[82 Card]

It. Is. Not. Work.

So all those athletes and coaches explaining how they got to the championship through hard work are lying? Can the NFL use that argument too or does it become work upon leaving school?

[82 Card]

It. Is. Not. Work.

So all those athletes and coaches explaining how they got to the championship through hard work are lying? Can the NFL use that argument too or does it become work upon leaving school?

[Mick]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

[Mick]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

[lex24]

It. Is. Not. Work.

So all those athletes and coaches explaining how they got to the championship through hard work are lying? Can the NFL use that argument too or does it become work upon leaving school?

It becomes work when you do it for a living and get paid. 

I am not suggesting that College players do not “work” hard to play their game. And I’m all for sensible changes.  And if that can’t happen and the whole thing collapses, so be it.

What I was and am saying is that comparing (or analogizing) someone that chooses to play college football to a slave or indentured servant is nonsense.  And frankly, imo, an insult to those poor souls that endured those atrocities.

[lex24]

It. Is. Not. Work.

So all those athletes and coaches explaining how they got to the championship through hard work are lying? Can the NFL use that argument too or does it become work upon leaving school?

It becomes work when you do it for a living and get paid. 

I am not suggesting that College players do not “work” hard to play their game. And I’m all for sensible changes.  And if that can’t happen and the whole thing collapses, so be it.

What I was and am saying is that comparing (or analogizing) someone that chooses to play college football to a slave or indentured servant is nonsense.  And frankly, imo, an insult to those poor souls that endured those atrocities.

[82 Card]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

The short version of this argument is that they are already paid enough. The proliferation of well paid administrators at some schools suggest that there's excess profit in the system.

[82 Card]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

The short version of this argument is that they are already paid enough. The proliferation of well paid administrators at some schools suggest that there's excess profit in the system.

[jonnyss]

another analogy: though many companies want to own all intellectual property developed by an employee, many universities, including stanford (and stanford med center) allow professors to take to market inventions developed in stanford labs. stanford gets a percentage. 

i suspect that if athletes were permitted to market their own, say, t-shirts, and the university got a 20% cut, the university would make more $ than under the current system. like professors, the athletes would have the extra motivation to take initiative, be creative, find markets, etc.

[jonnyss]

another analogy: though many companies want to own all intellectual property developed by an employee, many universities, including stanford (and stanford med center) allow professors to take to market inventions developed in stanford labs. stanford gets a percentage. 

i suspect that if athletes were permitted to market their own, say, t-shirts, and the university got a 20% cut, the university would make more $ than under the current system. like professors, the athletes would have the extra motivation to take initiative, be creative, find markets, etc.

[GK3]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

The short version of this argument is that they are already paid enough. The proliferation of well paid administrators at some schools suggest that there's excess profit in the system.

Athletes are not the only students who are admitted and given a full ride, tuition, board and room and books.  They are not asked to participate in activities that financially benefit the University.  The argument that the full ride alone justifies the system could be found wanting.

[GK3]

I have a difficult time equating D1 football with slavery or indentured servitude.  Nor do I think college football players need to be unionized.  If they need to be unionized, then every employee need to be unionized.  How about people in the military?  Shouldn't they have unions, more rights, more money?  Shouldn't they be subject to regular laws instead of the UCMJ?

The compensation model for intercollegiate, varsity D1 football players is substantial, though I would say that the compensation model is more like selling commercial real estate.  You work your tail off and don't get paid for two years, then you make bank.  Or more accurately, you make significantly more money and benefits over your lifetime than if you hadn't been a college football player.

The typical football player is granted entrance to a university that they could never have qualified for in the first place.  The value of a Stanford degree cannot be understated.  In fact, the value of any collegiate degree cannot be understated if the individual wasn't going to college in the first place.  This is an unbelievable value.  Essentially, it's a guaranteed admission to the reach-iest of reach schools, something that 99.99% of all college applicants desperately desire, and the football player takes it for granted.  How much does an SJSU grad make over a lifetime compared to a high school grad?  Definitely more on average, and depending on the major, could be considerably more.  Significant value.  Football players take it for granted.

D1 football players get everything paid; tuition, room, training table, medical, books, etc..  Everything free.  I know how much it cost to put my two through a private school.  More value.  More taking for granted.

it's a 40 year decision. Football players benefit from the contact networks you find in college from ages 18-22.  People who hire you, or buy your product or service, or refer you to people, or give you recommendations, or bring you into their social networks.  Significant value.  Taken for granted.

The type of football player who gets paid is the type who is getting ready for the NFL or CFL, so their collegiate training applies to their future vocation, whether as player or coach.  On-the-job training, big value.  Taken for granted.

So in summary, you're telling me that the "slave/indentured servant/need-to-be-unionized" players must also get a salary?  Those players who get all these things:
1) Reach school access
2) Highly renumerative degree
3) All expenses paid
4) Significant lifetime networks
5) On-the-job training for the NFL

A. Y. F. K. M.  But we must also be paid, says the football player who takes all of the above for granted.  Such arrogance.  I'm sick of it. A normal student would kill for such a deal.  So it's time for a developmental league.  Forget about college, you football players that wouldn't get to college in any other country but this one.  Go be young semipros.

The short version of this argument is that they are already paid enough. The proliferation of well paid administrators at some schools suggest that there's excess profit in the system.

Athletes are not the only students who are admitted and given a full ride, tuition, board and room and books.  They are not asked to participate in activities that financially benefit the University.  The argument that the full ride alone justifies the system could be found wanting.

[Leftcoast]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years. There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen. They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL. (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

[Leftcoast]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years. There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen. They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL. (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

[Goose]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

As long as the universities generate a stream of players, the NFL doesn't need a D-league. There may be many players who don't want to attend college and would prefer a D-league option. The fans of the NFL don't care where the players come from. The fans of college football want the "best" players to be on the field for their school, although they probably would actually settle for much less (name on front of uniform >> name on back of uniform). Given that, I think the only people wanting a D-league are the players and possibly the universities if things get real ugly with the players. Right now, thre isn't enough to make a D-league happen IMHO.

[Goose]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

As long as the universities generate a stream of players, the NFL doesn't need a D-league. There may be many players who don't want to attend college and would prefer a D-league option. The fans of the NFL don't care where the players come from. The fans of college football want the "best" players to be on the field for their school, although they probably would actually settle for much less (name on front of uniform >> name on back of uniform). Given that, I think the only people wanting a D-league are the players and possibly the universities if things get real ugly with the players. Right now, thre isn't enough to make a D-league happen IMHO.

[Giants]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

Math is the reason a D League for the NFL is unrealistic.  There simply are not enough players to fill the number of rosters required to create a league.

Most colleges are not going to walk away from good players if their academics are marginal or better.  And those players are not going to give up the opportunity to play in front of tens of thousands of people at the same time their games are on national TV.  Therefore, only the mediocre players and those with horrible transcripts would go to the D League.  Why would the NFL want to sponsor a league full of players who have little or no chance of making it to the League?

[Giants]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

Math is the reason a D League for the NFL is unrealistic.  There simply are not enough players to fill the number of rosters required to create a league.

Most colleges are not going to walk away from good players if their academics are marginal or better.  And those players are not going to give up the opportunity to play in front of tens of thousands of people at the same time their games are on national TV.  Therefore, only the mediocre players and those with horrible transcripts would go to the D League.  Why would the NFL want to sponsor a league full of players who have little or no chance of making it to the League?

[teejers1]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

Math is the reason a D League for the NFL is unrealistic.  There simply are not enough players to fill the number of rosters required to create a league.

Most colleges are not going to walk away from good players if their academics are marginal or better.  And those players are not going to give up the opportunity to play in front of tens of thousands of people at the same time their games are on national TV.  Therefore, only the mediocre players and those with horrible transcripts would go to the D League.  Why would the NFL want to sponsor a league full of players who have little or no chance of making it to the League?

This is how an football D-League could happen:

1.  The NCAA stands up to the NFL and starts making decisions that treat the football players more like regular students . . . not less.  For starters, impose LESS demands on these kids time-wise in college.  A lot less.  Start with prohibiting things like spring ball (seriously).  It gets lax enough, then the NFL might say "eff it, these kids aren't training as well as we need them to," and then the NFL will start a small D-League for training purposes and will offer some $$ to come play/train there.

2.  The advocates of "pay the exploited players" we see popping up right now can advocate for a D-league; get some financial sponsors; go find lesser metropoli (heck, even smallish towns with rabid football fans might suffice), and then start luring HS kids there (with the almighty $$ as the lure) and get it set up that way.  A little entrepreneurship here could go a long way, particularly if the NFL is seen as sympatico.  I imagine the NFL would welcome such a thing; might even pitch in to get it going (or at least certainly not oppose it like they did XFL and other iterations of pro football leagues).

But it all starts with the NCAA treating the kids more like students and not football players.

The D League doesn't have to be 32 teams like the NFL; they could have half that many teams (or even a quarter).

[teejers1]

More than anything else this thread convinced me we really, really need an NFL sponsored D-League.  

We need an option for talented players who want to play ball but view the rest of college (mandatory classwork, dorm life, school commitments, etc) as a nuisance with limited value.  If you are enduring college for a chance at professional sports then of course you want to be paid - you don't value the quid-pro-quo on offer and the money generated by big time sports is evident all around you.  To that person NCAA sports looks like indentured servitude. 

Of course to others it looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.  

The NFL has floated upon the free player development provided by the NCAA for at least 50 years.  There is no viable argument saying they don't have the money to make a d-league happen.  They've been supported by a free system which births well-known/hyped, well trained, and talented players into their league every year.  On the flip-side colleges are the only apprenticeship available if you want to play in the NFL.  (I'd guess NCAA alumni make up >98% of the NFL roster spots with the exceptions being over-seas kickers.)

We need an NFL sponsored D-League - so do the players.

Math is the reason a D League for the NFL is unrealistic.  There simply are not enough players to fill the number of rosters required to create a league.

Most colleges are not going to walk away from good players if their academics are marginal or better.  And those players are not going to give up the opportunity to play in front of tens of thousands of people at the same time their games are on national TV.  Therefore, only the mediocre players and those with horrible transcripts would go to the D League.  Why would the NFL want to sponsor a league full of players who have little or no chance of making it to the League?

This is how an football D-League could happen:

1.  The NCAA stands up to the NFL and starts making decisions that treat the football players more like regular students . . . not less.  For starters, impose LESS demands on these kids time-wise in college.  A lot less.  Start with prohibiting things like spring ball (seriously).  It gets lax enough, then the NFL might say "eff it, these kids aren't training as well as we need them to," and then the NFL will start a small D-League for training purposes and will offer some $$ to come play/train there.

2.  The advocates of "pay the exploited players" we see popping up right now can advocate for a D-league; get some financial sponsors; go find lesser metropoli (heck, even smallish towns with rabid football fans might suffice), and then start luring HS kids there (with the almighty $$ as the lure) and get it set up that way.  A little entrepreneurship here could go a long way, particularly if the NFL is seen as sympatico.  I imagine the NFL would welcome such a thing; might even pitch in to get it going (or at least certainly not oppose it like they did XFL and other iterations of pro football leagues).

But it all starts with the NCAA treating the kids more like students and not football players.

The D League doesn't have to be 32 teams like the NFL; they could have half that many teams (or even a quarter).

[OutsiderFan]

Teejers, this doesn’t mean we’re gonna “take long hot showers together into the wee hours of the morning” a la Sgt. Highway (Clint Eastwood) in Heartbreak Ridge, but...

I couldn’t agree more with your “should” about de-emphasizing college as minor league pro sports. Another way to fortify the de-emphasis of professionalization is to increase the entrance and/or eligibility requirements to put the incentive on the 4.4 GPA and not the 4.4 40. Not saying the requirement to play college sports should be a 4.4 GPA, just put the incentive structure in line with school education mission.

Go back to the Prop 48 model. Allow athletes into school with a min. level of academic qualification, but don’t allow them to be eligible to play for their schools until meeting certain NCAA mandated levels of academic achievement.

The problem is we don’t live in the world of “should.” We live in the world that is. There are challenges to standardizing academic requirements, with a wide range of rigor among the schools, and we know schools have a history of academic fraud to make athletes eligible. But the biggest one is obviously asking schools to give up the revenue and exposure they get from commercialized amateur sports. It seems unlikely they will.

Making matters even more difficult is the fact some players are now organizing, trying to play sports in the Big Ten. You couldn’t have a more clear indication of the divergent missions of the school and the athletics department, when the school shuts down sports to look after the health and safety of students, and the sports playing students want to be the tail that wags the dog. This is arguably worse than athletes asking for compensation, because if they got their way - seems possible with the revenue for schools at stake - it would remove any pretense that major conference universities rule their sports programs and force a reckoning that sports runs them, strengthening the case for more athlete rights. Having Justin Fields being the guy leading this charge is even worse, because he transferred from Georgia to play sports at Ohio State. It’s obvious why he is on a college campus.

[OutsiderFan]

Teejers, this doesn’t mean we’re gonna “take long hot showers together into the wee hours of the morning” a la Sgt. Highway (Clint Eastwood) in Heartbreak Ridge, but...

I couldn’t agree more with your “should” about de-emphasizing college as minor league pro sports. Another way to fortify the de-emphasis of professionalization is to increase the entrance and/or eligibility requirements to put the incentive on the 4.4 GPA and not the 4.4 40. Not saying the requirement to play college sports should be a 4.4 GPA, just put the incentive structure in line with school education mission.

Go back to the Prop 48 model. Allow athletes into school with a min. level of academic qualification, but don’t allow them to be eligible to play for their schools until meeting certain NCAA mandated levels of academic achievement.

The problem is we don’t live in the world of “should.” We live in the world that is. There are challenges to standardizing academic requirements, with a wide range of rigor among the schools, and we know schools have a history of academic fraud to make athletes eligible. But the biggest one is obviously asking schools to give up the revenue and exposure they get from commercialized amateur sports. It seems unlikely they will.

Making matters even more difficult is the fact some players are now organizing, trying to play sports in the Big Ten. You couldn’t have a more clear indication of the divergent missions of the school and the athletics department, when the school shuts down sports to look after the health and safety of students, and the sports playing students want to be the tail that wags the dog. This is arguably worse than athletes asking for compensation, because if they got their way - seems possible with the revenue for schools at stake - it would remove any pretense that major conference universities rule their sports programs and force a reckoning that sports runs them, strengthening the case for more athlete rights. Having Justin Fields being the guy leading this charge is even worse, because he transferred from Georgia to play sports at Ohio State. It’s obvious why he is on a college campus.

[2006alum]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

[2006alum]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

[JohnR34231]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

I'm thinking perhaps Jim Harbaugh just likes coaching football. Given all the money he made in the NFL and his previous years at Michigan I doubt he would have to work another day in his life if he didn't want to.

[JohnR34231]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

I'm thinking perhaps Jim Harbaugh just likes coaching football. Given all the money he made in the NFL and his previous years at Michigan I doubt he would have to work another day in his life if he didn't want to.

[BostonCard]

Right, as soon as there is a perception that the D-league is better preparation for the NFL, you will see prominent professionally oriented players bail on college and go to the NFL.  Academically-oriented players and those who want to hedge against not making the NFL would go to college.  You have seen it with the NBA D-league this last year, where some players who have had no interest in college decided to forgo going to college.

So, I am completely with teejers, 2006, Mick and others in this thread.  The caveat is that it would require college athletics to do something that goes against the grain of every organization I've ever seen, which is to leave money on the table and pursue a strategy that doesn't maximize revenue growth.  You can see it with the hesitation that is shown in postponing/cancelling the football season despite willingness to cancel non-revenue sports.  The money has a corrosive effect on decision making.  So, the way I see it is that the only way that happens is as part of some sort of consent decree, with an agreement to limit activities and disruption to school in order not to be forced to pay players.

BC

[BostonCard]

Right, as soon as there is a perception that the D-league is better preparation for the NFL, you will see prominent professionally oriented players bail on college and go to the NFL.  Academically-oriented players and those who want to hedge against not making the NFL would go to college.  You have seen it with the NBA D-league this last year, where some players who have had no interest in college decided to forgo going to college.

So, I am completely with teejers, 2006, Mick and others in this thread.  The caveat is that it would require college athletics to do something that goes against the grain of every organization I've ever seen, which is to leave money on the table and pursue a strategy that doesn't maximize revenue growth.  You can see it with the hesitation that is shown in postponing/cancelling the football season despite willingness to cancel non-revenue sports.  The money has a corrosive effect on decision making.  So, the way I see it is that the only way that happens is as part of some sort of consent decree, with an agreement to limit activities and disruption to school in order not to be forced to pay players.

BC

[Softball Fan]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

Why football players and not all students?   I agree with your other comments but I don't feel football players should be treated as "special" students superior to other students.

[Softball Fan]

Mick and teejers are not my usual bedfellows but on this I couldn't agree with them more. Given everything going on in the world right now, my sentiment is essentially: a pox on both your houses.

The schools are finally having to pay the piper for years of running a business in the guise of a non-profit, one which primarily enriched the coaches, staffs, etc. (are you surprised Harbaugh is champing at the bit to play? In what universe should Michigan pay him $9mil if they don't?) 

As for the players, at least at schools like Stanford, Cal, U$C, and Michigan, there are about 30,000 rejected students who would gladly take your spot and, based on my experience with my football classmates in undergrad, put the academic parts to much better use than they typically do. Few football players are polymaths like Andrew Luck. I am confident Stanford could find 75 students who would not only be grateful to be there, but would almost certainly avail themselves of much more than Arrellaga and its surroundings.

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

Why football players and not all students?   I agree with your other comments but I don't feel football players should be treated as "special" students superior to other students.

[Goose]

Why football players and not all students?   I agree with your other comments but I don't feel football players should be treated as "special" students superior to other students.

Because football players take on the risk of serious physical damage both while playing and subsequently. They do this under the instruction of and for the benefit (at least partially) of the university. Other students do not take on that risk.

[Goose]

Why football players and not all students?   I agree with your other comments but I don't feel football players should be treated as "special" students superior to other students.

Because football players take on the risk of serious physical damage both while playing and subsequently. They do this under the instruction of and for the benefit (at least partially) of the university. Other students do not take on that risk.

[BobK]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

[BobK]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

[Goose]

Right, as soon as there is a perception that the D-league is better preparation for the NFL, you will see prominent professionally oriented players bail on college and go to the NFL.  Academically-oriented players and those who want to hedge against not making the NFL would go to college.  You have seen it with the NBA D-league this last year, where some players who have had no interest in college decided to forgo going to college.

I think the jury is still out on the NBA D-League. If and when it becomes a reliable pipeline to the NBA then I think it will begin to attract lots of high-school guys who don't want to go to college. If most high-school players who go that route don't make it to the NBA, it will be attractive only to guys who simply can't make it in college. As of now, the NBA can't fill their rosters adequately from the D-League. When and if they can, it becomes a solution to the development issue.

So, I am completely with teejers, 2006, Mick and others in this thread.  The caveat is that it would require college athletics to do something that goes against the grain of every organization I've ever seen, which is to leave money on the table and pursue a strategy that doesn't maximize revenue growth.  You can see it with the hesitation that is shown in postponing/cancelling the football season despite willingness to cancel non-revenue sports.  The money has a corrosive effect on decision making.  So, the way I see it is that the only way that happens is as part of some sort of consent decree, with an agreement to limit activities and disruption to school in order not to be forced to pay players.

BC

I agree that some kind of consent decree is the only way that this happens, and I seriously doubt that the players or the universities want to go back to the way things were in say 1970. I would be perfectly fine with that level of football, but big money is very hard to forgo. I think it more probable that some kind of cobbled together "plan" gets adopted and then changed every year.

[Goose]

Right, as soon as there is a perception that the D-league is better preparation for the NFL, you will see prominent professionally oriented players bail on college and go to the NFL.  Academically-oriented players and those who want to hedge against not making the NFL would go to college.  You have seen it with the NBA D-league this last year, where some players who have had no interest in college decided to forgo going to college.

I think the jury is still out on the NBA D-League. If and when it becomes a reliable pipeline to the NBA then I think it will begin to attract lots of high-school guys who don't want to go to college. If most high-school players who go that route don't make it to the NBA, it will be attractive only to guys who simply can't make it in college. As of now, the NBA can't fill their rosters adequately from the D-League. When and if they can, it becomes a solution to the development issue.

So, I am completely with teejers, 2006, Mick and others in this thread.  The caveat is that it would require college athletics to do something that goes against the grain of every organization I've ever seen, which is to leave money on the table and pursue a strategy that doesn't maximize revenue growth.  You can see it with the hesitation that is shown in postponing/cancelling the football season despite willingness to cancel non-revenue sports.  The money has a corrosive effect on decision making.  So, the way I see it is that the only way that happens is as part of some sort of consent decree, with an agreement to limit activities and disruption to school in order not to be forced to pay players.

BC

I agree that some kind of consent decree is the only way that this happens, and I seriously doubt that the players or the universities want to go back to the way things were in say 1970. I would be perfectly fine with that level of football, but big money is very hard to forgo. I think it more probable that some kind of cobbled together "plan" gets adopted and then changed every year.

[slide]

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

when did this become policy for athletes at Stanford?  Stanford covered my health care while in school.

[slide]

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

when did this become policy for athletes at Stanford?  Stanford covered my health care while in school.

[cardcrimson]

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

when did this become policy for athletes at Stanford?  Stanford covered my health care while in school.

Mine too. Still have a scar to prove it.

[cardcrimson]

ETA: The one issue where I'm in total solidarity with the players is health insurance and post-graduation coverage: I think it's absurd that players play on their parents' health insurance and often have to rely on it post-graduation. I've never understood why universities don't have mandated and universal health insurance for all athletes.

when did this become policy for athletes at Stanford?  Stanford covered my health care while in school.

Mine too. Still have a scar to prove it.