I never thought about this, but a CFB player with a career ending injury gets nothing.

[Conan]

It's true. It's reprehensible. Jim Brown speaks out about lack of care in general for college football players by the NCAA. A player that sustains a career ending injury is done, no insurance to compensate him for his loss of potential earnings, aside from lacking any appreciable bank when he's playing, not even jersey sales with his name/number on it. It doesn't require a one-size-fits-all approach. Everyone is different but no insurance is the policy everyone gets. Another reason to be disgusted with NCAA policies.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Jim Brown is not a fan of the NCAA, a truth he made more than evident Saturday at the Pro Football Hall of Fame Fan Fest.



Nick Cammett/Diamond Images/Getty Images
Jim Brown ripped the NCAA Saturday at
the Pro Football Hall of Fame Fan Fest.

"The NCAA is probably the most reprehensible organization God ever created," the Hall of Fame running back said at a roundtable discussion on the NFL with Barry Sanders and Harry Carson on his right and host Larry King on his left. "Total exploitation. The kind of money they make, the kind of life they live, it's embarrassing."
The comment came in response to a question from a fan about why a player with a career-ending injury in college could not receive a payment to compensate for lost future income.
Brown said the NCAA is pretentious when it says it is "doing things for the young people."
"I'm totally for change and total change," Brown said. "And I think that body needs to be torn apart and put back together with everybody's best interests in mind."
Brown said what he said with a definite purpose.
"I wanted to say it as harsh as I could, because I want them to come at me in any way they want to," Brown said. "Because it's a shame the way that it happens."

 

[CoachCB]

So, that backup LB at Idaho or Fresno State gets injured and he should get compensated for the loss of his "potential future earnings"?

The truth is that there are only a small, small percentage of CFB players who will ever play pro football. So, if they do have that potential there are programs that they can get the Lloyd's of London policy. Otherwise, what do they get? They get a free college education...and the chance to join the rest of us in the real world (by getting a job and being a productive member of society).

I'm sick of the "players should be paid" (or compensated, or given a "stipend", or whatever) crowd. The players get plenty.

Most of them get Pell Grants (free $5500/year). Most get other grants (especially if they come from poor families). And if they need more "pocket money" they can do like other students who need money....get a student loan. And since it seems the Jim Brown thinks ALL college football players will be pro-football players eventually, they shouldn't have a problem paying back those student loans (note the sarcasm).

 

[TyBounce]

This isn't near as big of a problem as it used to be back in the 70's. Outside of spinal injuries (or concussions) there arent as many career ending injuries these days.

Back in the 70's before arthroscopic and laser surgeries common injuries like torn acl's or torn mcl's could be career ending.

I'd also be willing to bet that big time football programs take much better care of players needing surgery and rehabilitation than soccer players.

Go find another soapbox Jim Brown , you're about 40 years too late on this one pally.

 

[bigtendominator]

So, that backup LB at Idaho or Fresno State gets injured and he should get compensated for the loss of his "potential future earnings"?

The truth is that there are only a small, small percentage of CFB players who will ever play pro football. So, if they do have that potential there are programs that they can get the Lloyd's of London policy. Otherwise, what do they get? They get a free college education...and the chance to join the rest of us in the real world (by getting a job and being a productive member of society).

I'm sick of the "players should be paid" (or compensated, or given a "stipend", or whatever) crowd. The players get plenty.

Most of them get Pell Grants (free $5500/year). Most get other grants (especially if they come from poor families). And if they need more "pocket money" they can do like other students who need money....get a student loan. And since it seems the Jim Brown thinks ALL college football players will be pro-football players eventually, they shouldn't have a problem paying back those student loans (note the sarcasm).

I agree on all points.

 

[Conan]

So, that backup LB at Idaho or Fresno State gets injured and he should get compensated for the loss of his "potential future earnings"?

The truth is that there are only a small, small percentage of CFB players who will ever play pro football. So, if they do have that potential there are programs that they can get the Lloyd's of London policy. Otherwise, what do they get? They get a free college education...and the chance to join the rest of us in the real world (by getting a job and being a productive member of society).

I'm sick of the "players should be paid" (or compensated, or given a "stipend", or whatever) crowd. The players get plenty.

Most of them get Pell Grants (free $5500/year). Most get other grants (especially if they come from poor families). And if they need more "pocket money" they can do like other students who need money....get a student loan. And since it seems the Jim Brown thinks ALL college football players will be pro-football players eventually, they shouldn't have a problem paying back those student loans (note the sarcasm).

Coach, the truth is that even if the guy turns out to be no better than a trash collector at the local zoo, a serious career ending injury playing football for his school isn't something anyone has any right to casually discard as nothing to be concerned about. He willingly put his own well being on the line the way he was asked to do it by the NCAA and his institution just to comply with their requirements on some level. At the very least, to be covered in the unlikely event of the athlete sustaining a catastrophic injury through no fault of his own is the least his school and its underwriting authority should be obligated to take responsibility for so the poor guy doesn't have to bear the burden for everyone who stood to benefit. Just ask anyone in his family what they think about him being ignored. It's probably true that 98% of the time the athlete wouldn't have gained much going forward in an NFL career, but what if he is that one in 50-100 players that did have a future in pro ball? Screw him too? At what point does the NCAA show some respect and consideration for athletes as people with rights instead of just mowing down that very idea?

 

[CoachCB]

Coach, the truth is that even if the guy turns out to be no better than a trash collector at the local zoo, a serious career ending injury playing football for his school isn't something anyone has any right to casually discard as nothing to be concerned about. He willingly put his own well being on the line the way he was asked to do it by the NCAA and his institution just to comply with their requirements on some level. At the very least, to be covered in the unlikely event of the athlete sustaining a catastrophic injury through no fault of his own is the least his school and its underwriting authority should be obligated to take responsibility for so the poor guy doesn't have to bear the burden for everyone who stood to benefit. Just ask anyone in his family what they think about him being ignored. It's probably true that 98% of the time the athlete wouldn't have gained much going forward in an NFL career, but what if he is that one in 50-100 players that did have a future in pro ball? Screw him too? At what point does the NCAA show some respect and consideration for athletes as people with rights instead of just mowing down that very idea?

Conan, that's the risk they take. Does a kid at a NCAA Division 3 (non-scholarship) school deserve any less if he has a career ending injury? The only solution I could see is some type of AFLAC insurance policy. Otherwise, let's all sit inside a bomb-shelter 24/7 to insure we don't get hurt doing anything.

There are risk and rewards for anything we do in life. No one is forcing these kids to play college football....

 

[russ1945]

What about the free schooling. It is not a something for nothing proposition. What about high school players who have a career ending injury. That is a two sided coin. Coach is right, life is all about risk and rewards. A scholarship is worth a lot of money and they throw in tutoring etc for athletes and free room and board.

 

[Conan]

Conan, that's the risk they take. Does a kid at a NCAA Division 3 (non-scholarship) school deserve any less if he has a career ending injury? The only solution I could see is some type of AFLAC insurance policy. Otherwise, let's all sit inside a bomb-shelter 24/7 to insure we don't get hurt doing anything.

There are risk and rewards for anything we do in life. No one is forcing these kids to play college football....

I understand coach. I am only pointing out that it works both ways. No one is forcing the school to put on football games either, in which case there would be no risk to various facilities, stadiums, parking lots, etc. all of which are assets that make them money not necessarily limited to football profits. I don't happen to have the statistical information handy but it seems that the risk to a player is as significant as the risk to some other type of damage to the school's facilities. They are using player services as part of their investment -- and in fact as things stand, they are expecting players to chip in for their own premiums to have protection from lifetime "damages" arising from injuries playing football when the cause of a mishap wasn't even likely their fault.

To an average student, the premiums are impossible for him and/or his family to pay for. To a school, in the vast majority of cases, that additional cost is a mere pittance to the kind of cash generated by the same activity. They literally own everything about a player, some things I believe are over the top (such as his name and image for life) and have been pure bank to the institutions who fiercely defend this position until the player's value comes to an abrupt end. Then there is no further interest. The lawyers know exactly how to word these contracts and no player stands a chance of playing without surrendering these personal assets unconditionally. That even extends to something just short of the players ability (or right) to earn a living despite injuries sustained during his participation in the sport.

Could you stand there with a straight face and tell a 19-year old kid, OK you can play but if you are hurt we'll fix it to a point just as long as you're not injured for life, even if a 330 lb. defensive lineman steps on your face (or whatever) causing you a serious concussion from which you will never fully recover? (Then go off and count your receipts from the game the previous Saturday.)

I know greed when I see it, do you?

 

[Conan]

Now this is interesting. Just today a federal circuit judge has ordered an anti-trust lawsuit vs the NCAA to proceed. I've said this before in here several times... If the NCAA doesn't change its ways, they will be forced to do it and the terms might not be as favorable as if the NCAA had taken the many issues at hand more seriously and acted first. (For example, either pay the "student athletes" a stipend or face unionization with government support. No excuses, just figure out how you will do it or face the consequences which may be 5 times as costly.)

I may seem like nothing but a small and insignificant voice here, I'd prefer to consider myself a bellwether of things yet to come. A lot of people have shown too much cynicism to pay attention to what has really been happening, not too different from an ostrich with its head buried. So beware, the natives are getting restless.

Here is a link to the article and a video about it. You've been warned (again.)


That announcement came on the heels of the Pac-12's latest efforts to reform the NCAA.
This article appeared just a couple of days ago:


Reforms include stipend for athletes

Updated: May 20, 2014, 11:56 PM ET
Associated Press

Pac-12 university presidents have sent a letter to their colleagues at the other four major football conferences calling for sweeping changes to the NCAA model and autonomy for those leagues.
A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday night. It was sent last week to the other 53 university presidents from the Southeastern Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conference.

Spurred in part by Northwestern football players' move to unionize, the Pac-12 presidents outlined a 10-point plan for reform that includes many proposals commissioners have been advocating for several years, including a stipend for athletes. The NCAA is working on a new governance structure that will allow the five wealthiest conferences to make some rules without the support of smaller Division I schools.


AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Arizona State President
Michael Crow said the letter
outlines "what the NCAA
should be and how it should
work."

"We acknowledge the core objectives could prove to be expensive and controversial, but the risks of inaction or moving too slowly are far greater," the letter reads. "The time for tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments is over."
Arizona State President Michael Crow told the AP that his counterparts in the Pac-12 are not "happy with where things are going. We're not happy with the nature of the debate out there. And we felt like our voice is not well understood."
"We've been talking about the need for reform for a long time, and so in a sense our thinking has coalesced," Crow said. "There's just so much thinking going on relative to the NCAA. So we thought it was time to say, `Well, this is what we think the NCAA should be, and this is how we think it should work."

The full list of proposals included in the letter are:
- Permit institutions to make scholarship awards up to the full cost of attendance.
- Provide reasonable ongoing medical or insurance assistance for student-athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury in competition or practice. Continue efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury.
- Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing.
- Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season, correspondingly increase the time available for studies and campus life, by preventing the abuse of organized "voluntary" practices to circumvent the limit of 20 hours per week and more realistically assess the time away from campus and other commitments during the season.
- Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports.
- Further strengthen the Academic Progress Rate requirements for postseason play.
- Address the "one and done" phenomenon in men's basketball. If the NBA and its Players Association are unable to agree to raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.
- Provide student-athletes a meaningful role in governance at the conference and NCAA levels.
- Adjust existing restrictions so that student-athletes preparing for the next stage of their careers are not unnecessarily deprived of the advice and counsel of agents and other competent professionals, but without professionalizing intercollegiate athletics.
- Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.

Pac-12 presidents are asking for a response to the proposed reforms by June 4. Crow said the decision by Pac-12 presidents to send the letter was unanimous and the initial feedback from university presidents has been positive.

The plan comes after Northwestern University football players cast secret ballots April 25 on whether to form the nation's first union for college athletes. The results of the vote will not be known for some time.
The full National Labor Relations Board has agreed to hear Northwestern's appeal of a regional director's March ruling that the players are university employees and thus can unionize. Ballots will remain impounded until that process is finished, and perhaps until after any court fight that might follow a decision.
Part of the idea behind the proposal by the Pac-12 presidents is to get ahead of the issue and meet some of the demands that have been raised by Northwestern players and other athletes without "professionalizing" college sports.

The letter states "it is clear from the recent statements of any number of individuals that, while they may share or view that labor unions are not the answer, the time has come for a meaningful response both to the student-athletes' grievances and the need to reassert the academic primacy of our mission."

 

[TyBounce]

This is the beginning of a big-5 breakaway (i mentioned in another thread that this was coming).

Personaly i think its a good thing. It's time to make changes to "what" and "how" the ncaa does whatever it is that they do , and to get these conferences some autonomy from the other conferences (especialy in regards to recruiting rules). ...but it will be somewhat sad to see the Byu's , Fresnos, and Wacs , and Macs become more irrelevent than they currently are.

My only hope is that this is just a breakaway from the other fbs and division 1 conferences , and NOT a breakaway from the ncaa. ...As bad as the ncaa is they ARE needed. They just need to be reformed.

 

[rolltide]

what about a high school kid snaps his leg and loses a shot at scholarship, education, banging co-eds?

where's his compensation dammit?!?!

or the super-talented kid who's mom won't let him play varsity football? let's sue her too. Unions for all!!!!

 

[Conan]

You gotta like the way Scott and the Pac's university presidents have taken the bull by the horns with their 10-point proposal. Enough pussyfooting around. The man with the axe awaits his instructions. The time to move has come. It's far better for sweeping reforms to come from within than to continue dawdling around, and for lack of action invite some kind of congressional commission in DC to take the reigns, or even worse the courts.

I didn't realize that there were as many issues as were named off in the proposal, or perhaps they hadn't been brought to light as they seem to be now. All the better. Why leave any sore points remaining to fester and allow all this reform to linger ad nauseum.

Ty, I am thinking that it might be best to come up with a way to define the different subdivisions more clearly and easily so things like insurance policies and stipends are tailored to match a student's requirements with his school's capabilities on whatever level it exists in the grand scheme of things. But how one goes about scheduling (new) inter-subdivisional games if that continues to exist and combining other factors (such as using refs on two separate pay scales) when and if D-1A is broken up, especially when the Fresno's and Boise's and Northern Illinois are kicked out of the upper subdivision puts my head into instant overload. And that's not the only complexity... time to flip the "off-switch." (whew)

This won't be easy.

 

[Conan]

what about a high school kid snaps his leg and loses a shot at scholarship, education, banging co-eds?

where's his compensation dammit?!?!

or the super-talented kid who's mom won't let him play varsity football? let's sue her too. Unions for all!!!!

I'm in agreement, sarcasm noted.

Anything to keep labor unions/big government away. I bet you that if the B1G had provided a more generous stipend or enough insurance to ease player concerns, there would never have been a vote to unionize in the first place. The idea that a school or EA sports or anyone can abscond with an individual's right to own his own image forever is just one very bad idea to begin with.

I think the actual contract reads something like "forever and everywhere in the universe" - I'm not kidding.

 

[8ate]

The young man who goes for a pro athletic career; and does't make it: generally ends up with little or nothing to show for it; whereas the young man who tries for a Ph. D.; any advanced training;and does not make it; still has a better than average earnings and lifestyle; this has been talked about for 50 years....+..generally within the area of race..>

 

[Conan]

Russ et. al. The point I am making is that there is a case to be made for the player who paid the price for the risk he took and I don't think the burden of protection belongs entirely on his shoulders. This isn't about who is at fault nor is this about all those poor players that can't live life as "victims of the system." None of this has anything to do with any of that.

All this aside, who in their right mind would deliberately put himself in harm's way like a fool without at least some adequate form of protection? Teams spend $100s of thousands on improved safety equipment which proves that they understand the risks and are willing to act on a known statistical danger. We are not speculating on the cost of insurance premiums. I am neither a statistician nor am I a casualty adjuster. I really have no clue how much we are talking about to guarantee a kid won't be living hand to mouth because he can't work a normal job any longer with a completely torn rotator cuff or a shattered kneecap (or far worse than that,) but I can tell you this... if you really want to keep the labor unions and feds away from your doorstep, a little more insurance than you are already putting out could be the cheapest insurance you will ever buy. The consequences of not heeding a clear shot across your bow could be enormous. Reread the Pac-12's proposals for changing the way the NCAA operates once more. Either you beat the feds to it or they will beat you with it.

 

[GoSooners]

I think some of these proposals are going to be implemented whether we agree with them or not. And the NCAA already had the stipend idea on the table, so this will probably hurry up the process. A couple of their ideas are just not very good, and I doubt the NCAA will go along with them. Mainly liberalizing transfers. Bad idea. These kids will already have an entitlement mentality from all of these other proposals if they should get passed. But it also brings in the poaching of players without consequence. I think this would ruin the game we all love.

 

[CoachCB]

I think some of these proposals are going to be implemented whether we agree with them or not. And the NCAA already had the stipend idea on the table, so this will probably hurry up the process. A couple of their ideas are just not very good, and I doubt the NCAA will go along with them. Mainly liberalizing transfers. Bad idea. These kids will already have an entitlement mentality from all of these other proposals if they should get passed. But it also brings in the poaching of players without consequence. I think this would ruin the game we all love.

GS, I tend to agree about the liberalized transfer rules. It's going to cause problems. What happens if a school loses 10 freshman? What does this do to the graduation rule?

There has to be some stipulation. A 1-time free pass? If the coach is fired or leaves for another job? Can they play right away? Should they sit out a few games? Half the season? Sit out no games/immediate eligibility? It's going to cause problems.

The stipend in theory is a great idea. I just wonder where the money is going to come from and how it's going to impact low budget schools. Also, Title IX. Are the woman going to get the stipend too?

Conan, where do walk-ons fall into your theory? They don't get SHIT as it is....do they get this theoretical payment you're talking about if they have a career ending injury (i.e Do they get the same treatment/benefit that the scholarship athlete gets?)?

I'm just tired of people trying to fix something that ain't broken!

 

[GoSooners]

GS, I tend to agree about the liberalized transfer rules. It's going to cause problems. What happens if a school loses 10 freshman? What does this do to the graduation rule?

There has to be some stipulation. A 1-time free pass? If the coach is fired or leaves for another job? Can they play right away? Should they sit out a few games? Half the season? Sit out no games/immediate eligibility? It's going to cause problems.

The stipend in theory is a great idea. I just wonder where the money is going to come from and how it's going to impact low budget schools. Also, Title IX. Are the woman going to get the stipend too?

Conan, where do walk-ons fall into your theory? They don't get SHIT as it is....do they get this theoretical payment you're talking about if they have a career ending injury (i.e Do they get the same treatment/benefit that the scholarship athlete gets?)?

I'm just tired of people trying to fix something that ain't broken!

Realistically, a coach isn't a student so it's hard to compare the two as far as the rules go. But I do think if a coach decides to leave a school, the NCAA should have a rule that they can't make any official visits or contact with another school until the season is fully over. That includes bowls. Otherwise there's not much else they can do. Besides that, a coach's contract doesn't seem worth the paper it's printed on these days.

As for the stipend idea, the only thing I can think of for your average university to be able to afford them is they'll have to request extra funds from the state, maybe by a tax of some kind. But the types of schools it's really going to hurt are the private schools like a USC who don't get that state funding. Their fans better prepare their asses for paying out another $10 admission at the gate.

 

[Conan]

Guys, I must tell you that I am not the guy with all of the answers and just because I understand some of the questions and a few of the underlying principles on both sides of the LOS here doesn't necessarily mean that you have me made. I march strictly to the beat of my own drummer.

Without knowing or having seen any of the details about the old woman that scalded herself on a cup of hot coffee at McDonalds, I would find it extremely difficult to award her $3 million worth of any type of damages. But if it was proven that the drive through server deliberately set her up with an unstable hot drink holder while his friend made a video of the incident and could be heard on YouTube laughing in the background, maybe $3 mil wouldn't be enough.

So you want to know what I think about a walk on and where he stands in this. The first thing to see is that casualty insurance is not the same thing as health care because it doesn't involve illness, just injuries that arise from accidents and the sometimes inevitable long term consequences. Protection from accidents I am certain... everyone gets that. It's more a matter of liability protection for the school than an entitlement. IMHO the minute a player suits up for the first time, a school's liability kicks in and the circumstances surrounding how he got there are irrelevant. Walk-on or scholarship player, it makes no difference. It was the school's decision to suit him up, issue his equipment and from that point on the school is liable for what happens to him when he participates in football. That's the law in most states. It's the same thing as anyone that walks onto your property is considered a potential accident waiting to happen. Check your homeowner's policy. It's there.

Coach, your question shows way too much bias against players. That's what I see behind your words. The players have been voicing their grievances for years, yet you are saying nothing is wrong? If you think that I'm here just to make the case for a "one size fits all" approach approach for the players, that is your assumption, not even remotely close to what I am (apparently in vain) trying to explain to you, issues that you don't seem to understand. If a walk-on happens to be having an exceptionally bad day and in his first day at practice, he winds up getting carted off in an ambulance and never walks again, would you mind explaining that to his parents -- that it's not the school's problem if he never walks again just because he didn't have a scholarship. Maybe his position coach had him in with players that were way over his head and he was not ready to take them on in heavy contact drills because they had the benefit of training he didn't have. Should he even have participated in contact drills? I'd just as soon call it a no-fault insurance plan so what needs to happen just happens regardless of blame. It's the better part of discretion to see that the player has his needs addressed than decide where to heap the blame.

Now if you are talking health care, that's entirely different. Usually companies don't offer it to new employees and if this is about health care for athletes, if it is available, there should be a waiting period to determine whether or not he will work out the same as if he was a new employee or a student or a lab rat if any arrangements even exist. On the other hand, what difference does it make what I think. The only thing that seems to matter these days is what Obama thinks.

 

[Conan]

There has to be some stipulation. A 1-time free pass? If the coach is fired or leaves for another job? Can they play right away? Should they sit out a few games? Half the season? Sit out no games/immediate eligibility? It's going to cause problems.

Silas Redd comes to mind after JoePa was cut from the payroll. He transferred to USC and started right away. I'm not sure what else this could be about.