my feeling is that cheating is a part of sports, it happens, people do it. you try to catch them when you can but it happens and while you try to outsmart them, they'll still cheat.

for example, do you think that baseball has rid itself of steroids? or course not, a lower percentage of players probably use them, but theres still ways around the tests, theres still limited access to test players that dont stay in the united states during the offseason. you just hopefullly try to control it enough so that it doesnt become a PR issue again.

with college sports, pretty much the same goes, the big schools, they'll cheat, you just hope that they dont do it so blatantly that it becomes a PR issue. What I care about is that I dont want Cal to become that kind of program where they resort to those kinds of tactics to win. if we can get to 1 rose bowl ill be happy. if we lose to programs that cheat then so be it. hopefully, it catches up to them at some point.

gobears725;842110204 said:

---

the idiocy is that you cant read when i said TOP coaches. sure there will be plenty of coaching jobs, but then someone like chip would not have stayed at oregon. he would have been OC on some nfl teams, heck maybe even o line coach if he were only paid 300,000 to coach at oregon. remember the poster said limit it at 300,000. if your top guys leave, your chips(already gone), sabans, miles, meyers, brian kelleys. the quality of the game will go down if you subtract out the top 30 or so coaches that would not stay for 300,000. theres a reason why the next guys down on the totem pole are where they are, they arent as good. id expect a likely cal grad to be able to read. if youre going to sit here and start spewing out personal insults, then you might as well read the fucking post before you post a bunch of garbage yourself

---

Who the Bleep cares if the "quality of the game goes down". basically what you are arguing for is that some perceived "quality of coaching" justifies what is an immoral and utterly corrupt system.

6bear6;842110293 said:

---

Oops! What about donors who want to contribute to the coach's salary? Coach's are not players. They are businessmen teaching football. You can't restrict the amount of money they are to receive anymore than you can change the fundamental rules of the game. As it was, Tedford was being paid $225,000 by Cal and the balance came from donors and Nike. So you have your example and there is still cheating.

---

SURE YOU CAN. You can't have donors pick up the scholarships of men's teams, even if you had them, if it would take you out of compliance with Title IX without risking Federal cut off of the other funds. This is no different. You simply say that coaches can not receive more than $300,000 from coaching or related activities unless a school wishes to forgo all other forms of federal support. Schools build it into the coaches contracts (no outside $$$ or it is a conflict of interest and grounds for dimissal.) Easy peezy lemon squezy.

gobears725;842110346 said:

---

so is it going to be a ncaa violation if coaches accept money under the table now instead of players? hahaha

in this scenario, the cheating really doesnt end. it just shifts the cheating towards the coaches rather than the players and the schools willing to win enough to break the rules will get the better coaches.

---

I don't think it is so easy. Right now if boosters give money to kids it is a NCAA violation and who the bleep cares. You got to see Clemson in a bowl game.

Pay a coach 3 million over the cap/under the table and it is a federal felony tax violation in which you (and the coach) go to club fed for 12 to 36 months. A difference in degree quantumly different.

I mean seriously. Your argument would say that the Yankees, faced with a cap and a luxury tax, pay players under the table. They don't because the costs of doing so (federal crime and probably a state one as well) far outweigh the benefits.

socaltownie;842110374 said:

---

Who the Bleep cares if the "quality of the game goes down". basically what you are arguing for is that some perceived "quality of coaching" justifies what is an immoral and utterly corrupt system.

---

well then it just brings in the whole argument of why dont we just pay the players instead in order to limit the amount of cheating going on. theyre likely deserving of more than they get considering how big and how much of a money maker college football is. although if you are going to limit coaches salaries, it is going to have to be considerably more than 300k.

and i do care if the quality of the game goes down. college football right now is still a great game. i like it more than the pro game and i do feel that college football players deserve to get paid. that way if someone offers them 4,000 to stay in school, well it doesnt look like so much if you give them a little and youd eliminate violations where they are selling used jerseys for virtually chump change

socaltownie;842110378 said:

---

I don't think it is so easy. Right now if boosters give money to kids it is a NCAA violation and who the bleep cares. You got to see Clemson in a bowl game.

Pay a coach 3 million over the cap/under the table and it is a federal felony tax violation in which you (and the coach) go to club fed for 12 to 36 months. A difference in degree quantumly different.

I mean seriously. Your argument would say that the Yankees, faced with a cap and a luxury tax, pay players under the table. They don't because the costs of doing so (federal crime and probably a state one as well) far outweigh the benefits.

---

ah right, thats actually something i didnt bring into consideration

gobears725;842110381 said:

---

well then it just brings in the whole argument of why dont we just pay the players instead in order to limit the amount of cheating going on. theyre likely deserving of more than they get considering how big and how much of a money maker college football is. although if you are going to limit coaches salaries, it is going to have to be considerably more than 300k.

---

I think they absolutely should get paid - my own preference would be in a trust/annuity. And no it doesn't have to be more than $300,000 - which would put coaches well into the 1%.

socaltownie;842110385 said:

---

I think they absolutely should get paid - my own preference would be in a trust/annuity. And no it doesn't have to be more than $300,000 - which would put coaches well into the 1%.

---

BS

They get the opportunity to attend college. For free.
Most of these kids have a snow ball's chance in hell of going to college on their academic standing.
Nowadays, a college education is worth $100,000-$300,000.

Nobody wants to talk about it; many recruitable athletes are special admits that would never qualify for the chance at an education that is paid for.

This "pay the kids" crap is a farce. Many are already taking spots from kids who are more deserving from an academic standpoint.

DrDanger;842110389 said:

---

BS

They get the opportunity to attend college. For free.
Most of these kids have a snow ball's chance in hell of going to college on their academic standing.
Nowadays, a college education is worth $100,000-$300,000.

Nobody wants to talk about it; many recruitable athletes are special admits that would never qualify for the chance at an education that is paid for.

This "pay the kids" crap is a farce. Many are already taking spots from kids who are more deserving from an academic standpoint.

---

Lets unpack this cause it is so wrong and so immoral

"These kids are getting a college education...worth 100 to 300K....

A) A high percentage of the kids - and especially african american kids playing revenue sports - are NOT getting a college education.

B) Even those that are graduating are not getting "the full college experience" due to travel and training requirements.

"...special admits that would never qualify for the chance at an education that is paid for."

I am more than willing to talk about that. It makes the system doubly corrupt - especially if the institution knows the kids can't do college level work. Not just exploiting them but duping them into false hope.

"Many are already taking spots from kids who are more deserving from an academic standpoint"

Well that is just BS. Colleges do NOT work that way. They don't have completely infinite elasticity but no school is at "100%" capacity. Enrollment caps (and rejections) are as much about developing an elite reputation as it is controlling supply of a limited good.

id argue that the nfl drives up the market for salary of college coaches which is why they are so high. if you were to put a ceiling on it id say 1.5 mil because it at least keeps it competative with the nfl of which if it were lower would completely alter the landscape of the coaching profession.

the argument for why players should not be paid is farce. universitys are basically flipping them pennies for the amount of money they bring into the university and their athletic programs. its basically free labor for the university. right now they are given money for scholarship and it is immediately paid back the university in tuition. its not costing the university anything on that end.

I'm all for keeping D1 athletics as amateur. If people want to pay the players, have the NFL and NBA set up a minor league system like MLB.

The NCAA is a corrupt cartel with an academic cover. Nothing is going to change unless there is reform at the top

They should just declare sec pro and have a championship for the rest of us

slider643;842110536 said:

---

I'm all for keeping D1 athletics as amateur. If people want to pay the players, have the NFL and NBA set up a minor league system like MLB.

---

But then why should the "adults" that coach these "amateurs" (or provide administrative oversight of their activities) make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per year? I am all for a nice entertaining game on the pitch on Saturday afternoon as a break from the books. It has LONG since gone past that point. It is clear that the american public has a strong demand for the product (and is willing to provide billions in revenue.). The issue comes down to HOW that $$$ is divided up. Right now it goes to the grownups who provide dubious value, in part because the movement of labor is constrained. The reform is either to get more $$$ to the players __OR_ to get more money to the core mission of the universities - education and research.

socaltownie;842110552 said:

---

But then why should the "adults" that coach these "amateurs" (or provide administrative oversight of their activities) make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per year? I am all for a nice entertaining game on the pitch on Saturday afternoon as a break from the books. It has LONG since gone past that point. It is clear that the american public has a strong demand for the product (and is willing to provide billions in revenue.). The issue comes down to HOW that $$$ is divided up. Right now it goes to the grownups who provide dubious value, in part because the movement of labor is constrained. The reform is either to get more $$$ to the players __OR_ to get more money to the core mission of the universities - education and research.

---

Like I said, have the NBA and NFL start a minor league system like MLB. They can divide up the money any way they want. They can pay their players and coaches any amount they want. Labor (players) would not be constrained at all.

While I agree that it has long since gone past that point, it was the schools that drove the revenue more than the players. If the players think that they should get paid, they can go to the minor leagues and earn their free market value. For a vast majority of athletes, the value of an athletic scholarship and future earnings potential from a degree (I've seen the NPV pegged at >$1M in some studies) is far, far greater than what their skills in an open market would fetch.

slider643;842110586 said:

---

Like I said, have the NBA and NFL start a minor league system like MLB. They can divide up the money any way they want. They can pay their players and coaches any amount they want. Labor (players) would not be constrained at all.

While I agree that it has long since gone past that point, it was the schools that drove the revenue more than the players. If the players think that they should get paid, they can go to the minor leagues and earn their free market value. For a vast majority of athletes, the value of an athletic scholarship and future earnings potential from a degree (I've seen the NPV pegged at >$1M in some studies) is far, far greater than what their skills in an open market would fetch.

---

NBA has a minor league system plus European teams. This is where all the non college players go to play.

i understand the keeping the amateur feelings that a lot of people have because its a feeling of tradition that makes us follow our favorite schools but it fails to take into account how college athletics have changed. How can everybody get rich except for the players which is the actual product? Im not saying the players deserve to be rich or whether college football makes enough money to actually have them be rich, but something should be done so that they are fairly compensated. The way i see it, under the current system, its not fair compensation. to take a little money out of the pockets of ncaa administrators, school administrators, coaches who are all making millions off of these players and put it in the players pockets to me doesnt sound like a terrible idea. for some they can give to their families, for others maybe a savings account.

im all for controlling the money, perhaps a system where its put in a trust and given to them after they graduate so that it entices players to get their degree. for those with special circumstances that come from very poor families, have to have it signed off on to give to their family. To me there are ways that this can be done so that it keeps the honor of going to school, getting their degree, having school pride, without it turning into a minor leagues, which nobody would watch or care about anyway. otherwise if the ncaa continues to take advantage of the players, there will continue to be infraction after infraction of players being on the take, players breaking rules etc. theres no honor among the administrators, so why should the players have honor?

gobears725;842110607 said:

---

i understand the keeping the amateur feelings that a lot of people have because its a feeling of tradition that makes us follow our favorite schools but it fails to take into account how college athletics have changed. How can everybody get rich except for the players which is the actual product? Im not saying the players deserve to be rich or whether college football makes enough money to actually have them be rich, but something should be done so that they are fairly compensated. The way i see it, under the current system, its not fair compensation. to take a little money out of the pockets of ncaa administrators, school administrators, coaches who are all making millions off of these players and put it in the players pockets to me doesnt sound like a terrible idea. for some they can give to their families, for others maybe a savings account.

im all for controlling the money, perhaps a system where its put in a trust and given to them after they graduate so that it entices players to get their degree. for those with special circumstances that come from very poor families, have to have it signed off on to give to their family. To me there are ways that this can be done so that it keeps the honor of going to school, getting their degree, having school pride, without it turning into a minor leagues, which nobody would watch or care about anyway. otherwise if the ncaa continues to take advantage of the players, there will continue to be infraction after infraction of players being on the take, players breaking rules etc. theres no honor among the administrators, so why should the players have honor?

---

Do you envision paying all of the players or only the players who play for revenue generating sports?

A vast majority of athletic departments lose money, how would you support non revenue sports as money is siphoned away to pay athletes?

I think a true cost of attending stipend is needed for athletes since many can't work over the summers due to athletic commitments. I think that's fair. I'm not in favor of anything more than that, the value of their college degree more than fairly compensates 90+% of student athletes.

slider643;842110586 said:

---

Like I said, have the NBA and NFL start a minor league system like MLB. They can divide up the money any way they want. They can pay their players and coaches any amount they want. Labor (players) would not be constrained at all.

---

Good luck with that. Why would they? They get their minor leagues provided to them "for free".

slider643;842110586 said:

---

While I agree that it has long since gone past that point, it was the schools that drove the revenue more than the players. If the players think that they should get paid, they can go to the minor leagues and earn their free market value. For a vast majority of athletes, the value of an athletic scholarship and future earnings potential from a degree (I've seen the NPV pegged at >$1M in some studies) is far, far greater than what their skills in an open market would fetch.

---

Bah! The value of a "some college" (remember a significant number of he players do not graduate) is NOT $1 million over "High School graduate". At best the wage premium is between 10 to 15% depending upon profession.

It is also very important not to aggregate all college athletes. There is a Vast difference -both in ethnicity and socio-economic background, from athletes in revenue sports and those participating in other D1 scholarship athletics. We would agree, that BUFFY THE TENNIS STAR, is getting a lot from her college scholarship. I tend to find it morally offensive that it is paid for on the backs and labor of African American males that are expected to spend 30+ hours a week in training and practice plus travel.

And the "colleges" do not drive revenue. It is the players...or perhaps you missed the 3/4 empty venue when Cal played U$C in basketball this year with a decidedly sub par roster.

slider643;842110629 said:

---

Do you envision paying all of the players or only the players who play for revenue generating sports?

A vast majority of athletic departments lose money, how would you support non revenue sports as money is siphoned away to pay athletes?

I think a true cost of attending stipend is needed for athletes since many can't work over the summers due to athletic commitments. I think that's fair. I'm not in favor of anything more than that, the value of their college degree more than fairly compensates 90+% of student athletes.

---

My "proposal" is radically simple

A) Revenue sports only for men. Whatever minimum is required for Title IX compliance for women. The rest are non-scholarship sports.

B) Costs structure radically constrained for the "adults". Net on top of that is split 33/33/33 between athletes (annuities); Facilities; and general academic support.

More than anything, I find it simply morally offensive that young african american males are having their labor exploited for the benefit of coaches, ADs, and scholarship recipients in sports traditionally dominated by children of upper middle class Americans. Put sarcastically, how many rowers came out of Compton compared to Marina Del Rey? How many Golfers from Oakland tech compared to Robert Louis Stevenson?

socaltownie;842110376 said:

---

SURE YOU CAN. You can't have donors pick up the scholarships of men's teams, even if you had them, if it would take you out of compliance with Title IX without risking Federal cut off of the other funds. This is no different. You simply say that coaches can not receive more than $300,000 from coaching or related activities unless a school wishes to forgo all other forms of federal support. Schools build it into the coaches contracts (no outside $$$ or it is a conflict of interest and grounds for dimissal.) Easy peezy lemon squezy.

---

NFL rookies have salary caps, I'd think the NCAA could. It could be similar to and along the lines of their statutes on amateur athletics. Just say, for a coach to participate in NCAA athletics, you cannot be paid more than X, or maybe better, to participate in NCAA athletics, a university cannot have a coach who is paid more than X.

If need be, get congress to give the universities an antitrust exemption. They gave one to the major league baseball owners for God's sake, I'd think the nation's institutions of higher education are for more deserving (and politically popular).

calumnus;842110644 said:

---

NFL rookies have salary caps, I'd think the NCAA could. It could be similar to and along the lines of their statutes on amateur athletics. Just say, for a coach to participate in NCAA athletics, you cannot be paid more than X, or maybe better, to participate in NCAA athletics, a university cannot have a coach who is paid more than X.

If need be, get congress to give the universities an antitrust exemption. They gave one to the major league baseball owners for God's sake, I'd think the nation's institutions of higher education are for more deserving (and politically popular).

---

You don't even need the anti-trust exemption. You do it like TITLE IX. If they don't comply, they don't qualify for federal funds (Pells, NSF, NIH, etc.) Other than a handful of schools, no one is willing to suffer that fate so everyone complies with TITLE IX. What you DO need is congressional balls (good luck with that) to take on this problem.

You can't make an argument that would sway me from having athletes in college remain amateur. I think it's a great thing for many reasons and hope it continues. There are plenty of pro teams to cheer for if you want to root for paid athletes. I'll leave it at that.

it would only be revenue generating sports and likely based on profits, only football

why should football pay for the entire athletic department? other sports need to learn to become self sufficient and have their own endowments. baseball almost got eliminated because there was basically no effort being put towards fundraising until they got threatened with the axe. theres no reason why a sport cant be self sufficient. for example cal golf is completely self sufficient and does not need any money from the athletic department. they run completely on their own endowments independent of any money coming from the athletic department.

i understand how this may conflict with title ix. theres a lot of issues that would need to be resolved on that end.

slider643;842110663 said:

---

You can't make an argument that would sway me from having athletes in college remain amateur. I think it's a great thing for many reasons and hope it continues. There are plenty of pro teams to cheer for if you want to root for paid athletes. I'll leave it at that.

---

while i certainly respect that, I do feel that it represents a traditionalist attitude (which isnt necessarily a bad thing because the greatness of the college game is because of tradition) and operates under what college football was and doesnt account for what college football has grown into.

socaltownie;842110642 said:

---

My "proposal" is radically simple

A) Revenue sports only for men. Whatever minimum is required for Title IX compliance for women. The rest are non-scholarship sports.

B) Costs structure radically constrained for the "adults". Net on top of that is split 33/33/33 between athletes (annuities); Facilities; and general academic support.

More than anything, I find it simply morally offensive that young african american males are having their labor exploited for the benefit of coaches, ADs, and scholarship recipients in sports traditionally dominated by children of upper middle class Americans. Put sarcastically, how many rowers came out of Compton compared to Marina Del Rey? How many Golfers from Oakland tech compared to Robert Louis Stevenson?

---

easy with making this a race issue. its an economics issue and operates completely independent of race. i think that ncaa, AD's, coaches can care less what color the players are as long as the game continues to make money. if this were rugby (players are mostly white) instead, i guarantee you that the ncaa and rest of the administrations would act in the same manner. its profit driven, not race driven

gobears725;842110669 said:

---

easy with making this a race issue. its an economics issue and operates completely independent of race. i think that ncaa, AD's, coaches can care less what color the players are as long as the game continues to make money. if this were rugby (players are mostly white) instead, i guarantee you that the ncaa and rest of the administrations would act in the same manner. its profit driven, not race driven

---

EXCEPT. Remember that many of the conferences REQUIRE members to offer additional sports beyond the revenue ones. And since ADs run the conference.....

Check out
http://pac-12.com/

For a list of those.

Of courses coaches don't care. But the reality is, for a variety of reasons, is that upper middle class kids dominate sports like Tennis, Gymnastics, Rowing, Golf, and Soccer.

We could go through the reasons why if you really want to...or go through, in somewhat tedious fashion, the backgrounds of our current crop of Cal athletes. One non-revenue sport- Home towns of Westlake Village, Saratoga, Rancho Santa Fe,Santa Barbara, Napa, 1000 oaks, and mercer Island Wa.
Now SURE there are poor people that live in some of those towns. ;-)

Next time you look at a guy that is putting in 35 hours on the football practice field and getting career ending injuries, who might get his one-year ride pulled because he no longer "fits" the system remember - the revenues he is generating is used to provide scholarship support to a kid from RSF.

socaltownie;842110689 said:

---

EXCEPT. Remember that many of the conferences REQUIRE members to offer additional sports beyond the revenue ones. And since ADs run the conference.....

Check out
http://pac-12.com/

For a list of those.

Of courses coaches don't care. But the reality is, for a variety of reasons, is that upper middle class kids dominate sports like Tennis, Gymnastics, Rowing, Golf, and Soccer.

We could go through the reasons why if you really want to...or go through, in somewhat tedious fashion, the backgrounds of our current crop of Cal athletes. One non-revenue sport- Home towns of Westlake Village, Saratoga, Rancho Santa Fe,Santa Barbara, Napa, 1000 oaks, and mercer Island Wa.
Now SURE there are poor people that live in some of those towns. ;-)

Next time you look at a guy that is putting in 35 hours on the football practice field and getting career ending injuries, who might get his one-year ride pulled because he no longer "fits" the system remember - the revenues he is generating is used to provide scholarship support to a kid from RSF.

---

It's not a race issue. That scholarship kid from RSF is putting in just as much work as the football player. They're also subjecting themselves to career ending injuries. They're also subject to one year schollies. All the scholarship athletes are whether they're black, white, blue, green or orange. I don't know why you think less of them because they don't generate revenue. Believe me, all of us are just as proud to have played at Cal as any player on a revenue generating team.

slider643;842110694 said:

---

It's not a race issue. That scholarship kid from RSF is putting in just as much work as the football player. They're also subjecting themselves to career ending injuries. They're also subject to one year schollies. All the scholarship athletes are whether they're black, white, blue, green or orange. I don't know why you think less of them because they don't generate revenue. Believe me, all of us are just as proud to have played at Cal as any player on a revenue generating team.

---

EXCEPT THE KID FROM RSF CAN PAY HIS/Her TUITION IN A HEART BEAT. And his sport doesn't generate revenue. Few PAY to see him/her pay.

The only reason he/she is getting a free ride is because a kid is playing a revenue generating sport - who may well not have been able to afford Cal any other way than playing D1 sports. And because the conference, run by ADs making hundreds of thousands, dictates his/her sport be offered.

socaltownie;842110696 said:

---

EXCEPT THE KID FROM RSF CAN PAY HIS/Her TUITION IN A HEART BEAT. And his sport doesn't generate revenue. Few PAY to see him/her pay.

The only reason he/she is getting a free ride is because a kid is playing a revenue generating sport - who may well not have been able to afford Cal any other way than playing D1 sports. And because the conference, run by ADs making hundreds of thousands, dictates his/her sport be offered.

---

Everyone in California can afford tuition through financial aid, including the football player. Athletes get a scholarship because they put in time and effort for the school. It has nothing to do with race.

slider643;842110697 said:

---

Everyone in California can afford tuition through financial aid

---

Poppycock. You haven't been focusing hard on College financial aid issues have you? The lower middle class can decidedly NOT afford UC to any great extent anymore unless they aspire to graduate several tens of thousands in debt. The great untold story of the past 2 decades is the transformation of our college aid system to emphasis debt over grants.

Using the UC financial aid calculator - a kid from a family of 4 attending UCB with a family income of 45K would graduate with a debt of 39,000 - minus whatever they earned during their four years of attending. The rest would be covered by grants (and assumes a 1K a year contribution from their family)

socaltownie;842110700 said:

---

Poppycock. You haven't been focusing hard on College financial aid issues have you? The lower middle class can decidedly NOT afford UC to any great extent anymore unless they aspire to graduate several tens of thousands in debt. The great untold story of the past 2 decades is the transformation of our college aid system to emphasis debt over grants.

Using the UC financial aid calculator - a kid from a family of 4 attending UCB with a family income of 45K would graduate with a debt of 39,000 - minus whatever they earned during their four years of attending. The rest would be covered by grants (and assumes a 1K a year contribution from their family)

---

So what if they have to take out debt? I did. Several of my friends did. Some of us were White. Some of us were Hispanic. Some of us were Black. Some of us were Asian. We all graduated.

Athletes no longer on scholarship have the same opportunity.

socaltownie;842110689 said:

---

EXCEPT. Remember that many of the conferences REQUIRE members to offer additional sports beyond the revenue ones. And since ADs run the conference.....

Check out
http://pac-12.com/

For a list of those.

Of courses coaches don't care. But the reality is, for a variety of reasons, is that upper middle class kids dominate sports like Tennis, Gymnastics, Rowing, Golf, and Soccer.

We could go through the reasons why if you really want to...or go through, in somewhat tedious fashion, the backgrounds of our current crop of Cal athletes. One non-revenue sport- Home towns of Westlake Village, Saratoga, Rancho Santa Fe,Santa Barbara, Napa, 1000 oaks, and mercer Island Wa.
Now SURE there are poor people that live in some of those towns. ;-)

Next time you look at a guy that is putting in 35 hours on the football practice field and getting career ending injuries, who might get his one-year ride pulled because he no longer "fits" the system remember - the revenues he is generating is used to provide scholarship support to a kid from RSF.

---

i actually agree with this. which is why i have stated that nonrevenue sports need to rely on being self sufficient. not every nonrevenue sport does rely on revenue sports for its funding, some do, some dont. golf for example does not rely on football for its funding. there needs to be a much more imaginative approach to aquiring funding for nonrevenue sports, its good for the sports to not rely on football anyway. it gives them more leeway in how to conduct their program. the baseline is there for it, they need to learn from the programs or sports that are self sufficient. there are many already on campus.

Still though I dont believe that race is the reason why football players are exploited. I think it has more to do with the fact that ncaa and administrative bodies have a lot of leverage of the athletes and they are using that leverage to gain every cent that they can out of the sport. it is really capitalism in its truest sense and by it being a school and offering scholarships, they are basically exempting themselves from labor laws and then call it cheating if players accept any sort of money from outside sources, saying they are trying to uphold the integrity of the college game which we all know is a sham.

The greatest exploitation comes from awarding scholarships to kids with marginal academic backgrounds and then not giving them the resources to permit them to graduate. That is supposed to be the trade off - put in the work on the practice field in exchange for a college education.

Rick Telander wrote a book addressing many of these issues 20 plus years ago - The One Hundred Yard Lie. As I recall his conclusion was simple - do away with all athletic scholarships and special admits for athletes.

IMO, socaltownie is right on the money in this thread. I really don't even think the other arguments are in the ball park (I recognize that this is largely subjective).

I am FULLY down with using the Death Penalty in cases like this. The tolerance for corruption in collegiate sports is disturbing.