University of Buffalo

[WavePunter]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

For being a former student-athlete, this statement lacks any sort of thought structure that would be necessary to put forward a cohesive argument. Sure if you want to riff on uniforms for a few lines of text, knock yourself out with an ellipsis or two, but this comes off as rambling.

 

To compare a D2 experience to even a D1 mid-major is complete night and day. Bring in a power 5 football factory program into the discussion and it's not even worthy of comparison it's a complete joke. UNC is a perfect example (there are others) of creating a farcical educational experience in creating a fraudulent academic experience, thus creating a de facto semi-pro environment where the athletic department exploited the labor of it's athletes in order to reap hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that primarily benefited a select few.

 

The concept of student-athlete as it pertains to big time college sports died in the 1980's once tv money got involved.

To compare experiences within the context of the discussion voids the validity of any points made in regards to the general, all-encompassing rules.. Your UNC example is a perfect example of what's wrong with the institutions within the system, not the system itself.. Regardless of division or conference affiliation, student-athletes should have the opportunity to earn outside money (i addressed this previously).. I have no issue with that.. I have an issue with them demanding a paid salary on top of the scholarship they're already receiving.. They are being compensated for their athletic efforts with an athletic scholarship.. If they want other money, they should absolutely be allowed to get it in other ways, just not in a salary-type fashion from their school.. And I think you're overexaggerating the student-athlete experience as a whole, especially outside of power 5 football players.. Sure, some schools push the limits of what's acceptable, but by-and-large, it's pretty straight forward and most individuals don't have much issue managing their studies on their own

[rams80]

Why shouldn't they get a paid salary?  Until the NCAA let schools offer multi-year scholarships a year or two ago they could lose their scholarship simply for not doing well in sports.

 

That sounds an awful lot like a job, complete with performance expectations and stated grounds for termination.

[guest23]

4 hours ago, WavePunter said:

To compare experiences within the context of the discussion voids the validity of any points made in regards to the general, all-encompassing rules.. Your UNC example is a perfect example of what's wrong with the institutions within the system, not the system itself.. Regardless of division or conference affiliation, student-athletes should have the opportunity to earn outside money (i addressed this previously).. I have no issue with that.. I have an issue with them demanding a paid salary on top of the scholarship they're already receiving.. They are being compensated for their athletic efforts with an athletic scholarship.. If they want other money, they should absolutely be allowed to get it in other ways, just not in a salary-type fashion from their school.. And I think you're overexaggerating the student-athlete experience as a whole, especially outside of power 5 football players.. Sure, some schools push the limits of what's acceptable, but by-and-large, it's pretty straight forward and most individuals don't have much issue managing their studies on their own

 

The problem is that this is a massively complex business/labor model disguised as amateur athletics. While you do have some pure amateurs (aka those with no pro aspirations) the  ncaa has allowed itself to become a de facto farm system for many sports. Most ncaa sports generate no revenue while a select few generate revenue in the billions annually which is then divided amongst member institutions based on predetermined agreements. Member schools have said in the past that as compensation for participating in sports they would be compensated by either free/subsidized tuition and living expenses in some cases. This model could be considered fair and equitable in a bygone era where both the student and institution placed education as the highest priority over collegiate athletics or seeking a professional career.

 

The inherent problem is that priorities have shifted dramatically away from that nostalgic and antiquated model. Institutions see athletics as a product to monetize to the collective tune of billions annually. Athletics are now a product that are actively branded and sold. That product requires labor who are the ncaa athletes. Without that labor the product would not be valued the way it currently is. So the question is that is labor getting fair market value for their labor in a scholarship or do they have the right to individually/collectively bargain for more compensation?

 

The fallacy that I called out with the UNC example is that you have too many examples to count of big time athletics forcing their athletes into fraudulent academic programs to stay eligible and focus on sports. These schools are essentially admitting that the education component of being a student-athlete is a farce. Additionally, the amount of time spent on athletics over academics would indicate many individuals are athletes first and students a distant second.

 

Ncaa is not pro sports and it might not even be minor league but there's a select echelon of athletes that are generating billions in revenue and should be compensated above and beyond a scholarship. Some sort of semi-pro payscale sounds like a reasonable start. Additionally they should be able to major in their sport and if they choose to get a real education later in their lives, that scholarship should be honored.

 

 

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

The problem is that this is a massively complex business/labor model disguised as amateur athletics. While you do have some pure amateurs (aka those with no pro aspirations) the  ncaa has allowed itself to become a de facto farm system for many sports. Most ncaa sports generate no revenue while a select few generate revenue in the billions annually which is then divided amongst member institutions based on predetermined agreements. Member schools have said in the past that as compensation for participating in sports they would be compensated by either free/subsidized tuition and living expenses in some cases. This model could be considered fair and equitable in a bygone era where both the student and institution placed education as the highest priority over collegiate athletics or seeking a professional career.

 

The inherent problem is that priorities have shifted dramatically away from that nostalgic and antiquated model. Institutions see athletics as a product to monetize to the collective tune of billions annually. Athletics are now a product that are actively branded and sold. That product requires labor who are the ncaa athletes. Without that labor the product would not be valued the way it currently is. So the question is that is labor getting fair market value for their labor in a scholarship or do they have the right to individually/collectively bargain for more compensation?

 

The fallacy that I called out with the UNC example is that you have too many examples to count of big time athletics forcing their athletes into fraudulent academic programs to stay eligible and focus on sports. These schools are essentially admitting that the education component of being a student-athlete is a farce. Additionally, the amount of time spent on athletics over academics would indicate many individuals are athletes first and students a distant second.

 

Ncaa is not pro sports and it might not even be minor league but there's a select echelon of athletes that are generating billions in revenue and should be compensated above and beyond a scholarship. Some sort of semi-pro payscale sounds like a reasonable start. Additionally they should be able to major in their sport and if they choose to get a real education later in their lives, that scholarship should be honored.

 

 

I don't disagree that the system should be tweaked.. I find it absurd that a music major can potentially be on a full ride for academics, hold a part time (or full time) job, and also make their own music, sign a record deal to a major label, and make money off of that, while the athletes don't have a similar option.. Again, they absolutely should be able to seek opportunities to make money, I just don't feel like the school owes them more than the agreed upon scholarship.. There are plenty of businesses that make billions, while several employees only make in the tens of thousands.. No one's rallying for their cause.. You get what you sign up for.. You can say it's a farce all you want, but it's the one place where the star quarterback and third string volleyball libero make the same salary - $0.. You can say the academic aspect is a farce and a remnant of a bygone era, but it's the one thing that the rules currently hold true.. You're there for an education.. Only 1% go pro, so the rules shouldn't be adjusted for the other 99%.. If you keep changing rules to chase the problems, you'll never catch them.. Simply enforce those at the root of the problems, and make changes to alleviate the issues within the system.. Allowing athletes to market themselves and earn money addresses the issue of their compensation, while enforcing the rules that maintain academic importance will help address the perversion of the system

[guest23]

I used to hold a similar position, but after watching revenues explode and the ncaa doubling down on the farce of amateurism, I'm fully in favor decoupling major college sports from their academics and call it semi-pro collegiate affiliated entertainment.

 

There's one theory that the p5 could leave the ncaa and form their own association of 64+ top earning schools that would eliminate the amateurism requirement and drastically alter academic requirements. That could be the best solution for everyone.

[WavePunter]

32 minutes ago, guest23 said:

I used to hold a similar position, but after watching revenues explode and the ncaa doubling down on the farce of amateurism, I'm fully in favor decoupling major college sports from their academics and call it semi-pro collegiate affiliated entertainment.

 

There's one theory that the p5 could leave the ncaa and form their own association of 64+ top earning schools that would eliminate the amateurism requirement and drastically alter academic requirements. That could be the best solution for everyone.

And if that's what they do, then I support it, but until then, these kids are agreeing to something on the front end, then complaining about it on the back end.. Not to mention, on one hand, people talk about how they deserve more money, etc, but on the other hand, the same people want to suggest they aren't being held to any academic standards and are sub-par students.. You can't sympathize with them and condone them in the same breath

[rams80]

50 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

And if that's what they do, then I support it, but until then, these kids are agreeing to something on the front end, then complaining about it on the back end.. Not to mention, on one hand, people talk about how they deserve more money, etc, but on the other hand, the same people want to suggest they aren't being held to any academic standards and are sub-par students.. You can't sympathize with them and condone them in the same breath

 

Query:  Does you typical prospective college football athlete have any other realistic option if they wish to possibly pursue a career after college?  If you have no realistic choice, why should we fault them for making a bad agreement?

[WavePunter]

11 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

Query:  Does you typical prospective college football athlete have any other realistic option if they wish to possibly pursue a career after college?  If you have no realistic choice, why should we fault them for making a bad agreement?

Your typical prospective college football athlete is a 17 year old kid with almost zero chance at a professional football career.. Your typical productive college football athlete should be thankful to receive a free education, and planning on a career outside of professional football.. I don't consider it a bad agreement, but that's just my opinion.. 

[rams80]

54 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Your typical prospective college football athlete is a 17 year old kid with almost zero chance at a professional football career.. Your typical productive college football athlete should be thankful to receive a free education, and planning on a career outside of professional football.. I don't consider it a bad agreement, but that's just my opinion.. 

 

So if they don't have a chance at an NFL career, yet their school is raking in millions through their efforts, shouldn't they get a cut now since this is literally their only chance to get a full payment for football?

[guest23]

2 hours ago, WavePunter said:

Your typical prospective college football athlete is a 17 year old kid with almost zero chance at a professional football career.. Your typical productive college football athlete should be thankful to receive a free education, and planning on a career outside of professional football.. I don't consider it a bad agreement, but that's just my opinion.. 

 

 

Oh yes the old "you should be grateful for receiving nominal compensation whilst providing the essential skilled labor whilst we at the top reap the vast majority (and growing) financial benefit". This is a classic capital/labor argument and is often justification for exploitation because something is better than nothing.

 

I will agree though that it's up to the athletes to organize and negotiate collectively if they want a larger share of the financial windfall. Based on the mizzou strike threat last year, it appears that the athletes have way more clout than anyone ever thought but they would need a national an unified front.

[rams80]

The athletes should act quickly, though, because the tea partiers in state legislatures have already recognized the "problem" and are taking steps to prevent further Mizzous.

[-kj]

So, uh, about those logos...