The Suspicions of the Suspicious, Suspiciously Surface . . .

[Cane from the Bend]

Now, that much I agree with.

If a player finds himself marketable, then by virtue of working age, he should be allowed to utilize his name for self worth.

.

.

.

[warrriorsfan808]

I am obviously behind the power curve on this, but what exactly is the rule about someone being on a scholarship and working?, and does this apply to all scholarships or just sports scholarships?

[Cane from the Bend]

Only athletic scholarships.

The rule is, an NCAA athlete is not allowed to hold a paying job while maintaining an Athletic Scholarship.

Rationale . . . to prevent players from being paid more than the average wages usually associated with said position of employment. And to prevent players receiving payment for circumstances, where they do not even show up for work.

Generally assumed as boosters giving X number of $$$ to the place of business, in order to keep said player employed. Regardless if he (or she) is performing the tasks coinciding with that jobs duties.

The idea is, that it is too difficult to maintain observation of all student athletes who would otherwise have jobs; where the possibility of paying more than what the job position should pay . . . and making certain that such player is actually showing up to work.

.

.

.

[donovan]

Correct. The rule changed a couple of years ago that allow athletes to work but they can not earn more than the average incidental expenses of going to school, generally 1500 to 2500 a school year. Sounds like they can work...Except this. During the season sport, they can not hold jobs. That means during football you can't work if you play football. Not because the rule prohibits it....but there is no time to work. So then work when you don't play football. And when is that...football is a year round sport with mandatory training etc. Basketball is even worse. So say out of the nine months you can find four months to work. Well you can not get paid more than the prevailing wage for the job. So at ten bucks an hour...no go. In essence, the new rule is so restrictive in major sports, just does not happen. Every sport is treated differently also. Ice hockey and skiing for example can compete and make money but it has limitation.

And of course, only parents can contribute to your incidental spending.

Nobody thinks the rule works. Drexel a couple of years ago did an exhaustive study, read it and you just shake your head. The authors of the NCAA ruling after they were done with the NCAA went to work drafting legislation for Obamacare, I think.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/13/ncaa-rules-trap-many-college-athletes-in-poverty/

[billybud]

Vestiges of slavery?

You maybe have a poor concept of slavery.


These kids market themselves, travel all over the country to interview their finalists, and voluntarily sign up to play a sport.

They get a $100,000 education...free room and board and some living expenses.

They are not chopping cotton in the hot sun for 14 hour days and whipped for transgressions.

[Spence]

Yes, more like Indentured servants.

[donovan]

Vestiges of slavery?

You maybe have a poor concept of slavery.


These kids market themselves, travel all over the country to interview their finalists, and voluntarily sign up to play a sport.

They get a $100,000 education...free room and board and some living expenses.

They are not chopping cotton in the hot sun for 14 hour days and whipped for transgressions.

Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention!

PS The part of your post I understand the most is "whipped for transgressions" Maybe my father, who was one of the great guys of this life, was a closet slave master.

[Spence]

Vestiges of slavery?

You maybe have a poor concept of slavery.


These kids market themselves, travel all over the country to interview their finalists, and voluntarily sign up to play a sport.

They get a $100,000 education...free room and board and some living expenses.

They are not chopping cotton in the hot sun for 14 hour days and whipped for transgressions.

Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention!

PS The part of your post I understand the most is "whipped for transgressions" Maybe my father, who was one of the great guys of this life, was a closet slave master.

I'm not sure, but we may have had the same dad. My dad was pretty good with a belt at just the right time.

[Cane from the Bend]

My father used a belt, too . . .

My mother, however, was a master of her craft . . . she used a wooden cooking spoon.
I can tell you, she sure cooked our butts something hot (mine & my brother's).

That is, until my brother ticked her off just enough, that she broke the spoon over his hide [maybe the only thing worth thanking my brother for].

.

.

.

[Spence]

My father used a belt, too . . .

My mother, however, was a master of her craft . . . she used a wooden cooking spoon.
I can tell you, she sure cooked our butts something hot (mine & my brother's).

That is, until my brother ticked her off just enough, that she broke the spoon over his hide [maybe the only thing worth thanking my brother for].

.

.

.

My mom would grab a green switch. (a small flexible tree branch). Luckily she couldn't catch me and I had to face dad. Anything was better than the green switch.

[Cane from the Bend]

Does not matter what spin you put on it.

Here ya go Donovan . . . spin this in your specialized colorful way:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1788 ... 0-football

.

.

.

[donovan]

Does not matter what spin you put on it.

Here ya go Donovan . . . spin this in your specialized colorful way:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1788 ... 0-football

.

First of all, Spence...anyone on this post that does not know what a green switch is, doesn't deserve to know. I digress before I start.

Delaney's comments are like most of his comments, they have nothing to do with the issue he talks about.

Sure if the NFL and NBA and MLS, etc want to start minor leagues and there are college players want to go play for them and take their chance. Good..let the leagues and let the players. I'm good with that.

But that has absolutely zero to do with the fact that college athletes are performing services for which they are not paid or can not be paid, even if it is not from the school and is legal. Two different subjects.

DeLaney wants to protect the status quo. He says it works wonderfully the way it is. Financially it does, that is not the argument. The argument is the players are prohibited from being compensated for their efforts that are not part of playing the game of Saturday, but on the extra revenue productions where the schools profit. e.g. Video games.

As for the rest, no one is talking about paying the kids a 100,000 salary. We are talking about incidental expenses that allows kids to go to school, participate in a sport and be able to attend because the have front pocket money for the non covered expenses. We are talking about giving the kids a couple of hundred bucks a month. Do that and I'm good. If athletes don't want to be on the video games, sign the waiver.

Why not have sharecropping...Schools own the land and those the "till" the field get a share. Why that's what we did when slavery was abolished. Of course DeLaney does not want to abolish slavery. (Mr. Billybud...they tried to grow cotton on the blue turf but found not everyone liked blue cotton so they just used it for football games. )

[Spence]

I think Delany is on to something even if it is unintended. Putting student back into student athlete may not be such a bad thing. Yes the quality of the product would go down, but the scholarship program would do what it was intended to do - let a kid who wanted an education trade playing a sport for his chance to get a college education.

The rest could do to the minors. Deal with it like baseball. Low pay to the guys until the prove themselves.

[Cane from the Bend]

Donovan . . . there are a number of players looking for a dollar value to the performance production, based on assumed player worth.

What you are referring to, is many from the outside looking in.

The players on the inside (some), are using the peoples' voices on the outside to generate a case that would allow, pay for play. The video game argument is just to get the ball rolling. Then, they will press for more, once they are given a little.

.

Spence . . . I agree completely.

Although, I would venture to say, the quality may suffer, for a while. However, the fan interest would likely maintain as strong as ever.
College Football predates the pros, far and wide. And the Collegiate brand vastly exceeds the pros whereas viewer interest is concerned.

The espns of the world, tried their best to manipulate the market, so that the nfl would flourish above all else.

Yes, I will admit, the sports networks have helped to increase the revenue of professional football; they failed greatly to make it the dominant product.

College Football was still watched by more televisions than the pros, mainly due to regional allegiances of the typical viewer, who dedicated their tv time to watching the home team, playoffs and the super bowl.

College Football has always been an "every game matters" sport, which makes most programs national.

Unfortunately, espn continues to pat itself on the back for the prominence the Collegiate ranks enjoy.
And, yes, to some extent, espn has made tv viewership more accessible to the smaller programs.

But, that is not do to lack of interest by the fanbase . . . and had very little to do with media advertising.

There was no need for it.

There is a reason why many College Stadiums seat larger amount of people the do pro stadiums.
Put College Football on against anything, and it wins.

espn is simply taking credit for what they have not done. The only thing they did, was put more games on to watch. Any other network could have done the same thing . . . just nobody tried it.

Anyhow, I like the idea of getting Collegiate Athletics back to what it is supposed to be.
Put the student back into the athlete, and let them make the decisions to go pro.

Maybe the minor leagues would fail (almost certainly they would). But at least there would be an option available to those who wanted to get paid now.

And if the pros wanted to take a kid early, fine. Let those mistakes happen. Let the kids choose an early payday over an education.

The games will go on. The brand will survive. The people will not lose interest.

.

.

.

[Eric]

I think the NFL will be hesitant to take anybody straight out of high school. Think of how many prospects that grade highly fizzle out and become average-to-decent college guys. Analysts that monitor the recruiting services drool over everybody that big-time programs are interested in, but way fewer than half of them wind up ever playing in the pros. Plus with the maturation process, sometimes you have no idea if the guy you are drafting has issues that, if he went to college, would get hammered out or if he is a permanent dud.

A minor league system would have to be very developmental because there's no such thing as a sure thing when it comes to football. I think college football provides a valuable weeding out system for the NFL, so they don't have to take on that burden. I think they feel like a minor league system would be unprofitable (NFL Europe was losing millions per year) so it's better just to use the NCAA as their "minor" leagues. And of course the NFL can dictate the terms because they're the ones paying the big contracts. If they wanted to, they could lift the restrictions, but they choose not to for whatever reason.