PDA

View Full Version : saban's deal and the players still get no stipends


Heywood
01-03-2007, 01:21 PM
it's kind of jarring, $32 million guaranteed and still no give from those fantrash who moralize against players being paid.

threetoedpete
01-03-2007, 03:50 PM
We've had this war before. Life is not fair. Walt Disney is not God. And no one forced Bama to offer an absurd contract. The players do get a small stiphoned. Plus an education , loan free, that most poor and middle class folks would die for. Whoever told you life is fair...lied. No one is forced to play college football. Bama wants to be foolish with their money so what ?

Lucky
01-03-2007, 04:49 PM
...The players do get a small stiphoned.
??? I guess it's about where the players get the small "stiphoned" in terms of all the money generated by D1 college football. If Bama wants to be foolish with their money and give a high school QB a $million on top of the cost of his education, what's wrong with that? Oh, NCAA rules that keep schools from competing for athletes in this manner. No rules to stop them from giving a coach $32 mil.

Why does the NCAA have rules which forbid schools from offering athletes anything more than tuition, room, and board? Because some schools would be more able to pay athletes, thus creating unfair imbalances in competition. So why doesn't the same standard apply to hiring coaches? Mississippi State can't afford to pay a coach $32 million. How will they ever be able to hire a top coach? If it's OK to cap what an athlete is "paid", why isn't it OK to cap a coach's salary? If it's all about a level playing field?

threetoedpete
01-03-2007, 05:38 PM
Gambleing ? Sabin has signed Acroding to redzone. Gotta ask why on anthing...follow the money.

http://www.theredzone.org/news/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=4799

Heywood
01-03-2007, 06:04 PM
??? I guess it's about where the players get the small "stiphoned" in terms of all the money generated by D1 college football. If Bama wants to be foolish with their money and give a high school QB a $million on top of the cost of his education, what's wrong with that? Oh, NCAA rules that keep schools from competing for athletes in this manner. No rules to stop them from giving a coach $32 mil.

Why does the NCAA have rules which forbid schools from offering athletes anything more than tuition, room, and board? Because some schools would be more able to pay athletes, thus creating unfair imbalances in competition. So why doesn't the same standard apply to hiring coaches? Mississippi State can't afford to pay a coach $32 million. How will they ever be able to hire a top coach? If it's OK to cap what an athlete is "paid", why isn't it OK to cap a coach's salary? If it's all about a level playing field?


if this site has a HOF i'd like to nominate this post.

jdog
01-04-2007, 09:10 AM
??? I guess it's about where the players get the small "stiphoned" in terms of all the money generated by D1 college football. If Bama wants to be foolish with their money and give a high school QB a $million on top of the cost of his education, what's wrong with that? Oh, NCAA rules that keep schools from competing for athletes in this manner. No rules to stop them from giving a coach $32 mil.

Why does the NCAA have rules which forbid schools from offering athletes anything more than tuition, room, and board? Because some schools would be more able to pay athletes, thus creating unfair imbalances in competition. So why doesn't the same standard apply to hiring coaches? Mississippi State can't afford to pay a coach $32 million. How will they ever be able to hire a top coach? If it's OK to cap what an athlete is "paid", why isn't it OK to cap a coach's salary? If it's all about a level playing field?

If they were half as strict on campaign finance we'd have a better government, but what is more important college sports or our government?

Sarg01
01-04-2007, 10:51 AM
I hadn't heard the NCAA ever saying anything about the problem being one of fairness. Rather, I've always heard the argument being that the players are presumably students first and players second.

Thus all the "if you hire an agent you're done" rules and the prohibitions on appearing in advertisements or major sporting events (if I recall correctly, they make exceptions for the Olympics and that's about it)

Lucky
01-04-2007, 11:48 AM
I hadn't heard the NCAA ever saying anything about the problem being one of fairness. Rather, I've always heard the argument being that the players are presumably students first and players second.
NCAA athletes can get paid in sports they aren't playing in college. Ricky Williams & Cedric Benson played minor league baseball while in college. If the NCAA wanted their athletes completely amateur, they wouldn't allow pros from other sports to compete.

In effect, the ban on paying NCAA athletes is a salary cap of sorts. It keeps the schools' labor costs down by not allowing a "foolish school" such as Alabama from starting a signing bonus war to acquire players. How much $$$ comes from college football TV contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise? And it's spread (not evenly) over about 120 Division I schools? It's a cash cow that, for the most part, players don't get to feed off.

Ride 'Em
01-04-2007, 12:24 PM
If schools paid players to come and play football then the vast majority of other teams would shut down. Football (and at some schools basketball) is the cash cow that funds the rest of the athletic department.

You want to pay players? Fine, but that means no more track, baseball, tennis, volleyball, soccer, etc., at least not at a Div-1 level.

Players get scholarships, fees, books, room and board (usually much better food and lodging that average students), the best tutors on campus, outstanding medical care including any needed surgeries and rehab FOR FREE. And the benefits go on and on.

Do they deserve a little extra something with all the revenue generation? Probably. But unfortunately all the money is providing for other sports and filling their coaches' increasingly fat pockets.

Lucky
01-04-2007, 02:03 PM
Do they deserve a little extra something with all the revenue generation? Probably. But unfortunately all the money is providing for other sports and filling their coaches' increasingly fat pockets.
Well, that was the major point of the thread. The inequity between what the coaches and players receive for their efforts.

You make a good point regarding the non-revenue producing sports. Few schools could pay their athletes across the board. That's why football and basketball players would have to become legitimate employees of the university, rather than student-athletes. You give the players salaries and benefits, while making enrollment and academic competency conditions of employment. Title IX is taken out of play.

Why won't the NCAA schools go to an employee-athlete system? Because, they make more $$$ under the student-athlete system. And until football and/or basketball players decide to unionize their ranks, that's how it will be.

Heywood
01-04-2007, 02:04 PM
Well, that was the major point of the thread. The inequity between what the coaches and players receive for their efforts.

You make a good point regarding the non-revenue producing sports. Few schools could pay their athletes across the board. That's why football and basketball players would have to become legitimate employees of the university, rather than student-athletes. You give the players salaries and benefits, while making enrollment and academic competency conditions of employment. Title IX is taken out of play.

Why won't the NCAA schools go to an employee-athlete system? Because, they make more $$$ under the student-athlete system. And until football and/or basketball players decide to unionize their ranks, that's how it will be.

you should get a blog- your stuff is very high quality L.