Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The "APU" Movement

DBT

DBT

Club Member
Club Member
I have to ask, this "All Players United" thing is a joke, right? I was thinking about this. It seems as if some of these kids believe the NCAA's football revenue success is all about them. I have news for them, for the biggest part, NCAA football is not "star" driven. It is "program" driven.

Yeah, the aTm fans love watching Johnny play. But when Johnny leaves, the fans will keep showing up. Another point is that on any given team there are way more roll players than super stars. If these star players believe its about them, that the fans pay the money to see them or buy a video game because they are on it, then do they want the brunt of the money over their non-star teammates?

i really like the idea of letting football go the way of baseball with a minor league system. Then these "stars" can just go pro if that's what they want. I'm sure the fans will flock to Grand Junction to see Johnny Manziel play for the Grand Junction Broncos.
 
Apu_Nahasapeemapetilon_-_shading.png
 
This has gotten way out of hand, and its becoming ridiculous. The video game thing is free exposure and advertising revenue for these schools, and both sides are being ridiculously greedy. Paying football players is a slippery slope, as well. If you pay football players, you'll go through this with basketball (even though they can turn pro after a year), and eventually the non-revenue sports will want in on the fun. Two solutions----One, let EA make the game, and give the players a small piece of the pie. Same thing for college basketball, and college baseball (if you wanted to go that way---I'm sure there is a market for both). Two, let the studs profit off their own likenesses---autograph signings, jerseys (It seems silly to me that A&M took down a #2 jersey because they didn't want to give Johnny Hancock some of the profits), etc.
 
entitlement? besides who determines the pay? and which sports get paid? are the bench warmers paid? are schools with more $ going to be able to pay their athletes more? Really would make it hard to compete in the recruiting world against the haves if you are a have not
 
Well, also, once you have a conduit in place to pay players, it will be abused. How the hell is the NCAA going to track the money, where and who it comes from and how much a player gets? But my main point is that these guys need a reality check. The college game is not about them. It isn't like the NFL where fans will actually pay to see a star.

In the Henderson article (hate citing that asshat), he interviewed Chidera who said he gets $1,000 a month for room and board. Because of the high rent, he usually has to get help from his parents at the end of the month. Why not have a cost of living factor for different cities? Boulder is probably a lot more expensive than Lubbock, for instance.
 
BuffUp said:
entitlement? besides who determines the pay? and which sports get paid? are the bench warmers paid? are schools with more $ going to be able to pay their athletes more? Really would make it hard to compete in the recruiting world against the haves if you are a have not
Click to expand...
If they go down this road, all scholarship athletes will have to get paid equally. Title IX.
 
I see lawyers getting evolved at that point. Which means they are on the payroll also. Someone needs to squish this idea. Really do not see it as a benefit. I see it just like pro sports driving the cost up and pushing fans (including broke college kids) unable to attend games.
 
BuffUp said:
I see lawyers getting evolved at that point. Which means they are on the payroll also. Someone needs to squish this idea. Really do not see it as a benefit. I see it just like pro sports driving the cost up and pushing fans (including broke college kids) unable to attend games.
Click to expand...
Evolved into what?
 
I remember the Wright Thompson article about Manziel earlier this summer that quoted his Dad saying something like Sumlin makes millions while his kid doesn't get a dime. So the coaches have nothing to do with the success of the players? If that was the case why are ADs wasting so much money paying coaches? In some way shape or form all these players are given the opportunity to increase their earning potential in the future. Whether its playing in the pros or using the degree they hopefully earned,which was paid for in exchange for them playing a game representing their school. Even if Manziel never played another down of football again,a former Heisman winner is marketable somewhere to someone. I guess its the greedy selfish world we live in these days.
 
DBT said:
If they go down this road, all scholarship athletes will have to get paid equally. Title IX.
Click to expand...

This is the the killing issue. The courts have already made clear that equal funding means just that.

For lots of schools if they had to fund pay for all athletes you might as well kiss goodbye any non-revenue sport over the minimum. We have already seen numerous mens sports cut at schools all over the country. Some of these sports may not have enough schools left to field a competitive schedule.

You also get into a realm where right now they can call sports a voluntary student activity. Move from financial assistance to compensation and suddenly you are looking at federal and state wage and hour laws. You have to pay every athlete at least minimum wage plus pay Social Security, Medicare, etc. (provide Obamacare) for every hour of participation in activities related to their sport, provide workmans compensation, etc. so the idea of a simple flat stipend probably wouldn't last long once the lawyers got ahold of it.
 
OrangeBowl said:
I remember the Wright Thompson article about Manziel earlier this summer that quoted his Dad saying something like Sumlin makes millions while his kid doesn't get a dime. So the coaches have nothing to do with the success of the players? If that was the case why are ADs wasting so much money paying coaches? In some way shape or form all these players are given the opportunity to increase their earning potential in the future. Whether its playing in the pros or using the degree they hopefully earned,which was paid for in exchange for them playing a game representing their school. Even if Manziel never played another down of football again,a former Heisman winner is marketable somewhere to someone. I guess its the greedy selfish world we live in these days.
Click to expand...
The reason you go to college, even if you do not play sports.
 
DBT said:
If they go down this road, all scholarship athletes will have to get paid equally. Title IX.
Click to expand...

What about allowing them to profit from the use of their likenesses? Would anybody here have a problem with buying a CU #6 jersey if it said Richardson on the back and he got a cut of the profits?
 
Apparently, there's a way to avoid Title IX complications while only having marketing revenue dollars paid to football and men's basketball players. I'm not sure on the legal specifics, but allegedly that has been considered and accounted for by the lawyers lobbying that side of the debate.

Personally, I'm struggling with this issue.

On the one hand, I'm a capitalist. It's hard for me to find an argument from that standpoint on why an athlete, as long as he or she met college classroom obligations, should be unable to participate in college sports if he or she made some money signing autographs or doing a local car dealership ad.

My belief in capitalism competes, however, with my love of college athletics and not being sure I'd like it all that much if, for example, Memphis all of a sudden became a national power because FedEx found a way to pay those players a bunch of money. If not handled correctly, this could turn these into corporate club teams instead of college teams. I wouldn't be very interested in that and I wonder if there's a way to put restrictions in place that would avoid that while also holding up to legal challenge. Once you've opened the door a crack, is there any way to avoid the door being busted all the way open? That's my concern. I really couldn't care less if Manziel makes some extra money signing autographs or Bloom gets himself some corporate sponsors in relation to his ski career or if Ohio State players decide to give a tattoo parlor some signed gear in exchange for some ink.
 
DBT said:
It isn't like the NFL where fans will actually pay to see a star.
Click to expand...

Yeah its totally not like that at all, A&M didnt raise 200% more money then they ever have before in the last year, EA sports didnt make 100's of millions of the NCAA franchise, espn and ABC aren't marketing stars at all when it comes to big match-ups so they can sell more ads, and no one ever bought a ticket with the motivation to watch Salaam, Kordel, Hagan, or The Rocket play.


DBT said:
In the Henderson article (hate citing that asshat), he interviewed Chidera who said he gets $1,000 a month for room and board. Because of the high rent, he usually has to get help from his parents at the end of the month. Why not have a cost of living factor for different cities? Boulder is probably a lot more expensive than Lubbock, for instance.
Click to expand...

Yeah because that wont be abused at all.


You sound like a grumpy, naive, old man - these kids are going out and risking life and limb in some cases to make everyone but themselves money, they have a very real and fair question to ask.
 
ahoelsken said:
What about allowing them to profit from the use of their likenesses? Would anybody here have a problem with buying a CU #6 jersey if it said Richardson on the back and he got a cut of the profits?
Click to expand...

Yes, with both. I don't want his name on the jersey and he shouldn't get a cut of the profits. The value in the jersey is in the University's name on front, not the player's name on back. You only need to look at minor league baseball and hockey to know what the value of a player is. Remove the player from the university and put them into a minor league team and their value drops to the $1200/month that they get, with little to no rights to their name on jerseys sold to the public.
 
absinthe said:
Yeah its totally not like that at all, A&M didnt raise 200% more money then they ever have before in the last year, EA sports didnt make 100's of millions of the NCAA franchise, espn and ABC aren't marketing stars at all when it comes to big match-ups so they can sell more ads, and no one ever bought a ticket with the motivation to watch Salaam, Kordel, Hagan, or The Rocket play.
Click to expand...

True. But the money was raised in donations. A semi-professional college football organization has absolutely no way of telling donors how they donate to the school, so it cannot be counted on as revenue to fund athletic compensation.
 
buffedup said:
True. But the money was raised in donations. A semi-professional college football organization has absolutely no way of telling donors how they donate to the school, so it cannot be counted on as revenue to fund athletic compensation.
Click to expand...

And that brings up an interesting point on the players' side of the debate. Follow the money, they say. Colleges are not fighting this because of some noble belief in the purity of the college game. They're fighting it because they're worried that donors, corporate sponsors, video game companies, and television networks will decide to pay a good chunk of their millions to the athletes instead of to the colleges. And that is the Pandora's Box they're really worried about.

However, while that may be true, it's not like university presidents and regents are getting wealthy off college football contracts. That money goes to pay for enriching campus life with a bunch of other scholarship sports, club teams, etc. that all lose money. In fact, they lose so much money that it's common even for BCS conference programs to have their ADs at least 20% funded by the universities and tax payers. Athletic Departments are rarely profit centers for colleges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top