Recent Comments

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.

This is all I want to do now

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.

hokiesports.com is the worst website on the internet, so i wouldnt hold my breath there

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:

• Compensates all athletes for their marketing value beyond their scholarship.
• Doesn't give any team a recruiting edge.
• Can be applied equally across sports and schools.
• Does not interfere with a student's education.

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.

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

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...

luckily for UNC their student athletes don't even need to attend classes!

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.

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.

I'm hoping so, but I'm not sure if Tech will post an update, either on its athletics site or Beamer's.

But then you are relying on players paying attention in class....