Steve Spurrier Proposes Paying Players Out of Coaches' Pockets
by Gamecock Man on Jun 1, 2011 10:03 PM EDT
in South Carolina Gamecocks Football
Email
PrintWell, we said there would be big news coming out of the SEC Meeting in Destin. It started coming today, but what it actually was might surprise you. Steve Spurrier, with the support of several SEC coaches including Les Miles, Will Muschamp, and Nick Saban, proposed that the the coaches pay players $300 per game out of their own pockets.
Aw, isn't that sweet?
As much as I adore Spurrier, I'm going to have call shenanigans on this one. First of all, there's absolutely no chance that it will pass. Firstly, it would compromise fairness across Division 1A. $300 per game would equal between $250 and $300 thousand per year, depending on how many post-season games a team plays. That's not a lot to most SEC coaches other than Vanderbilt's James Franklin, but it is a hefty chunk of change for most mid-major programs. If that doesn't stop the NCAA, the fact that it would run afoul of Title IX might. The only proactive thing this move does is opens up the conversation on the topic of pay-for-play.
While I have no doubt that Spurrier is sincere on some level here, the cynic in me feels that this is mostly a media game of sorts. First of all, it gives the SEC coaches the chance to one-up the Big 10, whose commissioner Jim Delany has been floating ideas about paying players around as of late. The SEC doesn't seem to want to be behind the ball on the issue of student-athlete welfare, and this move not only gives it a chance to dispel that notion, it also makes some of its coaches look like saints. Just imagine the recruiting conversations: "I'd give you money out of my own pocket, son, if that darn NCAA would let me."
Even more cynically, one has to wonder if this move is meant to deflect criticism that may come if the league doesn't do anything to curb the oversigning problem. Of course, if that were the case, you might expect the coaches to be split on the issue down the oversigning divide, but, in fact, oversigning opponent Muschamp is all for it while notable oversigner Bobby Petrino isn't.
5 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not so sure.
Have you ever known Spurrier to play games in the media? He pretty much says whatever is on his mind. Maybe I’m just naive, but I took it as a sincere gesture on his part to bring attention to the issue. I think I read somewhere that he even admitted that the proposal had zero chance of passing. He’s talked before about how head coaches in get paid too much, and he’s even gone as far to donate $250,000 of his own money back to USC over 5 years. I’m not even in favor of the proposal, but I think it was (mostly) transparent gesture.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jun 1, 2011 10:20 PM EDT reply actions
Maybe you're right.
Certainly, Spurrier usually isn’t one to BS the media. Maybe I’m just a huge cynic.
Regardless, I hope it nets us a few recruits. :-)
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jun 1, 2011 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
The Politics are really what will stop this.
Truthfully with all of the money spent, the NCAA could set up something to help along these lines. The schools, individual team sponsor, media companies, bowl games and their sponsors all make profits off of players that play for the price of a free education.
And they try to sell you that as the millions and millions of dollars come in. I realize that this plan has ZERO chance of passing. That much is obvious. But the defense that the NCAA has for its stance is flimsy at best. To parallel this to the NFL, what if College Players went on strike before a bowl game? I don’t honestly believe it would ever happen. Players want to play, they want to improve their stock, win games, win championships and flat out compete against one another with their teammates. But to me, it’s certainly an intriguing idea.
Part of the problem is that if you set up a vehicle for compensating players then I think I fear that it would ultimately be exploited and abused. While I know that Title IX would get in the way, as well as fairness to other sports like Basketball and Baseball, football is certainly a different animal altogether. I certainly agree that it isn’t fair, and it may even be disrespectful to treat other sports as lesser than football. But the reality is that football is significantly different than the other sports and much greater in terms of its economy. (Not really breaking any news here, I know…)
- FOW
I'm willing to buy the argument that football is different...
But one thing I really worry about is what this means for fairness within football itself. Instituting something like this—whether the coaches or the athletics department pays for it—would essentially cripple the mid-major problems, making them even more unable to compete with the AQs than they already are. Those programs simply can’t afford to pay players, even at this seemingly low level. I can’t see this kind of thing working without essentially relegating the non-AQs to some kind of second-class. Perhaps they could move to FCS? This issue would have to be dealt with, even granting football some kind of special status.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
Agreed
The fact that smaller conferences could not keep up with the big schools would be devastating for their teams.
- FOW
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
