Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol
I guess you missed the numbers that show the athletic departments as a whole aren't clearing the amount of money claimed. People focus on what college football takes in but not what it and a number of other sports cost. As shown, Missouri was at the bottom of the list in 2012 @ $16M in the red.
Players can already get jobs in the off season, typically paying much more than other students would make for the same job, all within the rules.
Selling their stuff is a horrible idea. Random booster would ensure recruits that if they attend XYZ University, they will buy $100,000 of their autographs, for example. College football is then nothing but professional ball. If they want that, go pro out of high school (Arena, Semi, or special NFL exemption).
Bottomline, if you don't like playing under the college rules, then don't - no one forces these players into college ball.
|
I can assure you Mizzou is not actually in the red because of football. If you don't believe me, give them the death penalty and see if that affects the university's endowment any. Colleges are not struggling to make ends meet because of football. And lots and lots of people except athletes are profiting off these players.
Athletes have major restrictions on the kinds of jobs they can get and how much they are paid, and the amount of work and time that goes into football makes that even harder to do.
I think it's silly to claim that college football players should stop playing the game if they don't like the rules. What rules? We are talking about a nonprofit sport that doesn't pay their employees, and then has masses of people profiting off their work. This conversation wouldn't be happening if there weren't people abusing the privilege of getting these players to work for free (and yes, I get that "free" includes tuition and basic expenses).