College football players as amateurs? ESPN agenda.

[Buffnik]

I'm watching First Take this morning and they're talking (as always) about Johnny Manziel.

It's the usual diatribe about how Texas A&M recently raised $740 million, largely on Johnny's back, but that he is raked over the coals for allegedly making some thousands of dollars for sitting down to sign autographs for a couple hours.

Robert Smith joined the panel and the overwhelming opinion of the talking heads is that the NCAA has a bunch of rules designed to protect the perception of a "fantasyland" where college football players are sitting in the same classes and having the same college experience at Dear 'Ole U as the boosters remember as students.

Whereas the reality of playing big time college football is vastly different than that. Manziel, for example, is taking some online classes to stay eligible but that's the extent of his involvement in campus life outside of football-related activities.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. The ESPN argument holds water for the superstars and for a good number of college players who have NFL dreams. But there are also a ton of college football players who value the educational opportunity that being an athlete has provided them.

This is a huge issue with many different facets, so I'm interested in seeing what you guys bring up.

But what motivated me to start this thread is that I'm noticing that all the ESPN on-air talent seem to be on the same side of this issue. They've also taken every opportunity to rip the NCAA as a governing body while not taking players or universities to task for "cheating". That lack of balance makes me believe that the network is driving an agenda. And that agenda is that they have invested heavily in college football, see the long-term value of it, but want to see it maximized.

The way to maximize is to get the Alabama vs. Alabama A&M type games off the schedule. In fact, get the Ohio State vs Toledo type games off the schedule. ESPN (and FoxSports/NBCSports/CBSSports) all want to see the following, or something similar:

• A new organization modeled after the NFL (king of sports entertainment programming) that only includes those colleges that are willing and able to play ball
• They would pay players
• They would simplify and loosen the rules to make it so that only blatant disregard would cause penalty (USC or Miami being down does the networks no good)
• They would ideally have 64 teams in 4 conferences of 16 teams (basically twice the size of the NFL)
• Schedule would be 9 games against your own conference and 1 game each against teams from the other 3 conferences
• Each conference would have a semi-final and final for 2 playoff rounds (possibly a pod system w/ 4 teams per pod)
• After conference champions were named, there would be a 3-round, 8-team national playoff comprised of the conference champions and 4 at-large berths that would crown the national champion
• The value of this would be ridiculous, possibly bigger than the NFL given the volume of games and how every single game played during the regular season would be worth televising

I'm ready for this type of sweeping change. As a fan, I'd get more entertainment from the college football season.

 

[BuffNut99]

ESPN wants to commercialize everything as much as possible because they have the largest $take in the game. If the NCAA goes away, ESPN has that much more influence on what the game looks like. The BCS was an obstacle, and now that is going away and ESPN stands to profit with additional playoff games. Once the superconferences are formed, ESPN will be at the table when format and schedules are decided because they will be the largest broadcaster. No one can get enough of college football, and ESPN wants to push the sport to the edge. Fox and the conference TV networks (Big10N, PAC12N) are just eating the crumbs. I don't trust ESPN at all after it ruined the NHL at the expense of pushing the NBA down my throat, and since it became MTV with sports.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

ESPN wants to commercialize everything as much as possible because they have the largest $take in the game. If the NCAA goes away, ESPN has that much more influence on what the game looks like. The BCS was an obstacle, and now that is going away and ESPN stands to profit with additional playoff games. Once the superconferences are formed, ESPN will be at the table when format and schedules are decided because they will be the largest broadcaster. No one can get enough of college football, and ESPN wants to push the sport to the edge. Fox and the conference TV networks (Big10N, PAC12N) are just eating the crumbs. I don't trust ESPN at all after it ruined the NHL at the expense of pushing the NBA down my throat, and since it became MTV with sports.

ymssr

 

[Alfred91]

**** ESPN.

That's my contribution.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Going to have to get rid of Title IX before any players get paid. Unless you plan to pay the female tennis player the same amount as the star QB.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Mike Golic is about the only name in the ESPN universe arguing on for the student/athlete side. He's stubborn enough and a big enough name that he can ignore his Bristol overloads desires.

 

[Dark Bohner]

The funny this is that a large portion of the extra revenue that schools receive is from donors. Donors aren't required to donate, so they can't really be forced to pay the players as opposed to donating directly to the school. Not sure how a school can be forced to pay players from athletics donations.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Simple solution, quit watching ESPN.

 

[somebody]

College is in session for roughly 8 months in the period from before September past the end of May, yet they only play for about 3 months. Why do college football players get so much time off? Work their asses a little harder, IYAM. ESPN can still learn a thing or two from the allegedly dead hookers' bosses...

 

[Liver]

nik, as you know, i agree and think you are spot-on.

i'd add a few other things---

1. players get licensing revenue from their names/likenesses. either put it into a pot and divide it evenly among all players or allow the stars to get a bit more; either way, i don't care.
2. loosen the academic requirements for players and make them the same for every school in the org.
3. require that the school, at its own expense, must pay up to 5 years of full cost of attendance for any player that leaves and doesn't complete his degree and then decides to come back later to finish up.
4. full health and disability insurance for life for anything resulting from playing for all players.
5. player representation on the org governing body.
6. major injury insurance for anyone who has stays and plays rather than turns pro early.
7. more flexibility on medical waivers on eligibility.
8. an nba style draft analysis so that a player can get evaluated and make an informed decision before turning pro.
9. stricter enforcement of practice limits.
10. no contact with high school recruits at all, except in very limited time periods.

 

[Darth Snow]

nik, as you know, i agree and think you are spot-on.

i'd add a few other things---

1. players get licensing revenue from their names/likenesses. either put it into a pot and divide it evenly among all players or allow the stars to get a bit more; either way, i don't care.
2. loosen the academic requirements for players and make them the same for every school in the org.
3. require that the school, at its own expense, must pay up to 5 years of full cost of attendance for any player that leaves and doesn't complete his degree and then decides to come back later to finish up.
4. full health and disability insurance for life for anything resulting from playing for all players.
5. player representation on the org governing body.
6. major injury insurance for anyone who has stays and plays rather than turns pro early.
7. more flexibility on medical waivers on eligibility.
8. an nba style draft analysis so that a player can get evaluated and make an informed decision before turning pro.
9. stricter enforcement of practice limits.
10. no contact with high school recruits at all, except in very limited time periods.

oh man, #4 is gonna be a sticking point. :lol:.

However it would certainly help the workers' compensation bar!

 

[SINKRATZ]

I don't doubt that ESPN stands to gain from a system as you described, but I'm not sure it reaches to the level where the talking heads are pushing an agenda. I think a lot of those folks are former star athletes who wish they had been paid and frankly don't relate to the average, non-superstar player that is getting an education and playing a game he loves and may not necessarily want to be part of the big business college football machine.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

If something like this happened, I would petition CU to drop all athletics.

 

[azbuff]

I don't really care if the players are paid or not, but paying the players creates huge issues. How does Title IX come in to play? Are we going to be paying our women's lacrosse players the same as PRich? Granting all college players the rights to license their name and image (while retaining their eligibility) solves this problem. I'm not sure the powers that be will go for that, though.

I am also concerned from a purely selfish standpoint. Almost all scenarios for paying players (including the licensing option) ensure that Colorado football (or basketball, for that matter) will never compete with the big boys. Unless it is just a blanket stipend across all schools, we'll be with OSU, WSU and Utah at the bottom of the PAC-12 because we don't have the resources or the donors to keep up with UW, Oregon, UCLA, USC or even the Arizona schools.

I am quite tired of the media slant that collegiate athletics is some kind of slavery or indentured servitude. Disregarding the fact that a full scholarship (including room and board) is quite valuable, the athletes get a ton of free apparel and the opportunity to travel around the country and experience things most people never will. More importantly, for those with professional potential, college athletics gives 1-5 years of free training for developing that potential. For those without pro prospects, listing the fact that you were a DI athlete on your resume for life is pretty much invaluable. There is some study out there that came to the conclusion that participating in collegiate athletics is the number 1 resume booster out there. Do athletes always get fair market value? No. Maybe 1-2% of collegiate athletes don't get fair market value for their services. When you are starting out in a profession, you rarely do. Ask any intern or, for that matter, any professional musician who's first album goes platinum while they see mere pennies from every record sold. If the powers that be come to the conclusion that players should be paid, so be it. But let's stop pretending like collegiate athletes aren't already reaping lifelong benefits from participation in collegiate athletics.

 

[torero]

The thing that frustrates me most about this debate(or agenda pushing if you prefer) is they make the false assumption that college football players are somehow forced to play college football. They aren't slaves, they enter into an agreement to play college football in exchange for their education. If I had that opportunity, I would be ecstatic. Is it the best system for the Johnny Football elite types, probably not, but for the rank and file college football player, its a tremendous opportunity for your college to be played for and maybe even impress enough to get a shot at the next level.

 

[slider]

Players get enough. For every Manziel you have thousands of scrubs who suck and lose their University money. Manziel will have no problem making money off endorsements after his cfb career is over, even if he sucks in the NFL. He will have no problem finding a job in Texas after he graduates.

Every college player gets:
1. Free tuition/books
2. Free room and board
3. Free food
4. Jersey chasers (and a lot of them)
5. Treated like royalty on/near campus
6. Free trips all over the country
7. Some sort of spending stipend iirc

That's plenty

 

[torero]

It appears Slider, AZ and myself all posted at about the same thing with pretty much the same sentiment. Rep to you two.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

It appears Slider, AZ and myself all posted at about the same thing with pretty much the same sentiment. Rep to you two.

ditto

 

[Liver]

a few retorts:

1. the pay would have to be on a scale, equalized across all participating schools. there is no way that a majority of the major programs will agree to anything else.

2. those of you that don't think this would generate cash are way off the mark. this would be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. for sure. that pays for a lot of the other stuff that folks would want to do.

3. yes, all scholarship athletes, men or women, would be on the same pay scale. remember that now football pays for all the non-rev generating sports at most major schools. now, imagine it on steroids with many more millions of dollars in annual revenue coming in. you can easily cover off all the ancillary issues like title ix.

4. this levels the playing field. that's one reason the commissioners of the big 10, the big 12, and the pac12, along with gordon gee, are already discussing this. all participating schools play by the same rules-- on pay, academic requirements, etc. sure, there will still be disparity between schools that have huge donor bases and are willing to do multi-million dollar facilities upgrades at their own expense, but we have that now. so what? the forces in favor of this want to jettison the schools that can't keep up and put those that can on a more equal footing.

5. pretending that there is some false standard of the student-athlete in this day and age is just silly. right now, the way the system is trending, the players are nothing more than monetizable assets, used by the schools for tv dollars. eliminate the hypocrisy and allow them to be compensated for their efforts. bill gates, steve jobs, and the facebook kid all dropped out of school early to pursue their passion and to monetize their skills. athletes don't exactly have that luxury. they have to work within a system that treats them as servants until they reach a certain age, etc.

 

[BuffWarHog]

I am also concerned from a purely selfish standpoint. Almost all scenarios for paying players (including the licensing option) ensure that Colorado football (or basketball, for that matter) will never compete with the big boys. Unless it is just a blanket stipend across all schools, we'll be with OSU, WSU and Utah at the bottom of the PAC-12 because we don't have the resources or the donors to keep up with UW, Oregon, UCLA, USC or even the Arizona schools.

I am quite tired of the media slant that collegiate athletics is some kind of slavery or indentured servitude. Disregarding the fact that a full scholarship (including room and board) is quite valuable, the athletes get a ton of free apparel and the opportunity to travel around the country and experience things most people never will. More importantly, for those with professional potential, college athletics gives 1-5 years of free training for developing that potential. For those without pro prospects, listing the fact that you were a DI athlete on your resume for life is pretty much invaluable. There is some study out there that came to the conclusion that participating in collegiate athletics is the number 1 resume booster out there. Do athletes always get fair market value? No. Maybe 1-2% of collegiate athletes don't get fair market value for their services. When you are starting out in a profession, you rarely do. Ask any intern or, for that matter, any professional musician who's first album goes platinum while they see mere pennies from every record sold. If the powers that be come to the conclusion that players should be paid, so be it. But let's stop pretending like collegiate athletes aren't already reaping lifelong benefits from participation in collegiate athletics.

Players get enough. For every Manziel you have thousands of scrubs who suck and lose their University money. Manziel will have no problem making money off endorsements after his cfb career is over, even if he sucks in the NFL. He will have no problem finding a job in Texas after he graduates.

Every college player gets:
1. Free tuition/books
2. Free room and board
3. Free food
4. Jersey chasers (and a lot of them)
5. Treated like royalty on/near campus
6. Free trips all over the country
7. Some sort of spending stipend iirc

That's plenty

+1. Yes - totally agree with this. As soon as college football becomes "professional", I'm done watching. I enjoy it for the passion, the underdogs, the diversity of teams. All the reasons I HATE pro football.

I think they should create an NFL farm league, like MLB. If you think you're that good out of high school, go play Farm Football, get paid. I think it would level out the college competition, and it would ensure that those going to college actually wanted the education. And if you chose to go to school, you couldn't leave until you finished your junior year.

 

[SJBuff]

I'm having trouble articulating my point well, but the bottom line is...

Please don't make CFB like the NFL. I fear CFB would lose it's soul and become bottom line focused, predictable and boring...just like the NFL (No Fun League).

I know you guys are going to say that "CFB is already bottom line focused at most schools"...yada yada yada. That maybe true for most of the schools out there, but for the vast majority of the athletes playing it's not. Most play because they love it. And that's something special. It's magic. It's a key ingredient (maybe the key ingredient) that makes CFB great. I fear that if you start paying the athletes, they will start playing for the paycheck and not for something bigger, something more inspirational, and when that inspiration is lost CFB will start to look just like the NFL only slower and smaller.

I don't like that Colleges make millions off the athletes and the athletes get none of the $$, but I don't know of a way to keep the soul of CFB intact while making sure the athletes are rewarded for their efforts. If someone can come up with a way that does that, I'm in full support.

I just think we need to be very careful about what we change. We cannot assume that if we make an change like starting to pay athletes, that the athlete's behaviors won't change as well.

Rip away... (they deserve to get paid...It's already a business...they're already getting paid now via a scholarship what's the harm in adding $$...players aren't going to stop loving football because they get a paycheck...) Yeah, I know. All rational arguments, just don't forget about the soul. Once it's corrupted, it's hard to get back.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

a few retorts:

1. the pay would have to be on a scale, equalized across all participating schools. there is no way that a majority of the major programs will agree to anything else.

2. those of you that don't think this would generate cash are way off the mark. this would be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. for sure. that pays for a lot of the other stuff that folks would want to do.

3. yes, all scholarship athletes, men or women, would be on the same pay scale. remember that now football pays for all the non-rev generating sports at most major schools. now, imagine it on steroids with many more millions of dollars in annual revenue coming in. you can easily cover off all the ancillary issues like title ix.

4. this levels the playing field. that's one reason the commissioners of the big 10, the big 12, and the pac12, along with gordon gee, are already discussing this. all participating schools play by the same rules-- on pay, academic requirements, etc. sure, there will still be disparity between schools that have huge donor bases and are willing to do multi-million dollar facilities upgrades at their own expense, but we have that now. so what? the forces in favor of this want to jettison the schools that can't keep up and put those that can on a more equal footing.

5. pretending that there is some false standard of the student-athlete in this day and age is just silly. right now, the way the system is trending, the players are nothing more than monetizable assets, used by the schools for tv dollars. eliminate the hypocrisy and allow them to be compensated for their efforts. bill gates, steve jobs, and the facebook kid all dropped out of school early to pursue their passion and to monetize their skills. athletes don't exactly have that luxury. they have to work within a system that treats them as servants until they reach a certain age, etc.

I would quit watching.

 

[Liver]

I would quit watching.

sadly, i suspect (although i can't prove at this moment) that you will be in a very small minority of fans. i think this will skyrocket viewership and ratings.

i understand the longing for the ideal of amateurism, but that got flushed down the drain years ago. when the concept inordinately punishes the most important component of the sport (the players), then i think we need to take a hard look at where we are.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

sadly, i suspect (although i can't prove at this moment) that you will be in a very small minority of fans. i think this will skyrocket viewership and ratings.

i understand the longing for the ideal of amateurism, but that got flushed down the drain years ago. when the concept inordinately punishes the most important component of the sport (the players), then i think we need to take a hard look at where we are.

How would it skyrocket ratings? I'm not seeing that.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Those that are against it don't realize that CFB has already lost its soul. Its already a professional league that just needs some polishing.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Alternatively, if we end up headed toward the "give the players what they earn/deserve" - maybe there could be a trust set up in each player's name and their worth calculated throughout the years - i.e. Johnny F-in F-hole earned aTM $740 million dollars. Take that money, put it in the trust, and then pay it out once the kid graduates or gets drafted (but not just up and transfers).

 

[Liver]

How would it skyrocket ratings? I'm not seeing that.

set up like the nfl, with all teams on a more equal footing, and a true playoff system.

plus, i'd point you to the ncaa tournament for supporting evidence. the expansion and commercialization of the tourney has literally increased the topline revenue by billions of dollars.

 

[BuffNut99]

4. this levels the playing field. that's one reason the commissioners of the big 10, the big 12, and the pac12, along with gordon gee, are already discussing this. all participating schools play by the same rules-- on pay, academic requirements, etc. sure, there will still be disparity between schools that have huge donor bases and are willing to do multi-million dollar facilities upgrades at their own expense, but we have that now. so what? the forces in favor of this want to jettison the schools that can't keep up and put those that can on a more equal footing.

The playing field would be more uneven than ever. Most schools would struggle to just pay players and everything else (facilities, recruiting, travel, ADs) would suffer. Only about 10-20 schools would thrive. Yes, there are X number of schools dominating under the current system, but most of them cheat and may get caught. Plus, there are still cycles and parity in the current system.

This can all be fixed by having a larger stipend that is the same for all athletes under scholarship at every school, every sport, which gets evaluated each year for cost of living/cost of education increases.

 

[BlackNGold]

I think if they ever start paying college athletes then you would start to see a lot of unintended consequences. Such as, if I am paying someone and they don't pan out then I fire them. I would expect to see the same thing in college football. I think in the long run it will hurt the sport.

 

[BuffUp]

Players get enough. For every Manziel you have thousands of scrubs who suck and lose their University money. Manziel will have no problem making money off endorsements after his cfb career is over, even if he sucks in the NFL. He will have no problem finding a job in Texas after he graduates.

Every college player gets:
1. Free tuition/books
2. Free room and board
3. Free food
4. Jersey chasers (and a lot of them)
5. Treated like royalty on/near campus
6. Free trips all over the country
7. Some sort of spending stipend iirc

That's plenty

in agreement here. They are lucky to get all that.