college players getting smart

[texaspackerbacker]

I can't help thinking that losing the head coach before the bowl game is not that big a deal. Losing star players, though, that's a different matter. I can't blame these guys for doing it, but it kinda begs the question, when do you pull the plug? Why not half way through a losing season? Why did they not skip the year and go pro a year ago?

I've favored - or at least not opposed - the idea of paying college players for a long time, but you do that and you get to the question of how much and who decides - complete free market?a salary cap? a fixed amount either for everybody or based on quality or playing time? Do we really want the teams with the richest boosters to get all the top players? Could a player jump to a different team without losing eligibility? Would eligibility even be a thing? If the pay was just token or too little, you'd have the same situation you have now. If it was too much, it wouldn't really even be college football.

After putting a lot of thought into this (about 3 minutes actually), I came up with two solutions:

1. Pay players a token small fixed rate - I suppose they get something like that now as part of the whole scholarship package; Then add on extras based on numbers set by the NCAA for performance, games played, etc. - with a large amount deriving from bowl/post season games. This money would go into a fund which the player couldn't touch until his college career was over. One problem with that would be borrowing against the fund - which would either be allowed or not, but then, I think that happens now for players who are fairly sure to go to the NFL.

2. Make the whole thing pretty much unrestricted pro. Preserve the college identity by having colleges basically rent their facilities to developmental pro teams. For example, the Wisconsin Badgers would still play at Camp Randall; They would still be part of the Big Ten; They just would be the next level down of players not quite ready for the NFL. Whitewater, Oshkosh, or whoever would still play in the same conference as now, but would have pro teams comprised of the next level down of players. You still would have major questions of regulation or not, affiliation with NFL teams or not, changing teams mid-season or not (or mid-career or not), trades, etc.

It's a complicated mess hahahaha.

[HowardRoark]

I don't see how this issue has anything to do with the other one (amateur issue) whatsoever.

There is an easy fix though I'd think. Just quantify the earning potential for the guys getting drafted (come up with a logical system), and have NCAA and bowl game city buy short term insurance on those kids that would pay out upon injury.

Although this issue could start creeping into the Season too I would think; once a player locks in his draft status, why wouldn't he just stop playing?

[pbmax]

Insurance against lost future wages has proven very difficult for players to get paid. It took years and a retirement for Finley to get his and still not sure he got 100%, they never reported what he received. At best its a stopgap. I think Finley was due $10 mil, but he would have earned more playing 4 more years.

Additionally, a potentially significant part of the college players' future wages depend on things they do in their offseason, which they wouldn't be doing after an injury.

The most logical step is to take out insurance, skip the bowl game and continue to work out. A lot of future first round picks take insurance out prior to their last season.

[BZnDallas]

We haven't been seeing players from the playoff teams skip their bowl games. Maybe this is the way to get an 8 or 16 team playoff system. If players stay for the chance at a championship, I say go for it. Sure you'll have some talent skip lesser bowl games. Cost of doing business.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Got no problem with players bailing on the Bowl games. The NCAA treats football like a business, so I don't see why the players can't either.

Love the comments about loyalty as they only come up with talented players, not the 2nd string OL or LB, those guys the talking heads and boosters don't give two shits about and could care less if they transfer or quit.

I've also seen comments about that they are hurting their draft stock by not playing in the Bowl game. Yeah, because NFL teams don't already have a couple dozen games of film on the players already, so missing that one Bowl game will make them forget all about a player or change their valuation.

[Guiness]

Maybe a player shouldn't be drafted right out of high school into the NFL. How often do we hear of guys maturing and getting to full size during their college years ala Clay?

You're right of course, some guys need it, and nearly all probably benefit from the seasoning they get. A friend's son plays OL, dominated in HS ball and was recruited by universities, but who knows if he has what it takes to go past that level...he's a 17 year old kid, have a better idea in 4 years.

Having said that, it's not for everyone. This kid is going into Engineering, he was going to uni regardless but there are certainly some kids who are 'at school' in name only. Problem is, the college game is so big, they've got nowhere else to play.

[Fritz]

I can't help thinking that losing the head coach before the bowl game is not that big a deal. Losing star players, though, that's a different matter. I can't blame these guys for doing it, but it kinda begs the question, when do you pull the plug? Why not half way through a losing season? Why did they not skip the year and go pro a year ago?

I've favored - or at least not opposed - the idea of paying college players for a long time, but you do that and you get to the question of how much and who decides - complete free market?a salary cap? a fixed amount either for everybody or based on quality or playing time? Do we really want the teams with the richest boosters to get all the top players? Could a player jump to a different team without losing eligibility? Would eligibility even be a thing? If the pay was just token or too little, you'd have the same situation you have now. If it was too much, it wouldn't really even be college football.

After putting a lot of thought into this (about 3 minutes actually), I came up with two solutions:

1. Pay players a token small fixed rate - I suppose they get something like that now as part of the whole scholarship package; Then add on extras based on numbers set by the NCAA for performance, games played, etc. - with a large amount deriving from bowl/post season games. This money would go into a fund which the player couldn't touch until his college career was over. One problem with that would be borrowing against the fund - which would either be allowed or not, but then, I think that happens now for players who are fairly sure to go to the NFL.

2. Make the whole thing pretty much unrestricted pro. Preserve the college identity by having colleges basically rent their facilities to developmental pro teams. For example, the Wisconsin Badgers would still play at Camp Randall; They would still be part of the Big Ten; They just would be the next level down of players not quite ready for the NFL. Whitewater, Oshkosh, or whoever would still play in the same conference as now, but would have pro teams comprised of the next level down of players. You still would have major questions of regulation or not, affiliation with NFL teams or not, changing teams mid-season or not (or mid-career or not), trades, etc.

It's a complicated mess hahahaha.

I would suggest keeping college teams associated with the universities, as they are now. But don't make these kids pretend they want to be in college (unless they actually do). Treat the teams like a kind of minor league for the NFL. Keep the funding more or less as it is, with university budgets paying for the official costs and college boosters paying the players. As for Tex's concern, in boldface type above, does anybody really think this isn't already happening? For real? It's already a kind of unofficial payment system, so let's just bring it out into the open.

And if the boosters get so excited about all this that they start paying the players a salary that'll keep them in this university football system longer, so much the better.

[Carolina_Packer]

Title IX, which protects the interests/opportunities of female student athletes, would be an impediment to paying athletes in revenue generating sports. Where are the funds coming from to pay all the athletes? How many schools could realistically afford to do that, given Title IX implications?

[texaspackerbacker]

This is a convoluted mess. It reminds me a lot of the discussion we have going on over in FYI about health care.

CP brings up a good point that would prevent most common sense solutions. Fritz, I almost wrote exactly what you said about it's probably already happening now. Would you have a completely unregulated pay as much as the market allows system for the players? Much as I hate regulation in all contexts, that sounds a little bit chaotic and also a little bit too much prone to buying winners - a LOT more so than now. Say the Badgers develop a 3 star talent into the next J.J. Watt, would you allow Ohio State for example to then sign him away without losing a year of eligibility? Or lock the guy into a contract for his whole career?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Title IX, which protects the interests/opportunities of female student athletes, would be an impediment to paying athletes in revenue generating sports. Where are the funds coming from to pay all the athletes? How many schools could realistically afford to do that, given Title IX implications?

And there it is. How does the pay scale get determined within the different school sports? Who gets paid on each team? Only the "superstars"? There has to be a nation-wide cap, otherwise there's no way a school like Indiana can compete with a richer school like Clemson, Michigan or even say a UCLA. Paying athletes creates a gigantic can of worms that would create a slew of lawsuits of those who feel they are getting shafted. Just way too messy.

[call_me_ishmael]

I don't think paying players will happen anytime should nor should it. If the player doesn't want to play, go ahead and don't. Good luck getting drafted when you're regularly sitting out games. It will still happen for the freak athletes, but for the vast majority of people it won't. If a Jadeveon Clowney wants to sit out a year and work out, more power to him/her. I have no problem with this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Title IX, which protects the interests/opportunities of female student athletes, would be an impediment to paying athletes in revenue generating sports. Where are the funds coming from to pay all the athletes? How many schools could realistically afford to do that, given Title IX implications?

I doubt that this is a problem. Athletes in revenue-generating sports will get paid. That is not a gender bias. Lots of male athletes won't get paid.

Coaches for revenue generating sports are already paid exhorbitantly - and a lot too. The woman's hoops coach can't sue.

[pbmax]

Title IX, which protects the interests/opportunities of female student athletes, would be an impediment to paying athletes in revenue generating sports. Where are the funds coming from to pay all the athletes? How many schools could realistically afford to do that, given Title IX implications?

Probably not.

Title IX has not forced schools to spend the same amount of money on each sport not has it forced schools to spend similar amounts of money per student-athelete.

Some sports have more scholarships than others, some have no full-time scholarships. Coaches do not need to be paid equal amounts of money by sport and facilities do not need to meet a hard equality standard. Same with equipment costs and travel arrangements. Some sports travel by plane, others by bus.

Lots of leeway.

[Carolina_Packer]

Another way to go would be for the NCAA to allow players to enter into agreements with an agent or representation that will pay them to reserve their services. These types of agencies aren't going to sign every single player, but just the ones who are more likely to go to the next level. This is likely already happening now, but the NCAA doesn't want to know about it or it will be trouble for the school. If the agencies assumed the risk of signing with the student athletes wanting to turn pro, then it is truly an open market. If you are good enough, some agency will take a chance on your future production. If you are not deemed good enough to be signed by an agency before you stop being a student athlete, then you will still be a scholarship athlete. It at least gives the guys most likely to leave early for the pros a chance to make some additional money while they are a student athlete, and it's funded by an agency, not the NCAA or a school.

Players like Fournette and McCaffrey are already getting agent type advice about playing in bowl games or not playing in bowl games. They are trying to protect their future earnings, and I have zero issue with that. It's their body and their future earnings.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Another way to go would be for the NCAA to allow players to enter into agreements with an agent or representation that will pay them to reserve their services.

That's not a bad idea.

Reminds me of Bobby Orr. The Boston Bruins built a hockey rink in his town when he was 10 years old or something.