PDaDdy

Don't just jump into the deep end. Obviously there would be limits to what a university would directly compensate a player. As far as different sports believe me there are numbers for every sport, every jersey, every ticket every television right. The obvious answer is you base the compensation on what the sport brings in. You give all athletes in a particular sport the same compensation. We are talking small amounts of money compared to the hundreds of millions that colleges collectively bring in. This is just a little bit of "do the right thing". You can fret all day about what if this, what if that. We aren't here to work out an entire compensation system for college players just discuss the concept that obviously has merit in doing the right thing for the players and some pitfalls that would have to be addressed. The point is that it could be made to happen responsibly and effectively. It's been difficult because I indulged if not started straying from topic but...back on topic....What is wrong with allowing the player to make their own money? Sell their own visage, sell their autograph sell and old pair of shoes? Any other american has this right. Why not a college football player?

Actually I wasn't aware that it could be quite that expensive but I guess what I am talking about is allowing the athlete to make their own money. On top of that it would be nice if the school gave them some spending cash above and beyond the school costs whatever that number happens to be for their particular school.

All I hear is class envy. 1) Good point they did screw over young 18 year old men that chose not to go to college. I guess it's ok to go from high school to McDonalds but not high school to the NBA. What the hell kind of sense does that make???? Again, not in the American capitalist spirit. 2) Playing college football is not a luxury. It's a job and a business. Perform or lose your job/position on the team. Lose your job/position on the team lose your paycheck/scholarship. The boss makes money off of your efforts at work(on the field) YEP! Sounds like a job to me. Scouts and recruiters literally scour the country trying to persuade that hot high school prospect to come to their college. For the luxury? No my friend! To win games on Saturday and bring fortune and fame to the college. Don't forget for a second that that is what college football is about. 3) SOOooo basically you are saying that the company has a vested interest in providing their employees with the best management and training to maximize success and profits? I think that's what I'm hearing right? What kind of Bizzaro world do you live in where a college program would benefit from inferior equipment, training and coaching? It benefits all parties and in particular the university. Most of these players never go on to play at any professional level so the long term benefits of this training and coaching only applies to a select few as far as the football field goes.

Yes they should give more without question. The amount we can argue all day. $100 a week could be a huge difference maker for a young college student that comes from an impoverished background. And honestly even a pitiful salary of $20,000 a year or roughly what a Mcdonalds cook makes in a year isn't really much to ask is it? As I mentioned in another post it would be awesome if someone with a few billion dollars would like to create a legitimate league for college age young men that would pay their tuition to their college of choice and also fairly compensated them for the incredible amount of revenue that their talents, skills, unique abilities and hard work generate. Of course this only works if this other league can literally sprout up from nowhere with similarly located stadiums, coaching and instantly attract the highest levels of talent ensuring the best levels of competition. Ya, piece of cake. Can you imagine an investor trying to go down that path only to have the NCAA with their incredible market share and backing thwart their every move? The ultimate move the NCAA could make would be to adopt the principals I expose if they truly did feel threatened. They would hate it but they could maintain their de facto monopoly. Not a great risk for our fictitious multi-billionaire. How about we address the real issue and get back on topic of a player's ability to market themselves and make their own money that takes nothing out of the pocket of the NCAA or their university? The PLAYER is their own product. If a player was an artist and drew painting and sold it on ebay is that an NCAA violation? If a player wants to buy his own jersey from the school store, put his signature on it and sell a used jersey on eBay what is wrong with that? The NCAA is preventing them from taking place in capitalistic endeavors that any other american can take advantage of.

Actually you struck upon what made me think of this idea. Of course it is based on me winning the mega millions. LOL. If I could for instance create a Tennessee professional team, attract the talent that Tennessee would have attracted and pay my employee's tuition TO Tennessee as well as compensate them for the WORK that they do I would love to put that football program and the NCAA out of business. Basically my desire would have been to make college football a professional after school job that just happened to pay in excess of the local school of the athletes choosing. Replace bankrupt all college football programs and play the same games just with these students that happened to have well paying after school jobs. We aren't talking millions here but if a poor kid has to bust his ass playing football, maintain grades and he can't buy himself a cheese burger and take his girl to a movie while the university makes millions. Something is really, really wrong. In my research I also found that the NCAA was created to make sports safe not to tell students couldn't make money off of their own image. Back in the day somebody put a game on TV, the public outcry for these games was incredible and the NCAA started concerning itself with money not players. Again the NCAA is basically a de facto monopoly. They aren't the only game in town but they are so big and powerful that they effectively ARE the only game in town.

What professional football league do american kids have that they can go to straight out of high school and make money? Can they develop their skills against the best competition at their level to prepare for their future in the sport/career? Is it a viable route for the truly talented to make it and become a successful NFL pro? If the answer to these questions is "no", like any rational person would answer, you see that this isn't really a viable option. Removing your leg as a means of trimming your toe nails is an option but not really a viable one. If this were the NBA I might be more with you. Young men CAN leave high school and go directly to the NBA to make money. Professional football players? NO..Just ask Maurice Clarette. The McDonalds comparison by the way is not in any way a relevant one. McDonalds is a crap job that anyone can get and there is something better. Division I college football is a "job" that VERY VERY few can get and there is no better option!! The NCAA leverages this fact and their de facto monopoly to create an incredibly low compensation ceiling for anyone that want's to play at the highest level. College football is the players...NOT the NCAA. The NCAA has created a system where the players can't leverage their unique skills. To me ...that is not the american capitalistic way.

If you are asking me, I am not a college sports fan at all. I love a handful of pro sports. Bills obviously.

If colleges don't have to participate in the NCAA what benefit is there for them to be a member? You don't give up something for nothing and handcuff your ability to draw the best talent. ##### Just did some reading. It is basically a de facto monopoly in that it is the only game in town. You can not be a member if you don't want to play against other NCAA teams in NCAA bowl games and tournaments which would be the death of any large college program. You are correct on a technicality you don't have to belong but in spirit you are oh so wrong. Shall we skip the debate about NCAA membership being "optional" and focus on the fact that this organization ensures that its workforce is wage limited to the tuition of the particular college that they attend! That is NOT the American way of our founding fathers my friend. If you believe that you and a portion of America has lost it's way. It is the way of greedy businessmen who only care about screwing over the poor and driving down labor costs whether it is ethical or not. Legal? Yes, for now. Unless you never made it out of grade school you know the wealthy make the rules. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

So you're saying the NCAA doesn't govern all college athletics? Let me also get this clear adherence to NCAA rules and regulations is optional? You are kidding right? What college wouldn't decide not to follow NCAA regulations and get the best talent they could with booster money? Methinks you have no idea what you are talking about.

Come on man that is just ridiculous. Welcome to the world. People with unique gifts are treated differently than everyone else. These are not "most kids." This is America. This is a capitalist society. The exceptional get paid. These guys make MILLIONS for the universities from merchandise, television rights, alumni donations, notoriety, commercials. You think making a crappy $20,000 a year in tuition compensation is enough? What a joke. Get over it!!!! If you really feel as strongly as you seem to what if colleges could only make as much money on athletics as it took to cover athletes tuition. They shouldn't be able to PROFIT from other people when their workforce has no ability to negotiate their compensation. If this was a non profit situation I could see and would agree 100% with your point. Super models get paid millions because they had the genetic fortune of being hot. It is what it is!

I don't get that. Cars are very expensive. If your job gave you the use of a free company car and no other compensation is that fair? The pay must fit the job in my opinion. I don't understand the attitude, the jealousy and the envy of these uniquely gifted athletes. I would also say that you are 1000% percent wrong. Athletes do have to be students. Universities couldn't run their enormous money making machines known as college sports with young men and women who were athletes only and not students. This would be called a job, a profession that was subject to unions, strikes, free agency, etc.

When was it made optional for college athletes to participate in NCAA regulations or not? If they want to play sports in college they come under the influence of the NCAA right?

I had a really interesting thought. We all know the NCAA has some very restrictive rules regarding boosters and outside forces putting money in players pockets. Why I am curious about is the NCAA empowered to deny an american citizen athlete the ability to engage in free trade and the capitalist system. I am no expert but doesn't this seem unconstitutional? I hope some on here have some knowledge of the system and what rules this might violate. It kills me how these young kids are breaking the rules and making money off of their name. You know the rules. For fear of it impacting a potential pro career, don't break them. That being said the rules are just FLAT OUT WRONG and need be changed which would help remove any temptation for a broke kid to violate these rules to make money to get some nice things. This got me thinking of a work around. If a player wanted to go into the school store, purchase their own jersey, sign it with their own signature and sell it on eBay as a signed jersey, would the NCAA have any ability to stop an american citizen from selling a piece of merchandise that they purchased with their own money, signed and put on eBay? Something is REALLY REALLY wrong with the NCAA if they can suspend constitutional rights to free trade and capitalism for american citizens to make money. This would not even go against the spirit of the NCAA whose goal is supposedly to protect student athletes from outside influences that potentially don't have their best interests at heart. I would love to see a student athlete take this approach with the full backing of legal counsel to attempt to challenge the NCAAs directives to keep these players poor and prevent them from profiting from their fame. Yes, some get a free ride with tuition but that amount of compensation pales in comparison to the money the university makes off of their cheap fixed wage labor force. For shame NCAA!!!

Going after any WR is a waste of time. We have so many guys that showed flashes last year it wouldn't make any sense to bring in a FA. Fitz was starting to look pretty darn good as did Stevie and Lee until Parrish went down. It sounds a little crazy I know but Parrish was becoming really important. A LB absolutely cannot cover him and it's a tough assignment for a nickel or dime DB unless they are really fast and can stop and change direction on a dime like Parrish. TE's technically might even be a waste unless they are serious blockers. David Nelson played from the TE spot I believe and we already have enough receiving threats. People are also forgetting about Easley who was apparently looking like the #3 or possibly even the #2 challenging Johnson. O-line help? You bet yer ass. We have been trying to get by on the cheap with OTs for so long it is ridiculous. Undrafted free agents, other teams practice squad cast offs, late round draft picks? Come on! Get real! I think somebody is still trying to prove we didn't need Peters and could get the same job done with nobodies. I guess they are waiting for the law of averages to kick in and they will eventually get lucky. If you have 7 tackles on the squad you should eventually hit the jackpot and find 1 gem right???? So far we have a bunch of below average players that people keep expecting to turn it around and become great. *sheesh*

You do realize that JP played under even worse conditions right? In fact his line was even worse before the 2009 1st and 2nd round offensive lineman right? He had a different offensive coordinator every year and 2 years failed to be healthy by game 2 in the season and missed significant time due to injury. JP put more TDs on the board and could actually throw a football longer than 15 yards in the air. He must have been even better than Edwards by your criteria and was also the victim of an even worse running game, defense and o-line. What say you to that?????

PDaDdy, on 18 June 2011 - 04:58 PM, said: This kid just didn't have it. I would say history has shown us exactly what he has wouldn't you? Trent sucked. Quit making excuses! He was given more of a chance than many 1st round top pick QBs and he was a crappy 3rd rounder. QBs get hit all the time unless you're Tom Brady. You're embarrassing yourself. Trent himself has been quoted as saying the "hit" didn't have any lasting effect on him. Straight from the guys own mouth but the apologists keep trying to make up excuses for him.

Absolutely no offense to you but the Trent took a big hit(s) and it ruined him is a cop out. This kid just didn't have it. He wasn't the superstar that Levy, Jauron and Bill Walsh thought he was coming out of college. His PRO tape was terrible. The rose colored glassed need to come off. He had some good moments in there but so has just about every other has been QB that was never cut out for the NFL. People were WRONG on him but they try to make excuses for why the were wrong claiming that they really were right had it not been for a few unfortunate mishaps. People can't admit that they had been watching a ballless weak armed QB for his last 3+ years with Buffalo. No he wasn't smart as is evidenced by Fitz coming in as the backup and being given more latitude to make audibles and getting the line in the right protection. Smart QBs can do that. Dumb ones can't. No exceptions. This team has expressed their desire to play with Fitz leading them. For Edwards all they ever said of him is that we can win with him. Apparently Fitz is the better leader as well. It's got to stop. Next you'll be making excuses for JP. By the way. If you haven't, go back and take a look at his stats. It's more fools gold. He is, was and always has been a checkdown artist. It took a bit of time but opposing defenses figured this out too. Eight in the box. Tackle the RB on the way to the QB if he has the ball. Secondary plays tight coverage 15 yards and shorter. Not too difficult a attack plan to figure out.

I guess my only options are Trent was a con artist OR several coaching staff/front office combinations REALLY sucked at talent evaluation. This is what I don't understand. Almost all of the tape on Trent is BAD. How did they not see it? The stats said he sucked. Your eyes said he sucked. F the excuses about some magic bullet hit in KC. The game after which he played pretty good actually. These guys are professionals. Did they really truly think he was a better start? Everyone who supported Trent said how much of a leader he was, how smart and poised he was. He couldn't even call out the right protections for his offensive line. It was obvious our line played significantly better with Fitz at the helm. Trent didn't play beyond week 2 or 3 but the damage was done and valuable off season timing, reps and chemistry were wasted on him.

I was really pissed that Trent "The con artist" Deadwards fooled another coaching staff into starting him. What a waste of an off season and reps for who we ultimately knew was going to be the starter when they didn't bring in a free agent. In hindsite we wouldn't have gotten Marcel Dareus if we hadn't started of 0 - 8.

Originally posted this incorrectly as a response to another post. Still worth saying. Back on topic. UH OH!!! Now you've gone and done it. Mentioning his probowl play? Now you will get all the blowhards that put into question the probowl itself. Nominations to the probowl are only largely based on coaches and players. What the hell do they know!?!?!?!? Let's not even mention the fact for the stats only lovers that Lynch had the highest yds/carry of all of the RBs in the probowl AND that he was called upon to make a crutial 4th down conversion that he made successfully http://www.wivb.com/...o_Bowl_20090208

I did misread what you said. I thought you were speaking about Jackson. Apparently the humor of my post was lost also in translation. Since you have taken it to an all new childish level, I would respond with...if you read my post before "doody head" you would have seen that I said you could make a case he was the best since but not in the same stadium. That does not say that I am implying equality as you assert. The statement also applies to Lynch as well. You could make a case for either of them being the best/most exciting since Thurman. I would also say read a post before you criticize "poopy pants". "Turd mouth"? Really?...LOL. Should we finish up with a nice round of " I know you are but what am I" or go with the tried and true "I'm rubber, you're glue....".

Two interesting points. One a fallacy and the other needs perspective. 1) Marshawn WAS a good player. His teammates loved him and spoke out that he was a great guy to be around and they were glad to have him on the team. Neither of us were in the huddle or the locker room so I'll take his co-workers word for it and other people should get off the hater-aide and accept that. 2) You are right Marshawn wasn't a Bills player but the statement requires perspective. Buffalo is a tough tough tough town to play in. The hard working salt of the earth dying steel town fan base doesn't warm up well to gold teethed city kids. It was all over after a screw up off the field and the "thug" title was applied to him which is just a veiled racist statement to many. The mistakes were his own without question. How we chose to react was "our own". A young 23 year old in Buffalo has to be able to endure a tremendous and I mean tremendous amount of scrutiny and a negative hostile environment if they make a mistake off the field or are not accomplished well educated public speakers and say the wrong thing. He was not up to dealing with that kind of a hostile environment. Right on man. +1. Exactly! Shut your mouth! I know some Bills fans show wildly optimistic support of the "replacement" (replacement=the guy that takes over after we run somebody out of town), but Freddy is not in the same stadium as Thurman. Technically you could make a case for him being the best since Thurman but there is such a huge cap between the 2 that it is laughable.

So Lynch in his first 3 games this year with the awesome QB play of Trent Edwards and two vital O-lineman coming back from injury unable to participate in any OTAs or training camp that had 1 week of practice before the season started (per Eric Woods himself in a video circulating about him) didn't put up great numbers? WOW, he must suck cut him immediately and ban him from the NFL. Phew...sorry about the run on sentence. lol. No argument on the TD production I see? Yards per carry and other BS is for pure stat geeks. TDs win games. In combination both guys were good for Buffalo and if fans didn't drive him out of town by creating a hostile environment we wouldn't have had to use the 2010 #9 overall pick on a specialty RB. We could have gotten an O-line guy to make both RBs look even better. Keep hating though. Bills fans need to read the "sour grapes" fable. It would do the city a world of good. It is amazing how we can want something so bad, support a player and then turn on him like a pack of wild dogs when they want to get paid or make a mistake off the field.

Hope that answers your question! Seriously though it should answer your question in 2 ways. 1) Marshawn is good. Quit being a hater. I can't fathom why Fred Jackson supporters don't think Lynch was a good RB. For one he was better at getting into the end zone than Fred. Lynch supporters don't think Jackson sucks. Why the hate? (Usually displayed with some kind of amazement as to why everyone else couldn't see that Lynch was the devil incarnate and Fred Jackson a sure fire hall of famer) 2) The second answer I didn't want to believe myself. He was potentially being show cased for a trade. The fact that you see him in a new uniform is proof of that. You can't get good value out of a guy on the bench.

I think the point they are trying to make is that they will be changing what does and doesn't count against the cap and raising the floor to 90%. I think the idea is that there was a lot of funny accounting going on and spending wasn't really what it appeared to be. Lets say for even numbers that the cap was $100,000,000. If a team had $20,000,000 in dead cap money and spent $80,000,000 on current player salaries they would be using up 100%. In reality they are really only paying their current active staff 80% of the cap. I'm not sure of the details and I could be completely wrong but I think they are speaking to this sort of concept.