Jake McDonough talks about paying players.

[Clonefan32]

What concerns me a little is when he says some players wouldn't use the money they received and send it home to take care of their families. Is that legal for them to do that? I don't know the rules on what/where the money can be spent..so maybe its a non issue.

I can't see why that would be illegal. They give you the money, it's yours to do what you want with, I'm sure.

 

[Dandy]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a huge fan of following this pay-for-play story. IIRC, a problem with this is the pay has to be equal throughout the athletics department. A scholarship football player would get paid the same as a scholarship volleyball player. I believe Title 9 is the reason.

And someone else said it earlier and I agree, the NCAA is going to change A LOT over the next 10 years.

If you're on Twitter, a good follow for this subject is Jay Bilas. He is constantly proving the NCAA makes money off of athletes and their likeness and he always has photo evidence to prove it.

 

[BringBackJohnny]

Cap coaching staff salaries and numbers
Pay all scholarship and non scholarship athletes small standardized wage based on hours of work.
Curb the king football mentality. It is making a select few rich while profiting on the rest.
Medical expenses for all athletic injuries should be 100% while in school.
Life long injuries should receive a payment from an NCAA owned fund.
NCAA should contribute more to general scholarship funds for students

Never will happen by hey that's my take

 

[Clonefan32]

One thing I do find interesting, is it appears there is an overwhelming anti-NCAA sentiment amongst fans of college sports, but on here Jake's article has received a very bad reception, including myself. I wonder what the middle ground is between hating the NCAA and its profiteering nature, but not feeling bad for student athletes that claim they should make money off of their sport.

 

[NickTheGreat]

I don't like the idea of paying players, because I feel they are. You can argue that the theoretical cost of attendance is not the same as they get paid. And that needs to be fixed.

But at the same time, I'd be mad if I were the football player whose jersey gets sold and makes ISU money. I know that is part of the deal, but my direct efforts were being profited off of, and I saw no more than the guy whose jersey wasn't.

I see their point, but I'm not quite sure I agree with it.

 

[Bigman38]

I'm ok with pay for play if you can present a reasonable plan. I haven't seen anything close to that yet.

 

[TedKumsher]

If they could come up with a fair plan I wouldn't have a problem with paying players but I have yet to see one that even comes close to addressing all the problems. Even allowing them to sell their autographs is problematic. Say a booster buys one for $10000.

Selling their likeness would be only acceptable to approved vendors. No individuals and no businesses owned by a major booster.
Said vendors are required to spread their money around -- a minimum of 2 conferences and a minimum of 3 schools per conference and all schools within say 10% of each other. Also an overall total minimum expenditure.

I'm sure more stuff like that can be thought up to mitigate abuse. Nobody would be able to buy a $25,000 autograph directly from the athlete without the hassle of getting approved vendor status, AND spending $112,500 on other schools' athletes.

 

[CycloneErik]

One thing I do find interesting, is it appears there is an overwhelming anti-NCAA sentiment amongst fans of college sports, but on here Jake's article has received a very bad reception, including myself. I wonder what the middle ground is between hating the NCAA and its profiteering nature, but not feeling bad for student athletes that claim they should make money off of their sport.

Some probably comes down to wording. If that article is or becomes widely read, Jake has likely done more to discredit the idea of sharing the wealth with the athletes than anything so far. He just put together an awful argument.

 

[TedKumsher]

Crap I had typed a long reply but lost my internet connection. Anyway, I don't know how many articles written by former athletes that some of you need in order to believe that there is a problem. Yes they should be paid and I think if done correctly it will even improve the competitive balance within the P5 and help a team like ISU. Why do you think many of the top athletes end up in the SEC (just picking a conference at random)? I'm sure everything was always above board.

I just can't fathom any way in which allowing players to be paid will reduce cheating.

Now: "Hey -- we can't pay you legally, and nobody else can either, so here's $20,000 'under-the-table' if you choose us over them."

Then: "Hey -- we can legally pay you exactly the same amount as every other D1 school in the major conferences, so here's $20,000 'under-the-table' if you choose us over them."

 

[Clonefan32]

Some probably comes down to wording. If that article is or becomes widely read, Jake has likely done more to discredit the idea of sharing the wealth with the athletes than anything so far. He just put together an awful argument.

Ya, there may be an argument there for being exploited by the NCAA, but acting as though he had to rough it to the point he needed government assistance while other college kids were living the high life is just...bad.

 

[CycloneErik]

Ya, there may be an argument there for being exploited by the NCAA, but acting as though he had to rough it to the point he needed government assistance while other college kids were living the high life is just...bad.

To say that he needed it while getting a meal plan and paying $500/month while living with 3 roommates in (somehow) substandard living condition equates to a 1% problem.

If there's an apartment in Ames that he could get stuck paying that much, it's not a dump.

 

[WalkingCY]

I can't believe The Verve have it all figured out:

"Try to make ends meet. You're a slave to money then you die."

Oh wait, didn't they rip off the Rolling Stones?

(Ha)

 

[Tre4ISU]

This may be the only part of his "article" I actually agreed with. With the extreme time commitment of football, and the fact the University is more than willing to have them play a Friday night game in Connecticut, I do see how it would be difficult to take on a difficult course of study and play football. I do see how one would gravitate to an easier major in order to not bite off more than they can chew and stay eligible.

That has nothing to do with being able to survive, which is the point of the article. School business is in the players and coaches hands. If coaches are sterring kids toward easy majors, that's a problem. If kids are choosing easy majors, that's a problem. Neither problem, however, has anything to do with their scholarship.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I'm not talking about the value of the degree. I'm talking about the value of the scholarship. Those are two different things. A scholarship is artificially capped at the cost of tuition/room/board/etc. and in many cases that amount has been shown to be less than the total out of pocket cost required to attend. If the courts find that the NCAA is a cartel, then it's a very clear anti-trust violation. The amateurism and competitive balance arguments that the NCAA likes to hide behind won't really matter at that point.

The fact that people can't see that in the end, the value of a scholarship is the value of the degree obtained is a huge issue here.

 

[Clonefan32]

That has nothing to do with being able to survive, which is the point of the article. School business is in the players and coaches hands. If coaches are sterring kids toward easy majors, that's a problem. If kids are choosing easy majors, that's a problem. Neither problem, however, has anything to do with their scholarship.

A scholarship, at least in my view, provides access to an education for free. The quality of that education, is a separate matter. What I'm saying is the claim that "they're getting a free education!" isn't necessarily as meaningful as some suggest, as for so many players it appears to be a watered down education which is necessary for them to stay eligible.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

It's a double edged sword for me. If you can find a way to pay every athlete of every sport the same rate, I'm fine, don't really care. Problem is, I'd you do that, how many athletic departments in the country would go under, eliminating thousands of opportunities for athletes to get a free quality education that they likely will use after graduation.

 

[CyArob]

To say that he needed it while getting a meal plan and paying $500/month while living with 3 roommates in (somehow) substandard living condition equates to a 1% problem.

If there's an apartment in Ames that he could get stuck paying that much, it's not a dump.

Either that, or his landlord was a heck of a salesman.

 

[CycloneErik]

Either that, or his landlord was a heck of a salesman.

Good point. That would raise the issue of the value of his education again.

 

[BringBackJohnny]

The sad thing is the NCAA is the best possible answer to preserve college athletics. They have let the money cloud the mission of college athletics.

The whole thing is really just sad that it has gotten to this point.

It is a game. It is entertainment. It is a teaching tool. That's what pretty much all sport is. That's all college athletics is.

 

[Mr Janny]

The fact that people can't see that in the end, the value of a scholarship is the value of the degree obtained is a huge issue here.

Ok, that's fine, but it's still apples to oranges when you're talking about the true, measurable, dollar value of a scholarship, in a legal sense, and comparing it to the potential value of a degree.