NLRB Favors Football Players

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think the players should be paid, they are getting their tuition and room-and-board paid for.

I would rather see the money invested back into the school with better programs, infrastructure, and financial assistance for the students.[/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
So coaches have multi-million dollar deals [/quote]
It is their job.

[quote]H factor wrote:
, shoe endorsements, commercials, etc off the kids they coach. [/quote]

Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
And yet those kids can’t get money from their own likeness in video games or from jersey sales because they get tuition? [/quote]

When my local college puts on a play, that cost $5 to attend, should the actors get paid?

Sports is secondary, just because college football makes a lot of money doesn’t change the fact that is an after school activity.

How about the big football HS, should the star students get paid?

[quote]H factor wrote:
That may be a fair deal for the average joe, but many elite players are getting flat out fucked by the Universities and an institution that has them by the balls. [/quote]

And these star athletes move on to make tons of money more often than not.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Now we’re mad that some kids are finally speaking up about the bullshit?
[/quote]
Not at all.

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can’t buy the “you know what you were getting into argument.” Why have medical care for soldier then? They knew getting a leg blown off may be part of the deal. Tough break sucker.
[/quote]
Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Some people are making an ass ton of money off college athletics. It’s ok to exploit the kids though because hey you could be paying to go to school. Everyone can make money off a kid but the kid is fair? [/quote]

Giving a student a free education because they’re good at a freakin game is not exploitation in my book.
[/quote]

Are your really questions serious?

Look at what Nick Saban, Bill Self, etc. make. Then look at what they make in endorsements. It’s their job though. Well that job is only valuable because they are good. And they are good because of the elite athletes they recruit. We’re talking MILLIONS of dollars. We’re not talking about a play that makes 100 dollars. We aren’t talking about the girl scouts. We’re not talking about HS. Why everyone keeps trying to go down the rabbit hole is beyond me. Let’s talk about college athletes and not all this other nonsense guys. It has NOTHING to do with the debate. For elite college athletes this IS their job. They are being asked to spend tons of time on this and everyone can make big bucks off them and they can’t make any.

We’re talking about a market that creates multi-millionaires and the kids get a really small cut.

The soldier part was in regards to ZJ’s quote. Why have insurance if they know the risks? Kids who often come from nothing don’t deserve protection when they can’t work because of athletics. Soldiers know the risks as well. It’s a piss poor argument.

SOME of the star athletes do move on. Some don’t. Some get injured. Some don’t get drafted. The universities make big money off them either way. It’s ok though right? That isn’t a free education. Kids are working their ass off and people are making gigantic money off of them. And they can’t get a cut when a university makes million off their likeness? They can’t get a cut from all the jersey sales?

Universities make out like bandits, but it’s ok because those kids get SOMETHING in return.

A free market would have their value massively higher.

42

The whole idea of college sports at the level it has become is ridiculous. Pro leagues should all have minor leagues for players right out of high school. Just look at how professional soccer is done in other nations: teams have their own youth academies and don’t rely on colleges to basically subsidize their youth programs.

43

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think the players should be paid, they are getting their tuition and room-and-board paid for.

I would rather see the money invested back into the school with better programs, infrastructure, and financial assistance for the students.[/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
So coaches have multi-million dollar deals [/quote]
It is their job.

[quote]H factor wrote:
, shoe endorsements, commercials, etc off the kids they coach. [/quote]

Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
And yet those kids can’t get money from their own likeness in video games or from jersey sales because they get tuition? [/quote]

When my local college puts on a play, that cost $5 to attend, should the actors get paid?

Sports is secondary, just because college football makes a lot of money doesn’t change the fact that is an after school activity.

How about the big football HS, should the star students get paid?

[quote]H factor wrote:
That may be a fair deal for the average joe, but many elite players are getting flat out fucked by the Universities and an institution that has them by the balls. [/quote]

And these star athletes move on to make tons of money more often than not.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Now we’re mad that some kids are finally speaking up about the bullshit?
[/quote]
Not at all.

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can’t buy the “you know what you were getting into argument.” Why have medical care for soldier then? They knew getting a leg blown off may be part of the deal. Tough break sucker.
[/quote]
Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Some people are making an ass ton of money off college athletics. It’s ok to exploit the kids though because hey you could be paying to go to school. Everyone can make money off a kid but the kid is fair? [/quote]

Giving a student a free education because they’re good at a freakin game is not exploitation in my book.
[/quote]

Are your really questions serious?

Look at what Nick Saban, Bill Self, etc. make. Then look at what they make in endorsements. It’s their job though. Well that job is only valuable because they are good. And they are good because of the elite athletes they recruit. We’re talking MILLIONS of dollars. We’re not talking about a play that makes 100 dollars. We aren’t talking about the girl scouts. We’re not talking about HS. Why everyone keeps trying to go down the rabbit hole is beyond me. Let’s talk about college athletes and not all this other nonsense guys. It has NOTHING to do with the debate. For elite college athletes this IS their job. They are being asked to spend tons of time on this and everyone can make big bucks off them and they can’t make any.

We’re talking about a market that creates multi-millionaires and the kids get a really small cut.

The soldier part was in regards to ZJ’s quote. Why have insurance if they know the risks? Kids who often come from nothing don’t deserve protection when they can’t work because of athletics. Soldiers know the risks as well. It’s a piss poor argument.

SOME of the star athletes do move on. Some don’t. Some get injured. Some don’t get drafted. The universities make big money off them either way. It’s ok though right? That isn’t a free education. Kids are working their ass off and people are making gigantic money off of them. And they can’t get a cut when a university makes million off their likeness? They can’t get a cut from all the jersey sales?

Universities make out like bandits, but it’s ok because those kids get SOMETHING in return.

A free market would have their value massively higher. [/quote]

These coaches make millions of dollars because they coach awesome teams. And good teams bring in lots of students and lots of money for the school. For the school to perform it’s mission and that is to educate kids.

Again, you seem to be stuck on the most popular of the sports programs so they seem to deserve special treatment. Hogwash.

Ultimately, should schools be profiting utilizing a student’s name? No and if they want to, then I would agree the student should get a cut.

But for simply participating in a voluntary program, which is specifically designed for extra-carricular activity and for the student body to rally around the school, they do not deserve a dime. I could concede schools should be allowed to provide a very REASONABLE stipend given the amount of time sports takes up.

To counter your argument for the military insurance thing, since I have a feeling you were never in the military, one is employment, the other is participating in an extra-carricular activity.

Further, parent’s insurance covers kids until they are something like 25 now. And aren’t all adults required to carry insurance now? Suppose it’s no longer an issue.

44

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The whole idea of college sports at the level it has become is ridiculous. Pro leagues should all have minor leagues for players right out of high school. Just look at how professional soccer is done in other nations: teams have their own youth academies and don’t rely on colleges to basically subsidize their youth programs. [/quote]

Absolutely. If college athletes are going to become defined as employees, then you might as well start Football and Basketball minor league program.

45

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think the players should be paid, they are getting their tuition and room-and-board paid for.

I would rather see the money invested back into the school with better programs, infrastructure, and financial assistance for the students.[/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
So coaches have multi-million dollar deals [/quote]
It is their job.

[quote]H factor wrote:
, shoe endorsements, commercials, etc off the kids they coach. [/quote]

Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
And yet those kids can’t get money from their own likeness in video games or from jersey sales because they get tuition? [/quote]

When my local college puts on a play, that cost $5 to attend, should the actors get paid?

Sports is secondary, just because college football makes a lot of money doesn’t change the fact that is an after school activity.

How about the big football HS, should the star students get paid?

[quote]H factor wrote:
That may be a fair deal for the average joe, but many elite players are getting flat out fucked by the Universities and an institution that has them by the balls. [/quote]

And these star athletes move on to make tons of money more often than not.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Now we’re mad that some kids are finally speaking up about the bullshit?
[/quote]
Not at all.

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can’t buy the “you know what you were getting into argument.” Why have medical care for soldier then? They knew getting a leg blown off may be part of the deal. Tough break sucker.
[/quote]
Really?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Some people are making an ass ton of money off college athletics. It’s ok to exploit the kids though because hey you could be paying to go to school. Everyone can make money off a kid but the kid is fair? [/quote]

Giving a student a free education because they’re good at a freakin game is not exploitation in my book.
[/quote]

Are your really questions serious?

Look at what Nick Saban, Bill Self, etc. make. Then look at what they make in endorsements. It’s their job though. Well that job is only valuable because they are good. And they are good because of the elite athletes they recruit. We’re talking MILLIONS of dollars. We’re not talking about a play that makes 100 dollars. We aren’t talking about the girl scouts. We’re not talking about HS. Why everyone keeps trying to go down the rabbit hole is beyond me. Let’s talk about college athletes and not all this other nonsense guys. It has NOTHING to do with the debate. For elite college athletes this IS their job. They are being asked to spend tons of time on this and everyone can make big bucks off them and they can’t make any.

We’re talking about a market that creates multi-millionaires and the kids get a really small cut.

The soldier part was in regards to ZJ’s quote. Why have insurance if they know the risks? Kids who often come from nothing don’t deserve protection when they can’t work because of athletics. Soldiers know the risks as well. It’s a piss poor argument.

SOME of the star athletes do move on. Some don’t. Some get injured. Some don’t get drafted. The universities make big money off them either way. It’s ok though right? That isn’t a free education. Kids are working their ass off and people are making gigantic money off of them. And they can’t get a cut when a university makes million off their likeness? They can’t get a cut from all the jersey sales?

Universities make out like bandits, but it’s ok because those kids get SOMETHING in return.

A free market would have their value massively higher. [/quote]

Yes, the really’s are real questions? Maybe a few coaches make money in endorsements, but I can’t imagine it’s a vast majority. I can’t think of a single commercial, on TV or otherwise, with a college football coach. Maybe it happens in local advertising, which is why I don’t see it, I don’t know.

How does the amount of money change the situation?

HS football programs make a ton of money, if money is the issue, why shouldn’t the athletes get paid. Their performance makes the HS a lot of money.

The “rabbit hole” is the logical next step. For “elite college athletes” their job is college.

The kids get a really small cut because their job is college and football is an after school/secondary activity. Whether they go to college specifically to play football or not is irrelevant.

Your soldier analogy is a bad one, imo, because people “join” college to get a college degree. The degree is the colleges primary function. Sports are secondary it is not a requirement. Combat can be a requirement and nation defense is the primary function of an enlistee. The two are completely different.

That “something” they get in return is crucial for the vast majority of student athletes.

46

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The whole idea of college sports at the level it has become is ridiculous. Pro leagues should all have minor leagues for players right out of high school. Just look at how professional soccer is done in other nations: teams have their own youth academies and don’t rely on colleges to basically subsidize their youth programs. [/quote]

I have no problem with this. I actually think it is the best solution, but it’ll never happen because of $.

47

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, the really’s are real questions? Maybe a few coaches make money in endorsements, but I can’t imagine it’s a vast majority. I can’t think of a single commercial, on TV or otherwise, with a college football coach. Maybe it happens in local advertising, which is why I don’t see it, I don’t know.

How does the amount of money change the situation?

HS football programs make a ton of money, if money is the issue, why shouldn’t the athletes get paid. Their performance makes the HS a lot of money.

The “rabbit hole” is the logical next step. For “elite college athletes” their job is college.

The kids get a really small cut because their job is college and football is an after school/secondary activity. Whether they go to college specifically to play football or not is irrelevant.

Your soldier analogy is a bad one, imo, because people “join” college to get a college degree. The degree is the colleges primary function. Sports are secondary it is not a requirement. Combat can be a requirement and nation defense is the primary function of an enlistee. The two are completely different.

That “something” they get in return is crucial for the vast majority of student athletes.
[/quote]

usmc we aren’t talking about the swimming coach. We’re talking about major level football and basketball programs which rake in millions of dollars. And the kids want to know why the rules are setup to where they can’t get a bit of that. You think it is fair that a university can make millions off a kids jersey, off a kids video game likeness, etc and that kid can’t sign an autograph for cash. It’s incredibly restrictive.

Some of these kids are “joining” college because they HAVE to. The NBA and NFL have minimum age requirements which are a joke. The colleges get to “train” the kids and make millions off of them (weeding them out) and the leagues pick from the best. It’s a good deal if you get drafted. For some of these kids their highest value is during college. They generate MILLIONS and they can’t get anything from that but room and board? How is that fair? They get away with it by not putting Johnny Manziel’s (who I hate, but whatever) name on the back of the jersey. THat makes it all ok. Everyone knows they are buying a Manziel jersey, but he can’t get any money off of that.

They are forced to go to college because they can’t join the league directly. It’s a great system for the pros and a great system for colleges. Make a TON of money and give small amounts to the people responsible. Helluva a system. Andrew Wiggins did not go to KU to get a degree. He was filling his requirement and praying he didn’t get injured because we made him wait a year before going pro.

In the meantime KU made a SHIT ton of money off of him. Great for them. Luckily for Wiggins he didn’t get injured. If he did, what then? He becomes a worthless commodity.

48

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The whole idea of college sports at the level it has become is ridiculous. Pro leagues should all have minor leagues for players right out of high school. Just look at how professional soccer is done in other nations: teams have their own youth academies and don’t rely on colleges to basically subsidize their youth programs. [/quote]

I have no problem with this. I actually think it is the best solution, but it’ll never happen because of $.[/quote]

That’s the bottom line. The NFL DOESN’T want this because they have to pay for the league. The NCAA doesn’t want this because college football generates TONS of cash. So they work together to keep a system going that profits them at the expense of elite athletes. Hey, some of them will get drafted. Most of them won’t.

Think of it as a market and realize the restrictions on the market.

49

[quote]H factor wrote:
usmc we aren’t talking about the swimming coach. We’re talking about major level football and basketball programs which rake in millions of dollars. And the kids want to know why the rules are setup to where they can’t get a bit of that.
[/quote]

What makes them special? Why should they get a piece of the pie anymore than the swimmer that will one day swim in the Olympics?

The rules were setup that way so education remain #1 and sports #2. That obviously isn’t happening, which is part of the problem.

Personally, I don’t think either the athlete or the school should make money off any of it.

The only real issue I have is the fact student athlete can’t get jobs. That to me is asinine. Otherwise, no I don’t think it’s a good idea to open Pandora’s box allowing Johnny Football to make millions off his college career, which shifts the purpose of college away from the classroom and on to the field (even further than it already is).

[quote]
Some of these kids are “joining” college because they HAVE to. The NBA and NFL have minimum age requirements which are a joke. [/quote]

I’m not sure how this will sound or come off, but I don’t really care. The NFL & NBA set these rules for player safety as far as I know. I’m in the process of earnings a CPA license, can I start writing CPA after my name now? Can I charge at CPA rates because in the future I’ll be one?

No one “has” to join college. It is voluntary.

[quote]
The colleges get to “train” the kids and make millions off of them (weeding them out) and the leagues pick from the best. [/quote]

How is that different from anything else? College weeds out the best accounting applicants and the Big Four get to pick from the best.

[quote]
It’s a good deal if you get drafted. For some of these kids their highest value is during college. [/quote]

Which is why the focus should be on the degree they can get for free.

[quote]
They generate MILLIONS and they can’t get anything from that but room and board? [/quote]

The one generating millions are the ones that get drafted.

Is it fair that I’m only 5’9"? I have a decent jump shot, if I was 6’4" I bet I could of played at Maryland (lol…). Is it fair I had to pay for my college education because I’m not a stellar athlete?

[quote]
They get away with it by not putting Johnny Manziel’s (who I hate, but whatever) name on the back of the jersey. THat makes it all ok. Everyone knows they are buying a Manziel jersey, but he can’t get any money off of that. [/quote]

Until Johnny Football is a distant memory. What was Tim Tebow’s college #? What was Cam Newtons? All these numbers are recycled and replaced.

[quote]
They are forced to go to college because they can’t join the league directly. [/quote]

Oh man, that’s horrible. They’re forced to go to college because the free market NFL made a rule that says they can’t play until x age. So on one hand free market would value these kids at millions, but on the other hand it’s not fair the free market says they can’t play until x age?

[quote]
It’s a great system for the pros and a great system for colleges. Make a TON of money and give small amounts to the people responsible. Helluva a system. Andrew Wiggins did not go to KU to get a degree. [/quote]
That sounds like Andrew Wiggins problem. He had a degree served to him on a silver platter.

[quote]
He was filling his requirement and praying he didn’t get injured because we made him wait a year before going pro. [/quote]
He voluntarily played college football.

[quote]
In the meantime KU made a SHIT ton of money off of him. Great for them. Luckily for Wiggins he didn’t get injured. If he did, what then? He becomes a worthless commodity. [/quote]

Or he could get a job using that degree he got for free. The vast majority of Americans should be so lucky.

50

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The whole idea of college sports at the level it has become is ridiculous. Pro leagues should all have minor leagues for players right out of high school. Just look at how professional soccer is done in other nations: teams have their own youth academies and don’t rely on colleges to basically subsidize their youth programs. [/quote]

I have no problem with this. I actually think it is the best solution, but it’ll never happen because of $.[/quote]

That’s the bottom line. The NFL DOESN’T want this because they have to pay for the league. The NCAA doesn’t want this because college football generates TONS of cash. So they work together to keep a system going that profits them at the expense of elite athletes. Hey, some of them will get drafted. Most of them won’t.

Think of it as a market and realize the restrictions on the market. [/quote]

It is the free market at work. It’s not like the government mandated x age to play in the NFL.

Why doesn’t the free market produce another league? They could call it the XFL…

51

Tuition at my school was about $35k per year, and that was back in the 90’s. If you want to talk about players being paid to play, well in a manner of speaking, I was paid that very $35k per year for 4 years.

I wanted you all to see the actual amount, because simply saying “they get free tuition” has a minor effect compared to mentioning the actual dollar amount.

So in the long run, while most players don’t go in the NFL, they are NOT being burdened with a massive debt of a 4-year degree. And the figure I mentioned was almost 20 years ago.

Players ARE being paid, just not in a conventional cash transaction.

52

Post in GAL

"Northwestern football players won the right to unionize on Wednesday, but the potential tax implications alone could immediately kill the idea.
Much of what was argued in the National Labor Relations Board testimony is in direct opposition to why scholarships aren’t being taxed today.

“It appears like the case brought forward by the players focused on things other than the potential tax implications,” said Garrett Higgins, a partner at O’Connor Davies in the firm’s Exempt Organization Tax and Advisory Services group. “The fact that the players were not considered employees in the past is essentially the reason why their scholarship or parts of it weren’t taxed before. The IRS may be able to make the argument that the scholarship is really payment for services, and therefore compensation, and is now taxable to the athlete.”
Taxable income has been defined in the courts, and by the IRS, as compensation received through services that resulted in a time commitment that required a certain number of hours per week. Higgins said the time commitment put forth by former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, and backed by the National College Players Association, that resulted in the NLRB qualifying the Northwestern players as employees could serve to be the exact reason that the IRS would say the players must pay taxes if they unionize.
If Northwestern players did form a union and they were taxed, it’s not clear exactly what they would be paying tax on. If, for example, their entire scholarship was deemed taxable, the athletes would be paying at least $15,000 in federal tax alone on the $61,000-a-year scholarship. One athletic director in a major conference, who requested anonymity, speculated that the value the players received from the training table, travel and even coaching could be taxed.
Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Service code provides that “gross income does not include any amount received as a qualified scholarship by an individual who is a candidate for a degree at an educational organization” as long as that money goes towards educational expenses. An IRS rule that was established in 1986 stated athletic scholarships are no different than financial aid or academic scholarships with respect to the tax code.

But if the players are defined as employees, the limitation of the code could come into play. The code notes that the exclusion “shall not apply to that portion of any amounts received which represents payment for … services by the student required as a condition for receiving the qualified scholarship.”
IRS spokesman Anthony Burke wouldn’t speculate on how being employees would affect previous IRS rulings, but the leading case that defines exclusions doesn’t seem to bode well if the players form a union.
The 45-year-old case is Bingler v. Johnson and focuses on Richard Johnson, who received a scholarship to go back to school by his employer, Westinghouse, based on the condition that he returned to the company. Johnson argued that the scholarship money was not taxable, but the IRS successfully countered and prevailed all the way up to the Supreme Court, maintaining that any amount related to employment services were not exempt. The ruling specifically mentions that compensation that is bargained for, which is what the Northwestern players would be seeking to do by forming a union, is excluded from scholarship funds and is to be reported as income."

53

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Tuition at my school was about $35k per year, and that was back in the 90’s. If you want to talk about players being paid to play, well in a manner of speaking, I was paid that very $35k per year for 4 years.

I wanted you all to see the actual amount, because simply saying “they get free tuition” has a minor effect compared to mentioning the actual dollar amount.

So in the long run, while most players don’t go in the NFL, they are NOT being burdened with a massive debt of a 4-year degree. And the figure I mentioned was almost 20 years ago.

Players ARE being paid, just not in a conventional cash transaction.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this. The argument is not that they aren’t getting ANYTHING. It’s that they are getting less than they deserve.

Who came out better? Johnny Manziel or Texas A&M? It’s that simple. A free market Manziel could make all sorts of money off his accomplishments as an athlete. It isn’t a free market. His value is restricted by these regulations which make no sense most of the time.

I’m not saying we need to give every kid tons of money, but many of those regulations don’t make sense. And how can so many “anti-government” people in here be so against more market freedom?

One more time: Universities can make millions off jersey sales of his, video games, billboards, etc…and he can’t sign a fucking piece of paper for a fan for money. He’s not a slave to Texas A&M. He will make a ton of money by being drafted. Great for him. Texas A&M came out far better than he did. If instead of another good year he blew his knee out he’d be fucked.

54

I don’t think the employee route is the way to go, but SOME student athletes have been getting fucked in the ass for a while now and people are tired of it. Why some people want all the regulation here and not in other market areas makes no sense to me. Sounds like jealousy or something.

Why can an AD be paid BIG TIME off athletic success and the athletes get such a small amount?

This was BEFORE all the big money in college athletics like now.

55

[quote]H factor wrote:
Who came out better? Johnny Manziel or Texas A&M? It’s that simple.
[/quote]

H I get what you are saying, but that is how it works universally.

If I work in personal financial planning and I bring a $50MM investment client through the door, who makes at more, me or the company?

56

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m not saying we need to give every kid tons of money, but many of those regulations don’t make sense. And how can so many “anti-government” people in here be so against more market freedom?
[/quote]

Isn’t your argument that it isn’t fair? Well how is this fair?

57

I just don’t get how getting a $100K education for free = “getting fucked in the ass for a while now”?

58

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m not saying we need to give every kid tons of money, but many of those regulations don’t make sense. And how can so many “anti-government” people in here be so against more market freedom?
[/quote]

Isn’t your argument that it isn’t fair? Well how is this fair?[/quote]

How is what fair? It isn’t fair that’s the point. Some people think it is time to make some common sense changes to these regulations.

59

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I just don’t get how getting a $100K education for free = “getting fucked in the ass for a while now”? [/quote]

It’s illegal for most people to make money off your likeness. If I use you in a video game or a jersey with your name on it you get a cut.

Not “student athletes” though. They don’t have those kind of rights. They sell some of their stuff while in college while the value is high and we take away that education.

60

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Who came out better? Johnny Manziel or Texas A&M? It’s that simple.
[/quote]

H I get what you are saying, but that is how it works universally.

If I work in personal financial planning and I bring a $50MM investment client through the door, who makes at more, me or the company? [/quote]

You can negotiate for a higher salary. You can go someplace else. You are paid highly off your value.

Johnny Manziel was not paid off his value. He couldn’t go to the NFL until this year. LUCKY for him he will be drafted. Some people’s highest value on their stuff and name is while in college. If you’re a hot commodity like a celebrity right now you can be paid for autographs, paid for movies, paid for being in a video game like Shaq was. Not good enough for a 20 year old though?

I never said a college kid needs to make what a college coach does. Just that a lot of people in this market are making out like bandits on the backs of kids. And we can’t have a discussion on making some changes to that? Because of the girl scouts or something?