I'm bothered that Johnny Manziel doesn't have the opportunity to monetize and profit from his name or likeness without jeopardizing his eligibility. I don't like the NCAA's archaic set of rules that designates players student athletes, and seizes their right to the free marketplace. I don't agree with the folks who believe a scholarship is enough to justify an outdated system.
Scholarships are fantastic vehicles to get kids to college and lessen the financial burden of an education. I wish I had earned more of them myself. Being twenty-something-thousand dollars in debt at 29-years-old is nothing I thought about when I received my acceptance letter to Virginia Tech. A college education is extremely valuable, but in today's billion dollar world of college athletics, some athletes are worth more than the education.
The stars on the field have built brands that are exclusively licensed to the NCAA, respective schools, conferences, and their partners for pennies on the dollar. For the fullback who plays prominently on kick return and goal line situations, a free education is probably a fair deal. However, a stud like Jadeveon Clowney who took out a $5 million life insurance policy because he's ineligible for the NFL Draft, Manziel who's name, presence, and signature has raised thousands for Texas A&M, and all the marquee players on campus that have their nameless 60-plus dollar jerseys fly off of campus bookstore shelves, they might be getting a raw deal.
I believe the players deserve a choice, and not just like it or lump it. The NCAA should modernize, allow student athletes to opt-out of their scholarship benefits in exchange to monetize their likeness and sell their personal brand.
If Johnny Football wants to charge for autographs until his hand falls off, let him. If Logan Thomas can get paid to pitch cars for The Shelor Motor Mile, good for him. Give the NCAA, the schools, and everyone else up and down the food chain an equitable cut too. It'd be silly to contend the television exposure, among other factors brought forward by the networks, conferences, schools, and NCAA didn't help the players to grow their brand. That's business.
Let the laws of capitalism reign in college football. Permit the players to either sell their brand rights for a scholarship, or on the free market.
I know camp begins today, I promise posts going forward will be focused on the Hokies.
Comments
I actually think that's a really good idea.
Now the question is would they have to decide that their freshman year or can they switch over to the other side once they hit it big?
I think that an ideal scenario would be that you are required to complete at least one year of eligibility on scholarship before opting out to monetize your 'brand' - I think this would remove a lot of the competitive balance issues in regards to recruiting with money involved.
The other thing to think about: most guys need the exposure of playing time to capitalize on their 'brand'. Before last season began, how many people outside of College Station had heard of Johnny Manziel? Maybe he could have been endorsed by some local car dealership, but would he have garnered national sponsors before the season? I think not. He maximized his earning potential by having an incredible season on the field.
The NCAA is just a front . The 3rd to last episode of Blue Mountain State does a good job of making an argument . A lot of the profit goes to people it shouldn't and it has a nonprofit label just for the tax breaks . NCAA merchandise usually cost around the same as NFl merchandise which is bullshit.
I'm seriously upset they canceled that show. And damn right I think that's a great idea
Only 20k in debt? Hell ill take that lol!
But interesting idea to say the least.
Terrible idea. The schools with huge fan bases like Alabama, the Texas (and A&M) USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc would have boosters lining up around the block to "legitimately" pay players to attend their school.
"Mr. Knight loves autographs of Oregon players, he told me that if you come play for the Ducks he will pay $10,000 for your autograph and # on a Ducks practice t-shirt"
When critiquing my own idea during the writing process, this was the first counter-argument I came up with. In the end, the only thing I was unsatisfied with was there was no guarantee in writing to an unsigned recruit that the booster would have to deliver on their cash promise once the player signed.
I think all the big-time programs have access to deep pockets, so it wouldn't be just a select few with this advantage. The ones that don't, don't. The NCAA shouldn't try to sculpt a level playing field so Kent State can compete with Ohio State.
Ultimately, if a player can fetch $10,000 for an autograph, then that's its worth on the free market and I'm OK with that.
But the issue is that he isn't actually getting 10k for an autograph... He's getting 10k to sign with that school, and the autograph is the loophole through which he gets it. If T. Boone Pickens came out and said "I love 5 star recruits so much, I will personally buy an autograph from each one that comes to OkSt for $100,000" you have boosters buying recruits...
It's tough because recruiting is already so sleazy sometimes. If you give people an inch they're definitely going to take a mile and get every advantage they can out of it. I like the idea in theory though, you just need to smooth out some corners...
"You have boosters buying recruits..."
This isn't happening now? I'm not naive enough to believe everyone is playing by the rules. If boosters are ponying up dough, a market exists for player's services, it's just not aboveboard. If there are schools playing by the rules (maybe I am naive to believe these exist), then they're at a disadvantage for doing so. If a change like this ever came into reality, I think there would be an arms race at the start, but the market would hopefully regulate itself.
I do agree that the scenario of overpaying for goods to the extreme exists as soon as you give players access to the free market, I just don't think one or two schools will be able to exploit the system for that drastic of a gain. Even if they could, it would change the programs at the top of the pyramid, but not the structure. There already exists a select number of schools that rack in the 5-star players year in, and year out.
While I can't say one way or the other whether boosters pay recruits, when you have boosters donating money to buy new uniforms, that draws recruits. Look at Oregon. Phil Knight pays a lot of money to the school and they get a ridiculously outrageous football facility. Recruits see that and are immediately drawn to the program. The money may or may not go in the hands of the recruits, but the money these boosters throw around is easily seen and pulls interest to their school.
You only have to look as far as the sport of soccer to see that it won't regulate itself you see the rich teams getting all of the talent and the poor ones essentially becoming farms for them. The bigger schools would have more than a significant advantage as they just throw money and players and become perennial contenders and become (as they call it in soccer) money clubs, I think the current process really does help level the playing field a little I really don't wanna see a rich get richer scheme.
For those of you who want a direct example the richest club in the world is trying to shell out 125 million for one player....people with money are crazy sometimes
Boosters may pay recruits now, but it's a lot riskier, and that opportunity for trouble levels the playing field a lot. I think giving the boosters a greenlight to pay is a mistake, and would absolutely crush any semblance of competitive balance.
" If boosters are ponying up dough, a market exists for player's services"
*Cough*MIAMI*Cough* Man, I should get rid of thos cold.
Another level of control is that the NCAA could still regulate recruiting. Once a player has signed his LOI, let things play out as they may. When he's being recruited, no contact with boosters, no money, etc. Otherwise what are we doing? It's just NFL Jr. The big teams would buy the best players (with no free agency to maybe level the field) and to me, that takes the fun out of college football. The primary objective in college recruiting should be (first and foremost) deciding where to get the best education and where you can play for some school pride, not who's going to line the pockets of a 17/18-year-old kid the best. During much of the recruiting process, in most cases, the players are (legally) children, and there should be some effort to protect their interests.
I'm on the fence about what should be done in cases like this. It is true that players are being used by other entities for major profit, but I find it hard to come up with a fair resolution that is not a terrible slippery slope.
Agreed. Unrestricted capitalism would kill schools like Virginia Tech. Every great player would opt for schools that pay. And frankly our boosters cannot compete with those that can pay big money.
I agree that they are getting a raw deal. I agree that they should be paid more but I strongly disagree that it should be unrestricted.
The non-professionalism is the majesty of college football which makes it superior to any other sport in my opinion. I love my professional teams but I LOVE Virginia Tech because of who we are and where we came from. And when kids start choosing a school based on their potential pay out and not the school, then every tradition that Virginia Tech built up, and every other program's, is over.
Touching the Hokie Stone? Metallica entrance? Lunch Pail Defense? Key Play? who cares?? All I care about is when I get paid, and by the way the only reason I am here is because EVERY school who pays more than you do didn't accept me. I'll act like I know about the University of Virginia Tech, but you better recognize why I am here.
The only thing that I see working is a type of ROI. You as a player have a value. The basic value is a scholarship. If you as a player become a regular starter and help us win then you as a player will be rewarded with a bonus on that scholarship. how to figure out how much though?
Merchandising is tricky. Should you receive return on jerseys and the like. Maybe, but only very minor money. Should you be allowed to sell every autograph under the sun and sell them? No. Your name is tied to the university you attend and for better or worse the NCAA. Unless all parties agree then you have no rights to sell on your own. However, this does not apply the to the university and NCAA, because remember you choose to attend the university.
I'm in favor of the NCAA forking over some of it's profits to give monthly stipends to the student athletes.
This would at least help the kids in school and take some of the financial angst away from them.
I don't know of a way to rein in runaway boosters......except to make programs/schools accountable for their booster's actions, but that would give the schools an impossible task of trying to police their boosters.....tough situation.
Yes. Agreed 100% - stipends are even across the board, and keep boosters out of it. I am all for easing the financial burden on athletes, just not by involving rich boosters/alumni.
A stipend would put some extra money in the pockets of the players, but it skirts around their actual market value. Why should a backup get as much cash as a starter? Would a scholarship player get as much as someone paying their way through school?
Guess what? Life isn't fair. They know what they're getting when they sign up. They're getting a college education, free travel, free exposure for NFL scouts, etc. They can man up and deal with the "raw deal" (which I'd take in a heartbeat, just sayin) they've got for 2-5 years and then make their millions in the NFL.
That is a fantastic response! Actually made me laugh out loud...
Let's say you got hired by a company for $40k/year. After 2 years at the company, you became their most valuable asset EVER. They start luring in big time clients by using YOUR name. You become their number 1 selling point. Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and everyone else is writing articles about your work. Your nationally recognized at award shows. You have increase your company's annual revenue by a value some where between 25 and 100 times what they pay you.
You are worth more than what you are paid, however the company will not give you a raise/promotion and will not allow you to pick up another job.
You have the option of leaving this company. You can go work at another company for more money. You can even start your own business and market yourself as you see fit.
Johnny does not have this opportunity. He is prevented from playing at the next level. He is not allowed to seek more money. His earning potential is capped at $40k a year (or w/e his scholarship value is). This is why it is not fair.
Johnny has the opportunity to play in another professional football league if he really wants to get paid right now. I'm sure the AFL would take him for a salary greater than $40k per year.
This is the best reason for the NCAA to keep doing what they do. I hope players do start considering the AFL as a viable route if they feel it's best for them. Brendan Jennings did this in basketball (playing in Europe instead of college).
Regarding salaries, it appears Johnny could achieve his open market value in the AFL: http://arenafootballsalary.com/
Johnny is not an employee. Johnny is a student who voluntarily choose to attend whichever university he decided. And no matter how great Johnny is and how important he is to the university Johnny leaves in 4 years or less. That university he voluntarily choose gave him free room and board, along with free education, free coaching and most of all a platform on which Johnny can excel on and showcase his talent to those that will pay him on a professional level.
That employee you talk about has value only because he can be kept for an entire career. No matter how much he excels he will never be like that employee. Johnny has a basic value, not an appreciating value, to the university.
In fact, if you want to go metaphor. Then Johnny is like the artist. The university is like the art gallery. They are taking the risk of their business to showcase your talent. Now if you succeed then you both win. People buy up your stock and you get paid and we get paid. But if you fail and no one likes your art then our gallery gets a bad reputation (*cough* marcus vick *cough*). So in this metaphor, Johnny should be paying a commission on his NFL contract to the university who gave him that platform.
BUT.... he doesn't need to. Why? Because the university is receiving their income in that short time he voluntarily decided to attend the university. So now Johnny can enjoy the entire $20 million signing bonus he just got and not pay the university their commission.
I do however believe that insurance options are another route that is a fair compensation to student-athletes.
Comparisons are often very skewed, but I like this one. I hadn't thought of the the point that players aren't required to give any of the money they earn professionally to the university that provided them with high level job training and national exposure and it's a good one.
Personally I'm convinced that the market value of 99% of college football players isn't all that high on its own. If players chose to go to the AFL or a minor league football system existed, the players wouldn't be nearly as recognized, popular, or valuable as they are. The logo on a player's helmet and their affiliation with the university is what makes college athletes valuable and marketable- much more so than their outright abilities or potential as a pro. Fans love college football because of the idea that the players are students and members of the university community who are not all that different (or more corrupt) than the typical student, which most fans relate to and somewhat "relive their college days" since many are alumni in the first place.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the art gallery doesn't prevent you from earning additional income elsewhere do they? If you meet someone who is a fan of your work, and is willing to pay thousands for an autograph, you're allowed to do that, correct?
Perhaps a better analogy is a student who receives a complete academic scholarship to Virginia Tech. That student is still allowed to pursue other financial ventures in his area of study. He is not forced to accept only unpaid internships if he is on scholarship. If a college football player is just another person studying their craft, why should it be any different?
I think we all realize that there is no perfect analogy for the situation. The problem IMO is that players are prevented from seeking other forms of income so schools can benefit. The problem is complicated by the fact that only a small percentage of students are not receiving 'fair' compensation. Perhaps players would be best served playing in the AFL after a successful year in NCAA ball?
Whatever the case, I think it's unethical to cap someone's earning potential. Something has to change.
Incorrect. The university is not restricting you from earning money on football. You seem to be forgetting that the university and it's rules were chosen voluntarily, and as such you can voluntarily leave school to earn money in any manner you choose. IE. go play in AFL or if you are really good, leave early for the NFL.
The art gallery is a metaphor for the platform in which you can exhibit your art. If you do well, then everyone is happy for you to go on and make money. Johnny was not restricted to return after he won the Heisman, he CHOOSE to. Just as the artist is not restricted to sell at the gallery again, but if that gallery is doing a good job at exhibiting your art and increasing your value then perhaps its worth it to stay.
Your point is that you want payment now when in actuality the payment is merely differed to the point of your choosing. You are not restricted. If you think your good enough to earn big boy money, then go do it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that to be eligible for the NFL draft, you have to be out of high school for 3 years. This upcoming year is Johnny's third year, so he had to come back.
EDIT: realized as soon as I clicked "post" that he could have pursued another avenue, e.g. AFL. One doesn't have to be in college for 3 years, just out of high school. So your point stands, he did choose to return to school. +1 for making a good point.
Yea, but there are other professional leagues he can enter instead.
Yes, but the point is that he doesn't HAVE to go to the NFL. He can go play in the AFL of CFL. If he wants the NFL then he would need to "showcase his art" at the "gallery" for one more year. Either way it is a choice that is being made.
Edit: Damn you deathrow821 for getting the jump on me!
I think your response was a little (lot) more explanatory than mine.
yes. this is my point. He is not restricted to go make money. He is restricted by NCAA rules to go to NFL, not by the university. And if you want to argue against the NCAA then I would say that someone needs to be the bad guy. As I mentioned earlier if everything became an unregulated, market driven economy then kiss all Virginia Tech traditions goodbye. The NCAA does not restrict you from earning money when you choose but it has built in a protection to young players entering a man's game too early.
You could argue that is unfair but this is not the NBA. High school kids cannot jump to NFL. Just look at all the recent uproar about concussions. Young 18 year old kids would get destroyed at that level or NFL teams would just create a farm league. But they don't need to because college football provides that service AND give these kids an education.
But please don't read that I am an NCAA lover. I have many disagreements with how they operate. Clearinghouse being my primary point of wrath.
It's actually an NFL rule. The NCAA cannot keep anyone from joining the NFL.. it's the NFL that decides who is elibile to play in their league.
Thanks! Yah I forgotten that. Excellent point.
An interesting point that came up in an article I read (probably posted here) is that its questionable whether or not he and his family can trademark "Johnny Football" to prevent brand dilution, since he can't profit from the brand at the moment. So he can't stop people from flooding the market with Johnny Football T-Shirts and profiting from his likeness/name.
I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree in a vacuum, but playing devil's advocate, that could easily be abused by a booster:
Let's say a high school kid is thinking about going to a school and is a top recruit-under this suggestion, what's to stop a booster from a school saying 'Hey kid, I will give you $50,000 for you to sign this Southern Cal T-shirt for me.....' even before the kid has established their true 'worth' by playing for the school....
Nothing stops them except the very real risk that it will not pay off.
That risk isn't gonna stop someone who has let's say 100 million at their disposal from throwing 10,000 at a kid to come to his school. That 10k is only a drop in the proverbial bucket so to speak
I don't disagree. But why should we stop them? If boosters paid for the best talent so that Nick Saban can coach them up, they'll win a lot. If boosters pay for top talent so that Kirk Ferentz or Mack Brown can coach them up, they'll still lose. I don't really care at all if players are getting paid. I'd rather see the system protect against the integrity of the sport (no steroids, no point shaving, etc) than worry about free market investment.
Why can't we do both?
My opinion begins on the foundation of the statistic that 78% of NFL players are bankrupt two years after leaving the league. If NFL players who are considered to be adults and have resources available to them don't know how to manage money what makes us think that a teenager can? A lot of of that statistic comes from the fact that these adults aren't used to having money and have no idea how to manage it.
Secondly, unless the NCAA separates Div 1 into a restricted group of schools (like has been mentioned recently) that make a certain amount of money (the irony if this were to happen would be palpable.), mid tier schools would not be able to afford paying a kid directly and all mid tier schools would be on the short end of recruiting because they don't get on tv at all. For example, VT pre Mike Vick would be at an incredible recruiting disadvantage to a team like Miami because VT was never on tv and Miami always was. As such, very few superstars would come to the non-exposure team when they know they can get paid a lot more via exposure at a bigger name school.
My solution would begin with making ALL scholarships guaranteed 4 year scholarships that includes tuition, computer, books, tutoring, room, and food so that a kid's education isn't a victim of an injury, lack of performance or change of interest. I also think that the cost of these scholarships should be paid by the NCAA if the recipient of the scholarship is not actively playing their scholarship sport. This keeps the idea of an education on the table for these kids and schools themselves won't be left on the hook for an injury laden season. If the idea of paying these kids happens, I think all money earned/generated/paid to the student athlete should be put in a trust that vests to 100% upon completion of degree. For each year of school that the athlete completes they vest another 25% so even if they drop out after their sophomore year or something, they still get something...just not as much as they would if they stay to get their degree. This would give some incentive to the kid to finish his education or if he's that good, he can bypass the money for what he makes in the NFL.
Priority 1 should be getting all these kids educated so that whether or not they live out their dream of the NFL, they can provide for themselves afterwards. It's easy for us to say that things will be better for these kids if we pay them but reality is in the bankruptcy statistic. JUST paying them without educating them does not help them at all.
Really like the idea of setting up a savings account, and something that would be valuable for everyone would be to add a Freshman orientation type of class dealing with money. This would be something that could benefit the general populace, but also help set these elite athletes up for success and to help them avoid becoming one of those bankruptcy statistics.
But then you are relying on players paying attention in class....
I wouldn't say not paying attention is a trait reserved solely for players. If you asked me after every class what my teachers were talking about I wouldn't be able to regurgitate more than the first five minutes... That being said, at least then that institution of higher learning is making the effort to set their graduates up for as much success as possible, which should be the end goal anyway.
luckily for UNC their student athletes don't even need to attend classes!
Kinda hard to attend a class that isn't real honestly
One minor addendum: Its ny understanding that injured players keep theur scholarships, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that Michael Cole is still on scholarship, but doesn't count against the scholarship limit.
Correct. Possibly the same with Acree.
I like this idea a lot, but I think the school and the player should have the opportunity to opt into an agreement about scholarships/brand control every year. So when someone comes in as a heralded recruit, then gets redshirted, they're getting their free year of education. Then, when they hit the big time later, they can monetize their brand. The school will make money in that case anyway.
I don't have a problem with boosters signing up to buy a $100,000 autograph from a kid. Few boosters will do it, and they should be able to spend their money however they want. Some schools will pay a lot of money to get the best recruits. Hell, the Yankees spend a ridiculous amount of money compared to the rest of baseball but they still don't win. Sure, the highest-priced team will have a talent advantage, but that doesn't guarantee they're going to be able to buy championships.
The Yankees arent what they used to be for a number of reasons namely long term deals on older players, boosters for a school like bama would be more than willing to shell out 100k for a player if they knew they were going to have a part and say for how successful the team was.
Set it up in a trust fund, or something the kids can't touch until they leave college. If they were smart they'd save that money anyway. But that way they aren't technically being paid while in college but they're still getting the money that their brand is generating. I still think that they're amateur athletes who shouldn't be getting paid while they play, so this idea gets around that issue.
Not to shoot your idea down, but the NCAA shouldn't be able to decide when an athlete gets his money. What if an athlete's car breaks down, and he needs money now to fix it? No, you have to wait 3 years? That's not fair...
How are they fixing their cars now? I'm sure every single football player isn't being paid, they're getting money from somewhere right now in order to live like college students.
The current system is flawed. IMO your solution is a step in the right direction, but not perfect. Why should a player have to wait to get money that he/she earned? Why does the NCAA get to chose when you need your money or when your mature enough to handle it? Sure there are plenty of stupid 20 year olds who can't handle money, but how can you justify keeping money from the ones who are mature enough to handle it?
What money have they "earned"? Plenty of high schools make money from football games. I wasn't an elite athlete but I started both sides of the ball in high school football and busted my ass in practice but I certainly didn't show up at the AD's door and ask for a paycheck.
These kids aren't forced to play college sports and the rules are clear before they sign up. You get an education, room and board, meals, tutoring, job training, travel, and numerous experiences when many, many people realistically cannot afford college or go into massive debt in the process. If a player decides his higher priority is to "be able to afford to fix his car," then take out loans like nearly everyone else or get a job rather than playing football while getting a free education. Sure, college football players bust their asses and the university most likely profits from it, but the university takes a large financial burden/risk and the players get elite training for an opportunity at a professional career that can pay millions. I don't see olympic sport athletes whining about getting paid and they work just as hard, often don't have full scholarships, and don't have anywhere near the earning potential that football/basketball players do as pros in their respective sports either.
I agree with Shake, except to say that you are already getting what you earned. Free education, room and board, premium on-the-job training, gentrification, medical coverage, public relations training (for those allowed to speak to press), name marketing on a national level through television, print and online media. You EARNED all of that when you CHOOSE to attend our university.
I am in the design field and if I had that kind of completely free, worth millions of dollars, exposure of my talent I wouldn't have needed to wait until I was 33 to open my own architecture practice.
Again, I believe players should receive some additional money. But the idea that they are owed outrageous amounts of money from merchandising, etc is disproportionate to the reality of what they are already receiving.
Oh I agree, I'm not suggesting that players should be making lots of money, and I'm firmly against a payroll, but I think they should be paid when EA sports, nike, etc. uses their likeness to profit.
Your likeness wasn't used in video games. Nike wasn't selling a jersey that 95% of the public recognizes to be your jersey. Kids ask their parents for a Logan Thomas jersey, not a "Virginia Tech #3" jersey.
I failed to make this clear in my previous posts, but I in no way think these kids should be on a payroll. However, I do think they should be able to market themselves, or at the very lease receive payment when a video game or clothing company uses their likeness.
ok, This is where we sort of agree. I also think the should receive some royalties but again I am thinking very small amounts. pennies on the thousand dollar if anything.
Because if they hadn't gone to play at the university that is featured in video games then they would not have that opportunity for those potential earnings in the first place, so the university is the foundation of your rights to earnings. Same with merchandise. Your wear a university jersey and share a number with everyone that has wore that number before you (as others commented) and the value in that jersey and number is built on the university and its demand. Not the player's. The player may increase the demand for that jersey but it did not create the value for that jersey in the first place.
I am more for protective measures. Such as insurance options for students that have career ending injuries during school, than for paying money for entitlement rights on merchandising and video games.
As a few people have discussed, schools would use money and incentives to bring players in and there are several programs that can't compete. The beauty of NCAA is the uncertainty of each season. College football takes into account recruiting, strength of schedule, cohesiveness of a team that regularly has old players leaving and new players coming in. To allow a player to develop brand rights for money would take away a huge aspect of recruiting and also take the emphasis off the team and onto the player.
For instance: I am a huge Redskins fan, and RG3 fan, but I would like the media to focus more on the team and less on RG3 (thankfully RG3 seems to be able to handle the attention).
Also for those wondering, VT athletics has a reward room for student athletes. If they perform well, receive certain accolades or rewards, if a team wins a conference championship, national championship, etc. they earn points. They can use these points to obtain items like rims for cars, recliner chairs, TV's, game systems, etc. These gifts are paid for by boosters and are used as incentive to play well and compete.
I like the idea of putting money into an account for when the graduate...if there is anything these players need, it is an education on how to live life when they DON'T make the NFL. I had friends in classes with football players who regularly said things like, "I don't care about this test, I am only here to play football." These weren't the words out of LT's mouth, or Exum, or any other player who has a chance out of the NFL...these were the words out of 3rd stringers who may never see themselves playing football after college.
These kids already have big enough ego's and no realistic idea of how to live in the real world....let us not add to that please.
I'm not really supportive of college athletes benefitting financially from their participation in sports. As a white female with middle class parents, I didn't qualify for financial aid. I took out about $80,000 in student loans to pay for my four years of out-of-state tuition. And I worked all four years of college. Why should they receive money in addition to going to college for free and all the free swag? How about the "gift bags" with hundreds of dollars in gift cards and merchandise for making a bowl game? It's not fair to the rest of the university's students that someone should get paid just for running well while carrying a ball.
+1 for over 80K in student loans and working 4 years while attending university! I had to beg, borrow and steal from other employees to make sure I could have game days off.
Excellent point. The comparison that comes to mind to me is the time I spent as a grad student. I was a student, but also technically a VT employee. I got my tuition paid (standard practice in scientific fields) and I received a stipend to actually be able to live (because my contract barred me from working). That was the agreement - I signed it and abided by it. The university gets tons of money from grants when we produce (60% or more of the total amount awarded, for federal grants). We never got anything beyond our tuition + (small) stipend, regardless of success.
I made a bunch of discoveries, published papers, etc. but the benefits I received were limited to my professional preparation and the job that I ultimately obtained after I graduated. Should I have demanded performance incentives for what I achieved? I published more than average and I spoke at international conferences. I considered my tuition and meager stipend sufficient, because it was professional preparation for my career. It was an opportunity, mine for the taking to do whatever I could with it. Now, as a Ph.D. scientist, I still make a pittance of a salary and I'll never make NFL money...
I'm doing my Masters online through Tech. My husband is in the Army and still a Virginia resident, so I now qualify for in-state tuition. It's not as much as my undergrad, but I'm still paying for this degree. I'm missing out on the (in my mind) great deal that you got because my husband's in the Army, and I can't up and move back to Blacksburg for two years.
I also think that you, because of what you were doing, should have been eligible for performance incentives.
I think we need to settle somewhere in between: For most student athletes, a scholarship compensates them enough for their extra time and work for the school. I would say about 2-5% of collegiate athletes (maybe less) have an individual marketing value greater than their scholarship. You have to make a rule that:
I think the NCAA should choose a select group of business that can market/pay players. If a player has a minimum GPA (above that which is required to remain academically eligible), he/she can appear in advertisement for that business during time that is not in season or in semester. If EA sports uses a player's likeness, they should get a cut of that. If Nike makes a jersey with the number they made famous, that player should get a cut.
That saddest part of this whole thing is that the NCAA should be defending these players from schools and businesses trying to take advantage of them. The NCAA SHOULD be like a player's union in any professional sport: they make sure that the player gets fair compensation and is not overworked or taken advantage of. Instead, the NCAA has chosen to throw athletes under the bus for their own monetary gain.
Here's a problem with paying players for jerseys. Numbers aren't retired in college football, so players still wear Vick's #7 jersey. Marcus Davis was a key player last year and he wore it, but #7 jersey's are being sold because of Vick and I think most could agree on that. So who gets that money? Vick or Davis? I'm sure Davis would want it even though it clearly isn't his.
Depends what year you sold the jersey. If the jersey was sold between '99 and '01, Vick gets it. If sold between '05 and '08, Glennon gets paid, from '09-'12, Davis gets it (sorry if I messed the years up). Typically companies don't pay you for contributions to the company after you leave, players should be treated the same way.
But then don't you think there would be an internal dispute amongst the players over who gets that jersey number? If I was on the team I'd want it because I'd be guaranteed to get money.
Would they start putting names on the back?
Yes, if they are getting paid for jersey sales there is no longer a point in not putting names on the back. So they would, except for schools like USC who never puts name on the back.
I'm willing to bet that anyone who bought a #7 VT jersey during the Glennon years wasn't buying it for Glennon unless they were related to him. #7 for VT means Vick. It's not like that at every school but certain schools have iconic numbers. For example Florida didn't sell jerseys with specific numbers until Tebow came along, at which point they started selling #15.
It gets further complicated if two players on the same team wear the same number at the same time.
I think the only player would benefit from the Vick era #7 would have been Kevin jones because he had the same jersey style, although he earned his own fame for the number. but now if you want a Vick jersey you can easily find ones with his name on the back
You still run into the problem of organized sales to influence recruiting. "Come here, and I'll buy your jerseys for myself and all 99,000 of my closest friends!" Or boosters would organize annual "Buy the new recruits' jersey days." If there's a way to abuse the system to gain a competitive advantage, someone will.
The real issue with jersey sales is a) can you customize them? b) will you be allowed to customize a #7 Mexico jersey? (The NFL won't let you) and c) does Vick still profit from Ron's name?
Finally Registered!!
My biggest problem with these ideas is that it opens a door to a world of grey area.
Who decides who gets paid and who doesn't? Should a player only get paid when they increase the value of the school 50x worth what the school is providing the student? What about at more expensive schools where the costs are higher? What about a student who only contributes 47x what their benefits are? What about smaller sports that don't make any money, but whose students may spend more time perfecting their craft? What about people getting their Doctorate, who could spend twice as much time adding value to the school?
What about all of us students who bring the school business? The school is a business that profits on all of us. Not just athletes. Should i get 5% of my tuition back because I talked 3 of my friends into going here?
Each and every person attending a university will add value. Holding the STUDENT-Athletes more responsible for that value would be a tragic mistake.
College players already benefit well beyond the college tuition.
Consider the following:
- The opportunity to earn a degree at an institution they most likely would have never been accepted into if not for their athletic abilities. As we all know, a degree from VT or even LOLUVA is a platform to a lifetime of substantially increased earnings. Getting preferential treatment versus non-athletes with a similar academic profile is a HUGE benefit.
- Access to tutors to assist with studies
- Access to top-notch strength/conditioning experts, facilities, and nutritionists. This has a substantial market value.
- A life experience and lessons in leadership from leaders. How many of us would pay big-money to sit at the end of a the VT bench for a season? It's a life experience that cannot easily be duplicated.
When college football involves explicit payments to players, then it becomes something different altogether, and something I can already watch - on Sundays.
If I'm Manziel and I want to maximize my pay THIS YEAR, I play arena football. If I'm Manziel and I want to build my brand, I play for A&M.
Also, if enough guys went the arena football route, the NFL would eventually change its policy.
Speaking of tutors those guys are pretty awesome some of my friends had em and hooked me up with their study guides....helped me out a good bit in chem
Athletic scholarship is an oxymoron. It is all about paying someone based on their athletic abilities. Most are not scholars and many do not need the money to attend college. NCAA is about trying to maintain amatuerism and the dignity of education. If schools have to rely on money to attract prospective students then something is missing. I bet if all forms of paying athletes were abolished the same schools would attract all the best athletes. I think there is also a problem with "student athletes" that choose a school based on athletic options over education. Are colleges supposed to be a development league for professional sports? In reality that is what they are doing but are not getting just compensation for doing so. If athletes are to be paid outright and want to earn big $ while in college then the sport should be run by a professional organization outside of and separate from the college. The students would have to pay to attend and pay a fee to be associated with the school. The organization would have to pay licensing fees.
If amatuerism and education cannot coexist in big time college sports then the sports need to be out of the colleges.
I could not agree with you more. I think part of the problem (probably much more so for basketball) is the policy that high school graduates must attend college to be drafted. I have never understood that rule. If a 17 or 18 year-old kid has the ability to earn a pay check with out a college education and is okay with the inherent risk involved, he/she should be able to do so.
I think the only way this issue is resolved is for the NFL to adopt a developmental league structure similar to MLB. Draft kids out of high school if they have the talent and let them earn a fair pay check right away in a minor league if they want to. That way, kids who want to get paid their market value immediately after high school can, and kids who want to continue playing as an amateur while earning a degree can, and college football can maintain a (more-or-less) even playing field. Win-win-win.
That makes too much sense and I doubt there is much interest from the NCAA or NFL. NCAA stands to lose a lot of money as premiere athletes leave to go to the minors (like Baseball). The NFL loses because they have a minor league system now that they don't have to pay for. Unless the NFL thinks they can make a ton of extra money off of bucking this current system and building their own farm system I wouldn't expect this to happen.
No way any minor league football system would garner as much attention as NCAA Division 1 football. You're not going to get 65,000 people to attend football's equivalent of the Norfolk Tides.
I can't say the NFL is losing in anyway. Its the most popular sports league in the country and owning a team is more or less a license to print money. A minor league system will diminish the talent pool for NCAA football and as a fan I don't want that. I see the power 6 becoming a new "division" of the NCAA within the next 5 years and a stipend will be granted. Paid by the school. No boosters involved at all. Flat amounts. Issue is going to be making it even across sports
The NFL, NCAA, and universities would definitely lose money. The talent level in college sports would suffer. I'm okay with all of those things happening, but yeah, I doubt it ever happens. Heaven forbid we make any decisions for any reason other than money.
I like the trust fund idea and its only if they graduate with a degree from the school. I know scholarships are usually annual. To get to the trust fund the school has to agree to pay for 4 years from the beginning and the student has to graduate. Maybe it seems way too complicated
Any scheme to compensate players should have the following goals:
1) reduce incentive to cheat;
2) improve the perception of treating athletes fairly;
3) limit opportunities by boosters to game the system.
Players should be paid for their images which are used in video games and if the school decides to sell their jersey they should profit off that to some degree. Easiest way to do that would be each player gets a fixed amount if their jersey is produced. That way boosters can't simply buy 2 million jerseys of a player in order to compensate him and use such a promise to convince an athlete to come to that school. You could do something similar for sponsorships- all deals are run through the NCAA and for a fixed amount, with a cap at a certain number (3 sponsorships, maybe?). There may be anti-trust issues that come into play though, which isn't my area of expertise.
Nice call - I like this plan.
To your last statement ...promising to post something about the Hokies, shouldn't be in an apologetic slight (at least how I read it). I applaud this piece as a short, thought-provoking statement on the current situation with big-time athletics. While I believe the athlete is given a set of rules to play by, and a free ride to school, etcetera on the (perhaps facade-like) platform "student athlete" we should face this time that the purity of collegiate sports has been perverted and monetized to this current situation. We are all guilty parties -your piece is a testament that this discussion has many angles with no right or wrong answer to provoke conversation or discourse on the subject. Another reason why this site shows so much in comparison to the standard meat-head mouth-breathing fansites out there on teams sports that fan(atic)s frequent and read as their daily bibles.
Bravo!
I do believe something needs to be done. My first initial thought was some kind of trust fund which has been mentioned. I also agreed with some other points I hadn't thought of. But my two cents...
1) Give a very small stipend to all athletes at colleges/universities. (Same amount to each individual and very small)
a)They are already receiving plenty through scholarship (education, training, etc.)
2) For players who excel and become very known and help the university profit in large ways, set up a trust fund. They would get a fair percentage (determined in advance by NCAA) amount for sponsorships (set limit by NCAA with sponsor chosen by athlete and school that could be national or local), jersey sales (set percentage if school decides to produce that player's "number"), EA sports (very small, small, percentage because come on, it should be enough of an award for them to even be on a video game and if EA has to dish out a ton, they'll find ways around it), and whatever else. The EA may not even matter now that NCAA broke ties.
a)The trust would build throughout the time playing for the school. They would have advising meetings to know exactly how much they have built up for times when the do money need right away. That way in dire situations (like the car thing) they could take a loan out that would easily be paid back when they receive their fund OR NCAA could decide to allow to give what the needed at the time of their situation.
b) They could leave at any time and withdraw their whole amount. However, no degree and these percentages and limits would never be enough to allow them to live off (even though pretty good sum if fully taken advantage of); hence incentive to stay in school or leave after 3 years for NFL.
c) Very good idea, as mentioned before, to have classes/sessions to help these athletes know how to wisely use the money.
3) Keep boosters completely out. It has to be directly from the profit the players help generate. Must be managed between the school and player.
4)And if not hinted from before, the total earnings for one player would have a cap limit set by NCAA. That way a huge "corporation" school like OSU, USC, Alabama would not have an astronomical advantage over smaller schools. Yes, certain players may hit that cap limit more often at those schools than others, but that is no real different advantage from today where if you go to those schools, you already have a greater shot at getting noticed and getting to the NFL.
Ok, can't say I've totally thought it through so feel free to rip it apart. Thanks to the arguments before as I tried to think of a solution for any challenge someone brought up for what I thought was a good idea.
The whole model of college sports has problems. If college sports become all about money and not school pride or education then they can't really be called college sports. They are just developmental leagues for pro sports wrapped in a slick marketing cover (school pride and entertainment).
If players are to be compensated for their "abilities" in a capitalist market then the money needs to be independent of the schools. The student-athletes need to negotiate directy with the entertainment providers (TV and other media). That is the most direct model of capitalism, supply and demand, product to buyer. That way recruiting does not go to the highest bidder or the boosters with the deepest pockets. It cuts out the middle-men/women. Pro sports don't even do that so I am dreaming. Can you imagine a pro sports team owned by the players?
Knowing they can't be paid for their on field performance, athletes look for earning potential. Ergo, more visibility seems to infer greater earning potential. That is really a false model since it is proven wrong time and again. Players from no name schools are just as successful. Sports can provide that potential if you are very good. Education can provide it if you get a good degree. A scholarship can be leveraged in many ways. What I don't get is why more good student-athletes don't attend Ivy League schools. I guess there is a bias against being both smart and talented.
Is there more prestige playing for a college or playing in a developmental pro league? Which would have more value to the athlete? There is obviously a need (demand) that is met with college sports as evidenced by the big money thrown around to support them. Is this just an arms race between rival schools or is it more than that? There is just as much pride and competitiveness in non-revenue and club sports as there is in the revenue sports.
I think the corporate entertainment marketplace has corrupted the amatueristic aspects of the college experience. It has taken a long time to get here and there is no easy way out. Lots of people are making money off of student athletes and us the fans.
Here is an interesting article regarding WVU's idiotic coach and the whole "stipend for athletes" thing. He apparently believes in it because his athletes are close to starvation...what a joke.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/west-virginia-coach-ignores-larger-points-a...