Game Over: NCAA allows athletes to profit from name

Gatorraid81

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Dec 4, 2016
6,063
6,875
Based on what? UF isn’t known to be big spenders.

No there not, but they got money and the other 2 don’t. Of course the Noles will probably find a way to use tax dollars to aid them, Scum is probably really screwed now though.
 

Jack o' Diamonds

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts...
Lifetime Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,805
3,236
Overall revenue. The cookie jar is now open and that is what they are really coming for. If they weren’t then the figures wouldn’t be consistently cited in every argument for them being paid. Once the top guys start getting stuff the other sports will come for the rest.
But they are not saying you can get your hand in the cookie jar... Just allowing athletes to market themselves.
Therefor not everyone gets a piece of the pie... Hate and discontent follows..
 

GatorJB

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
3,449
6,124
Founding Member
It seems like the key argument for why this won't ruin college football is because college football is already corrupt, so why not allow more players to further benefit from the already existing corrupted system. My response is that something (or someone) that already has problems can definitely get worse if you feed those already existing problems. This new rule, whatever it will look like, will not end college football, but I don't see how this will improve it either.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
It seems like the key argument for why this won't ruin college football is because college football is already corrupt, so why not allow more players to further benefit from the already existing corrupted system. My response is that something (or someone) that already has problems can definitely get worse if you feed those already existing problems. This new rule, whatever it will look like, will not end college football, but I don't see how this will improve it either.

It won't make it better, just more open. It is allowing kids to do what they are already doing under the table.
 

Gatorbait25

Founding Member
H.E. Pennypacker, wealthy American industrialist
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
3,535
5,319
Founding Member
A lot of these kids have never had a job before. Wanna shoot a commercial for 10K? Inevitably Tax evasion will be a problem as a result. If I were a CPA in a college town i'd be thrilled at this news.
 

kepler

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 16, 2014
761
829
Founding Member
A lot of these kids have never had a job before. Wanna shoot a commercial for 10K? Inevitably Tax evasion will be a problem as a result. If I were a CPA in a college town i'd be thrilled at this news.
I thought the same thing. Really these kids will now be going to school, playing football, and running a business. If they're taking in revenue, they will have deductible expenses, need to file licenses and taxes, perhaps hire someone or two, etc.
In the end, the NCAA was attacked for the same reason politicians attack large companies and billionaires - its where the money is. Its not about the kids, it never was or this would have been done long ago. this is politics today.
 

soflagator

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 4, 2014
21,131
78,737
So you can't think of a single elite athlete in College football that had a career ending injury during college football? Really?

Look I get all the arguments against paying college student athletes. I selfishly would like things to stay the same to enjoy college football. I suspect this will only harm college football. But there are definitely instances where elite college football players lose millions of dollars by not making an NFL roster due to suffering a substantial injury at the college level.

Well, unfortunately there will always be exceptions to the rule and people who get the short end. I think the insurance policies help in that regard, but it's not full proof of course. So I do get that argument. But those case are really just examples of being exposed to the real world which often sucks. To me, this merely speeds that exposure up.

The fact that the state of Florida has already tried to get in front of things by "ensuring" that this can only be after enrollment essentially says that they know this will be a recruiting nightmare. And given the fact that in terms of intelligence and pure business sense, the private sector will always win against public sector, there will be loopholes and abuses literally day one. So, what does the GM of a dealership or higher up at Florida Pest Control do in a case like James Robinson. Money is offered, even if it doesn't change hands until enrollment, and he decides to sign with UF. Then it's realized he has a heart condition and can't play. Are we to assume that such a contract will not contain clauses and verbiage that can allow them to void the agreement? Further, if that's the direction we're headed, would schools not then be more inclined to truly apply the year to year element of the scholarship arrangement, thereby giving them the option to cut his schooling after just one year? After all, we're saying that it's a "business". So where does that leave someone like that? Under the current arrangement, he still gets an opportunity to get a great degree and be successful. Now, why would UF feel the need to do that when he just got 50k for a commercial(signing really).

I don't know what you do at UF Health, but I imagine if en route to work on your first day, you had an accident that prevented you from ever being able to complete your job, they--as empathetic as they may be--wouldn't continue paying you for years while getting nothing in return, as that position would have to be filled by someone else who they'd be obligated to pay.

So again, I do understand some of the arguments. I hate stories like Chester, Lattimore, etc. Terrible endings for great kids. And I've never been dead set against this per se. But I think approaching this as "oh sure, everything will be fine, better even" is refusing to see reality. It will likely be so hard to manage and control that it probably creates many more problems than it solves.
 
Last edited:

soflagator

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 4, 2014
21,131
78,737
giphy.gif

If you've looked at the credit bureau of an average 19-35 year old within the past decade, you'd disagree. It's staggering the amount of money most of these kids owe on student loans and the dent it makes on the rest of their lives, especially if they don't have a well defined path to a high paying job. As I said a few months ago, how can we have a problem so big that candidates are using it as an integral part of their platform, yet dismiss the idea that getting a degree provided for free is no big deal.

Yes, it's not the same as millions at the next level. And sure, the schools are making a ton as a result. But they're making a ton off of a few big names, while a kid like Rick Wells gets 5 years worth of schooling for free, simply because he caught some passes in HS, despite the fact that he's contributed nothing here. I'm ok with saying that there are inequities. But I think minimizing an education for free, while being given a stage to get to the next level, is wrong.
 
Last edited:

URGatorBait

Founding Member
Ox's Former Favorite Poster
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
34,886
32,913
Founding Member
I think it's a mistake.

And if college players can be paid for their likeness like pro athletes, I see no need for athletic scholarships anymore. They should live by their means just like the pros.
@Sec14Gator
Please explain the facepalm. I'm curious what your issue is with this
 

Pablos Tunnel

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2017
2,689
4,130
A lot of these kids have never had a job before. Wanna shoot a commercial for 10K? Inevitably Tax evasion will be a problem as a result. If I were a CPA in a college town i'd be thrilled at this news.
Why? You would end up doing a lot of work and not getting paid. I deal with second and third generation kids from wealthy families and they are without a doubt the worse to deal with. They never follow up and if they do it is usually wrong. Do you think athletes will be any better?
 

URGatorBait

Founding Member
Ox's Former Favorite Poster
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
34,886
32,913
Founding Member
Some of you should learn the difference between the #MarchToOneMillion and having an issue with a reaction on a post :lol:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.