If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   Arian Foster admits (GASP) that he took money (GASP) while he was at the University of Tennessee. (GASP)   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 89
    More: Obvious, Arian Foster, University of Tennessee, students, Texans, NCAA  
•       •       •

696 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 Sep 2013 at 4:50 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-20 03:33:22 PM
I've long been in favor of paying the moneymakers in collegiate sports. Call it a stipend, call it whatever. If you are risking your health so the school can make money, you deserve a piece of the action. This obviously only applies to schools that turn a profit off the sport, not the ones that have teams for whatever other reason.
 
2013-09-20 03:45:35 PM
Paying college players is a very slippery slope.  If we start down it, these kids could actually cut into the revenue streams coming from lucrative TV contracts and advertising deals.  The people lining their pockets with bowl game revenue that they simply don't deserve could find their gravy train imperiled, and be forced to pay for the labor that is making them rich.

And that's just not right.
 
2013-09-20 03:49:23 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Paying college players is a very slippery slope.  If we start down it, these kids could actually cut into the revenue streams coming from lucrative TV contracts and advertising deals.  The people lining their pockets with bowl game revenue that they simply don't deserve could find their gravy train imperiled, and be forced to pay for the labor that is making them rich.

And that's just not right.


Make the coaches salaries equal to that of the highest paid professor and it should all even out.
 
2013-09-20 03:56:42 PM

simplicimus: Marcus Aurelius: Paying college players is a very slippery slope.  If we start down it, these kids could actually cut into the revenue streams coming from lucrative TV contracts and advertising deals.  The people lining their pockets with bowl game revenue that they simply don't deserve could find their gravy train imperiled, and be forced to pay for the labor that is making them rich.

And that's just not right.

Make the coaches salaries equal to that of the highest paid professor and it should all even out.


They're going to have to pay the athletes more than the coaches.
 
2013-09-20 04:00:37 PM

simplicimus: Marcus Aurelius: Paying college players is a very slippery slope.  If we start down it, these kids could actually cut into the revenue streams coming from lucrative TV contracts and advertising deals.  The people lining their pockets with bowl game revenue that they simply don't deserve could find their gravy train imperiled, and be forced to pay for the labor that is making them rich.

And that's just not right.

Make the coaches salaries equal to that of the highest paid professor and it should all even out.


Right, since Nick Saban is probably going to become college football's first $10 million coachj.
 
2013-09-20 04:06:50 PM
Forget Arian Foster. The real crime is that Lane Kiffin received money during his time at Tennessee.
 
2013-09-20 04:14:19 PM

Nabb1: Forget Arian Foster. The real crime is that Lane Kiffin received money during his time at Tennessee.


Touche!
 
2013-09-20 04:26:33 PM

Nabb1: Forget Arian Foster. The real crime is that Lane Kiffin received money during his time at Tennessee.


Well done!
 
2013-09-20 04:52:44 PM
Where's my fainting couch?
 
2013-09-20 04:54:29 PM
I like how they made the coach buy 50 tacos. That's, like, the most college thing of all time.
 
2013-09-20 04:55:44 PM
I say we pay all the Athletes... and take away Scholarships. They still have to be students in order to play for the sports teams, so they get to pay tuition and pay for their own living quarters and food and athletic equipment.

But, seeing how well the pros handle their cash, the students will be worse off, but who cares? They're getting paid!
 
2013-09-20 04:56:03 PM
i63.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-20 04:59:38 PM
Wasn't there a big to-do at Tennessee with their recruiting "hostesses" ("Orange Pride," I believe) as well?
 
2013-09-20 05:00:37 PM
The NFL should take over college football and classify all student-athletes as "unpaid interns".
 
2013-09-20 05:02:19 PM
My only surprise is that no one has blown the lid off the whole thing yet.  There must be plenty of guys who are disgruntled with their college programs -- guys like, say, Arian Foster, who wound up in the coach's doghouse and went undrafted despite his obvious talent -- who would be willing to talk.  And yet, for the most part, omerta has prevailed.
 
2013-09-20 05:04:01 PM
This man is over-gasped!

/also the males are laying eggs
 
2013-09-20 05:09:08 PM

simplicimus: I've long been in favor of paying the moneymakers in collegiate sports. Call it a stipend, call it whatever. If you are risking your health so the school can make money, you deserve a piece of the action. This obviously only applies to schools that turn a profit off the sport, not the ones that have teams for whatever other reason.


I'm trying to think about it objectively.  For the most part, college fans are rooting for the laundry -- more so than pro fans, I think, because people root for their own school and college fans are big on tradition.  A very, very select few college football players -- Manziel, Clowney, maybe one or two more -- have an appreciable effect on the school's revenue in terms of ticket or merchandising sales.  Stated differently, the labor theory of value, to the extent it's valid at all, probably has little applicability to college sports; capital and intellectual property create a lot of the value and result in a lot of the profit.  If we let the market decide what individual players are worth, we might find that the vast majority don't make very much money at all.
 
2013-09-20 05:15:14 PM

Super Chronic: simplicimus: I've long been in favor of paying the moneymakers in collegiate sports. Call it a stipend, call it whatever. If you are risking your health so the school can make money, you deserve a piece of the action. This obviously only applies to schools that turn a profit off the sport, not the ones that have teams for whatever other reason.

I'm trying to think about it objectively.  For the most part, college fans are rooting for the laundry -- more so than pro fans, I think, because people root for their own school and college fans are big on tradition.  A very, very select few college football players -- Manziel, Clowney, maybe one or two more -- have an appreciable effect on the school's revenue in terms of ticket or merchandising sales.  Stated differently, the labor theory of value, to the extent it's valid at all, probably has little applicability to college sports; capital and intellectual property create a lot of the value and result in a lot of the profit.  If we let the market decide what individual players are worth, we might find that the vast majority don't make very much money at all.


I wasn't talking about the market value of individual players at the college level. That is determined for the very few who become professional players. I was approaching it from the players risk/reward perspective, where (outside of the few professional contracts) the rewards are little and the risks are high.
 
2013-09-20 05:19:30 PM

simplicimus: the rewards are little


The rewards would be pretty decent if they were actually attempting to get the education they're getting for free. We could actually require that student-athletes be both students and athletes, like they are for most other sports.
 
2013-09-20 05:21:10 PM
I have a feeling Penn State wouldn't argue with paying the atheletes.

It is a slippery slope. You don't want it to turn into a complete booster's bidding war, but you can't keep turning a blind eye to what everyone knows is going on, either.
 
2013-09-20 05:22:41 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: I say we pay all the Athletes... and take away Scholarships. They still have to be students in order to play for the sports teams, so they get to pay tuition and pay for their own living quarters and food and athletic equipment.


I agree, but make it so that only students who get paid do not get scholarships.  Give the students a choice, you can get paid, but you have to pay your own way or you can get a scholarship, but you can't get paid while on scholarship.  That way the real student athletes aren't hurt by the one and dones and the Johnny Footballs out there.
 
2013-09-20 05:23:32 PM
"But it's just fine with us.  He's SEC."  --The NCAA
 
2013-09-20 05:26:23 PM

IAmRight: simplicimus: the rewards are little

The rewards would be pretty decent if they were actually attempting to get the education they're getting for free. We could actually require that student-athletes be both students and athletes, like they are for most other sports.


That's how it works in the Ivy League schools, and it's a good idea.
/But where will our needed PE majors come from?
 
2013-09-20 05:27:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Paying college players is a very slippery slope.  If we start down it, these kids could actually cut into the revenue streams coming from lucrative TV contracts and advertising deals.  The people lining their pockets with bowl game revenue that they simply don't deserve could find their gravy train imperiled, and be forced to pay for the labor that is making them rich.

And that's just not right.


Skywriting over another school's stadium doesn't pay for itself, dammit.

(exactly zero Michigan alumni that I am aware of are pleased that the department actually wasted money on that)
 
2013-09-20 05:28:21 PM
Or how about we make colleges about academics, and just start a minor league for football with kids out of high school.
 
2013-09-20 05:35:54 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-20 05:35:58 PM

degenerate-afro: HST's Dead Carcass: I say we pay all the Athletes... and take away Scholarships. They still have to be students in order to play for the sports teams, so they get to pay tuition and pay for their own living quarters and food and athletic equipment.

I agree, but make it so that only students who get paid do not get scholarships.  Give the students a choice, you can get paid, but you have to pay your own way or you can get a scholarship, but you can't get paid while on scholarship.  That way the real student athletes aren't hurt by the one and dones and the Johnny Footballs out there.


I like this proposal. It would weed out the boneheads fairly quickly.
 
2013-09-20 05:38:06 PM

simplicimus: IAmRight: simplicimus: the rewards are little

The rewards would be pretty decent if they were actually attempting to get the education they're getting for free. We could actually require that student-athletes be both students and athletes, like they are for most other sports.

That's how it works in the Ivy League schools, and it's a good idea.
/But where will our needed PE majors come from?


But it doesn't "work that way" in the Ivy League.  Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships; they only offer academic or need-based financial aid.

I would love a world where it was all Ivy League/DIII, no athletic scholarships, a hard cap on the amount of money that can be spent on a sports program, 53 roster spots (its all the pros need), but that's not going to happen, so I guess the next best thing is to pay the players.  The current situation is simply the most unacceptable of all possible outcomes.
 
2013-09-20 05:40:04 PM
basically a tradition started by the ultra-wealthy to keep poor kids out morphed into the biggest sport in America in the early years of the 20th century, some athletes decided they'd like to get paid for playing and started what became the NFL... back then of course, pro football was seen as bush-league while college was the pinnacle of everything great and pure

100 years later, we've come full-circle and college is basically bush-league
 
2013-09-20 05:41:25 PM
What an eye opening week for college football.   First I find out that coaches secretly hate their obnoxious alumni behind closed doors.   Then I find out that coaches are also constantly shopping around for better gigs, while simultaneously telling everyone they're  in their "dream jobs".     Now I find out players are being paid under the table?

What is there left to believe in anymore?
 
2013-09-20 05:45:59 PM

InmanRoshi: What an eye opening week for college football.   First I find out that coaches secretly hate their obnoxious alumni behind closed doors.   Then I find out that coaches are also constantly shopping around for better gigs, while simultaneously telling everyone they're  in their "dream jobs".     Now I find out players are being paid under the table?

What is there left to believe in anymore?


Wrestling.
 
2013-09-20 05:47:07 PM
Let the schools offer whatever they want to students for them to play there. Most players will end up on scholarship anyway.
 
2013-09-20 05:53:06 PM

simplicimus: IAmRight: simplicimus: the rewards are little

The rewards would be pretty decent if they were actually attempting to get the education they're getting for free. We could actually require that student-athletes be both students and athletes, like they are for most other sports.

That's how it works in the Ivy League schools, and it's a good idea.
/But where will our needed PE majors come from?


But then, I'd have to buy my baskets from companies who employ 6 year old Chineese kids instead of ones woven by old fashioned muricans'.

I do think that if the NCAA allows athletes to get paid, they need to raise the bar on academic standards (but that will NEVER happen). Take the money the students are paid, place it in a trust. The kids get X amount of money out of that trust/week. When they graduate/drop out/ fail out, etc... They get the balance, plus any interest it may have earned. Place a 'salary cap' on each team, and strictly prohibit any/all contact with boosters.

At the same time, I wish the Athletes, or at least the very prominent ones, put their feet down and either say 'pay me or I'll just go train on my own till I can turn pro', or form a union. Again, neither will ever happen, but, it would really crack open the debate if it did.
 
2013-09-20 05:58:51 PM

Super Chronic: simplicimus: I've long been in favor of paying the moneymakers in collegiate sports. Call it a stipend, call it whatever. If you are risking your health so the school can make money, you deserve a piece of the action. This obviously only applies to schools that turn a profit off the sport, not the ones that have teams for whatever other reason.

I'm trying to think about it objectively.  For the most part, college fans are rooting for the laundry -- more so than pro fans, I think, because people root for their own school and college fans are big on tradition.  A very, very select few college football players -- Manziel, Clowney, maybe one or two more -- have an appreciable effect on the school's revenue in terms of ticket or merchandising sales.  Stated differently, the labor theory of value, to the extent it's valid at all, probably has little applicability to college sports; capital and intellectual property create a lot of the value and result in a lot of the profit.  If we let the market decide what individual players are worth, we might find that the vast majority don't make very much money at all.


Put that laundry on the men in the school's Psychology Dept and ticket and merchandise sales will fall through the floor. Who wants to see that? That laundry only has value when it produces a quality athletic product, which in turn builds tradition, which attracts more people and more money.

But why not let the free market decide their value? Why not at least treat college football players like Olympic athletes? let them earn their share through endorsement. Why restrict their potential earning for three years of seriously hazardous sport? Why can Jordan Speith turn pro after only one year? Why not let the NFL draft 18 year old, pay them minimums and develop the players themselves? I know, farm the development out, which they do, which is what college football is. Start a minor league? I don't know. All I do know is that the NCAA is a broken model and is dying.
 
2013-09-20 06:03:13 PM

IAmRight: simplicimus: the rewards are little

The rewards would be pretty decent if they were actually attempting to get the education they're getting for free. We could actually require that student-athletes be both students and athletes, like they are for most other sports.


Not every kid on a football team is on scholarship.  Not every kid that earns a college degree will be successful in life.  Not every kid has a real shot at the NFL to make "the big bucks".

And if you are on scholarship, and you're injured to the point where your playing days are done, your scholarship just got pulled.

The rewards are little.
 
2013-09-20 06:04:11 PM
Can't we just stop associating colleges with college football? Most players are there for one reason, and it isn't getting an education. Pay them for providing lucrative entertainment and representing the school.

Shouldn't be an issue when you have a coach making a few million a year, and your ultimate goal is to win the Chick-fil-a bowl. Everyone else is getting paid.
 
2013-09-20 06:06:34 PM
I have a way to solve this whole "Should We or Should We Not Pay Athletes" debate: we should, but not ridiculous stipends monthly or anything like that.

My solution: pay the athletes in every collegiate sport hourly minimum wage during their games or competitions or events. If the team is traveling, each athlete gets a per diem allowance based on the location they are visiting (this is generally around $30-60 per day). They must keep their receipts and fill out an expense form, to be submitted monthly, thus the onus is on them. Reimbursement checks would be issued after this.

The reason I would do it this way: far too many athletes, specifically in the NFL and NBA, have major issues holding on to money (even though many are paid multiple millions of dollars). Having the students keep receipts and fill out a form to get their money is a great way of teaching them how to budget. It's a great skill to have and essential to being successful with money in life. The combination of needing to keep track of your spending and getting to buy a bit of extra food of your choosing or a nice meal from time to time should satisfy student's needs for the toll that's being taken out on their body while performing for their university.
 
2013-09-20 06:18:23 PM
Having watched some of my alma mater's games so far this year, I hope to high Jeebus none of those clowns are getting paid.
 
2013-09-20 06:19:18 PM
oh noes.  the horror.  the horror.  farking stupid ass ncaa rules.

the school doesn't need to pay the athletes.  just remove the restrictions on outside income, gifts, and endorsements.  who cares if a booster hands someone $500 for a nice tackle? the players will get what the market will bear and the schools, admins, and coaches can keep all their money too.  might not have enough for the locker room waterfalls or xboxes though...
 
2013-09-20 06:19:52 PM
But what about the free education he got?  That philosophy degree from Tennessee is worth at least $40.
 
2013-09-20 06:23:36 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Wasn't there a big to-do at Tennessee with their recruiting "hostesses" ("Orange Pride," I believe) as well?


not really.  a few of them just went to a high school game in south carolina and held a sign with a recruits name on it and posed for pictures after the game with the recruit.  not exactly the end of the world, but against ncaa rules because everything is against ncaa rules.

Nabb1: Forget Arian Foster. The real crime is that Lane Kiffin received money during his time at Tennessee.


fark that farktard.
 
2013-09-20 06:25:06 PM

chuggernaught: And if you are on scholarship, and you're injured to the point where your playing days are done, your scholarship just got pulled


That's actually false, they can put you on a medical hardship waiver where you stay on scholarship but don't count against the maximum for the team.

Or, if you're Nick Saban, you put guys who can still play but you decide you don't want anymore onto medical hardship so you can make room for the latest recruiting class.
 
2013-09-20 06:34:29 PM

chuggernaught: Not every kid on a football team is on scholarship.


So what you're effectively saying is that people will play college football for literally nothing (which I fully agree with you on). So why is a scholarship, room, and board (and tons of other perks) not enough? All of these guys can be replaced with nobodies (and are every few years) and no one stops rooting for their school.

BTW, if they literally are not getting paid anything, you'd have to assume that the risk of injury is worth simply the perks of playing college ball to them, wouldn't you?
 
2013-09-20 06:38:54 PM
I would like to see THOUSANDS of current and past NFL players standing up, saying they got benefits, and calling 'bullshiat!' on the NCAA.
 
2013-09-20 07:03:19 PM

Super Chronic: I'm trying to think about it objectively. For the most part, college fans are rooting for the laundry -- more so than pro fans, I think, because people root for their own school and college fans are big on tradition. A very, very select few college football players -- Manziel, Clowney, maybe one or two more -- have an appreciable effect on the school's revenue in terms of ticket or merchandising sales. Stated differently, the labor theory of value, to the extent it's valid at all, probably has little applicability to college sports; capital and intellectual property create a lot of the value and result in a lot of the profit. If we let the market decide what individual players are worth, we might find that the vast majority don't make very much money at all.


Thing is, you're forgetting that only a tiny percentage of the population can play at a college level. It requires athleticism, as well as a drive to make sacrifices (things like constant workouts, curfews, and limited social life with those not in football). The players give up a LOT, and they are absolutely forbidden from holding any kind of job in what little free time they do get. Many of the few who are athletically capable of that kind of activity simply don't want to give up everything necessary to be a part of it.

There aren't exactly a whole slew of "replacement" football players capable of playing at the NCAA level if these aren't happy. While it is not unreasonable to say that they are "interchangeable" (TN could switch DE's with VA Tech before the start of spring training and both teams would probably do about as well), it is inaccurate to say they are all replaceable with a slew of able-bodies candidates beating on the gates of the stadium begging to play.

I think there would almost immediately be collective bargaining in place (you know, a union, like all other professional sports) that ensures that the not-so-spotlighted-but-still-important players like Offensive Tackles are paid a rather substantial minimum.
 
2013-09-20 07:15:07 PM

buckeyebrain: "But it's just fine with us.  He's SEC."  --The NCAA


Your inferiority complex is just as hilarious as the other whiny ass ohio state fans.
 
2013-09-20 07:16:30 PM

ox45tallboy: Super Chronic: I'm trying to think about it objectively. For the most part, college fans are rooting for the laundry -- more so than pro fans, I think, because people root for their own school and college fans are big on tradition. A very, very select few college football players -- Manziel, Clowney, maybe one or two more -- have an appreciable effect on the school's revenue in terms of ticket or merchandising sales. Stated differently, the labor theory of value, to the extent it's valid at all, probably has little applicability to college sports; capital and intellectual property create a lot of the value and result in a lot of the profit. If we let the market decide what individual players are worth, we might find that the vast majority don't make very much money at all.

Thing is, you're forgetting that only a tiny percentage of the population can play at a college level. It requires athleticism, as well as a drive to make sacrifices (things like constant workouts, curfews, and limited social life with those not in football). The players give up a LOT, and they are absolutely forbidden from holding any kind of job in what little free time they do get. Many of the few who are athletically capable of that kind of activity simply don't want to give up everything necessary to be a part of it.

There aren't exactly a whole slew of "replacement" football players capable of playing at the NCAA level if these aren't happy. While it is not unreasonable to say that they are "interchangeable" (TN could switch DE's with VA Tech before the start of spring training and both teams would probably do about as well), it is inaccurate to say they are all replaceable with a slew of able-bodies candidates beating on the gates of the stadium begging to play.

I think there would almost immediately be collective bargaining in place (you know, a union, like all other professional sports) that ensures that the not-so-spotlighted-but-still-important players like Offensive Tackles are ...


Would disagree...

www.chicagonow.com
 
2013-09-20 07:18:10 PM

justabitdisturbed: I have a way to solve this whole "Should We or Should We Not Pay Athletes" debate: we should, but not ridiculous stipends monthly or anything like that.

My solution: pay the athletes in every collegiate sport hourly minimum wage during their games or competitions or events. If the team is traveling, each athlete gets a per diem allowance based on the location they are visiting (this is generally around $30-60 per day). They must keep their receipts and fill out an expense form, to be submitted monthly, thus the onus is on them. Reimbursement checks would be issued after this.

The reason I would do it this way: far too many athletes, specifically in the NFL and NBA, have major issues holding on to money (even though many are paid multiple millions of dollars). Having the students keep receipts and fill out a form to get their money is a great way of teaching them how to budget. It's a great skill to have and essential to being successful with money in life. The combination of needing to keep track of your spending and getting to buy a bit of extra food of your choosing or a nice meal from time to time should satisfy student's needs for the toll that's being taken out on their body while performing for their university.


If they were high school students, I would agree. But it's easy (very easy) to forget that we are talking about adults.

Forget about this insulting student-athlete crap (a term made up by the NCAA to avoid calling athletes 'employees' and taking on the responsibilities of any other employer in the free market) college athletes are employees and should have all the rights of any other employee, including the right to be paid whatever wage the market sets, the right to bargain collectively, the right to workers' comp and the protection of other labor laws, and the right to spend the money they earn however they please.

/yes that was a run-on sentence
 
2013-09-20 07:18:56 PM
Why should they even need to be students? Just put in ringers like the good old days before NCAA when they were paid. Its not like they are getting a real education or anything. Its not like the people paying to watch are still attending classes. Root for good old my-school-U not the students. Let non-students play for pay and stop the charade.  Also the "only play 4 years" thing is total BS. I say let em play for as long as they make the damned team and earn their pay. They dont kick out anybody else after just four years, why kick out athletes?
 
2013-09-20 07:28:12 PM

IAmRight: chuggernaught: Not every kid on a football team is on scholarship.

So what you're effectively saying is that people will play college football for literally nothing (which I fully agree with you on). So why is a scholarship, room, and board (and tons of other perks) not enough? All of these guys can be replaced with nobodies (and are every few years) and no one stops rooting for their school.

BTW, if they literally are not getting paid anything, you'd have to assume that the risk of injury is worth simply the perks of playing college ball to them, wouldn't you?


I agree with you, but, if you refuse to give, just for example, Manziel, room and board, he'll go play for Alabama instead. Replace him with a nobody, and A&M has a much harder time bringing in money.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report