ga-r...-profit-image/

[FONT="]In a statement, Mitchell said, “With this legislation, Georgia hereby joins a rapidly growing number of states that have filed similar legislation, or are in the process of doing so, including Florida, New York, South Carolina and Minnesota. Not only is this an idea whose time has come, but Georgia schools would be at a decisive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting with other states that join California in implementing this act, if we fail to do the same.”[/FONT]
Sadly the rapidly number or states that want to pay student athletes or allow the to profit on endorsements are stupid.

TALON- I dint know about you but the players that have scholarships are being payed for attending their collage for an education is payment. I ask you to look up how much it takes to go to a university for 4-5 years. The average student may have some scholarship money, but also have to take loans that they have to pay back. The athlete pays for his/her education with a scholarship. I have nothing against an athlete paying his way through collage with a scholarship.

The big schools maybe able to pay their players with stipends or allow them to make money on endorsements or pics.

This destroys the smaller schools ability to recruit.

This bill and the super powers of the P5 an bite me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Right, even though Minnesota isn’t a small school, this isn’t going to benefit us at all either.

Even with the elite programs, a very select few players will get a majority of the opportunities, while their teammates are left holding the bag. Naturally, the QBs, RBs, WRs, and very select defensive stars will get more opportunities than players in less glamorous positions. That will create a lot of resentment in the locker room.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Do you really think schools aren't breaking the rules now to get recruits extra money? There have already been a few cases where schools got punished over it and many more where it's pretty clear it happened but not enough for the NCAA to punish them. I'm sure there are even more that we don't even know about yet. I'm sure schools near GSU are doing it too. This will help schools that don't cheat a chance to compete for recruits.
 




Hey Talon. I don't know how the paying players works out because I don't really care.

I did want to send condolences for your player who passed away. Coming from a fan base who experienced a similar loss a few years back, we support you and hope the team, school and community can rally behind it.
 

I just want the NCAA football video games back
 

The top level situation in the OP is very easy to understand: football tradition-rich states simply cannot allow California, or any other state, to legislate a built-in recruiting advantage over their state's schools. So they (the other states) must follow suit and create their own bills, allowing the same benefits.

The NCAA's hand is forced. It is done.

Now, it is up to the NCAA to study this issue in detail, and try to come up with language that will make everyone happy and be reasonable.
 

I think there are vastly different opinions on how this will play. We don't know for sure, though I tend to believe that it will make competitive balance issues even more untenable. I just hope if that does happen that it doesn't lead to the have-nots dropping some or all scholarship sports. There are many kids out there who use sports to get education when they normally would have no way into higher education. I guess we will see.
 



Two schools of thought on this.

1. It will benefit the big brand name schools. They have the deepest pockets.

2. This will level the playing field like legalizing drugs. The people hurt the hardest are those who are already cheating because now others will be able to compensate in a similar fashion legally.

For FCS schools, I think they are screwed.
 

WoodburyTim said:
I think there are vastly different opinions on how this will play. We don't know for sure, though I tend to believe that it will make competitive balance issues even more untenable. I just hope if that does happen that it doesn't lead to the have-nots dropping some or all scholarship sports. There are many kids out there who use sports to get education when they normally would have no way into higher education. I guess we will see.
Click to expand...

.... none of this costs the schools a dime. Why would they drop anything??
 

Face The Facts said:
Two schools of thought on this.

1. It will benefit the big brand name schools. They have the deepest pockets.

2. This will level the playing field like legalizing drugs. The people hurt the hardest are those who are already cheating because now others will be able to compensate in a similar fashion legally.

For FCS schools, I think they are screwed.
Click to expand...

The size of schools' pockets is irrelevant .... none of this is paid for by the schools.
 

MnplsGopher said:
.... none of this costs the schools a dime. Why would they drop anything??
Click to expand...

He might be arguing that if fan bases feel like they can no longer compete they may lose interest overall, therefore schools won't have the needed support to keep programs operating.
 



BeerFueledFF said:
He might be arguing that if fan bases feel like they can no longer compete they may lose interest overall, therefore schools won't have the needed support to keep programs operating.
Click to expand...

The NCAA dictates the minimum number of sports that must be sponsored to be a member of the FBS sub-division, I think it is 16 or so.

Only way schools are dropping huge number of programs is if they leave the NCAA.



Rather, I think posts #9 and #10 were (incorrectly) talking about the scenario of schools paying players, instead of giving them scholarships. That is a whole other ball of wax, which is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is about players making deals to license their NIL, which would be financed by dollars outside the athletic dept.
 


MnplsGopher said:
The size of schools' pockets is irrelevant .... none of this is paid for by the schools.
Click to expand...

The school may not pay it but the top programs are usually the richest because they have the largest fan bases with the biggest donors. The exact same player would make a lot more money at a Alabama or Texas than a Minnesota or Iowa St.
 

WoodburyTim said:
I think there are vastly different opinions on how this will play. We don't know for sure, though I tend to believe that it will make competitive balance issues even more untenable. I just hope if that does happen that it doesn't lead to the have-nots dropping some or all scholarship sports. There are many kids out there who use sports to get education when they normally would have no way into higher education. I guess we will see.
Click to expand...



I actually agree with you. I think that the NCAA would be wise to maybe hold the line on payments and or allow for small stipends (essentially pizza money) while athletes are in school.

I am guessing that the NCAA generates enough revenue to assist players that didn't finish their undergrad, or grad school during their eligibility period. IIRC Some schools have done this already.
 


GophersInIowa said:
The school may not pay it but the top programs are usually the richest because they have the largest fan bases with the biggest donors. The exact same player would make a lot more money at a Alabama or Texas than a Minnesota or Iowa St.
Click to expand...

Absolutely valid concern that you’ve brought up before and we’ve discussed in another thread.

We’ll see what the NCAA comes up with. I’m optimistic that it can be addressed fairly and reasonably, such that the original CA authors will be satisfied and all other stakeholders will also.
 

STPGopher said:
[/B]

I actually agree with you. I think that the NCAA would be wise to maybe hold the line on payments and or allow for small stipends (essentially pizza money) while athletes are in school.

I am guessing that the NCAA generates enough revenue to assist players that didn't finish their undergrad, or grad school during their eligibility period. IIRC Some schools have done this already.
Click to expand...

They already get them...

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/04/news/companies/extra-cash-college-athletes/index.html
 


GophersInIowa said:
The school may not pay it but the top programs are usually the richest because they have the largest fan bases with the biggest donors. The exact same player would make a lot more money at a Alabama or Texas than a Minnesota or Iowa St.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Right now there is temptation for a star player to transfer for a chance to play on a bigger stage or for a championship, but I imagine that will pale in comparison for leaving for essentially a lot better paying job.
 

I would pay a few grand a year to prospective hockey recruits if me and some others could sway them to come play for us instead of UND or uw.

I say let the money flow. The top recruits are already getting paid everyone knows it.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Nope but dropping football would.
Click to expand...

Your original wording was very cryptic if this is what you we’re trying to express.

I still don’t agree. I don’t think winning the CFP would be any less likely for Minnesota, NC Stat, Oregon State, etc than it is now ... almost impossible, relative to Ohio State and Alabama.

Perhaps it could result in the non-elite P5 asking for their own championship, like FCS has.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Agreed. Right now there is temptation for a star player to transfer for a chance to play on a bigger stage or for a championship, but I imagine that will pale in comparison for leaving for essentially a lot better paying job.
Click to expand...

This is easy to say, but I don’t think it would work that easy. Alabama only has 85 slots, and even not all of them would sign NIL deals. How are 400 players going to transfer there for the richer deals?

As I said in #19, let’s see what the NCAA comes up with.

Until then, doomsayers are just huffing and puffing.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Do you really think schools aren't breaking the rules now to get recruits extra money? There have already been a few cases where schools got punished over it and many more where it's pretty clear it happened but not enough for the NCAA to punish them. I'm sure there are even more that we don't even know about yet. I'm sure schools near GSU are doing it too. This will help schools that don't cheat a chance to compete for recruits.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the elete players are given jobs by Alumni or supporters that pay better than the average worker doing the same job.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Your original wording was very cryptic if this is what you we’re trying to express.

I still don’t agree. I don’t think winning the CFP would be any less likely for Minnesota, NC Stat, Oregon State, etc than it is now ... almost impossible, relative to Ohio State and Alabama.

Perhaps it could result in the non-elite P5 asking for their own championship, like FCS has.
Click to expand...

My concern is not so much for the Minnesota's, NC State's and Oregon State's of the world. It is the Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA schools. They aren't raking in the cash right now and barely competitive with the Power 5 schools. Just not sure they will see it as an advantage to have 85 football players on full scholarships. And like you said, maybe they will have their own type of division or level, but that would ultimately come with less scholarships and that means less access for kids that usually come from backgrounds that don't allow them to simply pay their own way.

But like you said, we'll see how final rules and proposals play out. But I also don't really think the people against this are "huffing and puffing" as you say. The people who think this is a good idea are only speculating how this actually plays out as well.
 
Last edited:

WoodburyTim said:
My concern is not so much for the Minnesota's, NC State's and Oregon State's of the world. It is the Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA schools. They aren't raking in the cash right now and barely competitive with the Power 5 schools. Just not sure they will see it as an advantage to have 85 football players on full scholarships. But like you said, we'll see how final rules and proposals play out. But I also don't really think the people against this are "huffing and puffing" as you say. The people who think this is a good idea are only speculating how this actually plays out.
Click to expand...

I have nothing but speculation, to be crystal clear.

The G5 now have practically zero chance at getting a CFP invite, and still spend on 85 scholly etc. Though their budgets are still significantly less than P5 on average. I’m not sure what you mean that they’re raking in the cash?? Mostly no, as far as I know.

G5 and FCS full scholly football are huge cash losers at a majority of those schools, with some nice outliers of course. But they still do it. It’s a “nice to have”, football games in the fall is still considered by many as part of the student experience. Even at DII, DIII, NAIA.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Do you really think schools aren't breaking the rules now to get recruits extra money? There have already been a few cases where schools got punished over it and many more where it's pretty clear it happened but not enough for the NCAA to punish them. I'm sure there are even more that we don't even know about yet. I'm sure schools near GSU are doing it too. This will help schools that don't cheat a chance to compete for recruits.
Click to expand...

If that’s the case then why bother with these law changes?

I’ve said it before but when agents get involved with the junior and senior high schoolers and see the pot of money they can fight for regarding NCAA conference TV dollars and their clients NLI things are going to get crazy. Hold on to your hats.
 

GSUsTALON said:
I'm sure that the elete players are given jobs by Alumni or supporters that pay better than the average worker doing the same job.
Click to expand...

It is my belief that the elite schools with their high tuitions are giving the student athlete their due with a full ride. Add to this that many athletes wouldn't be able to attend some schools with their SAT scores. Other students that have the GPA & SAT scores attending collage, may have grants, some academic scholarships and have to take out student loans that will follow them after graduation. The Athlete with a full ride doesn't have to worry about that. If the Athlete is so talented he has a shot at a professional contract, but would likely be un noticed if he did not attend collage so collage is also an advertisement for their skills.

The term Student Athlete means just that. He should be a student first educating him or herself for the degree they want. The Athlete term comes second.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom