Discussion in 'Football' started by thwg, Feb 8, 2019.
Yes, they are.
The man was a great defensive mind, and was great with the Steelers. He just never really had the personality to recruit for Tech. His 1970 defense was very good
They are being compensated, but at a set level agreed upon by all of the schools which is much lower than what the free market would bear, as evidenced by all the paying of players that goes on under the table.
Of course, true free markets could spell disaster for a sports league, which is why all revenue generating leagues (except cfb) have negotiations between players' unions and owners to agree on overall compensation before "spread the wealth" rules are implemented for the overall health of the league.
That way it doesn't feel like owners are colluding to keep compensation low, but the league also has freedom to structure compensation in a way that doesn't allow a few high revenue teams to break the game.
Having the schools unilaterally set the compensation level (and then constantly try to find ways to pay more than that without other schools finding out) is what feels so wrong to me, and wouldn't be tolerated in industries other than CFB.
Technically, all the schools dont agree on the compensation level. They each set their own and that is crooked as öööö.
There is agreement not to pay more than a scholarship and a set cash stipend, right? If Alabama decided it wanted to increase its compensation level to 100k cash per player per year, they would be punished by the other schools (by way of the NCAA) for doing so.
I don't know the exact legal setup but from a practical standpoint it's pretty much the epitome of collusion.
No. They might agree on the concept of the calculation for the stipend but the payouts vary wildly. I suppose that is why you are confused here.
Yes, maybe. I was under the impression that there was a fairly hard cap on the stipend.
So are you saying that Alabama could pay each player a 100k cash stipend if they wanted to?
Well, it is worth mentioning that the stipend goes to all scholarship athletes the same. So it wouldnt just be 8.5 million for the football team, the track and softball and so on get it too. They cant give the football players 100k and the volleyball team $20. So even the richest programs have to take that into consideration.
Now, there have been complaints from many schools that other schools are abusing this. To my knowledge they havent gone anywhere. Can they go 100k without the NCAA actually doing something? We dont really know since they havent done öööö so far. It seems like 100k would be safely assumed to be large enough to wake them, but who really knows?
The NCAA should be funded by a parallel stipend. If Alabama wants to pay $5,337 then they should send a parallel $5,337 check to the NCAA. The NCAA checks should then be redistributed evenly to the member schools.
The stipend can only be up to the amount they publish as “cost of attendance” correct? So if Alabama wants to pay athletes $100k they have to figure out how to make the case that it costs all students that amount to attend. I assume that would then also impact other scholarships and payments way outside of just the athletic department plus making it obvious that they were gaming the system.
That's socialism. Humorous when the idea of equity within collegiate athletics comes up, everyone turns damn near socialist about it.
A more level playing field within collegiate athletics would be nice, but as long as the colleges have very different missions and resources, it will continue with the have and have nots. One thing that I do think would be good for the sport would be to expand the playoffs and to have a real body allowed to adjudicate on the schools that make a mockery of the rules. The first will happen eventually as there is too much money to be made not too; the second is needed, but won't.
Yeah, i kinda am OK with socialism in my household too. What a hypocrite I am for realizing it doesnt work for a country, when here I am implementing "damn near socialism" in my household.
I believe the total cost of attendance (which determines the size of the stipend, because the stipend is the differential between the total cost of attendance and the pre-existing grant in aid) is calculated by each school for a huge variety of non-athletics reasons – it's part of all sorts of other student financial aid calculations that apply to the millions of non-athlete students who attend college every year. So there's lots of incentives for schools *not* to inflate the 'total cost of attendance' just so they can siphon some extra dollars to 85 football-playing students.
Someone's gotta pay for all that ostarine. It can't be on the program budget.
Things go in cycles. One day the Tigers' fortunes will turn back to their natural place, and then they'll be in real trouble trying to pay everything off. Looks like DRAD would have learned something being around the Tech contract problems. But, the Kool Aid is so good that it's hard not to drink it. Let them have a couple of mediocre seasons, and listen to spoiled fans complain about Assistant Coaches making over $2 million a year. And watch their merchandise sales, when everybody says, "Sorry, I've got a closet full from when we were great." Then, watch Dabo leave for Bama or somewhere else and watch Clemson get put on probation for something. DRAD has painted them into a corner, and it will catch up with them.
I would take it. He ööööed us over for a single final four.
That was Braine.