New football league forming... college not reqd

[Davidson Deac II]

1 hour ago, AceBoogie said:

Just pay the damn college players 

Already do pay them.  With something more valuable than cash.  The benefits from the education if used correctly, far outweigh the value of the cash they might get if they get a salary.  I wish my son was good enough to play a college sport and get a free education. If so, I wouldn't care if the NCAA benefited from his participation.

[Toker Smurf]

19 hours ago, 15 said:

I always thought this would be a great idea.

 

a league for guys 18-22. maybe pay them like minimum wage with bonuses and set up a league just like the NFL. you only get 4 years to prove you can play at the next level and if not, your football career is over.

Agree. Biggest issue, I see, is how do they market it? They don't have any star power, at least in terms of players. I wonder if they'd be better off, having teams located in Florida, Texas, Tidewater (Virginia) and California, so that at least people from the region may support players they know. Otherwise, also try to get some known names as coaches. Maybe former college standouts who washed out of the NFL or former well-known college coaches who have fallen from grace.

[TheMostInterestingMan]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Already do pay them.  With something more valuable than cash.  The benefits from the education if used correctly, far outweigh the value of the cash they might get if they get a salary.  I wish my son was good enough to play a college sport and get a free education. If so, I wouldn't care if the NCAA benefited from his participation.

As a college grad, I absolutely hate this massive myth. The money these players would make would EASILY cover their education. So that's BS to start with. Not to mention the job market sucks so an education does not translate into a high paying job. Here I am, a residential counselor, making $18k a year. Still paying my student loans...

the whole "they get something better than money, they get a prime education" is literally a joke. The money athletes can easily buy a college education. Kids playing for top schools like Alabama, USC, Notre Dame etc. should be making money. Period. The schools make millions off of them while handing out a free service that is a fraction of what the school is making...

[AceBoogie]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Already do pay them.  With something more valuable than cash.  The benefits from the education if used correctly, far outweigh the value of the cash they might get if they get a salary.  I wish my son was good enough to play a college sport and get a free education. If so, I wouldn't care if the NCAA benefited from his participation.

Ok by your logic, why not just pay college coaches with a "free education." No Nick Saban, we won't pay you 5 million dollars, but you can go take some graduate courses free of charge. 

Players like Cam, Johnny, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Watson bring in a whole lot more money than they receive in scholarships. 

[AceBoogie]

24 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

As a college grad, I absolutely hate this massive myth. The money these players would make would EASILY cover their education. So that's BS to start with. Not to mention the job market sucks so an education does not translate into a high paying job. Here I am, a residential counselor, making $18k a year. Still paying my student loans...

the whole "they get something better than money, they get a prime education" is literally a joke. The money athletes can easily buy a college education. Kids playing for top schools like Alabama, USC, Norte Dame etc. should be making money. Period. The schools make millions off of them while handing out a free service that is a fraction of what the school is making...

Preach

[DaveThePanther2008]

2 hours ago, Cam El said:

Agree. Biggest issue, I see, is how do they market it? They don't have any star power, at least in terms of players. I wonder if they'd be better off, having teams located in Florida, Texas, Tidewater (Virginia) and California, so that at least people from the region may support players they know. Otherwise, also try to get some known names as coaches. Maybe former college standouts who washed out of the NFL or former well-known college coaches who have fallen from grace.

The idea is to keep it regionally with 4 teams using two stadiums to play in.  Marketing would be local though they might have an ESPN deal.  

Hopefully, the Pacific Pro Football League is a hit and then I would imagine you will see them pop up all over the country.  Maybe eventually have some sort of playoff system.   It would be a good gap from the draft till start of pre-season.

[uncfan888]

As much money as college sports brings in, they can afford to give the players a free education and pay them for playing..  It's time to ante up

[Davidson Deac II]

9 hours ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

As a college grad, I absolutely hate this massive myth. The money these players would make would EASILY cover their education. So that's BS to start with. Not to mention the job market sucks so an education does not translate into a high paying job. Here I am, a residential counselor, making $18k a year. Still paying my student loans...

the whole "they get something better than money, they get a prime education" is literally a joke. The money athletes can easily buy a college education. Kids playing for top schools like Alabama, USC, Notre Dame etc. should be making money. Period. The schools make millions off of them while handing out a free service that is a fraction of what the school is making...

As a college grad and more importantly, someone who is currently paying for college for a child, I disagree.  

1.  You are looking at the top schools, but there are a lot more schools that play college football.  Sure, bama could afford to pay them, but what about the other schools like Vanderbilt or Duke?  The Alabama's of the world already have a significant advantage, this would give them an even bigger advantage because they would be able to pay, or pay more.  The reality is that the majority of schools, even the big five conference schools, are not making a ton of money, and are barely in the black or in the red.  Fwiw, I think that a significant percentage of schools will eventually drop football and maybe basketball as well. Which might not be a bad thing, although it will mean significantly fewer scholarships for a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't get to go to college.  

2.  How much exactly do you expect the schools to pay these kids?  An education at UNC Chapel Hill might be below 20 grand a year (but only for instate kids, for all those out of state recruits, the cost is a lot higher), but if the kid is going to play at a private school, its upwards of 50 grand a year.  On average, you are looking at paying the 90 kids who play football (and maybe the 12 or so who play basketball 30-40 grand a year to cover the cost of going to school, as well as making some money besides that.  

3.  Then you have title nine to look at.  The money that is made in the football and basketball programs goes back into all the other programs that don't make any money.  That is why West Virginia's womens swim team can afford to travel to Oklahoma for a conference meet.  

 

4.  Lastly you are using anecdotal evidence.  Sorry that your career hasnt panned out yet, but there are a number of studies that show beyond a doubt that college graduates make more on average than non grads.  That is just a fact of life.  

 

Btw, just wanted to point out that had you been good enough at a sport, colllege loans wouldn't be an issue unless you decided to go to graduate school.  

[Davidson Deac II]

9 hours ago, AceBoogie said:

Ok by your logic, why not just pay college coaches with a "free education." No Nick Saban, we won't pay you 5 million dollars, but you can go take some graduate courses free of charge. 

Players like Cam, Johnny, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Watson bring in a whole lot more money than they receive in scholarships. 

They already have college educations.  Generally speaking, its a requirement of employment.  

 

Education at Duke university cost 60 grand a year.  So a four year player gets 240,000 in benefits.  And while how much a duke grad makes depends on a number of factors, on average, they make a lot more than people who don't go to college.  So basically, its the benefit or pay that keeps on benefiting.  

 

That being said, I would be ok if the public schools were not allowed to pay huge salaries to coaches.  Take the money and redistribute it to all students and lower tuition.  In fact, lets go ahead and cut Roy Williams salary right now.

[TheMostInterestingMan]

15 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

As a college grad and more importantly, someone who is currently paying for college for a child, I disagree.  

1.  You are looking at the top schools, but there are a lot more schools that play college football.  Sure, bama could afford to pay them, but what about the other schools like Vanderbilt or Duke?  The Alabama's of the world already have a significant advantage, this would give them an even bigger advantage because they would be able to pay, or pay more.  The reality is that the majority of schools, even the big five conference schools, are not making a ton of money, and are barely in the black or in the red.  Fwiw, I think that a significant percentage of schools will eventually drop football and maybe basketball as well. Which might not be a bad thing, although it will mean significantly fewer scholarships for a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't get to go to college.  

2.  How much exactly do you expect the schools to pay these kids?  An education at UNC Chapel Hill might be below 20 grand a year (but only for instate kids, for all those out of state recruits, the cost is a lot higher), but if the kid is going to play at a private school, its upwards of 50 grand a year.  On average, you are looking at paying the 90 kids who play football (and maybe the 12 or so who play basketball 30-40 grand a year to cover the cost of going to school, as well as making some money besides that.  

3.  Then you have title nine to look at.  The money that is made in the football and basketball programs goes back into all the other programs that don't make any money.  That is why West Virginia's womens swim team can afford to travel to Oklahoma for a conference meet.  

 

4.  Lastly you are using anecdotal evidence.  Sorry that your career hasnt panned out yet, but there are a number of studies that show beyond a doubt that college graduates make more on average than non grads.  That is just a fact of life.  

 

 

I respect your points but simply disagree. For a lack of time to appropriately respond in my own words at the moment, let me direct you to two excellent articles. One addresses collegiate athletes and the other addresses your point on the value if education. 

 

I will briefly say this though, the average if a college grad salary will always be higher because some do have better paying jobs. That doesn't make it worth it... We get new college graduates every single year. Tons of them. Meanwhile, companies are only hiring new employees after retirements. So the rate between graduation vs businesses hiring is absurd. There aren't enough jobs.

Its not that MY careeer path hasn't panned it. It's thousands and thousands of kids because mathematically the job market can't possible put all of us to work. It's just not possible.

Anyway, give these a read.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.www.complex.com/sports/2015/12/jay-bilas-interview/?client=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/08/16/mythbusting-101-uncomfortable-truths-your-college-wont-tell-you/?client=safari

[Daywa1ker]

23 hours ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

As a college grad, I absolutely hate this massive myth. The money these players would make would EASILY cover their education. So that's BS to start with. Not to mention the job market sucks so an education does not translate into a high paying job. Here I am, a residential counselor, making $18k a year. Still paying my student loans...

the whole "they get something better than money, they get a prime education" is literally a joke. The money athletes can easily buy a college education. Kids playing for top schools like Alabama, USC, Notre Dame etc. should be making money. Period. The schools make millions off of them while handing out a free service that is a fraction of what the school is making...

These arguments tend to get heated fast especially when people state things as fact that aren't.

The money colleges make from the football program funds the rest of the athletic department.  If schools all of a sudden have to drop a few hundred g's or even millions on paying football players, then there is a good chance that smaller sports at the school will no longer exist.  No more gymnastics, rowing, womens volleyball, etc, because they sure as poo aren't making the money to fund their own programs.  Huge schools would probably be okay, but other than the top maybe 20 schools would have to see massive cuts.  

Unless you are speaking literally when you say that only the top schools should pay their players, which isn't even close to realistic.

[Daywa1ker]

And not to mention the fact that once one program at a college has to get paid, it seems like there's a good argument that the NCAA will implement rules that ALL athletes get paid...


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[TheMostInterestingMan]

6 hours ago, Daywa1ker said:

These arguments tend to get heated fast especially when people state things as fact that aren't.

The money colleges make from the football program funds the rest of the athletic department.  If schools all of a sudden have to drop a few hundred g's or even millions on paying football players, then there is a good chance that smaller sports at the school will no longer exist.  No more gymnastics, rowing, womens volleyball, etc, because they sure as poo aren't making the money to fund their own programs.  Huge schools would probably be okay, but other than the top maybe 20 schools would have to see massive cuts.  

Unless you are speaking literally when you say that only the top schools should pay their players, which isn't even close to realistic.

Well honestly I don't think the free education should be dropped. But players should be able to make money while playing. Even if it's $10 an hour for the hours played and practiced. If the kid even accepts a free meal they are in trouble... that is ridiculous. You really can't argue that it isn't.

Plenty of people, such as Jay Bilas, have proposed ways in which players could get paid without disrupting the revenue small schools receive from athletics. The fact some people are so incredibly opposed to this blows my mind.

Schools (even the smallest ones) pay students to work their local radio stations, work in their cafeteria, work as tutors, work in the library... none of which leads to massive revenue.

But say a school should pay students for playing a sports that brings in billions of dollars and people lose it and say it would destroy small school sports programs... what?!?!?

ps. Don't take offense to this or feel like I'm attacking you. I'm not. But I truly don't understand how people don't think strides should be made to compensate these kids. Again. Even small schools pay their cafeteria workers and librarians. If you paid players hourly for practices and games, would it really be the end of the world? If they accept a free meal or a free tattoo, is that really destroying schools across the nation? Come on, man.