Zach Evans

[Zubaz]

I tire of the idea that all these athletes have been taken advantage of.

Right now they have better housing, better food options, better facilities in which to train, all the tutors they need, better medical care, etc etc etc, not to mention a stipend to help pay for beer and other living expenses. And the cost of higher education has increased incredibly over the past 40 years. How much has it gone up for scholarship college athletes? 0%.

In so many ways they've never had it so good. And they are so taken advantage of that a line would form 10 miles long of people who would readily step in their shoes if they got tired of it.

It's possible to argue that they are (were?) being taken advantage of while at the same time recognizing that there are people that have it worse. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Eight]

The only thing different is it's out in the open now? If players have always been getting paid and nothing else has changed except people know about it now, why did people complain about them being taken advantage of? And players were always allowed to freely transfer? News to me.

please stop, you are grabbing at every different thing you can because you don't like the way things are changing

where have we been talking about transfers, heck, i agree on transfers but that goes back to those in charge

as far as the kids being taken advantage of you have your mind made up so to say anything else is a waste of the energy needed to type it out so i will allow you to go fight the windmills

 

[Wexahu]

It's possible to argue that they are (were?) being taken advantage of while at the same time recognizing that there are people that have it worse. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes, that is possible. But who has it worse? I would argue that basically everyone in the college football world had it better in 2019 than they did in 1979. Better everything really.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

Yes, that is possible. But who has it worse? I would argue that basically everyone in the college football world had it better in 2019 than they did in 1979. Better everything really.

Why limit yourself to college football? Pretty much everyone in the world had it better in 2019 than in 1979.

 

[Zubaz]

Yes, that is possible. But who has it worse? I would argue that basically everyone in the college football world had it better in 2019 than they did in 1979. Better everything really.

1) People were talking about these issues in 1979 as well. There's a reason those scandals occurred in the 1980's.
2) Is "you're better off than you were in 1979" really the standard to determine what is right and wrong?

 

[Wexahu]

1) People were talking about these issues in 1979 as well. There's a reason those scandals occurred in the 1980's.
2) Is "you're better off than you were in 1979" really the standard to determine what is right and wrong?

No. You said there are some people who have it worse. I assume you meant people involved with college football, and I assume you meant the players. They have better everything really, and are and have been completely immune to the skyrocketing costs of attending college. How exactly do they have it worse?

 

[Zubaz]

No. You said there are some people who have it worse. I assume you meant people involved with college football, and I assume you meant the players. They have better everything really, and are and have been completely immune to the skyrocketing costs of attending college. How exactly do they have it worse?

When you make reference to "a line would form 10 miles long of people who would readily step in their shoes", it appears you are arguing that others being worse off than they are somehow indicates that they are not being taken advantage of. But that's not really the standard. As I said, it's not mutually exclusive.

Again, yes they are better off than their but college football is also such a fundamentally different media product, did their compensation / benefits track with the explosion of college football's revenue explosion in both popularity and revenue? Not even close. The better question would be how their compensation relates to overall revenue, and how that ratio compares to other sports products that generate significant revenue. By that measure, they are still well, well, well below the mean, so it's not hard to argue that they are being taken advantage of.

 

[Dogfrog]

When you make reference to "a line would form 10 miles long of people who would readily step in their shoes", it appears you are arguing that others being worse off than they are somehow indicates that they are not being taken advantage of. But that's not really the standard. As I said, it's not mutually exclusive.

Again, yes they are better off than their but college football is also such a fundamentally different media product, did their compensation / benefits track with the explosion of college football's revenue explosion in both popularity and revenue? Not even close. The better question would be how their compensation relates to overall revenue, and how that ratio compares to other sports products that generate significant revenue. By that measure, they are still well, well, well below the mean, so it's not hard to argue that they are being taken advantage of.

College football is a voluntary contractual activity. What needs to happen is NFL needs to drop the age and school restrictions for drafting players.

 

[Zubaz]

College football is a voluntary contractual activity.

Pretty much everything short of conscription is "a voluntary contractual activity". Doesn't mean discussions about compensation and conditions shouldn't happen.

 

[Wexahu]

When you make reference to "a line would form 10 miles long of people who would readily step in their shoes", it appears you are arguing that others being worse off than they are somehow indicates that they are not being taken advantage of. But that's not really the standard. As I said, it's not mutually exclusive.

Again, yes they are better off than their but college football is also such a fundamentally different media product, did their compensation / benefits track with the explosion of college football's revenue explosion in both popularity and revenue? Not even close. The better question would be how their compensation relates to overall revenue, and how that ratio compares to other sports products that generate significant revenue. By that measure, they are still well, well, well below the mean, so it's not hard to argue that they are being taken advantage of.

Fair enough. This whole argument sounds a lot like the guy at Amazon making $300k/year complaining that he's being taken advantage of because the top execs make $5M+/year and the owner is worth a couple hundred billion dollars. I get it, I just don't agree with it.

And the explosion of college football revenue didn't happen because of the players. Players come and go like farts in the wind. The explosion came primarily because TV networks marketed the hell out of it and were willing to invest a ton of money in the sport. The top 100 players in college football could go on strike tomorrow and the sport would just continue to go on, almost without a hitch. And as Dogfrog pointed out, it's a completely voluntary activity.

 

[Zubaz]

And the explosion of college football revenue didn't happen because of the players. Players come and go like farts in the wind. The explosion came primarily because TV networks marketed the hell out of it and were willing to invest a ton of money in the sport. The top 100 players in college football could go on strike tomorrow and the sport would just continue to go on, almost without a hitch.

We've had this discussion before, and this is where we fundamentally disagree. You think the quality of the player doesn't matter, I think it does. You seem to think you can take Fordham vs. Dartmouth, put them in Alabama and LSU uniforms, and think college football would remain as popular as it is right now for very long. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

[Dogfrog]

Pretty much everything short of conscription is "a voluntary contractual activity". Doesn't mean discussions about compensation and conditions shouldn't happen.

The point being if a college education is not of value to them, and the NFL refuses to draft them, they have other options to move on with their life. They aren’t being victimized.

 

[Wexahu]

We've had this discussion before, and this is where we fundamentally disagree. You think the quality of the player doesn't matter, I think it does. You seem to think you can take Fordham vs. Dartmouth, put them in Alabama and LSU uniforms, and think college football would remain as popular as it is right now for very long. I don't think that's the case at all.

Fordham/Dartmouth to Bama/LSU is quite the stretch. There are about 10,000-15,000 players between those two levels. I'm saying you could take the top 100 players (probably 250 to be honest) and the sport would go on almost without a hitch. People talk about how successful the NCAA basketball tournament is and the players are basically anonymous anymore. More than anything, it's the stage and the uniforms.

UT went a few years where they barely had anyone drafted into the NFL, and pretty much stunk up the joint as a team. I think they still generated the most revenue of any college program. And they'll generate the most or very near the most if they stink it up for another decade.

 

[hiphopfroggy]

College football is a voluntary contractual activity. What needs to happen is NFL needs to drop the age and school restrictions for drafting players.

If a few teams try to break away from the NCAA this is exactly what the NFL will do; and it will be hilarious because the NFL will squash those would be break away schools into nothingness.

 

[Zubaz]

The point being if a college education is not of value to them, and the NFL refuses to draft them, they have other options to move on with their life. They aren’t being victimized.

This doesn't follow. Just because the NCAA has a de-facto monopoly on 18-22 year old talent by virtue of the NFL's actual monopoly on pro-football in America, college football players aren't being victimized?

Sounds like you're essentially saying "Accept it or move on", when there's an obvious third choice: Argue for change.

 

[Wexahu]

This doesn't follow. Just because the NCAA has a de-facto monopoly on 18-22 year old talent by virtue of the NFL's actual monopoly on pro-football in America, college football players aren't being victimized?

Sounds like you're essentially saying "Accept it or move on", when there's an obvious third choice: Argue for change.

Victimized? Good Lord........

 

[Bob Sugar]

Victimized? Good Lord........

The rich aren't paying their "fair share"

 

[Dogfrog]

This doesn't follow. Just because the NCAA has a de-facto monopoly on 18-22 year old talent by virtue of the NFL's actual monopoly on pro-football in America, college football players aren't being victimized?

Sounds like you're essentially saying "Accept it or move on", when there's an obvious third choice: Argue for change.

You ignored my point about the NFL dropping draft restrictions. That frees up the 18-22 year olds for the NFL. And if they show promise let the NFL bring them in, place them on a paid development program for a year or two. The reason the NFL has the draft restrictions is because college football is their free development league and they love it.

 

[Wexahu]

If a few teams try to break away from the NCAA this is exactly what the NFL will do; and it will be hilarious because the NFL will squash those would be break away schools into nothingness.

It appears as though the entire sport of college football has broken away from the NCAA. Not sure I've heard of any NCAA violations this year, because I'm not sure there is such a thing anymore.

 

[Zubaz]

Victimized? Good Lord........

I mean, we literally just had a Supreme Court case where they recognized their rights were being infringed. I'm not equating them to blood diamond miners, doesn't mean that they were being treated fairly either.