Should the NFL Play at all in 2020? RBF

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
So again...exactly what are you proposing? A legal mandate that players must be paid, or voluntarily by school/conference? And is it a set salary, or can schools bid whatever they want for players?
That's what needs to go to the floor and negotiated, with players having appropriate representation.

There is no "exact" with something as broad and comprehensive a shift as this, nor is the lack of a black and white plan that is different from the current iteration any of my concern right now.

This is going to be a long process, as there are YEARS of entrenchment towards how these athletes have been used for enormous profits.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
What "floor" are you talking about? Congress passing law, or just private negotiations between players and the NCAA/schools?
I'd imagine those discussions will be anything but private. There is likely no reason that both of these scenarios aren't possible.

It will get ugly, and the media will be used to foster the same paternalistic myths about amateurism and how they're doing "whats best" for the kids.

Many people obviously want nothing to change and for the kid to "shut up and play."

Its going to be an ugly, preventable era for college athletics.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
The part that gets uncomfortable is that we operate under the assumption that fair market value for college football coaches, staff and administrators are high because that is the way they're valued in an open market.

The reality is that they're high because of the additional revenue available from not compensating athletes for playing the game which makes their universities all of this money.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
I'd imagine those discussions will be anything but private. There is likely no reason that both of these scenarios aren't possible. It will get ugly, and the media will be used to foster the same paternalistic myths about amateurism and how they're doing "whats best" for the kids. Many people obviously want nothing to change and for the kid to "shut up and play." Its going to be an ugly, preventable era for college athletics.
I have no idea what any of that means.

You said it needs to "go to the floor." Are you talking about the floor of Congress for legislation? Or are you talking just about voluntary negotiations between representatives of players and the NCAA/schools to see if they can come to agreement? Because it is blindingly obvious that the NCAA's preferred position is "nope, we're not paying anything" so just saying "they should negotiate it" is utterly meaningless. If there is no mutually agreeable voluntary solution -- and we know there isn't else the California court case would have been settled voluntarily long ago -- the negotiations are pointless.

You said my proposed solution "ignores the problem". But at least I've offered a solution. Your only solution seems to be "they need to talk about it and come to some agreement of which I would approve, even though I have no idea what a good solution would be."
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
I have no idea what any of that means.

You said it needs to "go to the floor." Are you talking about the floor of Congress for legislation? Or are you talking just about voluntary negotiations between representatives of players and the NCAA/schools to see if they can come to agreement?
I responded the first time by saying I think both are possible as this continues to play out.

I don't really know what is so hard to understand about that?

Because it is blindingly obvious that the NCAA's preferred position is "nope, we're not paying anything" so just saying "they should negotiate it" is utterly meaningless. If there is no mutually agreeable voluntary solution -- and we know there isn't else the California court case would have been settled voluntarily long ago -- the negotiations are pointless.
That's certainly one opinion, but its obvious that the pressure by players is only just beginning as they realize the power they hold.

Whether or not its "voluntary" or something that evolves over time, its changing right before our eyes.

You said my proposed solution "ignores the problem". But at least I've offered a solution. Your only solution seems to be "they need to talk about it and come to some agreement of which I would approve, even though I have no idea what a good solution would be."
You offered an alternative route players could chose, not a solution to the problems within NCAA.

I could agree with those becoming a possibility, as well.



Simply put, the NCAA has an opportunity to make an effort to compensate their athletes by cutting them in on the egregious revenues earned by playing college football and basketball. There are a number of ways by which they could accomplish this, or they could cancel the season and continue perpetuating the myth of amateurism. Seems like they're leaning towards perpetuating the myth and trying to shut down the season, but I'm hoping common sense will prevail and they figure out a way to fairly compensate players for the enormous revenues they bring in year after year.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
Simply put, the NCAA has an opportunity to make an effort to compensate their athletes by cutting them in on the egregious revenues earned by playing college football and basketball.
You seem to be ignoring reality here. The NCAA is fighting, in court, the concept that it should be required to pay players. The idea that they'll come to some "mutual agreement" with players is a fantasy. In fact, I'd say anyone advocating such "voluntary negotiations" must really be on the side on the NCAA, because those negotiations would be simply a long-dragged out process during which the NCAA will continue doing things exactly as they already are, and at the end of which nothing will have changed. That's a 100% win for the NCAA because years will pass, and nothing will have changed. They'll just keep pocketing all that money you don't want to see them keep for themselves.

So if you want things to change, you're going to have to pass a law mandating specific changes. And if you're refusing to get specific, then there's no point in discussing anything else.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
By the way -- one little complication to all this. The NCAA runs a completely voluntary association of member schools who are free to drop that association at any time if the rules governing it change, and that includes rules regarding payments to athletes. So even if the NCAA did decide -- or was required legally to -- change its own rules, individual schools that oppose the idea of paying athletes would simply leave, and form a new association of true "amateurs" again. Hell, even right now, there are difference college athletic associations based on scholarship limits. NCAA III doesn't even let member schools offer athletic scholarships at all.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
You seem to be ignoring reality here. The NCAA is fighting, in court, the concept that it should be required to pay players. The idea that they'll come to some "mutual agreement" with players is a fantasy. In fact, I'd say anyone advocating such "voluntary negotiations" must really be on the side on the NCAA, because those negotiations would be simply a long-dragged out process during which the NCAA will continue doing things exactly as they already are, and at the end of which nothing will have changed. That's a 100% win for the NCAA because years will pass, and nothing will have changed. They'll just keep pocketing all that money you don't want to see them keep for themselves.

So if you want things to change, you're going to have to pass a law mandating specific changes. And if you're refusing to get specific, then there's no point in discussing anything else.
The NCAA has been consistently losing, in court, for concepts just like this. O'Bannon and U of Oklahoma lawsuits come to mind specifically of the NCAA having sketchy legal arguments to continue their current model.

My openness and flexibility toward a number of viable alternatives to adjust the model doesn't make the conversation and ongoing fight pointless.

You seem like you're just picking a fight and matter of factly stating nothing will change.

If you think the conversation is pointless, find a door.
 

Triplethreat

All-Star
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
7,762
Points
113
I think we should take the NCAA talk to the NCAA portion of the board....

This has gone so far off topic it’s insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
You seem like you're just picking a fight and matter of factly stating nothing will change.
No -- I'm trying to have a discussion regarding a specific problem, and you are refusing to propose any specific solution because you don't want to defend the potential flaws in that solution. And my point about "nothing will change" is limited to expecting the NCAA to do what you want voluntarily. I'm saying that things can change, but you're going need specific legal mandates to make that happen. And you refuse to propose any.

If you think the conversation is pointless, find a door.
Adios.
 

selby56

Sixth Man
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,892
Reaction score
1,623
Points
113
@AZ_ I may have missed if you responded directly to this topic (this thread has a lot going on) so I apologize in advance if you've already answered. Would you propose that all universities across the board pay athletes, including the mid-majors, FCS, DII, etc? Or would you think this should be more of a P5 or FBS thing? Should each "level" of college football have different guidelines?

I've worked in four different mid-major athletic departments, in ticketing mostly, so I will admit I am not too high on the food chain to know what all revenues look like. But at two of the FCS locations I've been at football just simply does not bring much revenue in terms of ticketing. Dirt cheap tickets, small venue, normally filling a third of the stadium. I don't know what the TV contracts looked like, but if the best case is a stream on ESPN+ I can't imagine there is a ton of revenue there either. Then obviously much of the revenue that does come in will go towards Olympic sports.

The reason I ask is because I agree the vast majority of P5 schools can afford to pay their student athletes, probably even most of the G5 schools can at least provide a stipend of some sort. However, I do think there is still a place for the scholarship/amateur student athlete. There are countless stories of kids coming from low-income families that normally wouldn't be able to afford college, but they get a scholarship to play football at a Kennesaw State or a Newberry College. This scholarship could be live-changing and allow them to get a degree, go on to begin a career with a good paying job, etc.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on if you think there should be different guidelines for each level of college football. Is there room at any level for the scholarship/amateur student athlete? Thanks!
 

Randolphkeys

Speaking on the Pompitous
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
27,704
Reaction score
61,484
Points
148
So about that thing I was saying originally...


As amateur high school and college football practices begin, the reality is setting in. One guy decided to hook up with a chick at a party a few days ago, gets Covid, and now everyone he practiced with has to be tested and quarantined. There goes 20 players for two weeks.

Young single amateur football players aren't tremendously careful. I give this whole season a few weeks tops before they shut it down.
 

Amherstcavsfan

Always a Wine and Gold Winner
Browns Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
16,811
Reaction score
22,285
Points
135

Again, there are issues. It's clear that the NFL players are okay with the risks so I'm ok with them playing the season as long as they are ok with the potential consequences. Which I would imagine most football players are already ok with, as they are likely to suffer from injuries on the field.
 
Top