A Sea Of Red

http://tracking.si.com/2013/08/04/ncaa- ... t=cf_t2_a1

This kid must really want that Heisman stripped and for A&M's season to go down the toilet, geez. How could he possibly think getting that kind of money for autographs wouldn't come out before too long?!

My question is why is this prevented? I thought the same thing when Ohio State got Jim Tressel in trouble. I may be the minority in this opinion but it is ridiculous how much money college athletes, particularly at big time universities, generate and how little they are allowed to share.

Why can't players sell their gear, autographs or anything else in this CAPITALISTIC society? The inequity is stunning to me.

Agree with you SCAR, but it's still a rule now... He knows that. He doesn't need the money anyways...

OK - here is my vent about this kid. The boys parents are letting him down - they need to sit him down and tell him - "You haven't made any money yet" "Do you not understand this is your job interview?" "You want to make money in the Pros one day - then just shut-up, work hard, stay home and play football."

This kid is acting like he has already won something and is a sure bet to be great. He has a better chance to fail or scare every team away with his stupidity. This is why they should have never given a Freshman the honor of winning the Heisman. He has devalued it greatly this past year since winning it and was never mature enough to deserve the honor. He hasn't even proven he's not a system guy yet.

Manziel is the main reason why the Heisman was only given to upperclassmen. Most youngsters are not be able to handle the celebrity and fame that comes with the award and continue to be a student-athlete until their departure.

IMO, Manziel is the reason why there is talk of the big boys forming a new division. Think about it. The current rules prohibits student-athletes from gaining an income while they're on a scholarship. If a new division is formed, they Big 5 can make their own rules, thus creating the opportunity to "pay" athletes a subsidy to cover personal needs that occur with every college student. Maybe it's not going to happen the way I see it, but there will be some sort of system to subsidize student athletes in the near future.

prototype wrote:Agree with you SCAR, but it's still a rule now... He knows that. He doesn't need the money anyways...

OK - here is my vent about this kid. The boys parents are letting him down - they need to sit him down and tell him - "You haven't made any money yet" "Do you not understand this is your job interview?" "You want to make money in the Pros one day - then just shut-up, work hard, stay home and play football."

This kid is acting like he has already won something and is a sure bet to be great. He has a better chance to fail or scare every team away with his stupidity. This is why they should have never given a Freshman the honor of winning the Heisman. He has devalued it greatly this past year since winning it and was never mature enough to deserve the honor. He hasn't even proven he's not a system guy yet.

I agree Maziel is acting stupid in many ways... He does need some sort of counseling to deal with his inner issues that are starting to surface.

You know what, with the whole situation with Tex A&M coach vouching for Manziel to stay on the team when Manziel had behavior issues is sort of similar to what Urban Meyer did with Aaron Hernandez at Florida. (I know Maziel did not murder anyone!) What I am saying is that coaches allow bad behavior with star players instead of sitting them down until they get their act together. These coaches know that if they do not win, they are out the door! Therefore, coaches with tolerate such bad behavior with certain players.

while i think these kids should have the ability to market themselves and profit from it, a change like this would change the make up of the college game forever and i don't think you'd like the result.

manziel is an idiot kid like we all once were with alot more attention than any of us have ever got. its hard to put myself in his shoes and be like "i'd never do that!". that being said, rules are rules and you sign on to abide by those rules. if you don't agree, thats really too bad.

if this comes out and is really true and provable, the punishment will be huge.

i compare manziel to a slightly better jason white. i don't think he has any of the intangiables of a successful nfl qb. he doesn't have a strong arm, he's not tall, and his character is somewhat lacking as of right now.

coaches are kind of screwed in regards to what their players do but its ok. they are well compensated for this. coaches i feel are basically told do whatever it takes to win. so a coach can't be a father figure to players in todays game. holding coaches responsible for some crappy human they brought it because of thier football acumen is not something i'm willing to do. its talking out of both side of your mouth. win at all costs! how could you have that questionable person on the team!?

SCAR wrote:My question is why is this prevented? I thought the same thing when Ohio State got Jim Tressel in trouble. I may be the minority in this opinion but it is ridiculous how much money college athletes, particularly at big time universities, generate and how little they are allowed to share.

Why can't players sell their gear, autographs or anything else in this CAPITALISTIC society? The inequity is stunning to me.

The NCAA and College football are not free market systems. Like any other job you give up some of your rights when you work for them See the military. The selling of items would be a nightmare for enforcement. Then you would have boosters paying 10's of thousands of dollars for an incoming recruits electronic signature. I'm not a fan of the NCAA's enforcement arm, but until the NFL gets a minor league system going then you have to play by those rules. At least the NBA has attempted it with the 'D League'

As for Johnny Football I think it is safe to say the sheen has been rubbed away from his Heisman story. Can anyone say Ryan Leaf?

RubberMallet wrote:while i think these kids should have the ability to market themselves and profit from it, a change like this would change the make up of the college game forever and i don't think you'd like the result.

manziel is an idiot kid like we all once were with alot more attention than any of us have ever got. its hard to put myself in his shoes and be like "i'd never do that!". that being said, rules are rules and you sign on to abide by those rules. if you don't agree, thats really too bad.

if this comes out and is really true and provable, the punishment will be huge.

i compare manziel to a slightly better jason white. i don't think he has any of the intangiables of a successful nfl qb. he doesn't have a strong arm, he's not tall, and his character is somewhat lacking as of right now.

coaches are kind of screwed in regards to what their players do but its ok. they are well compensated for this. coaches i feel are basically told do whatever it takes to win. so a coach can't be a father figure to players in todays game. holding coaches responsible for some crappy human they brought it because of thier football acumen is not something i'm willing to do. its talking out of both side of your mouth. win at all costs! how could you have that questionable person on the team!?

So how would Manziell being able to charge for his autograph change the "make up of the college game"? NFL lets people profit off their likeness and I have to say it's doing pretty well...

32 teams vs many fbs football teams? if college boosters are able to pay players or they are allowed to "market" themselves, they are going to the big name teams, it changes the recruiting game and you'd start to see the talent funnel only to the top. you'd have a small cluster of absolutely stacked teams. you think central michigan could keep erik fisher last year? the parity of college football will be gone except for the top. there is no way to regulate it. you might as well make the FBS a super conference of about 30 teams and then theres everyone else. it may be a great result, i didn't say it wouldn't. but it does change everything, and some might not like it.

the comparison to the nfl is preposterous.

This just in!
Johnny Manziel is planning on wearing a "Free Hernandez" hat and an ARod jersey while videoing himself and his imaginary girlfriend using racial slurs during a dog fight tomorrow.

This should keep ESPN occupied for a while.

I bet A&M fans are really AGGIEvated with Johnny Football right about now...

As for paying players... I am in favor of helping out players a little more than they are currently... But let's not go overboard. Being a student athlete IS hard work, no doubt. But so is having any other kind of job. What student wouldn't LOVE to graduate without any student loans? Also, we need to remember... Most football programs don't actually make any money for the university... Not every team can be Alabama.

01LUGrad wrote:This just in!
Johnny Manziel is planning on wearing a "Free Hernandez" hat and an ARod jersey while videoing himself and his imaginary girlfriend using racial slurs during a dog fight tomorrow.

This should keep ESPN occupied for a while.

alabama24 wrote:I bet A&M fans are really AGGIEvated with Johnny Football right about now...

As for paying players... I am in favor of helping out players a little more than they are currently... But let's not go overboard. Being a student athlete IS hard work, no doubt. But so is having any other kind of job. What student wouldn't LOVE to graduate without any student loans? Also, we need to remember... Most football programs don't actually make any money for the university... Not every team can be Alabama. :I chortle audibly.:

Your comparisons don't really tell the whole story. Your 1st comparison is student-athlete to any other job. In any other job you can be compensated based on what the market value is for the job you perform. Further more you can get promoted, get raises, bonus' etc in many jobs. Also you get medical, dental, retirement funds, profit sharing, stock options etc. depending on the work you do.

Not having student loans is nice. But that is a comparison to a "normal student" vs an athlete. Again, the focus is on the wrong thing. It is not about an athlete's experience vs a regular student. No one would argue that an athlete doesn't get treated better in most cases. But the focus should be again on what the value is they bring in terms of economics.

It is well documented that most football programs don't make money. However, many coaches and administrators get paid very well even at smaller schools. Most head coaches in football and basketball in division 1 athletics do better than your average worker. So again there are people benefiting greatly from the performance of kids on the playing surface that the kids are not allowed to share, nor are they allowed to "generate" their own benefits via selling their gear, autographs or whatever else they have that is in demand by the general public. I can't think of any other sector of our society where this inequity is allowed, sanctioned, tolerated or defended.

This is not 1964 anymore. Athletics is a multi-billion dollar machine. I think the NCAA is going to have to move their rules and notions about amature status into the 21st century.

RubberMallet wrote:32 teams vs many fbs football teams? if college boosters are able to pay players or they are allowed to "market" themselves, they are going to the big name teams, it changes the recruiting game and you'd start to see the talent funnel only to the top. you'd have a small cluster of absolutely stacked teams. you think central michigan could keep erik fisher last year? the parity of college football will be gone except for the top. there is no way to regulate it. you might as well make the FBS a super conference of about 30 teams and then theres everyone else. it may be a great result, i didn't say it wouldn't. but it does change everything, and some might not like it.

the comparison to the nfl is preposterous.

And nearly all the top talent doesn't funnel to the top - the Big Six Conferences + Notre Dame - now? The schools that spend the money on sports already get all the top talent. The 2013 247sports composite rankings finds the following schools with players in the top 100:

Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Florida, Southern Cal, UCLA, Alabama, FSU, Auburn, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Mississippi State, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Michigan, Ohio State, Baylor, Clemson, Texas, Miami, Arkansas, Pitt, LSU, UVA, Louisville, Washington, Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia, UNC, Stanford, Wisconsin, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona State, Michigan State, TCU, Rutgers, Cal, Northwestern, Indiana, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Georgia Tech, ORegon State, Arizona, Vanderbilt, Toledo, Purdue, Washington State, BYU, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Cincinnati, Louisiana-Lafayette, Northwestern, Boise State, Utah, Fresno State

Only FIVE players in the top 450 didn't go to a Big Six Conference school or Notre Dame, excluding the players that apparently didn't go to an NCAA school (I assume they went the prep route). The top ranked player that didn't go the "big boy" route was ranked 281. The talent is already funnelled to the top!

SCAR wrote:Most head coaches in football and basketball in division 1 athletics do better than your average worker.

And in nearly every single state (if not every, I can't remember 100% if it's every), the highest paid public employee is a university head football and/or men's basketball coach.

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

SCAR wrote:Most head coaches in football and basketball in division 1 athletics do better than your average worker.

And in nearly every single state (if not every, I can't remember 100% if it's every), the highest paid public employee is a university head football and/or men's basketball coach.

Not every state, but it is a lot of them. Looks like the Northeast has it right.

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your ... -489635228

adam42381 wrote:

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

SCAR wrote:Most head coaches in football and basketball in division 1 athletics do better than your average worker.

And in nearly every single state (if not every, I can't remember 100% if it's every), the highest paid public employee is a university head football and/or men's basketball coach.

Not every state, but it is a lot of them. Looks like the Northeast has it right.

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your ... -489635228

Yeah, but look at all the states where a college coach isn't the highest paid. Prime time college sports teams are virtually non-existent in those states. Nevada and NY is the only exception with UNLV and St. Johns hoops, but those two teams haven't been prime time in easily over a decade and UNLV is in a non-major conference, so even that is questionable. I guarantee you that if all these states had a football coach going to notable bowl games every year or a basketball coach doing something of worth in the NCAA Tournament every year that they would be the highest paid state employee.

It is rather sad really that the highest paid state employee in Nevada is a plastic surgeon. Those prostitutes must be keeping him/her busy.

It's like he knows how to do everything wrong, perfectly. I've given him the benefit of the doubt for everything but this is just insane. Come on, you know the rules.

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:32 teams vs many fbs football teams? if college boosters are able to pay players or they are allowed to "market" themselves, they are going to the big name teams, it changes the recruiting game and you'd start to see the talent funnel only to the top. you'd have a small cluster of absolutely stacked teams. you think central michigan could keep erik fisher last year? the parity of college football will be gone except for the top. there is no way to regulate it. you might as well make the FBS a super conference of about 30 teams and then theres everyone else. it may be a great result, i didn't say it wouldn't. but it does change everything, and some might not like it.

the comparison to the nfl is preposterous.

And nearly all the top talent doesn't funnel to the top - the Big Six Conferences + Notre Dame - now? The schools that spend the money on sports already get all the top talent. The 2013 247sports composite rankings finds the following schools with players in the top 100:

Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Florida, Southern Cal, UCLA, Alabama, FSU, Auburn, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Mississippi State, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Michigan, Ohio State, Baylor, Clemson, Texas, Miami, Arkansas, Pitt, LSU, UVA, Louisville, Washington, Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia, UNC, Stanford, Wisconsin, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona State, Michigan State, TCU, Rutgers, Cal, Northwestern, Indiana, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Georgia Tech, ORegon State, Arizona, Vanderbilt, Toledo, Purdue, Washington State, BYU, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Cincinnati, Louisiana-Lafayette, Northwestern, Boise State, Utah, Fresno State

Only FIVE players in the top 450 didn't go to a Big Six Conference school or Notre Dame, excluding the players that apparently didn't go to an NCAA school (I assume they went the prep route). The top ranked player that didn't go the "big boy" route was ranked 281. The talent is already funnelled to the top!

thats like 70 schools. by the end of their sophmore year, some of the best talen are on lesser big conference schools or mid majors. what do they do? get a better offer from lsu? you'll have players signing onto small schools waiting for better "offers" from bigger schools. there will be teams within those conferences that won't be able to compete. i can't understand how someone can't see how the landscape of college football will change if they start compensating players (either college, endorsements, or both) remember, many people love college football because how the players play to play and not for the "love of money". that as well obviously goes away.

SCAR wrote: Your comparisons don't really tell the whole story. Your 1st comparison is student-athlete to any other job. In any other job you can be compensated based on what the market value is for the job you perform. Further more you can get promoted, get raises, bonus' etc in many jobs. Also you get medical, dental, retirement funds, profit sharing, stock options etc. depending on the work you do.

Want to start naming jobs college students can get where they "earn" a minimum of $30,000 per year? And student athletes do get medical & dental, free iPads, etc.

Furthermore, athletes get paid way too much as it is. The one area which needs to be improved, in both collegiate & professional sports, is health care expenses for those with ongoing sports-related injuries.

SCAR wrote: Not having student loans is nice. But that is a comparison to a "normal student" vs an athlete. Again, the focus is on the wrong thing. It is not about an athlete's experience vs a regular student. No one would argue that an athlete doesn't get treated better in most cases. But the focus should be again on what the value is they bring in terms of economics.

1. It isn't a one way street. There wouldn't be a "Johnny Football" without Texas A&M. His success is indebted to more than just his natural abilities and work ethic. He is a product of the school he chose to attend. AGGIE fans don't care about Manziel. They care about A&M. His popularity is due in large part to being a part of that team. He is also indebted to the great players he had around him, to his coaches, to his conference (the best in the country). There would be no "Johnny Football" without ALL of those things.

2. There are plenty of other realms where the cash cow doesn't get paid its worth "in terms of economics." When you work for a company, the IP belongs to the company, who benefits greatly. Having a great idea, or even a great product isn't enough. You have to sell it. Steve Jobs was great at that… Woz wasn't. Steve ran with Woz's innovations and made a company. Johnny Manziel needed a "brand" to help him sell his product. He choose to be a part of the A&M family. He would not have become "Johnny Football" if he had come to Liberty.

SCAR wrote: It is well documented that most football programs don't make money. However, many coaches and administrators get paid very well even at smaller schools. Most head coaches in football and basketball in division 1 athletics do better than your average worker. So again there are people benefiting greatly from the performance of kids on the playing surface that the kids are not allowed to share, nor are they allowed to "generate" their own benefits via selling their gear, autographs or whatever else they have that is in demand by the general public. I can't think of any other sector of our society where this inequity is allowed, sanctioned, tolerated or defended.

You are fooling yourself Scar, if you believe that. CEO's of companies make millions, while the workers, innovators & the "heart" of the company makes a fraction. That is life.

I am not opposed to some reform… I'm just opposed to all the crazy talk about the "poor student athletes." Of course, we are really only talking about football players at major universities, along with a few male basketball players.

One thing that is generally failed to be mentioned in these discussions: With the cash cow at Alabama, much of the "profits" (and they are LARGE) go to help support the other student athletes and their facilities, plus the general population of the university.

One thing that is generally failed to be mentioned in these discussions: With the cash cow at Alabama, much of the "profits" (and they are LARGE) go to help support the other student athletes and their facilities, plus the general population of the university.

+1...

Sometimes I wonder if those people arguing for collegiate athletes to get paid really understand what will happen if this were to occur. As it stands, there are merely 23 - 25 athletic programs in the COUNTRY that actually make money for their institution. The rest of these programs are heavily subsidized by the institutions themselves. There already is in arms race in collegiate athletics, particularly in the revenue generating sports. If you were to allow certain programs to begin paying their athletes on top of the support they already receive (i.e. tuition/fees, room & board) then you would be adding fuel to that fire. You would see less programs being able to keep up and compete, and you would see far fewer athletes on the field.

Not only that, but the additional funds going to the athletes would put added pressure on the institution, and ultimately the regular students who actually pay the full price to attend the school. Collegiate Athletics at the end of the day is a luxury of higher learning in this country. It was never meant to become a paid job.

There is also a huge difference between athletes being paid directly by the institutions/NCAA and allowing them to make some money on their likeness via autographs and such on the private market.

RubberMallet wrote:thats like 70 schools. by the end of their sophmore year, some of the best talen are on lesser big conference schools or mid majors. what do they do? get a better offer from lsu? you'll have players signing onto small schools waiting for better "offers" from bigger schools. there will be teams within those conferences that won't be able to compete. i can't understand how someone can't see how the landscape of college football will change if they start compensating players (either college, endorsements, or both) remember, many people love college football because how the players play to play and not for the "love of money". that as well obviously goes away.

1) Yes, 70 schools. How many schools are in the Big Six + Notre Dame (based on the 2012-13 conference alignment)? 69. 98.89% of the top 450 players elected to go to the big boys, not the "little sisters of the poor".

2) Players will sign to smaller schools waiting to get better offers? It already happens. Let's look at some of the college football transfers this year. Left Miami (OH) for Kansas, Kansas -> OK State, Arizona -> Oklahoma, Colorado State -> NC State, Utah State -> Arkansas State, Maryland -> Florida, Rutgers -> Pitt, BYU -> Kansas, Richmond -> Virginia Tech, Maryland -> Wisconsin, BYU -> Kansas, Wyoning -> TCU, Illinois -> Auburn, Tennessee -> Louisville, Akron -> Arizona.

And to say it will increase is abject speculation. You think a player with pro aspirations is going to transfer to sit behind some stud at Alabama, LSU, etc. to potentially destroy his pro prospects for a few thousand dollars?

3) There are already teams within conferences that won't be able to compete on a regular or semi-regular business. Are you not familiar with the long history of sucking in college football there is at Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, and Indiana, to name a few off the top of my head?

4) Many people watch BCS college football because of what? LOL. What decade is it in the alternate dimension you are living in, 1930s?

abject speculation? haha... keep trying. its lose lose. if you want to try and keep it the way it is, you'll have to create a rule base that completely changes recruiting and signing players year to year. if you want to just want to keep everything the same but pay players, then it changes the make up of everything. either way big changes happen and whether good or bad, the results are going to be different. all of the big sports analyitics point to the rich getting richer with nearly any compensation package. involving agents, creating a players union, etc.

yeah we get it, you want to argue about everything poorly. its fun.

RubberMallet wrote:abject speculation? haha... keep trying. its lose lose. if you want to try and keep it the way it is, you'll have to create a rule base that completely changes recruiting and signing players year to year. if you want to just want to keep everything the same but pay players, then it changes the make up of everything. either way big changes happen and whether good or bad, the results are going to be different. all of the big sports analytics point to the rich getting richer with nearly any compensation package. involving agents, creating a players union, etc.

yeah we get it, you want to argue about everything poorly. its fun.

Ah yes, instead of coming back to argue with facts like I did, you say I argue poorly. Are you a liberal/democrat now? Would you care to refute my argument, WITH FACTS, that the talent doesn't funnel to the top?

Yeah sure, some players develop into really good talent once they get on campus and develop, there is no denying that. That top talent doesn't end up at a place like Boise State if it isn't developed when it gets to campus. Those top 100 type players don't go to the "little sisters of the poor," they go to places like Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, etc. That isn't going to change if players start getting paid. The Alabamas and the OSUs of the world are still going to get those players. If you can't see that, well then heaven help you...