Nigel Hayes: “We’re not student athletes. We’re here to play sports."

goldenboy

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
887
Reaction score
6
Points
18
You don't have to agree with Nigel, but at least use relevant counter arguments.

Seriously. D3 has nothing to do with this.
So the $ are the only thing that is relevant? The concept of "student athlete" (even beyond revenue-producing D1) somehow is not..? OK. Stick to your narrow narrative. Nigel seems to really need the support.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
11,327
Reaction score
567
Points
113
So the $ are the only thing that is relevant? The concept of "student athlete" (even beyond revenue-producing D1) somehow is not..? OK. Stick to your narrow narrative. Nigel seems to really need the support.
Yeah, D1 should be more like D3.

They should not have any athletic scholarships, the salaries of the coaches should equal to that of D3, ticket prices, facilities, etc.

Who do you think would lose the most from this kind of situation? I'll tell you, it's the schools.

Comparing Wisconsin with an Ivy League school (no scholarships for athletes) or a D3 school is an absurd comparison. It's not all about $. It's about priorities, all the way down the line. The schools have already sold their soul to the devil a little bit when it comes to collegiate athletics. It's a mockery because they really are not traditional student athletes.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
11,327
Reaction score
567
Points
113
Can't stand the attitude. There are thousands of D3 athletes that don't get a fraction of the benefits as Hayes, and are paying their way through school. The money big time programs generate provides the extravagant dormitories and amenities, lavish training tables, travel, medical care, etc. and it manages to fund opportunities for thousands of non-revenue athletes (as it should). One could make a good argument against excessive coaching salaries in the marquee sports, but it's ridiculous to talk of paying FB & BB players just because TV is willing to pay the university to televise their sport. Hayes: if you want the money then go pro. The D league is waiting for you.
Do you hate capitalism?
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
8,332
Reaction score
285
Points
83
The real winners here are the NFL, NBA and, to a lesser extent, the NHL. Those sports benefit from the NCAA being willing to operate as a player development program for pro sports.

MLB operates and funds its own minor-league system. Yes, they draft college players, but if you don't want to play college ball, you can sign with an MLB team and start as a pro right out of HS. Of course, the player development system takes longer in baseball, so a kid drafted at 18 may not make it to the majors for 4 or 5 years, or longer.

The NFL has zero expense for a player-development system - the colleges do all the work. And, the NFL doesn't take players out of HS - thereby forcing players to play college FB even if they have no interest in doing college level class work. the NBA has the development league, but after a few years where they would take players out of HS, now they require elite players to at least play one year in a college system.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a bunch of HS athletes got together and filed a class-action lawsuit against the NFL or the NBA for denying them an opportunity to pursue their chosen profession, and asking the courts to order the NFL and NBA to allow HS players to jump directly to the pros without forcing them to go to college. If the NFL or NBA established a true player-developmental league, akin to baseball's minor leagues, it would have a profound impact on college sports.
 

DeathClutch

Active member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
2
Points
38
The real winners here are the NFL, NBA and, to a lesser extent, the NHL. Those sports benefit from the NCAA being willing to operate as a player development program for pro sports.

MLB operates and funds its own minor-league system. Yes, they draft college players, but if you don't want to play college ball, you can sign with an MLB team and start as a pro right out of HS. Of course, the player development system takes longer in baseball, so a kid drafted at 18 may not make it to the majors for 4 or 5 years, or longer.

The NFL has zero expense for a player-development system - the colleges do all the work. And, the NFL doesn't take players out of HS - thereby forcing players to play college FB even if they have no interest in doing college level class work. the NBA has the development league, but after a few years where they would take players out of HS, now they require elite players to at least play one year in a college system.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a bunch of HS athletes got together and filed a class-action lawsuit against the NFL or the NBA for denying them an opportunity to pursue their chosen profession, and asking the courts to order the NFL and NBA to allow HS players to jump directly to the pros without forcing them to go to college. If the NFL or NBA established a true player-developmental league, akin to baseball's minor leagues, it would have a profound impact on college sports.
It would have some impact on college sports, but I doubt it would be profound. People still tune and to the College World Series even though there is minor league baseball. The only people who give a **** about the minor leagues are locals who go to the games and fans of the parent clubs who are tracking there top prospects. You don't see minor league playoff games being broadcasted on ESPN.
 

Winasota Gopher

Deep Insider
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
47
Points
48
So the $ are the only thing that is relevant? The concept of "student athlete" (even beyond revenue-producing D1) somehow is not..? OK. Stick to your narrow narrative. Nigel seems to really need the support.
What? My "narrative" is that someone is getting rich, and it's not the institutions(allegedly) nor the players. In the case of d3, no one is making money off of that endevor. Time away from school is significantly less, it's not even comparable.
 

bemidjigopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
7,149
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I think the fair way to handle this is to let the athletes make money off of their name's. Let them sign autographs, do commercials, promote their brand etc. Not all sports are created equal, there are a select few athletes that create the demand that allows Universities to make the money they do in TV contracts and ticket sales in the revenue sports. If an athlete can make money off his or her name than by all means do it. It would solve a lot of problems
 

station19

Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
22,605
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I think the fair way to handle this is to let the athletes make money off of their name's. Let them sign autographs, do commercials, promote their brand etc. Not all sports are created equal, there are a select few athletes that create the demand that allows Universities to make the money they do in TV contracts and ticket sales in the revenue sports. If an athlete can make money off his or her name than by all means do it. It would solve a lot of problems
And create a perfect way for boosters to supply their favorite players with cash.
 

Cayman

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Serious question, once the idea of amateurism is gone, why shouldn't that booster be able to give him money?
Could it upset competitive balance? Would the schools with the richest boosters get all the best players most years, or would they establish a limit to how much money players can make? Is it in the NCAA's interest to have some modicum of competitive balance in the sport?
 

Winasota Gopher

Deep Insider
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Could it upset competitive balance? Would the schools with the richest boosters get all the best players most years, or would they establish a limit to how much money players can make? Is it in the NCAA's interest to have some modicum of competitive balance in the sport?
Aren't they already?

Whose interest are the anti "pay-the-kids" looking out for?
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Most fans of college sports suppprt capitalism unless it applies to college sports. Then they favor systems more unseemly.

If you really think capitalism means you have to pay labor whatever they want, then you don't understand capitalism.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
79
Points
48
If you really think capitalism means you have to pay labor whatever they want, then you don't understand capitalism.
LOL!

What a brainless comment. Kaler will gladly take back your degree and keep your tuition. You don't deserve either.
 

DLguy

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
0
Points
36
My question to Mr. Hayes would be this. Why did you choose Wisconsin? If it is the just the academics, you are getting that education for free. That has a TON of value, more so than the $50,000+ worth of schooling he is getting. But, if he picked Wisconsin for the coaches, the atmosphere, the facilities, the training and support staff, all that stuff costs a lot of money. If he doesnt care about any of that, why didnt he go to a smaller school without all those high costs? That was his choice.

And if this kid really is broke, that is on him and not a single other person. I had many friends in my time at the U 10 years ago who were on full ride scholarships, and they had more money than anyone else. And that was before the new stipend they get. So if he is broke, he is an idiot. That is all there is to it.
 

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
94
Points
48
You don't have to agree with Nigel, but at least use relevant counter arguments.

Seriously. D3 has nothing to do with this.
Agree the D3 argument is dumb. D3 players still get grants for playing basketball. They play every Wednesday and Saturday and in MN rarely leave the State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Winasota Gopher

Deep Insider
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
47
Points
48
My question to Mr. Hayes would be this. Why did you choose Wisconsin? If it is the just the academics, you are getting that education for free. That has a TON of value, more so than the $50,000+ worth of schooling he is getting. But, if he picked Wisconsin for the coaches, the atmosphere, the facilities, the training and support staff, all that stuff costs a lot of money. If he doesnt care about any of that, why didnt he go to a smaller school without all those high costs? That was his choice.

And if this kid really is broke, that is on him and not a single other person. I had many friends in my time at the U 10 years ago who were on full ride scholarships, and they had more money than anyone else. And that was before the new stipend they get. So if he is broke, he is an idiot. That is all there is to it.

Do you have cable tv or a cell phone?

Do you think the agreements and stipulations (data caps, lock in for multiple years, etc) are fair and equitable?
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
24,516
Reaction score
365
Points
83
Do you have cable tv or a cell phone?

Do you think the agreements and stipulations (data caps, lock in for multiple years, etc) are fair and equitable?
If those things are extremely important to you, then there are other options out there with no data caps and contracts.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,918
Reaction score
217
Points
63
There is an easy answer to all of this. The reason that the NCAA doesn't pay athletes is because it's not a sustainable model. If it were, someone would start U.S. pro leagues for football and basketball and employ 18-year-olds in both. If there were money to be made, someone would be doing it. No one is, because it's not a profitable business model.

Aside from all of that, people like Nigel Hayes are incredibly naive. All they look at is the revenue side and don't bother looking at the expenses. It costs a hell of a lot of money to educate, feed, house, equip, transport, train, etc., etc. just one student athlete. Now imagine doing it for hundreds of them. And that's not even getting into the costs for hiring coaches, building and maintaining buildings, etc., etc.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
34
Points
48
He probably wouldn't be broke if he declared last year and was playing professionally right now.

So shut your mouth, you entitled prick.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,767
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Pretty tough to pursue the real education of your choice (not preselected bunny courses to keep you eligible), assuming that you are academically prepared in the first place, when you already have a physically demanding full time job for half of the year. The job drops down to about half time the other six months of the year.
Hudson Fasching, Eric Decker, Andre Hollins, and Nick Bjugstad all did pretty well for themselves academically despite having to deal with a D-1 sports schedule.

With what a raw deal the scholarship athletes are getting, it is no wonder that NCAA basketball and football coaches have so much trouble finding anyone to accept their scholarship offers.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,767
Reaction score
45
Points
48
If you really think capitalism means you have to pay labor whatever they want, then you don't understand capitalism.
Agreed. These "capitalism" comments are bizarre. This is competition at work. OSU can keep Barrett despite "only" offering him a scholarship, because he is willing to play in exchange for the scholarship. He could go play semi-pro somewhere else, but he doesn't because he thinks the scholarship is a better offer than semi-professional football.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
24,516
Reaction score
365
Points
83
Hudson Fasching, Eric Decker, Andre Hollins, and Nick Bjugstad all did pretty well for themselves academically despite having to deal with a D-1 sports schedule.

With what a raw deal the scholarship athletes are getting, it is no wonder that NCAA basketball and football coaches have so much trouble finding anyone to accept their scholarship offers.
Wasn't there a recent OL that was pre-med also? Christenson?
 

Winasota Gopher

Deep Insider
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
6,648
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Agreed. These "capitalism" comments are bizarre. This is competition at work. OSU can keep Barrett despite "only" offering him a scholarship, because he is willing to play in exchange for the scholarship. He could go play semi-pro somewhere else, but he doesn't because he thinks the scholarship is a better offer than semi-professional football.
You've got to be kidding me.
 

westcoastgopher11

Active member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
0
Points
36
man i knew gh as a whole wouldnt be supportive but damn.

a lot of athletic departments are making big money from these kids, and while outright paying them (and destroying what's left of amateurism) is likely not the answer something more has to be done to ensure these kids are taken care of even if its just a fraction of the profits being pulled in.

d3 to d1 comparisons for the sake of this discussion are worthless thanks for those who have already made that point
 

matt

Let's get weird
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
3,096
Reaction score
128
Points
63
He probably wouldn't be broke if he declared last year and was playing professionally right now.

So shut your mouth, you entitled prick.
This. It's hard to feel bad for someone who chose not to make $200k+ this year.
 

underground629

Active member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
3,387
Reaction score
3
Points
38
There is an easy answer to all of this. The reason that the NCAA doesn't pay athletes is because it's not a sustainable model. If it were, someone would start U.S. pro leagues for football and basketball and employ 18-year-olds in both. If there were money to be made, someone would be doing it. No one is, because it's not a profitable business model.
The leagues you're speaking of wouldn't work because they wouldn't have the massive built-in fan bases like big universities do.
 
Top Bottom