In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 691
Online now 861 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I saw in SI a week or two ago that the NBA is exploring allowing high school seniors to join the D-League for a year instead of going to college. It would not shock me if that happens 5-10 years down the road.
As for paying players, if you want to argue that then they should at least increase some of the benefits. Training table should be available for every meal for example.
The D League has come a long way since 2007.
Putting aside the fact that the study was commissioned by a group "seeking greater protections for college athletes as well as an increase in the caps on scholarship money".....
That figure is even higher at Bowl Championship Series schools: $714,000 for the average football player and $1.5 million for the average men's basketball player.
You're telling me that the average BCS basketball player is worth more than 3x an NBA minimum salary ($473,604 for this season)? A BCS football player is worth 75% more than an NFL minimum rookie salary ($405,000 for 2013)? Get serious.
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
As of 2010, max D-League salary was $25,500. I assume it's higher now, but give me BMOC status, top facilities, coeds, free food, all the Nike/Under Armour gear I can handle, and playing on real TV and in front of real crowds over having to play at the Dallas Stars' practice facility in Frisco, Texas.
It doesn't matter if the fans pay to see the individual players. They pay to see the program and the program is a collection of those players. Those players have much more of a right to something then a random tennis player who never gets on TV and never earns a dollar for the school. If Alabama got rid of all of their sports besides football and basketball, they'd still in theory be taking in the same amount of TV $.
And to the second part of your argument, yes, this is true. Life isn't always fair though. Not everyone gets a slice of the pie if they did nothing to earn it (although that's the way we're headed these days in the US, isn't it?).
How much of that money is going to scholarships? That's a ridiculous statement.
Clay Travis @ClayTravisBGID 7m
Really good from @danwetzel On O'Bannon v NCAA: why is it Denard Robinson's job to fund field hockey?
From Yahoo! Sports: College administrators claim their programs can't afford to give players a cut or revenue.
Lol at a 50/50 split. O'Bannon has a good point with the video game issue but with the larger issue this thing will go down in flames.
I'm not saying they should get 50%. But the idea that a school should be able to use someone's image in perpetuity to make money without that player seeing any of it is absurd.
Isn't part of the standard language in a grant in aid that the university has the rights to use images without compensation? If so, tough shit, you signed the contract. If not, then I agree he's got a legit case.
Why is it absurd? They signed away the rights to it when they took the scholarship.
Why should Maryland sell #3 jerseys and not give a cut to Juan Dixon? We all know #3 is Dixon, he should be getting a cut of that since he is the one selling the jersey.
It's a fair point and worthy of conversation. Off hand the O'bannon video game seems like a legitimate gripe. However this is evolving into let's put the entire system on trial case. I'm stunned the other conferences are not out there on this more.
I don't care if a player signed away those rights when they signed a LOI, that part of the system needs to be changed.
Why? Every contract has terms. If you don't like them you can take your business/services elsewhere.
Except right now they can't take their business elsewhere.
I'm not saying you rip up every LOI ever signed, but moving forward it shouldn't be allowed.
My #25 jersey has pulled tons of duty, though, since I bought it when Blake was here. Blake, Ibekwe, Alex Len, Marissa Coleman, Alyssa Thomas.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Yes they can. There may not be any more direct paths to a professional career, but basketball players can go play some form of professional ball overseas or in small pro leagues around the US. Football players can go play in the CFL or some shit.
Obviously these are terrible options, but I don't understand why the NCAA should be forced to change the terms of their contract just because they've created far and away the best avenue for becoming a professional athlete.
Because they can make millions by using a player's image for the rest of time and the player doesn't see a cent.
This doesn't fly in any other industry.
Yes it does. Do you think they guy who works for Merck and cures cancer is going to get half the billions of dollars Merck makes off of his invention or Merck is going to stop using his likeness or the story of how he cured cance while working for them?
Ask anyone whose ever done anything for a company or university from writing code to research. What you do there belongs to that institution.
Without Maryland, you've never heard of Juan Dixon, and he doesn't go on to sign a first round NBA three year guaranteed contract. Juan Dixon got hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of education, training, room, board, and other forms of assistance, as well as the ability to train for his chosen profession in one of the best training grounds there is. To help fund Juan's education and training they marketed him on jerseys and other things. It's an all voluntary system, if they players don't like it, they don't have to participate.
Jesus, you're making me sound like an OWG.
Maybe it's just me but I would pay all revenue athletes the same amount.
I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?
I actually agree with this a lot. Great point.
It absolutely staggers me that anyone can be alright with a system that generates literally billions of dollars of revenue a year and pays almost none of it to those generating it.
What's the value of a free education/athletic support on a year to year basis while you're at the school and then over the course of your entire life? If anything I'd say the vast majority of scholarship athletes on an individual level are being vastly overcompensated for their services.
For those that aren't, sure they probably deserve more, but deserve ain't got nothing to do with it. As a legal question I don't understand why the NCAA should be forced to change the way they operate when they're a voluntary membership organization with basic rules and bylaws about compensation and the use of your image/likeness that have been widely known for decades. If someone has a problem with that then they're more than welcome to explore some other avenue to become a professional athlete.
I'm not Kunal so I'm not interested in debating the legality of it.
The problem is that whatever "value" you assign to free education and athletic support, it's far less than the market value.
Let's not be disingenuous and claim that they're free to explore some other avenue to become a professional athlete. For a revenue sport athlete, there simply is no path that doesn't require some amount of time in college generating revenue and earning zero.
I'm not saying that we have to give tennis players an equal share of the pie. But football and basketball players should get a slice. I don't support a system where a conference commissioner or shitty coach makes $2M/yr on the backs of the athletes who earn zilch.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports