Fair Pay to Play Act

[gman]

Paying college football players is going to happen. Thoughts on how this will affect FCS teams like Furman?

[Flagman]

Obviously, Furman and most FCS teams won’t be affected, primarily because most FCS players won’t have/get the exposure to attract the sponsors who would pay for the endorsements.

[apaladin]

Why is government getting involved. We all know what happens when they get into something. It will be a fiasco. Why would Nike, Under Armor etc pay a college athlete that will only have local appeal? They are already paying the schools a ton of money to wear their stuff. I can see a few local endorsements maybe like car dealerships etc but not many. If I understand it correctly they are saying the NCAA cannot punish athletes fro making money on endorsements, jersey sales etc. What power do they have over the NCAA? I wish California would just secede from the union and become their own country. They are out there in more ways than one. Of course now we have a grandstanding representative in SC wanting to do the same thing,.

[gman]

Obviously, Furman and most FCS teams won’t be affected, primarily because most FCS players won’t have/get the exposure to attract the sponsors who would pay for the endorsements.

In South Carolina, players could get paid $5,000 a year by the school. If passed, there would be no sponsor endorsements. Can Furman afford to complete against state supported FCS football school or mid major basketball schools?
https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... y-play-act

https://abcnews4.com/news/local/sc-stat ... t-athletes

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics- ... 15452.html

[Bootie]

I hate this whole thing.

[paladinduece]

This opens the floodgates, and I worry it will severely damage college football. There will be no way to effectively regulate this, and will open loopholes to cheat basically. This isn't good.

[cavedweller2]

NCAA needs to step up and say the any one taking money under these circumstances is ineligible and any school that uses an ineligible player is in violation and will suffer penalties. But they wont.

[gman]

NCAA needs to step up and say the any one taking money under these circumstances is ineligible and any school that uses an ineligible player is in violation and will suffer penalties. But they wont.

The NCAA is the problem. It’s a joke.

[apaladin]

This opens the floodgates, and I worry it will severely damage college football. There will be no way to effectively regulate this, and will open loopholes to cheat basically. This isn't good.

This is the overall bigger problem. The NCAA has stated that there is no way to regulate it and have a fair and equitable playing field for all. Apparently none of this would go into effect until 2023. After that there may not be college football as we know it if at all.

[Flagman]

Coaches are allowed to give endorsements. Look at Dabo and the security company he endorses. And now we see Sabin all over quacking for AFLAC.

[FUpaladin08]

I haven’t read the law so I’ll just say it like this: it the right first step toward compensating players for their market value. If the law has the players paid directly from sponsors and not by universities I’m for it. Impact would be minimal because Nike doesn’t want to sponsor Darren Grainger, but they would want to sponsor Trevor Lawerence. Now maybe Tommy’s Ham House would feature Grainger and I see nothing wrong with these players getting money for their value instead of the university.

Not saying this is the perfect comparison, but when I went to Furman I had an on campus job and was paid by the school for my value I brought to that job. The common argument is athletes are paid with a scholarship, but that means the special teams player and star QB (both with full schollies) are valued the same. The star player is generating more revenue for the school, but his compensation is capped at the price of tuition.

I understand schools can’t pay athletes bc recruiting would become a bidding process, but a player should be able to maximize their value if a non-ncaa organization wants to pay them for likeness rights. We already know boosters are giving players kickbacks at large schools, so I wouldn’t say this allows anymore cheating than already exists.

[Bootie]

Coaches are allowed to give endorsements. Look at Dabo and the security company he endorses. And now we see Sabin all over quacking for AFLAC.

I don't think this was questioned anywhere... help me with your point here, Flags... Are you saying that because coaches get endorsements players should too?

[Bootie]

I haven’t read the law so I’ll just say it like this: it the right first step toward compensating players for their market value. If the law has the players paid directly from sponsors and not by universities I’m for it. Impact would be minimal because Nike doesn’t want to sponsor Darren Grainger, but they would want to sponsor Trevor Lawerence. Now maybe Tommy’s Ham House would feature Grainger and I see nothing wrong with these players getting money for their value instead of the university.

Not saying this is the perfect comparison, but when I went to Furman I had an on campus job and was paid by the school for my value I brought to that job. The common argument is athletes are paid with a scholarship, but that means the special teams player and star QB (both with full schollies) are valued the same. The star player is generating more revenue for the school, but his compensation is capped at the price of tuition.

I understand schools can’t pay athletes bc recruiting would become a bidding process, but a player should be able to maximize their value if a non-ncaa organization wants to pay them for likeness rights. We already know boosters are giving players kickbacks at large schools, so I wouldn’t say this allows anymore cheating than already exists.

The star player getting endorsements while their O-Line get nothing is unfair. The whole things stinks. The star player is getting paid for his market value with his signing bonus in a few years.

[fufanatic]

I haven’t read the law so I’ll just say it like this: it the right first step toward compensating players for their market value. If the law has the players paid directly from sponsors and not by universities I’m for it. Impact would be minimal because Nike doesn’t want to sponsor Darren Grainger, but they would want to sponsor Trevor Lawerence. Now maybe Tommy’s Ham House would feature Grainger and I see nothing wrong with these players getting money for their value instead of the university.

Not saying this is the perfect comparison, but when I went to Furman I had an on campus job and was paid by the school for my value I brought to that job. The common argument is athletes are paid with a scholarship, but that means the special teams player and star QB (both with full schollies) are valued the same. The star player is generating more revenue for the school, but his compensation is capped at the price of tuition.

I understand schools can’t pay athletes bc recruiting would become a bidding process, but a player should be able to maximize their value if a non-ncaa organization wants to pay them for likeness rights. We already know boosters are giving players kickbacks at large schools, so I wouldn’t say this allows anymore cheating than already exists.

I think this is right, but I will say I've battled back and forth over this for years now, and still struggle today with it. In addition to free scholarships (which is a huge deal and vastly underrated ... education can change lives and family fortunes), I know what all the major programs can provide (which would cost a lot for you and me to have) including: a free strength and conditioning coach and facility, a free nutritionist, free gear, free unlimited food, free travel, free tutors if needed, free housing, a monthly stipend, star status that could lead to a job interview or opportunities following graduation, etc. The list is long, very impressive, and hard to put an exact money total on. But is it enough? Especially at the monster revenue generating schools. I don't know the answer for sure. I will say I don't think competitive balance will shift much at all if players do start getting paid on top of all that I mentioned above. In college football, it's been Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio State for several years now, and this year is shaping up no differently. And I doubt it opens the door to much more corruption, if any, which I'm confident is more prevalent than we know about.

But like many of you, it scares me to think what college sports will look like in the future. Will Group of 5/FCS college football be able to survive? What about non-revenue generating sports? They might have a hard time surviving without major individual donors. Guess we will find out in the years to come.

[FUPlayer74]

NCAA can't control the P5 conferences and they know it. P5 should break away and form their own professional league with ties to the NFL. Guys who want to go to college can play FCS ball.