Anyone keeping up with the O'Bannon v. NCAA case?

[8timechamps]

It's going very poorly for the NCAA (as was expected).

Jim Delaney (the commissioner for the Big 10) was on the stand, and basically said that paying players would end the Rose Bowl. He actually said that a pay-to-play system would kill his conference. Now, I do believe it could jeopardize some of the small conferences, but the Big 10? No way.

Anyway, I still don't really know what this case will mean for the NCAA going forward, but it's pretty easy to predict they will lose this case.

I think the NCAA could contain the fallout by making a few changes:

1. Multi year scholarships. Instead of the year-by-year crap.
2. Scholarships that actually cover the cost of attendance.
3. Allow players to work in the off season.
4. Reduce the time athletes must spend practicing/film study, etc.

I think those four changes would go a long way in putting this issue to rest, but a lot more will need to be addressed in the long term.

[ouflak]

It's going very poorly for the NCAA (as was expected).

Jim Delaney (the commissioner for the Big 10) was on the stand, and basically said that paying players would end the Rose Bowl. He actually said that a pay-to-play system would kill his conference. Now, I do believe it could jeopardize some of the small conferences, but the Big 10? No way.

Anyway, I still don't really know what this case will mean for the NCAA going forward, but it's pretty easy to predict they will lose this case.

I think the NCAA could contain the fallout by making a few changes:

1. Multi year scholarships. Instead of the year-by-year crap.
2. Scholarships that actually cover the cost of attendance.
3. Allow players to work in the off season.
4. Reduce the time athletes must spend practicing/film study, etc.

I think those four changes would go a long way in putting this issue to rest, but a lot more will need to be addressed in the long term.

I've been following. I know people want to believe the doom-and-gloom of paying players. But I really believe there is just too much money involved for people to just throw their hands up in the air and give up. You will have a hard time convincing me that the Rose Bowl executives pulling down 6 figures a year for, let's face it, not all that much work really, are going to shut down that source of all-but-free money and go find real jobs? Riiiight.

As long as there hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars pouring into the industry, with more in the wings waiting to pour in, college sports will go forward without any hesitation. There's just too much money involved, and too many powerful people involved who want to keep making it. They will keep their indentured servant force if they can as it means millions more lining their pockets, but if they can't, so be it. There will still be millions more lining their pockets, just maybe not as many millions.

Regarding your points:


Delany, a former basketball player at the University of North Carolina and one of the most respected power brokers in college sports, said he believes once college basketball season ends, "we should put a lock on the gym." Delany said he believes it would be more beneficial for athletes to spend their summers away from sports, focusing on their academics or studying abroad.

Again, this was the NCAA's witness under questioning from their own attorney. You'd think they maybe would have vetted this witness before letting him on the stand to say something like that. Obviously this goes against pretty much everything the NCAA stands for.

[PrideMom]

Free school, room and board, clothing, etc. This not counting the nice trips, and goodies at bowl games, and free tutoring. If you don't call that getting paid, go to school on your own and see how much that costs.

[8timechamps]

I've been following. I know people want to believe the doom-and-gloom of paying players. But I really believe there is just too much money involved for people to just throw their hands up in the air and give up. You will have a hard time convincing me that the Rose Bowl executives pulling down 6 figures a year for, let's face it, not all that much work really, are going to shut down that source of all-but-free money and go find real jobs? Riiiight.

As long as there hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars pouring into the industry, with more in the wings waiting to pour in, college sports will go forward without any hesitation. There's just too much money involved, and too many powerful people involved who want to keep making it. They will keep their indentured servant force if they can as it means millions more lining their pockets, but if they can't, so be it. There will still be millions more lining their pockets, just maybe not as many millions.

Regarding your points:



Again, this was the NCAA's witness under questioning from their own attorney. You'd think they maybe would have vetted this witness before letting him on the stand to say something like that. Obviously this goes against pretty much everything the NCAA stands for.

No question that the NCAA is getting throttled (even with their own witnesses). I don't believe for a minute that increasing scholarships to cover cost of attendance would put an end to anything. Delany tried to be convincing, but it came out humorous to anyone that pays attention. There's just too much money.

I'm still against allowing players to make money from their likeness/autographs, etc., because I think that's a can of worms. If that is allowed, then there needs to be a hard cap across the board. It would be too easy for boosters to interact with players (Booster X pays player Y $100 per autograph for 1000 autographs...not a good scenario). I think there are plenty of ways the player's can be taken care of without opening it up to the highest bidder.

[8timechamps]

Free school, room and board, clothing, etc. This not counting the nice trips, and goodies at bowl games, and free tutoring. If you don't call that getting paid, go to school on your own and see how much that costs.

I agree in part. However, the time athletes must devote to their sport is over the top. Also, the problem is two-fold:

1. While OU doesn't seem to have this issue, many schools scholarship amounts to cover the actual cost of attendance. Since players can't work, that makes it really hard to get by month to month, which shouldn't ever be an issue.

2. Players can't work. Even if they wanted to make some extra money (and how many college students need extra money?!), they can't. Meanwhile, they are responsible for bringing in millions to the university (billions to the system). I can certainly see how that would make some players angry.

When I say "I think players should be paid", I don't mean a NFL style contract, or even a middle-class income. I mean players should be able to go to school, play their sport and not worry about having a few hundred dollars a month to buy a pair of shoes or go to a movie.

If you look at the case I referenced (NCAA v. O'Bannon), the plaintiff (O'Bannon and others) are suing the NCAA over the money they made from the players likeness. As an example, the NCAA sold licensing to a video game company that made a game with the actual player likeness. The game sold millions of dollars, and a lot of people made a lot of money. The players that were in the game made nothing. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? It does to me.

There's no easy fix for this issue, but there are certainly better answers than the status quo.

[okiewaker]

There is no issue here. It's a made up issue. Many people all over the US, and around the world, are making millions. These athletes are compensated by way of education and the other perks. They should be so lucky. Millions of students are not in their position. Get over it already.

[yermom]

I agree in part. However, the time athletes must devote to their sport is over the top. Also, the problem is two-fold:

1. While OU doesn't seem to have this issue, many schools scholarship amounts to cover the actual cost of attendance. Since players can't work, that makes it really hard to get by month to month, which shouldn't ever be an issue.

2. Players can't work. Even if they wanted to make some extra money (and how many college students need extra money?!), they can't. Meanwhile, they are responsible for bringing in millions to the university (billions to the system). I can certainly see how that would make some players angry.

When I say "I think players should be paid", I don't mean a NFL style contract, or even a middle-class income. I mean players should be able to go to school, play their sport and not worry about having a few hundred dollars a month to buy a pair of shoes or go to a movie.

If you look at the case I referenced (NCAA v. O'Bannon), the plaintiff (O'Bannon and others) are suing the NCAA over the money they made from the players likeness. As an example, the NCAA sold licensing to a video game company that made a game with the actual player likeness. The game sold millions of dollars, and a lot of people made a lot of money. The players that were in the game made nothing. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? It does to me.

There's no easy fix for this issue, but there are certainly better answers than the status quo.

especially when it's with a nudge and a wink that they use a player's stats and numbers but it's not them because they leave the name off the jersey. it's just annoying all around. i knew it was Adrian Peterson, EA knew it was Adrian Peterson, and Adrian Peterson knew it was Adrian Peterson.

the NCAA just thinks it was Oklahoma player #28 from Palestine Texas, 6-2 210 that they were cashing all those checks for

[8timechamps]

especially when it's with a nudge and a wink that they use a player's stats and numbers but it's not them because they leave the name off the jersey. it's just annoying all around. i knew it was Adrian Peterson, EA knew it was Adrian Peterson, and Adrian Peterson knew it was Adrian Peterson.

the NCAA just thinks it was Oklahoma player #28 from Palestine Texas, 6-2 210 that they were cashing all those checks for

Yep. I loved the game, and was sad to see it go, but trying to say it was just coincidental was goofy. EA did the smart thing though, they knew they weren't going to win.

[8timechamps]

There is no issue here. It's a made up issue. Many people all over the US, and around the world, are making millions. These athletes are compensated by way of education and the other perks. They should be so lucky. Millions of students are not in their position. Get over it already.

What issue is made up?

You do realize the majority of programs are not like Oklahoma, right? Most don't have the best of everything. If someone else was making millions off of my work, yeah, I'd want a piece, and you would too. So, what's the problem?

[ouflak]

I'm still against allowing players to make money from their likeness/autographs, etc., because I think that's a can of worms. If that is allowed, then there needs to be a hard cap across the board. It would be too easy for boosters to interact with players (Booster X pays player Y $100 per autograph for 1000 autographs...not a good scenario). I think there are plenty of ways the player's can be taken care of without opening it up to the highest bidder.

Well right now boosters do pay for autographs, signed memorabilia, and paid appearances. What's happening is that the schools, in cohorts with the NCAA, have rigged the system so that they are the sole agents representing the students and they get 100% of the cut. What would be fair is that the students should get a cut of that action consistent with normal market pay for an agent. So for example, the schools (agents) gets 20%, the student athletes 80%. And taxes should be withheld, etc, etc.... That would be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the normal expected behavior of such relationships in most of our society.


Free school, room and board, clothing, etc. This not counting the nice trips, and goodies at bowl games, and free tutoring. If you don't call that getting paid, go to school on your own and see how much that costs.
I went to school 'on my own'. I also had a scholarship. Nevertheless I had the natural freedom to go out and get a job to help pay for those extra costs that my scholarship didn't cover. Why aren't student athletes allowed to work a job through school? The reason is that this would take them away from focusing on their respective sports, which at the moment are simply making too many people too much money for that to be allowed. For the student athletes, everything is about the sports. For the people making more and more and more money off of the sports, it's all about the money. So the student athletes are chained to those scholarships and to their sports, all while the mansions of the people who are actually getting paid money are getting expansions every year due to their annual bonus/raises, if they aren't just trading up to something with twice the floor space. And none of those people even have to worry about a lifetime disabling injury or even death. It's a life of comfort and it's only getting better. This behavior is inconsistent with the normal freedoms we associate with a free economy and the ability to profit from one's own hard work.


There is no issue here. It's a made up issue. Many people all over the US, and around the world, are making millions. These athletes are compensated by way of education and the other perks. They should be so lucky. Millions of students are not in their position. Get over it already.

The students are making the exact same 'compensation' that they've been allotted for the last 80 years. But the coaches, athletic directors, merchandisers, NCAA execs, and broadcasters are now handling a flow of billions of dollars coming in. And none of them are actually doing the work on the field except for arguably the coaches. That's the disparity. That's the foundation of this issue. Further insulting, the NCAA and the schools are defending this continued behavior under the illusory guise of 'amateurism'. There are many glaring problems with this. I'll point out the most obvious ones. If college sports was truly an 'amateur' affair, then everybody, the coaches, the NCAA execs and employees, all school personal solely associated with sports, would also be amateurs and getting amateur pay and be subject to amateur restrictions. They obviously are not. Not only are they not, but they are giving themselves 5, 6 and 7 figure raises every year, with even more money waiting to come into the sports in the near future. In a free market economy with the normal expected freedoms of individuals to profit, even handsomely, from one's own hard work, this situation is unsustainable.

[swardboy]

Those wealthy, successful coaches are the ones that athletes are clamoring to play for. The pool of players that will play for the NFL is so microscopically small that the issue of how many are "giving" their likeness for free is negligible. I played at a small college and was grateful for what I got...and that's the norm.

[ouflak]

Those wealthy, successful coaches are the ones that athletes are clamoring to play for.

Are these players also clamoring to play for the wealthy successful NCAA execs? Or the wealthy successful Athletic Directors? Or the wealthy successful Broadcasters? Or the wealthy successful Merchandisers? All pulling in millions, and even billions, every year off of their hard work? Is this how the system is supposed to work?


I played at a small college and was grateful for what I got...and that's the norm.
That perhaps was the norm. That is not the 'norm' now. The norm is now multimillionaire coaches, athletic directors and NCAA execs pulling down six figures minimum, broadcasters and merchandisers making billions, schools making hundreds of thousands a year through mandatory endorsements from which they take a 100% cut, Tier rights, lucrative conference championship games, the internet and all of the potential cash to be hauled in there, conferences commissioners being paid like Fortune 500 CEO's. All of that driving the pressure higher and higher on athletes to perform, to be firmly under the school's control in every aspect of their lives, to sacrifice even their education in the name of money - money that they are not allowed a penny of.

If the system is: Be grateful for what you've got while your masters make ever growing millions and millions off of your hard work, then so be it. That's the system. But I suspect that wasn't the system in place when you were playing. It's most definitely the system now. And if the powers-that-be have their way, that will be the system ad infinitum. And it will get much worse for the student athletes, and only get better for those making money off of the student athletes.

[snydrosooner]

It's going very poorly for the NCAA (as was expected).

Jim Delaney (the commissioner for the Big 10) was on the stand, and basically said that paying players would end the Rose Bowl. He actually said that a pay-to-play system would kill his conference. Now, I do believe it could jeopardize some of the small conferences, but the Big 10? No way.

Anyway, I still don't really know what this case will mean for the NCAA going forward, but it's pretty easy to predict they will lose this case.

I think the NCAA could contain the fallout by making a few changes:

1. Multi year scholarships. Instead of the year-by-year crap.
2. Scholarships that actually cover the cost of attendance.3. Allow players to work in the off season.
4. Reduce the time athletes must spend practicing/film study, etc.

I think those four changes would go a long way in putting this issue to rest, but a lot more will need to be addressed in the long term.


I hear this a lot about the scholarships not covering cost of attendance. What exactly does the mean. If I understand the scholarship correctly ( for football and basketball) it covers room and board (associated cost to dorm room on campus), food (maybe not enough), classes and books, clothes needed for sport (many athletes wear around campus). That would be the same as the academic scholarship I got. What other expenses are associated with school itself? I guess you could cover the cable bill for the dorm, phone bill for dorm?

Now If they are saying they cannot live of campus, they don't have to that is there choice. I am not against some extra spending money, but I am not sure you can go much farther then that.

[ouflak]

I hear this a lot about the scholarships not covering cost of attendance. What exactly does the mean. If I understand the scholarship correctly ( for football and basketball) it covers room and board (associated cost to dorm room on campus), food (maybe not enough), classes and books, clothes needed for sport (many athletes wear around campus). That would be the same as the academic scholarship I got. What other expenses are associated with school itself? I guess you could cover the cable bill for the dorm, phone bill for dorm?

Now If they are saying they cannot live of campus, they don't have to that is there choice. I am not against some extra spending money, but I am not sure you can go much farther then that.

A basic explanation is that the school makes a calculation and the NCAA makes a calculation, for how much each believes it will cost the student to actually attend that school for one year. The difference between these amounts can be referred to as the 'full cost of tuition'. The NCAA always has a smaller number. There are a few reasons for this, but I think the basic reason is culture. The students should really be as poor as possible in order to have a constant reminder of just exactly where they belong in the hierarchy. Once the P65 takes, the schools will themselves decide that full cost of attendance and likely be able to add a stipend on top of that.

[snydrosooner]

A basic explanation is that the school makes a calculation and the NCAA makes a calculation, for how much each believes it will cost the student actually that school for one year. The difference between these amount can be referred to as the 'full cost of tuition'. The NCAA always has a smaller number. There are a few reasons for this, but I think the basic reason is culture. The students should really be as poor as possible in order to have a constant reminder of just exactly where they belong in the hierarchy. Once the P65 takes, the schools will themselves decide that full cost of attendance and likely be able to add a stipend on top of that.

Thanks for the explanation. I am not saying that the players don't deserve some extra money. But I have always felt that there is a difference in a player not being able to go to the movies on a Friday night cause they cannot afford it and not having money to cover school expenses and room and board.

[8timechamps]

Well right now boosters do pay for autographs, signed memorabilia, and paid appearances. What's happening is that the schools, in cohorts with the NCAA, have rigged the system so that they are the sole agents representing the students and they get 100% of the cut. What would be fair is that the students should get a cut of that action consistent with normal market pay for an agent. So for example, the schools (agents) gets 20%, the student athletes 80%. And taxes should be withheld, etc, etc.... That would be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the normal expected behavior of such relationships in most of our society.


True, the boosters do pay for things now, and also true that the athletes don't get a dime. There should be a change, but I'm not sold on opening things up and leaving no restriction. My biggest reason against that is it will create a big disparity between teams. As an example; I know OU fans are crazy about football, but we aren't as crazy as many of the SEC program fans/boosters. We all suspect they are paying under the table now, if the floodgates are opened and unrestricted, it would get out of hand, quickly. If players are going to be allowed to make money from autographs, etc., I think there needs to be a ceiling placed on amount they can earn. There needs to be some kind of a level playing field (even if for the P65 alone). Part (a big part) of what college football special is that there are so many teams that represent regions across the country. If it becomes the NFL, then even the 65 teams will start to separate until there are only a dozen or so competing at the highest level. I don't think anyone wants that.

I'm not sure if I got my point across, but I'm basically saying I wouldn't be against players making some money on their autographs/likenesses, etc., but it has to be leveled out somehow. I'm not sure how that would work though.

[8timechamps]

Those wealthy, successful coaches are the ones that athletes are clamoring to play for. The pool of players that will play for the NFL is so microscopically small that the issue of how many are "giving" their likeness for free is negligible. I played at a small college and was grateful for what I got...and that's the norm.

Not really. When Electronic Arts sells (sold) college football/basketball games, it included every player in D1 (and many in D2). The game was sold on the premise that the players participating that year were in that game. The games were sold annually with updated likenesses included.

[8timechamps]

I hear this a lot about the scholarships not covering cost of attendance. What exactly does the mean. If I understand the scholarship correctly ( for football and basketball) it covers room and board (associated cost to dorm room on campus), food (maybe not enough), classes and books, clothes needed for sport (many athletes wear around campus). That would be the same as the academic scholarship I got. What other expenses are associated with school itself? I guess you could cover the cable bill for the dorm, phone bill for dorm?

Now If they are saying they cannot live of campus, they don't have to that is there choice. I am not against some extra spending money, but I am not sure you can go much farther then that.

I think ouflak covered it, but as another example; the NCAA set amount is the same for all FBS schools. Obviously the cost of living in Norman is less than L.A., but they are considered the same for scholarship purposes.

[snydrosooner]

Not really. When Electronic Arts sells (sold) college football/basketball games, it included every player in D1 (and many in D2). The game was sold on the premise that the players participating that year were in that game. The games were sold annually with updated likenesses included.

The argument I have against that is that anyone could have technically done the players the way EA sports did. EA sports had a license agreement with the NCAA and its institutions for the name of the schools and NCAA. But technically, I could create a game and call it College Ball, have a team called the University of Norman and make up players with attributes of the current roster, as long as names are not used and it would be technically legal. Not saying I would not get sued by someone over it, its just technically legal. Now the Jersey selling is a different animal, I just have a hard time seeing them sue over video game rights.

Remember when NBA live did not include every player by name. I remember the bulls at one time had Pippen and player 24. Player 24 was only the best player in the game and we all knew who he was, and that was legal. ( Jordan would not sign his naming rights away to the NBA players association at the time)

[ouflak]

( Jordan would not sign his naming rights away to the NBA players association at the time)

Smart man.

[badger]

I would like to see some rule changes. College sports got themselves in this situation by making coaches, even at crappy programs, millionaires and building bigger and bigger facilities through bigger and bigger donations and TV money. Do I expect programs to turn down money waving in their faces? Well, they expect that athletes to.

I don't think paying players will be the end of college sports, much like it wasn't the end of the Olympics to let the Michael Phelps of the sports get deals with Speedo, Visa and Under Armour.

I also am curious about this repeated statement that athletes cannot work jobs on the side. Have the rules changed in the past decade? Remember Rhett Bomar? Big Red was one of the local businesses that worked with the athletic department so that players could have jobs during the summer. Obviously we don't work with Big Red anymore, but aren't there still other places that athletes work actual jobs for actual pay?

[jkjsooner]

3. Allow players to work in the off season.


Players are allowed to work in the off season. Read the NCAA rule book. The athlete can't be hired simply because he's an athlete and the pay must be in line with the industry.

The issue with Bomar wasn't that he had a job it was because he didn't perform the work.

And that brings up a related point. There are hoops to go through and the Bomar incident shows exactly why there must be hoops. The athletic departments have an interest in validating that the jobs are legitimate.

I guarantee you if someone wants to go flip burgers during the summer at the Norman McDonalds for the normal burger flipping pay, nobody in the NCAA or the OU AD is going to get in their way. And, contrary to what people may think, working a close to minimum wage job during the summer can provide enough extra dough to allow you to go to the movies and eat out throughout the rest of the year.

[jkjsooner]

I don't think paying players will be the end of college sports, much like it wasn't the end of the Olympics to let the Michael Phelps of the sports get deals with Speedo, Visa and Under Armour.

Big difference. Countries aren't allowed to compete for Phelps's services.

Why don't we sue the Olympics? After all, an athlete's market value is restricted by not allowing him to compete for any country he chooses. That's sort of the B.S. we're dealing with here.


I also am curious about this repeated statement that athletes cannot work jobs on the side. Have the rules changed in the past decade?

No, it's bullcrap that people have made up. Here's the rule. Gosh I get tired of having to look this up.


Employment Earnings – All Sports.

 Earnings from a student-athlete's on- or off-campus employment that occurs at any
time is exempt and is not counted in determining a student-athlete's full grant-in-aid
or in the institution's financial aid limitations, provided:

(1) The student-athlete's compensation does not include any remuneration for value
or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the
publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained
because of athletics ability;

(2) The student-athlete is compensated only for work actually performed; and Summary of NCAA Regulations – Division I
Page No. 4

(3) The student-athlete is compensated at a rate commensurate with the going rate
in that locality for similar services.

[BoulderSooner79]

Players are allowed to work in the off season. Read the NCAA rule book. The athlete can't be hired simply because he's an athlete and the pay must be in line with the industry.

The issue with Bomar wasn't that he had a job it was because he didn't perform the work.

And that brings up a related point. There are hoops to go through and the Bomar incident shows exactly why there must be hoops. The athletic departments have an interest in validating that the jobs are legitimate.

I guarantee you if someone wants to go flip burgers during the summer at the Norman McDonalds for the normal burger flipping pay, nobody in the NCAA or the OU AD is going to get in their way. And, contrary to what people may think, working a close to minimum wage job during the summer can provide enough extra dough to allow you to go to the movies and eat out throughout the rest of the year.

Yes, it's allowed, but probably not wise. Ask any player how "voluntary" the summer voluntary work-outs really are. And since players take minimum full-time loads during spring and fall, it would certainly be smarter for them to take a summer class than to work a menial job. It's a full time job to be a student athlete in football or hoops and the players should stick to those 2 things if at all possible.

[8timechamps]

Players are allowed to work in the off season. Read the NCAA rule book. The athlete can't be hired simply because he's an athlete and the pay must be in line with the industry.

The issue with Bomar wasn't that he had a job it was because he didn't perform the work.

And that brings up a related point. There are hoops to go through and the Bomar incident shows exactly why there must be hoops. The athletic departments have an interest in validating that the jobs are legitimate.

I guarantee you if someone wants to go flip burgers during the summer at the Norman McDonalds for the normal burger flipping pay, nobody in the NCAA or the OU AD is going to get in their way. And, contrary to what people may think, working a close to minimum wage job during the summer can provide enough extra dough to allow you to go to the movies and eat out throughout the rest of the year.

Do you have any idea how much time is devoted to football in the "off" season? Good luck finding a job that will let you work a flexible enough schedule. There's a good reason college football players don't work in the off-season. Do some research. I thought that was understood, apparently not.

I'm sure a player choosing to work throughout the summer, rather than working 7 on 7, S&C, etc., would be treated exactly the same as the players that spend their "free" time doing those things.

Sometimes I wonder if you're really interested in having a conversation, or just being "that guy".

[jkjsooner]

Do you have any idea how much time is devoted to football in the "off" season? Good luck finding a job that will let you work a flexible enough schedule. There's a good reason college football players don't work in the off-season. Do some research. I thought that was understood, apparently not.

I'm sure a player choosing to work throughout the summer, rather than working 7 on 7, S&C, etc., would be treated exactly the same as the players that spend their "free" time doing those things.

Sometimes I wonder if you're really interested in having a conversation, or just being "that guy".

So how much time? You can't work out 8 hours a day. Unless a kid is going to school also, there is plenty of time to get a job.

I just looked it up and the new rules that allow mandatory summer workouts limit them to 8 hours per week. I'd imagine that now that they opened this up the NCAA will be a lot more forceful about enforcing whether the voluntary stuff is really voluntary.

I'm all for saying that there should be no organized activities beyond the 8 hours per week (whether it be called mandatory or voluntary) during the summer months (not including fall training camp).

In any case, if a kid can't get a job after spending the 8 hours a week then there is something wrong with him.


I'm all for a stipend if everyone can afford it. I'm also okay with splitting FBS into two divisions for those who can afford it and those who can't. I'm not for a lot of the other crap you hear out there.


Anyway, we've had plenty of players who have had jobs in the past and I imagine there are plenty of current players who have jobs. Why can't we just dispense with the "players can't work" B.S.?

[ouflak]

NCAA lawyers just referred to the organization he is defending as a 'cartel'. Good argument there buddy. Don't know how you could possibly lose with that logic.

[BoulderSooner79]

...
Anyway, we've had plenty of players who have had jobs in the past and I imagine there are plenty of current players who have jobs. Why can't we just dispense with the "players can't work" B.S.?

I don't see many people claiming players can't work. But I'll still claim it would be unwise for them to work if there is any other choice and the demands are already a full time job. Working some $10/hour and then risking dropping a place on the depth chart would be a stupid tradeoff for a player at a big time program. It's not just the time working out/training. It's also studying film along with the recovery time and focus. There is also the risk of getting into academic trouble and losing eligibility. I know if it was my kid, I would make sure his focus was school and football. Note that could give my kid an advantage over a family that couldn't afford it. As a parent, I would certainly do it, as an NCAA administrator, I wouldn't want that situation to occur.