False. The NFL has the rule to protect them from themselves. Remove the rule and some of the players would be drafted. Furthermore, just because you aren't in the NFL doesn't mean you don't have value. If it did, you wouldn't care if the rules limiting compensation were removed, because people get paid what they're worth.
So we have to stay communist so no feelings get hurt? What's the problem with the SMU bagmen? At least if the restrictions were removed we'd know.
You are only worth what someone is willing to pay you. The NFL has decided that they are not worth it for three years out of high school. Colleges choose to play value via tuition, room and board.
These kind of "free market" sallies are really not answerable, and probably more than one master's thesis has been written on the topic, but if that is a fair question, then this and upfront it's not really that fair: in this "what they're worth" scenario, how much would you be willing to pay for a ticket? Parking? A program? Hotdog or Coke? Because TV money won't cover it all no matter how outrageous it gets. A service club friend told me last summer than he went to Washington and took two grandsons to a Nationals' game. For parking, tickets, beer for himself naturally and hot dogs, cokes and popcorn for the grandsons, he forked out close to $500. For three people.To top it off, Harper didn't hit a lick.
Ten years ago I had season tickets for the Red Wings.....I cost me about 300 a game on average for two people......which is why I only went to a handful of games a year.
1. Because they are not pros.
We already are seeing the ramifications of pay-to-to play, even at grassroots. By some bizarre formula, the NCAA -- you can't really write "bizarre" without writing "NCAA", can you? -- some payments are outlined, based on cost of attendance at the "member institution", and if that sounds like a savings and loan it is, and the benefits already tendered. Tennessee almost magically and overnight discovered that the cost of attendance at their august institution was higher than they thought, and the benefits given were less, and therefore payments on the order of $4,000 would be fair. Tech, as I remember, would fall in the $1,800 range. A SWAG estimate of $200 more a month in Knoxville than Atlanta tells us who wins that recruiting battle. And if "paying them what they're worth" applies, then worth ceases to have a value. It is, as the accounting joke goes, whatever you want it to be.
Agree with forensic...u must be trolling. But to answer your troll...they are getting what they are worth currently...a college degree, sometimes including a masters...fully paid for. And they will soon be getting stipends too. More than fair.
Don't confuse disagreement with trolling. I understand everything you - and most others - are saying. However, all I see is a definition of amateurism; I don't see anything that says why it's worth saving, or worth being in existence in the first place. It would certainly be easier to understand if everyone else (coaches, administrators, TV executives, conference executives, etc.) was making $45,000/year and was working to improve the character of the players, or some other similar BS. As it is now, many are making that every three days. Sorry, but that doesn't scream amateurism to me; it screams big business, and that's fine with me, but then it's time to pony up for the players, too. And the money needn't come from the school; the Olympic model is certainly not my original idea, but it would prevent the schools from paying five cents more for players, and it would enable a player worth more to make more. Nothing else would change, except that he or she might drive a nicer car.
And once again, you choose to ignore the fact that your issue is with the NFL . No one is forcing players to play for college. Nothing changes that fact. The players are free to sit and wait for the three years.
My issue is with competing colleges (in the market for the best players) colluding with one another to place an artificial cap on compensation to players. In the absence of a collectively bargained agreement between the schools and representatives for the players, the caps are probably illegal.
You have simply deemed them as employee s when they are not. You are foolish to believe that there would be the same money flowing if they were paid non students....I.e a minor league to the NFL. Much of the reason why people spend what they do is because the are amateurs. No one keeps these players from playing elsewhere, semi pro etc.
Employment status is irrelevant. The issue is whether NCAA institutions have colluded to put a wage ceiling in place. The balance of your comment is noted, but it's entirely anecdotal and speculative.
I'd love to see a "can't miss, 5 star prospect" choose to go play in Canada for 3 years then try to go to the NFL. If it worked out there would be more kids trying it, and if it failed it would prove that the training and exposure the players receive in college is worth something.
There is no collusion. You need to go back and examine the history of why the NCAA rules are in place. Back when Bobby Dodd was the coach at Tech, the players were allowed to work during the summer, they were allowed to sell their allotment of tickets (and at Tech, that wasn't an insignificant sum), there were no scholarship limits, there was no real oversight on the academics side. All of these rules were put into place because institutions were abusing the system to gain a competitive advantage. As @AE 87 stated, it's about the branding for the university.