California Governor signs law ; pay for play.

[MikePhillips]

Just now, Gismo said:

Do they pay them instead of giving them scholarship? I’d say pick one. The scholarship is worth more than these kids could get on a free market salary.

Both... the costs to the university, in regards to letting 1 extra person sit in a classroom is seriously marginal. Does it cost anymore for a Teaching Assistant to teach 31 people instead of 30? Does it cost the university more money for a professor, to teach 201 students instead of 200?

In a college with 40,000 students like USF, having 1,000 college athletes in the system is marginal at best.

Give them the degree, and pay them based on profit sharing.

"They get a free education, plus many of them go pro" - we all know most degrees are worthless out in the marketplace, and the overwhelming majority of the athletes never go "pro". 

How many USF football players have gone pro? Maybe 2 dozen in 20 years? 60-80 student athletes per year, and maybe 1 per year go pro? Thats hardly anything to bet your life and your health on

Hand them a free degree and pay them. 

[Bull Nut]

4 minutes ago, bullsbucsfan426 said:

No it's not. These guys are working 16 hours a day between practice and studies, so no, a scholarship worth at most 16k a year is not enough. Let's not forget that they will face potential injury issues down the road that the average student won't have to face. 

I fully approve of this model, these students are legally adults, for the most part they had choices on where they could choose to play college football, so it's time to stop pretending that it's the school's name was the sole reason they are marketable. 

If anything my hope is that this will increase competition for the starting 22 as only those who are regularly on the field will be able to sign marketing deals. People would be much more likely if a product was marketed by Quinton Flowers or Rodney Adams rather than say, DeAngelo Antoine. 

We can't even afford an OCS, IPF, or upgraded facilities. Not to mention the potential $5mm buyout. So paying student athletes will surely breed a successful program... 

[Bull Nut]

5 minutes ago, MikePhillips said:

Both... the costs to the university, in regards to letting 1 extra person sit in a classroom is seriously marginal. Does it cost anymore for a Teaching Assistant to teach 31 people instead of 30? Does it cost the university more money for a professor, to teach 201 students instead of 200?

In a college with 40,000 students like USF, having 1,000 college athletes in the system is marginal at best.

Give them the degree, and pay them based on profit sharing.

"They get a free education, plus many of them go pro" - we all know most degrees are worthless out in the marketplace, and the overwhelming majority of the athletes never go "pro". 

How many USF football players have gone pro? Maybe 2 dozen in 20 years? 60-80 student athletes per year, and maybe 1 per year go pro? Thats hardly anything to bet your life and your health on

Hand them a free degree and pay them. 

You must be a millennial...

[NewEnglandBull]

So here is my philosophy if they are getting paid then they are professionals. If they are processionals then I can treat them like professional athletes which means I can boo their ass like I do at pro games. The coddling is now over...

[Gismo]

I would be okay paying them a stipend like grad students are paid. But it will destroy the already non-existing parity between universities unless the NCAA agrees that the stipend is the same at all universities. 

Allowing the players to be paid for endorsements will be hard to regulate. Billy Booster will pay each recruiting class huge sums to each recruit for the right to put the recruiting class photo on a T-shirt. 

[Bull Matrix]

1 hour ago, Gismo said:

College sports is done. 

 

 

To me college football ended a long time ago with the P5 and to the extent BCS era. BCS was not too bad as USF was part of the club but it was still unfair to those outside. If California lawmakers want to do something to save it then they should sign into law to do away with P5 

[slick1ru2]

1 hour ago, BayIslandBull said:

The end of college football is near ...

Perhaps putting the funds in a trust spread equitably across the entire team could still work though.

College football is a have and have not sport now. It’s all focused on money. And giving players a piece is the right thing in this system.

[BDYZR]

1 hour ago, MikePhillips said:

They should 100% pay college athletes

A "college degree" is a joke. 99% of the "college degrees" athletes get are a joke, 99% of the degrees that people get from USF are a joke. I have three of them, I know more than anyone

College athletes are ADULTS, they are over 18, they are participating in a "product", the "product" makes huge amounts of money, and they 100% should be paid. 

Look at the list of the degrees USF offers... maybe a dozen of them, actually map to anything going on in the real world. And most college athletes, aren't exactly taking Engineering classes, or Accounting classes, or in the college of Medicine. They have to "short cut" their college education to make time for the athletics

Read this list of nonsense-

https://usfweb.usf.edu/academics/undergraduate-majors.aspx

Interdisciplinary Social Sciences? General Studies? Marketing (my degree btw)?

Pay them... pay them what's fair and pay them for what they bring to the university as a product. "They get a free edgur-curtion" is just nonsense

 

 

1 hour ago, bullsbucsfan426 said:

No it's not. These guys are working 16 hours a day between practice and studies, so no, a scholarship worth at most 16k a year is not enough. Let's not forget that they will face potential injury issues down the road that the average student won't have to face. 

I fully approve of this model, these students are legally adults, for the most part they had choices on where they could choose to play college football, so it's time to stop pretending that it's the school's name was the sole reason they are marketable. 

If anything my hope is that this will increase competition for the starting 22 as only those who are regularly on the field will be able to sign marketing deals. People would be much more likely if a product was marketed by Quinton Flowers or Rodney Adams rather than say, DeAngelo Antoine. 

Who gets the money? Is it the 2 or 3 "stars" on the team? What about the 3rd and 4th string practice squad guy that works just as hard, puts in the same hours, and never even sniffs at real playing time?

[bullsbucsfan426]

2 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

 

Who gets the money? Is it the 2 or 3 "stars" on the team? What about the 3rd and 4th string practice squad guy that works just as hard, puts in the same hours, and never even sniffs at real playing time?

The ones who earned it! I consider this a free-market solution. If you've earned your way onto the field, you will play, and if you play well, you will get rewarded with marketing contracts. Given that we have a walk-on playing significant snaps at WR right now that should tell you anything is possible. 

[BDYZR]

1 minute ago, bullsbucsfan426 said:

The ones who earned it! I consider this a free-market solution. If you've earned your way onto the field, you will play, and if you play well, you will get rewarded with marketing contracts. Given that we have a walk-on playing significant snaps at WR right now that should tell you anything is possible. 

Precisely the answer I expected. The guy that's born a step faster, maybe a little more agile, maybe a little better eyesight, etc. "earns" the right. 

We're going to disagree, so I'm done with the discussion.