Note from Juanyeh Thomas

[Lotta Booze]

Does anyone legitimately think an SA is going to generate enough money to provide for their family back home? I think most will try to get a YouTube channel or hawk something, but make even $10K is a huge stretch.

Is that enough of a reason to not let them try?

 

[Vespidae]

Is that enough of a reason to not let them try?

I'm not against it. As long as it doesn't reflect negatively on the school. I just think all this talk about providing for families back home is nonsense. There's going to be a lot of noise and in the end, the problem will still be … not enough money.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Well somebody cooking the books but bc this “not enough money” is not cutting it when it’s blatantly false

 

[Vespidae]

Well somebody cooking the books but bc this “not enough money” is not cutting it when it’s blatantly false

I think you missed my point. No matter how much someone receives ... it will never be enough.

I’m not referring to the AA, but to the SA.

 

[Sidewalking]

Does anyone legitimately think an SA is going to generate enough money to provide for their family back home? I think most will try to get a YouTube channel or hawk something, but make even $10K is a huge stretch.

So let the NFL pay players … just like ROTC does. Get admitted to Tech, the NFL will pay your education, books, and fees AND … give you $2 grand a month. If you graduate AND make it through tryouts, you owe the team who drafts you 4 years with an option for a 5th. And you can do whatever you want to make money as long as it doesn't negatively impact Tech or the NFL. Let the NFL sort out what positions get paid at what rate.

If this is really about money … let it be about money.

Actuallty YouTube channels for SAs is a great idea. Ad revenue independent from bag men, athletic departments, or universities. Viewership would be based upon popularity; popularity would be based on talent/fanbase size, etc. Does the NCAA have any rules regarding SA income from such? SA's would have to navigate copyright laws and platform rules but there is potential here for SAs. And less potential for shady dealings.

 

[jojatk]

I think you missed my point. No matter how much someone receives ... it will never be enough.

I’m not referring to the AA, but to the SA.

So your argument would be that even if the money is available and the SA is largely responsible for generating it that we shouldn't let them have some of it because they can't be trusted to do "the right thing" with it? But it's OK for the sponsors and the NCAA and the schools to get more and more money for whom it will never be enough. It's only the SAs that are greedy? I'm seriously trying to understand this rationale.

 

[Sidewalking]

So your argument would be that even if the money is available and the SA is largely responsible for generating it that we shouldn't let them have some of it because they can't be trusted to do "the right thing" with it? But it's OK for the sponsors and the NCAA and the schools to get more and more money for whom it will never be enough. It's only the SAs that are greedy? I'm seriously trying to understand this rationale.

The schools are responsible for the revenue. Yes it requires SAs. It also requires football fields etc. The SA gets many opportunities from the arrangement. Not everyone agrees income should be one of those opportunities.

 

[Vespidae]

So your argument would be that even if the money is available and the SA is largely responsible for generating it that we shouldn't let them have some of it because they can't be trusted to do "the right thing" with it? But it's OK for the sponsors and the NCAA and the schools to get more and more money for whom it will never be enough. It's only the SAs that are greedy? I'm seriously trying to understand this rationale.

I'm sorry. Where did I make any of the claims you listed? Oh, I know. I didn't.

 

[jojatk]

I'm sorry. Where did I make any of the claims you listed? Oh, I know. I didn't.

You mean except when you said "No matter how much someone receives ... it will never be enough" which is a direct quote from your post. Or when you said "I just think all this talk about providing for families back home is nonsense. There's going to be a lot of noise and in the end, the problem will still be … not enough money" which is a direct quote from another of your posts. To me those say two things:

1) You shouldn't give someone more money because no matter how much they get "it will never be enough"
2) You shouldn't give someone money because their motives are not to help use it well but rather just because they want more money - which means to me they are greedy

Which part of what YOU said did I misinterpret? In my last post I was asking you that question. Your response was, it seems, to take offense rather than just tell me what you did mean. Clearly I'm not understanding so please explain because you said, twice, that it won't be enough money so I'm really trying to understand that rationale.

 

[jojatk]

The schools are responsible for the revenue. Yes it requires SAs. It also requires football fields etc. The SA gets many opportunities from the arrangement. Not everyone agrees income should be one of those opportunities.

That's a completely different discussion which was why my post wasn't responding to your point. The schools are not the only ones earning the money from the players so that whole thing about it being the schools only, to me, is incomplete. We do agree there are expenses the schools have to bear that have to go into the equation. I'm suggesting that I believe the surplus that goes into the industry (beyond just what the schools get now) is well big enough to support the school's needs and provide some income for the SAs. Circumstances have changed dramatically in the last 20+ years and I think it's time to revisit the discussion that income SHOULD be one of those opportunities. Notice I'm saying the discussion should be revisited. I disagree with your viewpoint but I respect it and that's a viable point that you make.

 

[Vespidae]

You mean except when you said "No matter how much someone receives ... it will never be enough" which is a direct quote from your post. Or when you said "I just think all this talk about providing for families back home is nonsense. There's going to be a lot of noise and in the end, the problem will still be … not enough money" which is a direct quote from another of your posts. To me those say two things:

1) You shouldn't give someone more money because no matter how much they get "it will never be enough"
2) You shouldn't give someone money because their motives are not to help use it well but rather just because they want more money - which means to me they are greedy

Which part of what YOU said did I misinterpret? In my last post I was asking you that question. Your response was, it seems, to take offense rather than just tell me what you did mean. Clearly I'm not understanding so please explain because you said, twice, that it won't be enough money so I'm really trying to understand that rationale.

I don’t really care what SA’s earn or don’t earn any more than what any student does. And I’m not making any judgement about “the right thing” or their motives or whether not they should be paid or not.

My point is no one is going to be happy. Does a QB earn more than a lineman? Does a kid from a low cost state earn less than a kid from a high cost state? Does a kid from a family of five earn more than a kid who’s an only child?

It’s a quagmire. But hey, if the NCAA wants to propose a solution, let them. I just think it’s a moving target.

 

[jojatk]

I don’t really care what SA’s earn or don’t earn any more than what any student does. And I’m not making any judgement about “the right thing” or their motives or whether not they should be paid or not.

My point is no one is going to be happy. Does a QB earn more than a lineman? Does a kid from a low cost state earn less than a kid from a high cost state? Does a kid from a family of five earn more than a kid who’s an only child?

It’s a quagmire. But hey, if the NCAA wants to propose a solution, let them. I just think it’s a moving target.

OK I had obviously misunderstood your comments and appreciate your explanation. I do agree that it's a moving target and also that it's likely nobody is going to be happy. I also agree that there are so many places where this can stumble and fall and certainly that there's absolutely a likelihood that at some point we'll get into the situation where some complain that they bring in more revenue than others such as for Oklahoma everyone knows who CeeDee Lamb is and he's got almost double the number of receiving yards as anyone else on the team and close to triple the number of receiving TDs as anyone else on the team so does that mean he should get more than the other WRs. So yeah, I get your point on that.

 

[LongforDodd]

[QUOTE="Vespidae, post: 680572, member: 2957"
....
It’s a quagmire. But hey, if the NCAA wants to propose a solution, let them. I just think it’s a moving target.[/QUOTE]


I agree it will be a quagmire in the manner in which you layed out.

The NCAA although has dropped this in the laps of the various divisions to come up with their plans to make this work.

 

[yellajacket20]

Actuallty YouTube channels for SAs is a great idea. Ad revenue independent from bag men, athletic departments, or universities. Viewership would be based upon popularity; popularity would be based on talent/fanbase size, etc. Does the NCAA have any rules regarding SA income from such? SA's would have to navigate copyright laws and platform rules but there is potential here for SAs. And less potential for shady dealings.

The NCAA does not allow this. There have been athletes told to close their pages or face being excluded from being a college athlete.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Sarrick]

The NCAA does not allow this. There have been athletes told to close their pages or face being excluded from being a college athlete.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I believe a popular story about this a few years back they made a UCF player shut down his YouTube channel. I don’t even think his channel was that much football related

 

[Lotta Booze]

I believe a popular story about this a few years back they made a UCF player shut down his YouTube channel. I don’t even think his channel was that much football related

This guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_De_La_Haye

In short: Had a YouTube channel in high school, went to play at UCF, NCAA said he had to shut down his YouTube channel, UCF appealed, NCAA said he could continue if he de-monetized his channel, he refused and wound up being suspended. Looks like he went on to get signed by a Canadian team for a bit. He stood his ground and dealt with the fallout. It does raise the issue of whether the NCAA should have a say in it at all though.

 

[GTZachary]

This guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_De_La_Haye

In short: Had a YouTube channel in high school, went to play at UCF, NCAA said he had to shut down his YouTube channel, UCF appealed, NCAA said he could continue if he de-monetized his channel, he refused and wound up being suspended. Looks like he went on to get signed by a Canadian team for a bit. He stood his ground and dealt with the fallout. It does raise the issue of whether the NCAA should have a say in it at all though.

Apparently he was also given the option to keep monetization, so long as he didn’t reference his status as a player or make videos showing any of his skills as a football player. I suppose the logic is that if he’s profiting off his skills, he’s not an amateur. If he was reviewing video games or had a cooking show it doesn’t seem like there would be any issue.

 

[TampaGT]

Well somebody cooking the books but bc this “not enough money” is not cutting it when it’s blatantly false

So as it stands today, is GT athletic dept sitting on piles of cash that it could use to pay athletes? If they are sitting on this cash why are they not hiring more staff? Or why have they been cheap on paying DC in the past, because it isn’t there. They publish most schools athletic programs financials and only a few programs turn a profit of any real size. Yes football brings in lots of money, but money funds all the other programs. I think the more likely scenario would be for the players to sue the NFL drop their age/graduation restriction or start a minor league system. The NFL is the only league not to have a minor league. College football has turned into an internship and the Players get the need resume builder for there next job

 

[Vespidie]

1) The word free is being thrown around way too loosely. The education is not “free”

2) why do you think this conversation even exist? It’s because EVERYONE else is having their cake and eating too except the athlete starting from the top down.

1) I get it, time is money, just like my time was when I was in school and had to bust my behind working so I could attend school, pay tuition , books , misc fees, gas to get back and forth to school and work etc, so your point is weak at best.

2) See my answer to #1. In addition, I can’t speak as a scholarship athlete because my gene pool wasn’t ideal, but “athletes” know the game prior to attending their chosen school. They have a choice to attend school and all the misc associated tasks that go along with it just like any other person choosing to attend college. “Everyone” else having their cake are the one’s that are providing the athlete the opportunity that they are choosing to take advantage of. There is and always will be a quid pro quo with regards to big time college athletics and Th e participating athletes that make it happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Technut1990]

I would think The family back home stuff is the long term goal of a SA. While in college I think they just want spending money. I mean sure they would like money either way but Once out of college the money will go back home via a sports contract or job in their degree field.