ASUMountaineer wrote:AppSt94 wrote:ASUMountaineer wrote:AppSt94 wrote:While i understand your point, I do disagree with one premise. The players are getting a tremendous "opportunity" for a large ROI. These young men,and women, receive upwards of $100,000.00 in free education. Not to mention food, clothing and the resources to make them better at their sport. They are given tutors to assist them in their academic endeavours. When you sign that letter of intent, you are choosing to get your foot in the door of a better paying job after graduating from college versus taking an hourly wage, low end, slow upward mobility job after high school. The problem is that these kids, football and basketball players in particular, look at a signed NLI as a stepping stone to the pros and not what it truly represents. An opportunity to improve yourself.
I'll agree with your point, but the players' "large ROI" is no where near the sizable ROI the administrators and coaches are getting--and theirs is a contract/salary, not an "opportunity." The coaches also get food, clothing, and resources (large salaries, incentives, bonuses, contract negotiations, and endorsements). Again, I have not advocated to pay players, but it's asinine at worst and naive at best to act like the players aren't the ones making everyone but the players rich.
The answer isn't to throw more money at the players. It's to recognize that there is a money problem in college athletics, and it lies with the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and coaches.
I understand that you are not advocating paying players. You point was not lost on me and I apologize if it appeared that I glanced over it. To not debate you, but to make appoint to the escalating salaries. No one is making you play football. If a player feels exploited, then they are free to pursue other opportunities.
I see what you're saying. But, we can't act like the "opportunity" given to these players is the equivalent of what they make the coaches.
So with that logic, and there is nothing wrong with what your saying. But if the player performance is a catalyst to coaches salaries then would it be safe to say that poor player performance can cost a coach his job? Granted, unemployment with a six or seven figure buyout makes it easier to struggle. So should a coach get a piece of a player's pay from an NFL contract since that contract was offered due to the mastering of skills taught by that coach?[/quote]
How is that even a reasonable question? The coach was paid, in most cases very well, to assist the player in mastering those skills. That was his job, and he negotiated a contract to perform said duties.
Again, you talked about the "opportunities" being given to players as if it is somehow equal to the salaries, benefits, clothes, cars, phones, endorsements, and bonuses received by the coaches. I just can't buy that.
I think we all can agree that the system is flawed and needs to be changed. I do not think simply paying players is the answer. However, to refuse to recognize the disconnect is being dismissive of reality. College football has become a big business, and the players are reaping by far the least amount of rewards. I am simply suggesting that we begin by recognizing that a free tuition, while a great opportunity, is not the same as hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary, benefits, etc.[/quote]
I do agree that their are flaws in the system. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the rest. I understand your position and I can certainly understand why you feel the way you do. I just don't share the same opinion. I enjoyed the debate.
