Upon Further Review: Offensive offense

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by Don Castavez, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. TheRealist

    TheRealist GEAUX TIGERS

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    694
    Your words, not mine. They aren't paying them because they like the extremely cheap labor.
     
  2. TheRealist

    TheRealist GEAUX TIGERS

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    694
    LSU made 56 million in profit, profit is after all expenses as sure you know, in the 16-17 season. I'm sure Bama is much higher than that. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that guys shouldn't get paid? 60,000 a year is nothing compared to the potential for life long injuries these guys endure. Most will never sniff an NFL field. They should make a bigger cut of the pie. It's modern day indentured servitude. An extra 1000 per month could be life changing for a lot of these guys. Why not make 8 or 10 Schollys per year preferred and they come with a 1000/month stipend? It's not like the schools can't afford it.

    It won't happen because the ncaa likes cheap labor. Plus it would prevent teams like Bama and Ohio State from getting so many 5 star guys. It would dilute the talent more between the schools that can afford to pay it. The schools that can't afford it aren't winning already anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  3. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,584
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Not all schools make LSU money. I guess we aren’t paying the girls, either.
     
    didit and furduknfish like this.
  4. TheRealist

    TheRealist GEAUX TIGERS

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    694
    Not all schools would be able to afford an additional stipend. But let's not kid ourselves that those schools are currently competing for championships anyway.

    When the girls start playing football they can get paid too. Football is what generates all of the money for most schools that actually turn a profit. The LSU football program pays the bills for all of the other sports.

    That's like complaining about how much the head coach makes when the state has a budget shortage and has to cut education. The state doesn't pay the head coaches salary. The athletic department pays it out of the money the football program generates. Just like they should pay the athletes that generate the product on the field.
     
  5. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,584
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    So reduce fbs to ~40 teams? I’m not crazy about that (too much like nfl), but maybe that’s the way to go...

    Basketball is a revenue producer at some schools, so basketball too?

    Would the feminists be cool with this? In the eyes of a conservative yes; in the eyes of a liberal...
     
  6. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    38,401
    Likes Received:
    15,709
    And baseball at LSU and maybe a few orher places.
     
  7. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,584
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Some sort of profit sharing maybe...
     
    TheRealist likes this.
  8. furduknfish

    furduknfish Never go full Taint.

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,786
    Likes Received:
    4,615
    Exactly, slippery slope. Won't stop at football and it won't stop at just profitable P5 schools. Just is what it is. With NCAA its all or none.
     
  9. furduknfish

    furduknfish Never go full Taint.

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,786
    Likes Received:
    4,615
    I know right? Rollzeyez
     
  10. TheRealist

    TheRealist GEAUX TIGERS

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    694
    I think there would be more than 40 teams capable of paying 8 to 10 players an extra 1000 per month. Hell, every time a big power 5 school plays a generic in state school the amount of money they make would cover it in spades. It doesn't even need to be 1000. How about 500, 750, hell 250 would be something.

    They could possible do an overall school allotment of say 10 - 15 premium schollies per school to be divided over all sports in a manner that the university sees fit. That way UK and Duke can continue to dominate basketball. But with the ability for the kids to just go to the nba I'm not sure many schools would be willing to do that. But it might also convince more kids to stay. Same thing with baseball, the ones that are good enough can just enter the farm system and get paid if they want to.

    If a school makes a profit off of women's basketball, I don't know for sure but maybe Uconn/Tennessee, they should be able to offer some of their players these same benefits. But like any other business the colleges would do a cost/benefit analysis and give the stipends to the players that generate the most income for them.

    As far as liberal or conservative, I'm pretty sure most liberals would be on board with allowing the players to unionize. But talk about throwing a monkey wrench in the whole thing. Imagine if the players could actually have a lock out until they are fairly compensated?

    I don't know how all the details would be worked out but it should happen.

    The mind boggling amount of money being made by the NCAA and the schools is not being shared fairly with the athletes that make it all possible. I think most student athletes are there because they get that education paid for and understand there is no pro career on the tail end. At the same time there is no doubt that every kid going to play FBS football in the power 5 thinks they have a shot at the NFL. Many of them are extremely poor and an extra 1000/month would be huge for them and their families.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    lsu-i-like likes this.

Share This Page