Arian Foster: “I was getting money” at Tennessee

[Gopherguy0723]

Agree. A couple of the posters above seemed to be saying we should restrict players to the existing system because it's better for the players. Shouldn't the players decide this? In fact, they do.

Which is why they are suing. Also, for the people who don't know, UFC fighters can make money through endorsements, public appearances, merchandise, autographs, and by going to a competitor of UFC to further their career. So yes, the UFC fighters have it better.

 

[atsgopher]

Take your moral superiority to Liberty's board.

Let's all follow the unjust and, in some cases, illegal rules that you are forced to follow in order to further your athletic career. Who cares if the bargaining power is tipped 100% against the athlete, you've got to follow those rules because it's moral. Let's not examine the morality of the people in power making those rules. They're already extremely moral and just for even giving you the opportunity to attend school on a year-to-year scholarship. Every athlete should be grateful to their school and the NCAA. In fact, those athletes should thank every NCAA individual and every coach they've ever met. Those are some mighty fine people making the rules that are in the best interest of the athlete. They would never make rules to benefit themselves to or to even balance the athlete and school's/NCAA's interests. They're always making rules that are best for the athletes.

I think I did a good job paraphrasing you Dpod.

Still searching for justice for college football and basketball players?

Consider an analogous case: When I was 18 I was a US paratrooper.

Can I recover for my time in Service as a Airborne Infantry Non-Com?

Consider the following:
Some corporations made billions off my duty.
It beat my body up as well as a body can get beat up.
Of Course, I wasn't at risk of concussions, like in football games, but some guys I know lost limbs and some friends died.
The health care was virtually non existent, and it's well documented in a gross amount of veterans claims illegally denied and or grossly negligent.
I've played countless video games where computerized likenesses of me and my friends made people a ton of money.
The US soldier and their likeness is frequently in ads.
Given that I was promoted at the fastest rate legally possible one could say I was above average in my duties.
Yopu get food, but when they bring in the meat it is stamped "Not USDA Approved" in large black letters.
After all this the US Gov sent me a calculation (upon ETS) of one's total compensation after tabulating health care, room, meals, and pay. Mine was $21,000.

College football and basketball get far more benefit just in tuition alone. They chose the their path and so did I. I don't complain, nor does my situation preclude them from complaining; however, clearly they are worse and harder paths than college athletics. I would argue, I was far more vulnerable to much more sinister exploitation than any college athlete. people made decisions that got other skilled, daily. Trillions are made off the job, some companies individually exploit such services to make billions. Would you argue some compensation is due? I wouldn't that is absolutely ridiculous. It reeks of entitlement.

But go ahead and continue with your crusade. Maybe even look to Common law traditions; Maybe you'll find the Common law respects the apprenticeship tradition so much (a tradition predating the English Common Law), that it I think you'll find it may not house all Morality you seek.

 

[disco]

It's why I hate MLB baseball and the grossly advantaged Yankees/Red Sox and why I enjoy the parity in the evenly balanced NFL.

The Oakland A's are on the white courtesy phone for you.

 

[Tater]

The Oakland A's are on the white courtesy phone for you.

Good point. You're right - because a smaller revenue team occasionally does as well as the big revenue teams there is no advantage to the Yankees et al. You've convinced me that MLB teams are on an even playing field.

 

[hyaluronic]

I'll be honest - I'm on the fence with paying college athletes in football and basketball. There was a time when the academic education argument made a lot of sense. I just don't know with the huge profits that the model works anymore. My biggest qualm against any sort of compensation outside of an education comes down to a couple points: 1.) How do you keep a greater divide between the have and have nots in the game, i.e., how can you set it up so a program like the Gophers can succeed if players are able to explore their market value, and 2.) How do you determine what each player would make? You want it to be fair, and also maintain the integrity of college sports. A tough proposition.

 

[gopherfield]

How could a school possibly pay Football and Basketball players? What about the non-revenue sports? Where would Title9 be on this for equal access? What about the All-American woman's soccer player? Isn't she more valuable than the "Bust" football player who never saw the field? They do raise some gate revenues at Soccer or Volleyball (should maybe the best player get half the gate?) If you're on a revenue sport's roster, you get paid, but if you're the best player in the nation in a non-revenue sport - nothing? Just because Football and BBall makes lots of money at some schools means absolutely nothing. How else could they fund the non-revenue sports? How else do they pay for much of their facilities? Many big revenue Schools provide for multi-use facilities and stadiums which benefit the entire School (including outside of athletics all together). What about a School like MN where Hockey is a revenue sport. Do we pay Hockey players, but only the Men's team - even though the women's team is 2-time defending Nat Champs? Bemidji State certainly couldn't pay Hockey players like the U, or could they? What's the operational budget and how much is there to "spare"? Women's hockey certainly has gate revenue, but not the TV, radio, etc. like the Men's team. So, the criteria would be sell-sustaining Sports have to pay players? What happens if ticket sales and revenue drops at all? Do we lower the payments or cut them?

 

[GopherHomer]

I don't see why any Gopher would be in favor of paying college athletes. We're already at a recruiting disadvantage, but if it becomes a bidding war we are completely screwed. The sanctity of the NCAA is last thread holding us at the major college level. Without it, we'll be swept away.

 

[GopherJake]

Which is why they are suing. Also, for the people who don't know, UFC fighters can make money through endorsements, public appearances, merchandise, autographs, and by going to a competitor of UFC to further their career. So yes, the UFC fighters have it better.

Suing? If they don't like the terms of the league, why don't they go play in some other league?

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Still searching for justice for college football and basketball players?

Consider an analogous case: When I was 18 I was a US paratrooper.

Can I recover for my time in Service as a Airborne Infantry Non-Com?

Consider the following:
Some corporations made billions off my duty.
It beat my body up as well as a body can get beat up.
Of Course, I wasn't at risk of concussions, like in football games, but some guys I know lost limbs and some friends died.
The health care was virtually non existent, and it's well documented in a gross amount of veterans claims illegally denied and or grossly negligent.
I've played countless video games where computerized likenesses of me and my friends made people a ton of money.
The US soldier and their likeness is frequently in ads.
Given that I was promoted at the fastest rate legally possible one could say I was above average in my duties.
Yopu get food, but when they bring in the meat it is stamped "Not USDA Approved" in large black letters.
After all this the US Gov sent me a calculation (upon ETS) of one's total compensation after tabulating health care, room, meals, and pay. Mine was $21,000.

College football and basketball get far more benefit just in tuition alone. They chose the their path and so did I. I don't complain, nor does my situation preclude them from complaining; however, clearly they are worse and harder paths than college athletics. I would argue, I was far more vulnerable to much more sinister exploitation than any college athlete. people made decisions that got other skilled, daily. Trillions are made off the job, some companies individually exploit such services to make billions. Would you argue some compensation is due? I wouldn't that is absolutely ridiculous. It reeks of entitlement.

But go ahead and continue with your crusade. Maybe even look to Common law traditions; Maybe you'll find the Common law respects the apprenticeship tradition so much (a tradition predating the English Common Law), that it I think you'll find it may not house all Morality you seek.

While what you say is true, your argument is a red herring and an appeal to an emotion that simply deflects or distracts from the argument.

Perhaps both situations should be better rather than saying we have it bad so quit complaining if others do as well.

I don't get people who have things tough and then want other bring people who have it marginally better to shut up and be torn down to the lower level. Why wouldn't you complain about your problems and demand they be made better rather than create a wedge and bring others down due to jealousy or spite?

I actually know the answer is due to human psychology, and that people would actually rather ruin others if they see something as unfair as opposed to bringing their own station up. But that kind if thinking doesn't make anything better it only makes things worse.

 

[hyaluronic]

How could a school possibly pay Football and Basketball players? What about the non-revenue sports? Where would Title9 be on this for equal access? What about the All-American woman's soccer player? Isn't she more valuable than the "Bust" football player who never saw the field? They do raise some gate revenues at Soccer or Volleyball (should maybe the best player get half the gate?) If you're on a revenue sport's roster, you get paid, but if you're the best player in the nation in a non-revenue sport - nothing? Just because Football and BBall makes lots of money at some schools means absolutely nothing. How else could they fund the non-revenue sports? How else do they pay for much of their facilities? Many big revenue Schools provide for multi-use facilities and stadiums which benefit the entire School (including outside of athletics all together). What about a School like MN where Hockey is a revenue sport. Do we pay Hockey players, but only the Men's team - even though the women's team is 2-time defending Nat Champs? Bemidji State certainly couldn't pay Hockey players like the U, or could they? What's the operational budget and how much is there to "spare"? Women's hockey certainly has gate revenue, but not the TV, radio, etc. like the Men's team. So, the criteria would be sell-sustaining Sports have to pay players? What happens if ticket sales and revenue drops at all? Do we lower the payments or cut them?

I agree, there are a lot of tough questions. Like I said, I do not necessarily agree with paying players, I'm on the fence. I just think the disparity between the revenue generated versus the benefit the players receive could force us to a different model. If I was going to create the new model, and I do not know if Title IX would impact it, I probably would just pay football and basketball players. They create, across the board, a revenue/benefit disparity. If you throw all sports into the mix, it would turn into a small stipend that does not fix the initial problem for players of major revenue sports. If you say 'profit-generating,' that will vary school to school and create new competitive disadvantages.

If we choose to pay players, there are some very tough questions as to how we could do it in a way that is both fair, and addresses the problem.

If we choose not to pay players, NCAA football and basketball will continue to come under the scrutiny of legal and ethical challenges. This could lead to changes being forced upon the NCAA that does not look to maintain competitive balance. Or perhaps there is an opportunity for private enterprise to form some sort of minor league that does pay athletes, and the college system gets bypassed. That's my fear in not trying to get ahead of the issue.

 

[maxwellsmart]

Yes I am sure that Texas A & M diploma will about equal to the hundreds of millions of dollars that A & M is making in donations, ticket & merchandise sales and TV revenue. Fu_cking Manziel should just consider himself lucky that he could trade millions in value for a $100,000 worth of education.

And I didn't equate it to a job, the post I referenced did and I was working off that analogy.

Screwed up on so many levels.

 

[scher215]

Who/where is Johnny Football if not for the NCAA and Texas A&M?

He is a CFL quarterback for a few years and no one will pay $1 for his autograph.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Who/where is Johnny Football if not for the NCAA and Texas A&M?

He is a CFL quarterback for a few years and no one will pay $1 for his autograph.

This is extremely ignorant, and you're making the point of the other side. Most college players have their primary earnings potential in college. Moreover, by your logic you could say no pro player is worth anything without his team, yet those teams don't have the right to take a cut of autographs, public appearances, and such. Also those teams have to cut players in on merchandise sales with their name or likeness.

I suppose all you moral people are fine with the pay and working conditions that workers in sweatshops deal with. Afterall they are following the rules, they are getting a benefit, and they aren't forced to work there. Any questioning by workers or the public of those rules is immoral and the workers are bad people for wanting to or actually circumventing those rules.

Rules should never change even if the world, system, or game has changed. People should simply get what is dictated to them. If they don't like it, leave. Question anything or advocate for change and you're a pariah.

 

[saintpaulguy]

This all ignores the fact this fool climbedtheladder and now pulls it away for the next guy.

Anyhoo, maybe it is time to have an NFL developmental league, where football players who don't want to go to college don't have to. It will have all the glitz and glam of the CBA or AA baseball. They will be free to play in Council Bluffs Iowa and Rapid City SD.

 

[station19]

If you want to get paid to play turn pro.

Can't play in the NFL at 18 you say? That's the NFL rule not the NCAA. Talk to them.

I still don't see why the CBA supersedes age discrimination.

The theater department charges for plays don't they? Do the actors get paid? What about the band and the orchestra?

 

[hyaluronic]

If you want to get paid to play turn pro.

Can't play in the NFL at 18 you say? That's the NFL rule not the NCAA. Talk to them.

I still don't see why the CBA supersedes age discrimination.

The theater department charges for plays don't they? Do the actors get paid? What about the band and the orchestra?

There simply is not the same revenue discrepancy that exists in football and basketball. On the surface, I completely agree with you - I just don't know if it is sustainable.

 

[station19]

There simply is not the same revenue discrepancy that exists in football and basketball. On the surface, I completely agree with you - I just don't know if it is sustainable.

Not sure what your FB and BB point is.

 

[hyaluronic]

Not sure what your FB and BB point is.

That's where we see the huge disparity between what is being earned, and the benefit the players receive.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

If you want to get paid to play turn pro.

Can't play in the NFL at 18 you say? That's the NFL rule not the NCAA. Talk to them.

I still don't see why the CBA supersedes age discrimination.

The theater department charges for plays don't they? Do the actors get paid? What about the band and the orchestra?

It's easy. The CBA is bargained for by current athletes (some of them older). Some of those guys would get their spots taken away by a team drafting and stashing some 18 yr old "phenom" who isn't near ready for the NFL.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

That's where we see the huge disparity between what is being earned, and the benefit the players receive.

Not to mention that the actors can get money for autographs or any ancillary money without negative consequences if they can command it. They can get extra cheese on a burger for free without negative consequences. They also don't have tons of people profiting off of them. Video game designers, manufacturers, distributors, television like ESPN and their affiliated corporations, Nike and apparel companies, and many more.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Good for Arian Foster!

I can't really blame anyone for taking the $. It's selfish and all of that, but at the end of the day, if someone wants to walk up to you and hand you some money for not doing anything wrong, you should be able to take it. If someone wants to pay you cash for signing your own name, you should be able to take it.

I get that it's the rules and that they voluntarily choose to enter into the agreement, but the difference in bargaining power puts those "agreements" into an awkward light. I hope more people come forward and blow the top off of this entire situation.

 

[hyaluronic]

Random thought:

While I do think to address the disparity it would require some sort of pay/stipend for athletes, could there be a system of benefits that do not necessarily relate directly to pay. For example, could there be a system where each school can have say, $50 million dollars of insurance policies that they can give to players, so if they have career ending injuries they have some sort of protection. Or some sort of minimal defined benefit retirement package that can be accessed once they reach a certain age.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Good for Arian Foster!

I can't really blame anyone for taking the $. It's selfish and all of that, but at the end of the day, if someone wants to walk up to you and hand you some money for not doing anything wrong, you should be able to take it. If someone wants to pay you cash for signing your own name, you should be able to take it.

I get that it's the rules and that they voluntarily choose to enter into the agreement, but the difference in bargaining power puts those "agreements" into an awkward light. I hope more people come forward and blow the top off of this entire situation.

Nailed it on the head.

 

[station19]

It's easy. The CBA is bargained for by current athletes (some of them older). Some of those guys would get their spots taken away by a team drafting and stashing some 18 yr old "phenom" who isn't near ready for the NFL.

So you're saying a union at any company/corporation could do the same? Could they also stipulate that no one over 30 could be hired or employed? They would also be bargained for by current employees.

 

[station19]

That's where we see the huge disparity between what is being earned, and the benefit the players receive.

At what amount do you draw the line?

 

[csom_1991]

First off, none of these guys would be making any money for anyone was it not for the University building a 90K seat arena - will the players pay for that before asking for a cut?

Frankly, NCAAF does not make money because it is the highest quality football available. Every year, we consciously exclude players that don't have the grades for admission or that fail out of school. And just like the NFL during the last strike, fans still show up and pay all their money to watch. At the end of the day, it is about the school and school pride and everyone would cheer just as loudly if we required NCAAF players to have a 1400 SAT to get an athletic scholarship and we excluded 90% of the top talent. If players don't like the deal the NCAAF is offering, I suggest that they prove their worth in the market place by starting their own independent league one step down from the NFL in quality but with paid players. History has shown time and again that there simply is zero interest in that type of league so arguing that the players have a market value outside the NCAAF structure is ridiculous.

They signed up for a deal and they should abide by it. Frankly, I would love to see the NCAAF raise the admission requirements. That may exclude some of these star players but it would be more true to the purpose of college football by producing true student athletes. The only issue I have with the NCAA is the uneven application of rules as clearly some programs/conferences receive a disproportionately kind treatment for these types of violations. Ask yourself a question - would NCAAF had made less money if Cam Newton was not allowed to play? Would NCAAF revenue have fallen if Aryan Foster had never suited up? If you think the answer is yes, you have a hole in your head.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

First off, none of these guys would be making any money for anyone was it not for the University building a 90K seat arena - will the players pay for that before asking for a cut?

Frankly, NCAAF does not make money because it is the highest quality football available. Every year, we consciously exclude players that don't have the grades for admission or that fail out of school. And just like the NFL during the last strike, fans still show up and pay all their money to watch. At the end of the day, it is about the school and school pride and everyone would cheer just as loudly if we required NCAAF players to have a 1400 SAT to get an athletic scholarship and we excluded 90% of the top talent. If players don't like the deal the NCAAF is offering, I suggest that they prove their worth in the market place by starting their own independent league one step down from the NFL in quality but with paid players. History has shown time and again that there simply is zero interest in that type of league so arguing that the players have a market value outside the NCAAF structure is ridiculous.

They signed up for a deal and they should abide by it. Frankly, I would love to see the NCAAF raise the admission requirements. That may exclude some of these star players but it would be more true to the purpose of college football by producing true student athletes. The only issue I have with the NCAA is the uneven application of rules as clearly some programs/conferences receive a disproportionately kind treatment for these types of violations. Ask yourself a question - would NCAAF had made less money if Cam Newton was not allowed to play? Would NCAAF revenue have fallen if Aryan Foster had never suited up? If you think the answer is yes, you have a hole in your head.

I laughed heartily at the absurdity of this, thanks.

 

[csom_1991]

I laughed heartily at the absurdity of this, thanks.

Sorry, but if the choice is paying players or ending athletic scholarships, I would simply end athletic scholarships. It would be a 1 or 2 year adjustment period but then just as many people would be attending the games as now despite the 'quality' being less. At the end of the day, the players simply are not as important to the game as you think it is. The millions of people attending high school football games are a testament to that. You think there is this whole business wrapped up in the 'players' but the reality is people are buying EA Sports games to play a TEAM, not a player.

 

[cncmin]

This all ignores the fact this fool climbedtheladder and now pulls it away for the next guy.

Anyhoo, maybe it is time to have an NFL developmental league, where football players who don't want to go to college don't have to. It will have all the glitz and glam of the CBA or AA baseball. They will be free to play in Council Bluffs Iowa and Rapid City SD.

yep, exactly.

I'm not sure what some of these people are thinking...they can't get the kind of money they make through scholarships, room, and board on the "open market." Maybe these guys could go play some Arena Football and make a couple 10k to showcase their skills, risk injury, and bypass college and free education, room, and meals altogether. But unless they can create some minor league that can draw fans at high ticket prices, they'll never earn a good salary on that open market.

If you look at minor league baseball and the NHL development leagues, the salaries are quite small unless a potential superstar signed a large contract upon being drafted. Any collegiate football player these days is getting about $30k-60k + annually in free stuff, not counting goods provided in "illegal" fashion. At that age, good for them. If they don't want to showcase their skills in college because they are "exploited" (PUHLEASE), then they are fully free to go elsewhere and try to make money.

Note that most of those pre-educated athletes don't have the skills outside of the game of football at age 18 to earn anywhere near the $30k-60k that they get in college. If some people don't like that the NFL has an age barrier, then that's an NFL problem, and they need to go rant on NFL message boards instead of collegiate boards.

As for Arian Foster, the guy's a chump who broke the rules. The rules are obviously necessary to hold any competitive balance at all; and without some semblance of balance, some chance that your favorite team can win, then there simply is no big NCAA league to complain about.

 

[hyaluronic]

At what amount do you draw the line?

Quite honestly, I don't know. I am fine with it the way it is - but, I am concerned that the landscape could change drastically. If it is going to change, I'd rather the NCAA be defining how it will change.