I'll be entering the portal as I seek my final year of eligibility. "When the time is right, I the lord will make it happen." pic.twitter.com/Ce7ng15LxL— Jason Brown (@JasonBrown_QB) December 5, 2022
He is attempting to get a 7th year of eligibility.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Good luck to JB!
Dude gonna be around almost as long as Dwayne Lawson
Good luck to him, hope he finds a good landing spot.
I think this is a sign that the Staff is really looking at bringing in another QB for competition next year.
He didn't get on the field here. good luck to him.
Well that was fast lol. Are schools in contact with players before they enter the portal?
Directly, No, or at least it's illegal. Indirectly, absolutely.
Proxy recruiting is very active. It seems the most popular way to proxy recruit is via the player's HS coach, but I think coaches are looking for any way to connect with people within the player's circle. There was a few articles about proxy recruiting with USC and Addison being the most famous recruitment last year. This year though, it seems every FBS and FCS coach has been proxy recruiting.
For instance, according to Mack Brown, Drake Maye was proxy recruited despite never being directly contacted:
And you can bet that Delane also had some major offers, which he shut down with this (or at least I'm reading between the lines here):
NIL collectives are also very involved, which can never directly recruit even when the player is in the portal, according to NCAA rules. But it's clear NIL offers have been a major influence on portal recruiting. I don't know how much of these J.T. Daniels rumors are true, but it sheds a light on NIL influence, wasted money, and a player's pursuit to make a bag:
I doubt J.T. will make that much money in the portal this year, but it is clear that at least some players are entering the portal with NIL demands. And based on the Drake Maye rumors, players are being proxy recruited with promised NIL deals. It's a new world.
Aren't all NILs proxy recruiting? Schools are not involved in NIL, but if I wanted to offer some one $ 50k the spokes person for a Blacksburg VA business that would require in person appearance on and around gamedays then didn't I just recruit them with out recruiting them?
Is that person already on the team? If yes, then it wouldn't be considered recruiting. If they're a recruit, then I agree it would be in the realm of proxy recruiting. And if it was a formal offer to a recruit, it would likely be considered a violation by the NCAA under their rules, but I doubt the NCAA would enforce.
What ncaa rules? Lol
...quoting every SEC booster
Thanks for the breakdown! Oof, reading about NIL stuff makes me kinda sick. College football is going to be so broken the more this stuff goes on. I do think the players have a right to have some earnings considering they generate it though.
The longer this NIL shit goes on, the more I hate it and the NCAA for being idiots and doing nothing about it when the writing was clearly on the wall.
Just like everything, the basis and logic behind it is solid and valid, but as soon as you allow unrestricted money it all goes sideways.
Hold up... mid 6 figures - as in half a million dollars? to play QB for WVU coming off a 3-8 season? yeah bullshit.
Maybe the six figures include the two to the right of the decimal ... then it would make cents. ;>)
Growing up with a lot of their boosters, they all have way more money than sense. So I could see it.
It's a "package" so might not mean all in one year. I would assume to prevent the type of thing that happened with the Ohio State QB that got a big chunk of money then transferred after his freshman year, that maybe they are structuring deals that might incentivize sticking around, like possibly some sort of vesting schedule or some money in year 1, then more money in year to (assuming fully vested in that scenario).
I know this is very nitpicky, and I don't mean to be a dick, but it's not 'illegal'; it's just against NCAA rules. I know I sound douchey, but I do think that's an important distinction to make - these kids aren't doing anything illegal, or (I would argue) even unethical. The NCAA's system is designed to be exploited.
This is a very lawyerly thing - A team/NIL collective can't offer a prospect a contract, but they can say "we expect a quality starting QB with 25k instagram followers to make between $100k and $200k in a year if they sign 500 autographs, do 5-10 sponsored posts, and do 3-5 appearances with alumni groups." The other thing they can do is offer comparisons: "Our last starting QB made $500k in NIL money" or "The team average is $25k in NIL money, and QB is typically the highest earner on the team."
David Ubben at The Athletic and Matt Brown at Extra Points did a lot of really good reporting on NIL over the previous offseason.
Yes, you are correct. It is a violation of the National Collegiate Athletic Associations bylaws.
I apologize to anyone actually that I led to believe there would be government law enforcement under the laws of the United States, the state, or local jurisdiction.
How do you feel when a referee penalizes a team for illegal formation?
That's actually in the U.S. Constitution. Little known fact.
Depends upon which team is being penalized :-)
Daniels demanded a 4 bedroom house and a personal chef from Oregon St...for fucks sake man
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-cost-of-college-football
I think I'm in the minority here, but I am so psyched about all these NIL deals, it's great seeing boosters with lots of money and little sense hand out millions to players. It's also great seeing people so up-in-arms about it because the more money that gets passed around, and the more outrage it generates, the closer we get to the true solution: organized player representation demanding a share of TV rights deals.
Leg - I couldn't agree more.
The more I follow/learn about European Soccer, the more convinced I am that college football needs to be replaced with multi tiered pro and semi-pro leagues. Obviously the dream would be a promo/relegation league - that won't happen unfortunately - but see no reason why we can't have 200+ pro/semi-pro football teams in the US. The UK has nearly 120 fully professional soccer teams, and their population is a fifth of ours.
No, the true solution is professional minor leagues. In what other field/industry do interns and trainees get a share of revenues? It's nonsense.
Academic research probably generates 5-10x the revenues of athletics, but you don't see any clamoring for grad students to be getting a share of those revenues. They get a small salary and tuition. That's about it.
And frankly most of them contribute as much or more to those revenues than 90% of football athletes and about 95% of all athletes to athletic revenues. The vast majority of athletics come and go and someone else wears their number - and nothing changes in terms of athletic revenue. They're replaceable trainees getting access to world-class facilities and developmental coaching to prepare them for making real money in their chosen athletic profession if they actually have the necessary talent and drive.
College athletes don't generate revenue. The name on the jersey generates the revenue. If you want to find the true worth of 19 yr old athletes, let them do it without the old alma mater spirit and riding a bus from Des Moines to Omaha on a $25 per diem - and see how much they're really worth.
I'm not pollyanna enough to think the hurdles to getting to the true solution aren't virtually insurmountable. But giving college athletes collective bargained revenue sharing is not the true solution. If anything, it would exacerbate the entitlement of talented, but not truly gifted, individuals.
I don't think 'interns' is an apt description of college football players. Interns are basically a trial run for full time employment. College football players are not auditioning for a job with their current 'employer'. They are the labor.
This analogy doesn't really fit:
People don't get paid based on how much they revenue they bring in. The are paid based on how the market values them (eg; how much will the 'next best option' pay). The reality is, there are 1,430 starting positions on P5 football teams (22 x 65). Google says that there are 1,093,234 high school football players. So that means that each team is competing for roughly 0.1% of the population. That's why college football players have value.
The real question we should be asking - that no one wants to admit - is why do these kids need to be college students? For most football players and basketball players, the whole thing is a farce - Universities are lowering admission standards for Athletes. Athletes are discouraged (and often forced away) from taking majors that don't fit their sport's schedule. Then, Athletes are basically encouraged to stay eligible by any means necessary (switching to an easier major that may have lesser professional value, hundreds of anecdotes of tutors doing homework for athletes, professors being pressured to change grades, etc). Many players graduate, and aren't really prepared for any career other than being a football coach. And, if you're cynical like I am, you'd believe that this is intentionally done, so that former players become high school coaches, and can funnel more recruits back to the university.
Why not just have the Blacksburg Hokies, and players have the option to enroll in school, and the Blacksburg Hokies will pay tuition to VT (like other jobs that do tuition reimbursement)? England has 140 fully professional soccer teams. I think there's enough interest in the US to have 200+ professional football teams (assuming all college teams were professionalized).
Or, at the minimum, allow football players to 'major' in football, coaching, and leadership. If they actually are 'studying' to be a football player/coach, then let them do that. Don't lie about how they're majoring in basketweaving despite football being their primary (and often times singular) professional goal.
exactly, cardale jones aint go to anOSU to play school
Typically sales gets a share of revenue, the rest of us get nothing even when we actually do sales' job because they don't want to travel so you spend a month in the middle of winter in Nebraska and find out the customer wasn't even told ant of our product line outside of what they asked for because they weren't asking about future problems that any one worth their job could see that there was an entire other product line that they also need so you spec everything out and get their demo systems running and the sales person never talks to you or knows you name all you get is a thank you email from your boss but what does that matter since raises are capped a 3% and you've always been top 10% ranking at the company and that sales girl gets $1.2 mil from the work you did and all she had to do was ask my boss for some one to do her work for her and fax over the finalized bom that you put together.
Or something like that so I've heard from industry.
Bro you gotta save that angst for the Hatin' On thread
Too much to unpack here and to little time to address it all, but I think you only half have it right.
My basic point was 1) nobody is making athletes and students attend and work at the university for piddling financial return - if you think you are undervalued at this stage of your TRAINING, go out and get it elsewhere 2) the vast, vast majority of college athletes (even in revenue sports) have no real value athletically - which professional minor leagues would expose.
Please don't tell me grad students don't have an alternative but to work at the university. If they don't have an alternative it's because, duh, they are still in training and don't have much value yet in the real world. The same with athletes. Or artists. Or writers.
Playing/working in the university environment is actually pretty cushy. There's a reason some people never want to leave it and are willing to take less money to do so. It's the trade-off.
Ok, I might buy a major in coaching and leadership, but "football"? Go join a minor professional league if that's what you want to - which brings me full circle back to that being the real answer. If you're good enough, you might make some money. If not, you won't - and putting them into a football "major" is even more disingenuous than basket-weaving.
Either way, don't expect to get a share of revenues if you choose to stay in college and play football as an extra-curricular activity which pays for your eduction, training, etc.
This is definitely inaccurate in the high-grade research setting. Postdocs work 60 hours a week for salaries that have an average around $60K, typically in expensive cities. Research staff work less hours, but the pay is less or only slightly better if they have a PhD. Then, if you're lucky enough to get a principal investigator position, the endless amount effort to get grants and publish research is super stressful and the pay starts generally in the low to mid $100K. And the stress to get tenure, especially at major research university, is very high. There is a chance all the hard work you put in the last 18 years (PhD + Postdoc + untenured faculty) will result in not having a job. And even after tenure, to maintain any success you have to stay within the rat-race of getting grants, publishing, and monthly academic presentations at various institutions and/or society meetings.
Cushy is the antithesis of the university research environment.
It doesn't get cushy in the research environment until the tenured faculty member becomes old after years of success (meaning you already made the university a lot of money via grants). If you're tenured and old and didn't have success, you're politely asked to retire.
I should note that this experience is likely different depending on (1) field of endeavor and (2) institution prestige. My experiences as graduate student were at UCSD in biomedical sciences. What I saw first hand made me not want to be postdoc or PI. Too much pain for too little monetary reward. And notably, UCSD is known for their "relaxed" environment because it's in San Diego -- probably just an inaccurate generalization, but if not, I don't want to know what it's actually like at an Ivy for research.
Largely throw away comment for the rest of the community - but like half of my company is or was UCSD env. Science grads (can't ever remember the actual program, it seems to change every 5 or so years). Of the big three in SD I could really only see SDSU being "relaxed" and then probably not even in certain departments
Go tritons!
The running joke or I guess the stereotype for undergrads was UCSD were the smart kids, USD were the rich kids, and SDSU were the party kids. If accurate, I probably would've wanted to go to SDSU.
Can confirm. USD is literally another world.
I probably would have too just cuz that'd be my only option for civil wre - but I don't think we've ever had any luck with an sdsu grad (at the same time we're extremely small and don't croot engineers that often)
I've worked in private industry, non-profit organizations and universities.
I stand by what I wrote.
Cool. But your experience is probably different than mine.
I've worked in biotechnic, academic, and legal fields. In my experience, academic researchers work harder than any other environment I've been in and get way less pay. But my experience is within top NIH funded departments, so I imagine it would different at less competitive universities or in other fields of endeavor. That's not to say the lawyers or industry researchers don't work hard or long hours, they definitely do, but the compensation is way more just.
(Eh, I had a little exposure at VT bio labs as an undergrad, definitely a different vibe, but calling it cushy would also be a stretch. Being low-funded and always scraping for funds sucks as well.)
Nobody is making boosters shell out a lot of money in NIL, bagmen, pay for play etc. Nobody is making colleges shell out a ton of money in the CFB arms race of facilities, recruiting staff etc. The reason players in professional minor leagues are so poorly compensated is no one cares who wins, the value of those franchises are in player development, not winning games. As long as fan bases cares who wins the games these guys have values above and beyond scholarships. No one would be spending this level money otherwise.
This world list of Largest stadiums by capacity agrees. College Football is huge.
If we're comparing college football to minor league sports, the Nashville Sounds is one of the most attended AAA teams. They average north of 8,000 fans a game.
This (156,000 spectators) would never happen if the Sounds hosted the Salem Red Sox.
This is kinda not true - the NCAA says college sports must be non-profit, and players can't get paid, which means that profit has to be used up somewhere. You pay your coaches a shit ton, but you're limited to 10 coaches. So where does the rest of the money go? To the arms race - the locker rooms, the weight rooms, the food courts, the athlete only dorms, etc.
Whit hits on this here - he alludes how just paying players outright could be more financially sustainable than the arms race.
Again, outside of the occasional freak athlete who actually puts butts in the seats, the money gets shelled out and fans care about college sports because of the university logo on the jersey, not the individual wearing the jersey. If you put the same players in, say, Roanoke Gamblers jerseys instead of Virginia Tech jerseys, how much would people pay to see a AA football team play? And much would the players get paid and what perks would they get? (A: almost all would get exponentially less than what they get in scholarship money, food, training, facility use, etc.) What kind of name, image and likeness deals would they get from businesses? (A: most would get zero)
The transfer portal shows just how much it is about the jersey and how little it about the student athlete in the jersey.
As I wrote earlier, I'm not delusional enough to think the toothpaste can be put back in the tube. But if in a perfect world the US athletics model was like the rest of the world rather than our model (which is frankly weird if you look at without fan glasses), you'd find how little value most college athletes have.
So to close the loop, the real answer is professional minor leagues, not revenue sharing.
All in all, I don't think we disagree that much.
I recognize that while an individual player does not have much value, a team of players does. The Flutie effect is a real thing. In the hypothetical scenario where college football players collectively decide to strike, that they could absolutely demand a cut of TV revenue. The following is that rabid. Most P5 universities really wants a college football team.
I'm not suggesting that college athletes 'deserve' or are 'entitled' to anything. Rather, I'm suggesting that the market for college football players has been bungled and manipulated for so long (due to amateurism, the NFL's minimum age policy, the 'blackmarket' (now grey market) for college athletes, among other things) that (a) there's no way for these players to understand their true market value (to a university or to an advertiser), and (b) the players are easy targets for bad actors with selfish intentions.
IF you professionalize (what we now call) college sports, then all of these problems go away, and it's a straightforward exchange of money for labor. The process is simplified. There would be significant less room for corruption. And players would be paid their free market value.
I disagree with this - I keep going back to soccer in the UK, because they effectively have a minor league system that draws a lot of interest. There are many, many people who are fans of smaller clubs in small, rural towns. Those players (4 levels below the premier league) still make $60k/year.
OK, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. $60k a year for the equivalent of, say, an FBS player? And let's add another $10k for the value of what are likely pretty modest facilities and coaching, per diems, etc.
I realize it's some apples and oranges, but let's compare.
That $70k is still probably still less than what the avg FBS American football/basketball players is getting when it's all said and done - including the 2/3rd who are barely contributors. And there are only 24 soccer teams with ~ 20 players (~500 players) at that level - whereas there are 118 teams with 85 scholarships players at the FBS level (~10,000 players - football only, no basketball). Go down another level or two for english soccer (another 24-48 teams and 500-1000 players) and the pay is maybe half that (yet the additional ~6,000 FCS scholarship players still get effectively compensated at something relatively close to FBS players).
So, even on a pro rata basis, it appears to be more selective to play English minor league professional soccer vs American college football. And IMO it establishes that, if anything, American college football athletes are already compensated at or above their actual value.
And that doesn't address how long players last on those soccer teams making $60k if they don't contribute? Are they basically on a 5 year contract like american college football players?
And American players should get a piece of the revenue too?
Then let's talk about basketball - which is probably an easier apples to apples. How many NCAA players are taking the money to go play in Europe rather than play American college? Some, but not many. One, most aren't good enough to play in anything but the low levels and two, the money probably isn't good enough, i.e they don't have much value, at the lower levels to make it worth their while. (And yes, I recognize the "cost" of having to move to different country/culture).
Like I said in my original point, professional minor-leagues in the US would be the real answer.
you must not talk to (m)any grad students. there are plenty that think a minimum percentage of research funding should go to grad students. My PI at tech was doing somethings that seemed hella shady at the time, had me working on two industrially/externally funded projects one semester and still stuck me on TA. If a PI is going to use my man-hours as part of his grant proposal, that money should actually be earmarked for my compensation and not just "trust me bro" and go into the rainy day slush fund because he can have the department foot the bill for my stipend at the expense of my time and sanity. Guitarman could talk more intelligently about this from the faculty perspective, but being a sad poor grad student sucks.
Edit: just this past year, vt university council passed a resolution to more equitably distribute money to grad students: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/opinion/lte-graduate-stipend-resolution-i...
I wasn't referring to the students themselves. Of course they act in their self-interest. I was referring to pretty much everybody else including PIs. There is no clamoring from any other constituency for it because everybody outside of (and even within) the university bubble don't really have much sympathy. If you think you're worth more, there's a big world out there. Which is basically my point re: professional minor leagues.
Nevertheless, I can remember when postdocs at major research institutions were making high teens-low 20s before the NIH almost doubled that in the mid-late 90s IIRC. So the current crop is doing far better than their predecessors.
I quickly scanned the article you linked, but I'm not sure exactly what it is that VT grad students are actually getting out of it. My take is it's like they're getting an "engaged to be engaged" ring.
>nobody's clamoring
>example of clamoring
>well who knows what they're getting out of it
there are plenty of professionals with post-graduate degrees who would advocate or do advocate to treat grad students better. As Dr. Chumps tells any bright eyed and bushy tailed interns who are thinking about a PhD in STEM -- "having a PHD is nice, getting a PhD is miserable enough for me to warn you about it how miserable it is".
From the actual resolution that was passed (which was linked in the CT column i linked):
Basically, starting in 2023-24, Tech is going to take local cost of living into account and provide assistantships that meet or exceed it, and to account for all university fees cost of university subsidized health insurance, etc. Rents in Blacksburg have skyrocketed and way outpaced graduate assistantships. In 2020-21, a GA could have been getting ~19k gross and then paying student fees, health care, etc out of that.
Television ruined college football in more ways than one. If Bama was paying Nick Saban 700K, he wouldn't coach there- no great coach would. They are able to pay him 10 mil per, because of the SEC's insane TV deal. in modern america, when the coach makes 10 million, there is going to be enormous pressure to pay players. It is what it is. There is too much TV money in the game now. you HAVE to pay the players.
Why would paying players ruin college football?
Well that is totally dependent upon if you feel there is value to amateur athletics. I do. I would not donate to a professional hokies team, just like I don't donate money to Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder. Amateurism helps to maintain SOME semblance of competitive balance as well. But that's the rub. Either you see a value in amateur athletics or not.
Would you buy equity/ownership in the team? Instead of being just a stakeholder, you could be a literal shareholder. Similar to Green Bay.
I personally disagree with this. UGA/Bama/OSU all had >75% blue chip ratios before NIL was thing. Amateurism just keeps the change of money from being seen publicly.
Well the naïve side of me would rather Bama get better players than us by insane winning, great coaching, and elite recruiting processes vs. just paying more raw dollars to players. Just my personal opinion. These are college kids- the average college kid is working at a bar for 3.25 plus tips or delivering pizza.
rather Bama get better players than us by insane winning, great coaching, and elite recruiting processes vs. just paying more raw dollars to players.
They are doing these things because they have so much money, it just isn't going to the players in a visible, transparent way. They have great coaching and elite recruiting because of the insane TV deal as you mentioned, which (usually) leads to insane winning. I think Bar's over arching point is that because they actually produce a large portion of the labor, they should have a stake in the returns and it should be above board.
Edit: I am just going through all of this thread now and realized your comment is over 3 weeks old. lol. Its Friday. Lets have a drink.
The Supreme Court doesn't really agree with you that there is value in "amateur athletics" -- going so far as to say that the former model of amatuer athletics the NCAA was attempting to enforce was literally illegal lol
Worth noting that this quote was from Kavanaugh's concurring opinion (a concurring opinion is traditionally an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it, although there are obviously other motives behind such an opinion), not the 'Majority Opinion' written by Gorsuch.
Anyways, the examples/comparisons Kavanaugh gave were fascinating:
My world view rarely overlaps with that of Brett Kavanaugh, but his opinion in NCAA v. Alston was very well argued, and was one of the (few) things that has recently changed my view of the NCAA.
The silliness of the portal and NIL has done it for me. If I want to watch professional football, why would I watch college football and not the NFL? There may be too much money in college football now, but maybe not so much once you turn off the fans that made college football what it is. The portal and NIL is basically the college version of free agency, but with fewer rules. I honestly think the whole thing will backfire and make college football a second rate pro league, and if that's the case, I'd probably rather watch me some CFL than any of the college horseshit. Trust me, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and you'll end up seeing the same 10 or so teams in the CFP every year.....yippee!
This isn't a new thing. The last first time national champion was Florida in 1996. If you think this is a problem, okay, but (a) this isn't any different than it used to be, and (b) paying players (who were already getting paid under the table) isn't going to give us any less parity.
That is interesting, 20 years ago a friend of mine was doing graduate work in the biology department at Tech and making mid 5 figures as a graduate student.
The lowest pay scale is $19,188 annually. It's a tiered system and i was never able to find out how each tier was assigned or designated. The number I quoted above is actually 2021-22 and not 20-21 like i said, woops.
By spring 2016 when i nominally left (i had to pay student fees for summer 1 and summer 2 bc my defense date fell after the deadline), i was grossing like 22k annually
https://graduateschool.vt.edu/content/dam/graduateschool_vt_edu/assistan...
Unless that includes tuition, that sounds pretty inaccurate. We were making $28K in the biomedical sciences back in 2012 and we were so excited that it was $1K more than 2008 when I started the program. All the top schools had about the same stipend, to ensure they're competitive, so I have hard time believing that any top bio program had a stipend in the mid 5 figures in he early 2000s. Now, tuition was about another $30K to 35K, which would add up to mid 5 figs. And if it was a private school, tuition is typically a $10K to 20K higher. So, I'm guessing that was tuition + stipend, but idk.
Perhaps they mean Postdoc position when they say "graduate work". I agree though, for PhD students the stipend is like 25-30k from my working with/teaching graduate students in various biology/pharmacology tracks while I was at Emory.
That still seems pretty light on specifics to me.
I'm not saying grad students or college student/athletes) shouldn't get compensated or be treated unreasonably. What I am saying is they as students/ trainees/interns have minimal real world value - and again, have a pretty cushy life. Expecting to get a share of revenue on top of the compensation they already get is absurd (which isn't just salary but I assume also tuition if they are working on grant or contract which brings in revenue to the university, no?)
And yes, there is little public clamoring (writing newspaper columns, chatting on message boards, etc) compared to athletes about how grad students should be getting a share of academic research revenues.
It is unethical and unequitable to write a grant that allocates x dollars in assistantship support and then use that money for other purposes while forcing students to have the expectations of research assistantship productivity AND responsibilities teaching assistantship. Let alone doubling down and having a student work on multiple funded projects at once and still be on TA. Is it "revenue sharing" if the money allocated to students in a grant actually is forced to be allocated to students?
I understand it's indentured servitude to a degree -- the professor and university benefit way more from the grad student researchers' collective work than any individual researcher might (given the reputation boost for pubs etc etc) benefit from their own work. My PI's name can get me "wow" reactions from those in the know, but it didn't get me hired anywhere, didn't get me published anywhere, didn't get me much at all really. Whereas the work i did contributes to my PI's H factor, their pub count, are on their CV, and contribute to their ability to secure more funding and put more money in their pocket. I put in the work to get the degree and i know that "my success" is what i get after having the phd and not from the journey along the way to getting one. But in the meantime, any success i may have generated was the university's and the PI's success.
And I'm sorry, but saying grad students have a cushy life is probably the dumbest take I've ever seen on tkp that doesn't cross cgs and is probably the single comment that has made me want to violate the cgs the most lmao I'll just let you be hilariously wrong and try to salvage as graceful an exit from this exchange as i can.
Maybe I'm misreading him, but I thought he said college football players have a relatively cushy life, and should be treated more like grad students / interns.
I mean, interns, graduate assistants, and trainees should probably be getting paid, too...
My undergrad internships paid $15-$20/hour. When I was getting my MBA, most internships were pay between $2.5k and $4k per week (some have signing bonuses just for the 10-12 week internship).
It all depends on how the market values these individuals. And in college football, these individuals are valued highly.
As a grad student, I was paid. But the key driver for universities wanting to have lots of grad students is because we are cheap labor. I think it is a bit better now, but I do remember when I was in grad school in the 1990s, doing a little back of the envelope calculation. With a goal of trying to find ways to overcome multidrug resistance to anticancer compounds, I estimated that I was making $5.30 an hour. At the time:
The minimum wage was $5.15 and hour.
The local Burger King was paying $8.03 an hour.
And if the Burger King person was working 50-80 hrs a week, 7 days a week, 51.5 weeks a year (I am not making any of this up), they would be getting a lot of time-and-a-half so it would be an even bigger gap.
And after defending, I had people wonder why I gave up on academic bench science and the postdoctoral path to move into business consulting.
They do. Just not as much as think they they should. Shocking, huh?
Some competitive unpaid internships are anything but. You try to put a price on the connections you make at a major firm/company while interning there vs. uploading your resume and hoping. In some industries an unpaid internship is very "valuable" . Both Mel Kiper and Bill Bellichick were unpaid interns in the NFL when they started.
i know a lot of people see benefit in them, but unpaid internships shouldn't be a thing. Right up there with getting paid in "exposure."
If you are in a position to offer internships, pay people for their work.
They are only a thing because people jump at the chance to get one. There is demand for -yes- an unpaid position. That is a fact. Whether its "right" or wrong is up for debate. Some companies do "pay" their unpaid interns bonuses, etc. too. But the fact is that this practice would go away if there weren't people out there accepting these positions.
I'm not discounting the demand for them, just saying its a crappy way to treat people. There are publications that give out "exposure" for people to give them free articles, artwork, photos, etc. Just because they find people to do it doesn't make it not shitty.
Companies treat people like shit in general. Most of them anyway. Retirement? That's on you buddy. We will give you 2 cents to every 500 dollars in your 401K. Leave? here is 8 hours accrued a month. have fun. Oh, you are "exempt" so you can't be paid overtime. In general US companies- all of them- could treat people much better. There are people that are literally renting modified shipping containers together in silicon valley- the highest paying place in America. Lawyers bill 1K per hour and pay their legal secretaries 40K per year.
It also majorly disadvantages people of certain socioeconomic backgrounds that don't have the luxury of not receiving pay for 3 months to a year (or longer). It inherently has a level of hidden inequality within it (only those that already have an advantage can benefit).
[And that's all I'll say on that subject to stay within guidelines.]
The real world - it'll get after you.
Each year college football becomes more and more a sport I dislike. Take that with how terrible we are and will be for the next little while, and my interest and giving will remain basically non-existent.
The NCAA had a chance to govern with logic and facts, but they waited too long. The money got too large - coaches were being paid more than NFL coaches, so the court of public opinion did its thing, and you have to govern on emotion at that point. Rarely works.
It was just an offer. He received another.
What team is that? The stripe of chevrons has me cracking up because I can't tell if it's a cutting edge uniform design, or if it makes it look like a "Lego" football player.
USFL or XFL, I believe.
no, that's the thing you hit in mariokart to get a boost right before the jumps
That's it! It wasn't Lego. It was Mario Kart!
Pretty sure it is Duquesne.
The just switched to this logo when i was doing my map project a few years ago. Like the day before I released their fantasy banner, so it sticks in my mind.
It's Duquense.
Your mom is Duquense.
It's OK when you realize that it's pronounced "Kevin".
No clue here. Guess I'm not a roster meister.
Go get some playing time in your 7th year if you get it JB! Glad you could run out that tunnel for us.
Can we please lock this thread?
Welcome to the off-season, where no thread is safe from going off the rails.
Yeah absolutely not, the tangent is crucial. I do think some subtitles on the original title would be useful though.
I vote the subtitles get written like the title of Friends episodes.
Must be a BIT major
7th year granted for JB. Good luck where you end up man
Jackson State it is! Best of luck to him