They can literally test to see if you have had it, and the B1G sends each team more than $50 million/year NOW, let alone in 35-40 years, so Idk what you are on about.
Big Ten Players Demands Out Now
- Thread starter HumbleP1e
- Start date
If I were that age and on the team I'd rather not be tested at all for COVID unless I had symptoms. might hurt the playing time if you need 2 or 3 or 4 weeks out.
Walter Payton had the best game of his career when he was sick as hell with a high fever. Back in the old days.
Yeah, this one has to go. Short term at most. It is not like these guys won't be running around other places and exposed to other people not football related.
Coverage for all out-of-pocket medical expenses related to COVID-19 (both short-term and long-term) incurred by active college athletes
There has to be a waiver. Either these guys want to play or they don't. Figure it out and decide.
I enjoy and seek out people who think differently as long as there is actual thought and not regurgitated nonsense about NCAA athletes being Victims. This is just more of the everyone is a victim mentality that has taken over society.
The deal is a free education and celebrity status on campus, many then trade that education for millions of dollars in lifetime earnings using their degree and a future for their family in the middle class. It’s a great freaking deal and one of the best many of these kids will ever get in their life. The majority of schools don’t even make money on their athletic departments for Gods sake and you’re ranting that these kids are being abused in this system? It’s a complete joke. They can hold out or quit if they want but in the long run after a season or two missed there will be millions of kids whose dream was to be in their place and college sports will go on bigger than any minor league pro alternative, and 99% of the kids who quit will regret it in a few years when they’re working a real job and their playing days are gone.
Actually the supposed demands arent that bad except this one.
Complimentary access to the Big Ten Network for athletes’ family members
That made me laugh.
Complimentary access to the Big Ten Network for athletes’ family members
That made me laugh.
If you think players already have a sweet deal, that's cool, but it does nothing to answer the following question: if a school wants to provide even more benefits to a player, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
If schools really don't have money to pay players, then removing the rule that prevents colleges from paying athletes is unnecessary.
What really doesn't make sense is how many people that supposedly believe in free markets get so upset with college athletes wanting the ability to freely negotiate for additional compensation. If the free market deems them worthy of more compensation, why the hell should we have a rule that prevents that?
If the players have no value, why does the NFL bother paying anyone? If the players have no value, why do so many schools break the rules by providing compensation under the table?
The argument that the players aren't valuable is incredibly stupid.
If a school is willing to pay that, why the hell shouldn't that be allowed? Why do so many people seem to demand that free market rates not be allowed for college athletes? It makes zero sense.
Actually very accurate post. Can you give me examples of workers demanding stuff from their boss/place of employment?
Currently, the payers should be told to hush or let go. NCAA should definitely push back
Last edited:
Good thing nobody has stated that except for you. It’s not that players have no value, it’s that the school provides vast majority of product appeal.
Why do you think ISU can get 50k people to attend their football games? Why could same players like Curtis Stinson that drew huge crowds in Ames, then suddenly couldn’t get anyone to show up to see them In Des Moines in the NBA’s minor league system?
Stupid is right....
Last edited:
You cant ever pay players. The Pandora's box for doing that is a wild ride of very bad things following in sports and out of sports
You said zero dollars were made from the players. That is stupid. The schools need the players and the players need the schools. Same goes for coaches. Not a difficult concept. But it’s only the players that aren’t allowed to profit, and people like you cannot provide any rationale for that other than simply saying that the players already have a fair deal.
Again, if the players are already getting their fair share, why is there a need for a rule saying they can’t get more? If the players didn’t get paid simply because the schools didn’t deem them to be valuable enough, I really wouldn’t care. But there’s yet to be anyone in this thread, or any of the countless threads on this issue, that has ever provided a rational justification for why players should not be able to profit from the value that they provide to their schools.
It would be a delicate balancing act with the people with little to no leverage losing opportunities. Olympic sports and female sports would disappear quickly, student funds would be tapped even more than they are at most schools. It would be a pretty slippery slope.
“The schools are clearly the product, not the players, so zero dollars were made “off their backs.””
Are you just playing dumb? And again you have yet to provide any justification for why a rule is needed to prevent players from being paid.
(1) No other sports would need to be cancelled. Coaches/administrators would get paid less get paid less and facilities would be less extravagant.
(2) Even if #1 weren’t true, is that a valid justification for mandating certain people get compensated less than they are worth?
I don’t know of any other topic in which so many Americans seem to be afraid of applying for free market principles. Allow the players to be paid what they’re worth. I don’t get why that is controversial.
What substance does this empty statement provide?
Why don’t we just call the coaches amateurs too and then make a rule that caps their benefits?
You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but we all know that many of these college athletes are worth a ton of money, but by throwing around the word amateur we magically get to pretend that they don’t deserve the compensation that a free market would provide.
Right, except you don’t seem to grasp these players already get over a hundred thousand in compensation, so no that’s not exploiting them at all it’s an agreement they voluntarily accepted.
I didn’t provide justification because it’s obvious:
Number one it will provide too much of an advantage for schools with the most money in what’s supposed to be a somewhat level playing field. It’s just like the NFL but the cap is 85 scholarships, why doesn’t the NFL let all teams pay all players whatever they want?
Number two because that’s a really bad deal for the majority of athletes. The worst players on the roster and in the worst sports for revenue aren’t even worth anything close to what they’re getting. Might as well start taxing these schools at that point. How do you think that would be for most athletes? Brilliant...
Last edited:
Talk to Stanford, they chose to cut sports. This pandemic have seen some pay cuts but sports are getting cut as well. Salaries are a little like sunshine taxes, you can say they will go away or get cut but never seems to work that way.
How much do you think their education, training, food, medical care, housing, travel, connections for life etc are worth? $0? North of $100k/yr with some suggesting $250k/yr. Who is going to pay for all the other sports that don’t make money (all except football/men’s basketball at P5 schools). If they don’t want to go to school then there are other options already.
Is that really unreasonable? It's unlikely family members will want to travel to games even if there are fans in the stands. Since BTN isn't in every market giving free access to family members seems like an easy solution so that family members can still watch them play.
The point of college scholarships is to provide opportunity across all sports. That includes girls.
The 75k that show up in kinnick and watch on tv will show up/watch whoever plays.
To act as though athletic departments are overflowing with cash is incorrect. Most of the time those lavish facilities are paid for by donations. Not donations for specific players but for any the school sees fit in offering.
Conservatively the $300k your average player makes in scholarships money ( not counting the interest they don’t have to pay in student loans) is more than fair compensation for their efforts. The connections alone can’t be put into a monetary value, many of these players will benefit the rest of their lives from the connections sports have given them.
Free market???? Are you f’ing kidding me. Go watch a g league or minor league football game. There no money there. Why??? Because the players have nowhere near the value you think they do. The allegiance is to the college not the player and with that being said their scholarship is more than fair compensation.
You contradict yourself, do you even see it?
You argue that the players already get a fair deal, so that would mean if there was no rule in place capping benefits, nothing would happen. If the players aren’t worth more than the benefits they’re already getting, the rule is just unnecessary.
So you have two options:
(1) Concede the rule that you seem desperate to keep is unnecessary; or
(2) Argue that it’s necessary to underpay players because of competitive balance and taxes.
Which option is it?
How can people be so obtuse? If the players aren’t more valuable than what they already get, then why do you need the rule capping their benefits? It’s not a hard concept: many players are worth a lot more than what they receive.
Why are you afraid of the free market?
Wow you’re an imbecile. I couldn’t care less if they started paying players and Ohio State and Alabama alternate championships for the next hundred years.
Since you love questions why are you so desperate to end scholarships for women permanently so male stars can be paid? You don’t seem like a misogynist but....
Yes cutting salaries of administrators won't save sports. It's just periphery and something said that makes people feel good.
This whole issue of paying all the college football players and the rest of the athletes be damned has a lot of layers to address. It's not as simple as just churning all the money derived from football back into the program and the players. Football revenue pays for everything else. In the current structure, the schools are required to offer a certain amount of sports, and a certain amount of women's sports to match scholarships offered to men's sports.
One could argue that this whole model should be blown up and done away with. Maybe, but good luck convincing the public that hundreds of thousands of scholarship athletes across the country have their sports done away with. The college model is based on the agreement that the players get something of value (a free education and in the case of P5 teams, world-class training and nutrition). The schools get money to fund their entire athletic departments. For decades, it was deemed as a good value for both sides. The money has grown huge for the coaches and administrators and overall athletic department budgets of over $100 million, so some the players of the largest revenue producing sport say "where is my cut?"
I don't know what the best answer is. Direct payments to football players means end of most other sports at schools.
Competitive balance you dolt. The games would mean nothing if one school could just buy everything. As bad as it is now that would ruin the sport. I know you think that was a big gotcha but it was just a dumb thoughtless question.
Hey mr free market look at the g league xfl and other minor league teams. No one wants to watch them. You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
