NBA Lockout: Which side are you on?

Intro: The Duck Nuts next topic is the current labor dispute between NBA owners and the players. Recently, players like Deron Williams have opted to "take their talents" overseas in order to assure a paycheck. This work stoppage appears as if it will last a long time. In this debate, Alex will take the side of the owners with Chris representing the players. Enjoy…

Alex: It is perfectly clear to me that the owners have the upper hand in this lockout, and for good reason. Recently 22 teams reported losses of over $300 million in net profit, and many others barely gaining any money. Even with the increased viewership and popularity for the league this past season, teams and owners are losing massive amounts of money. Why Chris do you believe that the players have any right to be demanding more money when teams are losing this much?

Chris: Alex as a matter of fact the players aren't demanding more money. They are willing to make concessions including a $500 million pay cut over the next five years, which would result in the players basketball related income being reduced from 57 percent to 54.7 percent. Also, the owners are the greedy ones here, not the players. The max salary the players can make starts out at about 17 million while the owners can make an unlimited sum and can come out way more nicely than the players.

Alex: Only $17 million? I think I just shed a tear. One of the biggest issues and one of the main reasons for this lockout is the ridiculous max salary. Too many players earn max salary or near max salary contracts. You can put that blame on the owners or players, but either way it's hurting the league.

The problem is teams are losing money, a lot of money. Over the past few decades’ player salaries have sky rocketed, while owners are losing millions and millions more each season. Asking simply to break even isn't a huge request. Until the players realize they have no authority in handling where the money goes, this lockout will not end.

Chris: 17 million seems like a large amount of money but is overshadowed by the billions of dollars the NBA makes overall. Who exactly is giving players these large contracts? That’s right, the owners who dig themselves into a hole.

The owners aren't even giving the players close to a fair deal with their proposed offer of 2 billion dollars. At a glance, this seems fair, but as the NBA's revenue rises and grows over the next five years the player’s deal will be outdated and unfair.

The players should propose an elastic cap to quell the owners concerns of losing money. This would mean when the owners make money, so do the players. However when the owners make less money, so do the players. Potentially this is a risky situation for the players, but if it works out, it would be fair for both the players and the owners. Alex, what do you think of this plan?

Alex: I agree with you completely. Having some sort of a loose, non-binding cap is the only solution. A hard cap would not work. Period.

A lot of experts are suggesting a cap at $45 million. But look at the Miami Heat. The "Big 3" alone will make close to $48 million next season, with that number rising for the remainder of their contracts. A hard cap will not work.

Both sides will need to be flexible, but the players have a lot more to lose with the loss of games. I feel like a broken record, but the majority of owners are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. They have little reason to budge. The players are doing just fine and don't need anymore.

Chris: The players are in the right when it comes to the lockout for multiple reasons. Basically, the players are willing to give up 500 million. While the owners may be losing money, the players are the only ones that seem to be making concessions for the good of the league.

Alex: We agree to disagree. But one thing I think we both can agree that a deal needs to get done ASAP. Join us again for another debate. Feel free to leave a comment below.

A critique on Will Lyles

As most Ducks football fans know by now, Yahoo! Sports recently published a lengthy “investigation” after a five-hour interview with Texas based recruiting scout Willie Lyles. After months of silence and not answering questions directly, Lyles “confessed” that the University of Oregon paid him for his relationship and influence over high school players rather than his scouting services.

This would be a direct violation of NCAA rules, and serious consequences would be brought down upon the Oregon program. But how much of this is actually believable?

Initially, when all of this news came out, we viewed Lyles as a shady character with a questionable past. But now, we are convinced that this man is worse than originally expected. Lyles has been at the center of controversy before. In 2007, Lyles said that it would cost Texas A&M $80,000 to get Patrick Peterson (who eventually signed with LSU) to play football.

When asked about Lyles, Peterson responded with this comment: "I have never had any type of relationship with Willie Lyles, and he had no influence on my decision to attend LSU, or any other school for that matter… He (Lyles) had no involvement with my recruiting process, and I resent the fact that my name has come up in these allegations. I chose LSU because it's a great school with a great football program. I never received nor was I offered anything to go to LSU, and anyone saying otherwise is being dishonest."

What makes Lyles' story even more difficult to believe, is that he is just now coming out with “his side of the story” months after news first broke. What we want to know, how does he magically remember all of these claims, dates and records now and why didn't he remember them in the first place. Lyles has already said that his career in college football is over. This is nothing more than a desperate man with nothing to lose trying to get some sort of misconceived vengeance. Lyles says Oregon never directly asked him to steer players, only that he now realizes he was doing so. Call me crazy, but we trust a Coach with no history of wrongdoing over some bum’s gut feeling.

This article is not an attempt to say Oregon is completely innocent, because Oregon is the same as every other program. Operating in the grey-area has become standard, and that is all that this is. Claiming Oregon paid for players and claiming they paid for a relationship are two completely different things and much different in level of moral foul play. Now do we think the University of Oregon has done things while Chip Kelly has been at the U of O that are shady? Yes. But do we believe that every other program in America has done the equivalent of these things? Without a doubt, yes.

The University of Oregon has been nothing but forthcoming in releasing all of the information that is related to the topic and are hiding nothing, to their credit. The NCAA is thorough with all of their investigations (the USC investigation took 5 years) and this story will not die soon. Oregon will have their chance to defend themselves, and that will be the moment of truth.

This will all comb over at some time after Willie Lyles is finally exposed for the dirty weasel he is.

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Intro:

One of the biggest and most controversial topics in sports is whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid more than what they currently receive. Alex Shoemaker and Chris Brooklier debate and discuss this very issue:

Alex:

The issue of paying college athletes is a very important issue to me, and one that I have a strong opinion on. While I can see both sides of the argument, there really is one realistic option: you cannot pay collegiate athletes.

Some would make the case that they are already in a sense being “paid” as they receive free tuition, books, athletic gear, tutoring and more. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do believe that they should not receive anymore than they already do. The second they receive spending money they lose their amateur status, which goes against everything the NCAA stands for. College athletes receive a free education as well as the aforementioned amenities and do not deserve a penny more. What do you think Chris? Prove me wrong.

Chris:

If you need the one reason why college athletes should be paid it's that the NCAA and individual schools are making an incredible amount of money off athletes and their likeness for free. Last year the NCAA's revenue was $757 million dollars. How much of that was distributed to the athletes: zero dollars. When most people think of scholarships, they believe it covers and encompasses all of the expenses the scholarship receiver needs. This in fact is wildly far away from the truth. Sure athletes are given free tuition and a chunk of housing but there are so many things they need to thrive such as food, car charges, entertainment, clothes, etc. All of this is uncovered and people usually get a job when they are in need of money.

However with the rigorous schedule that these athletes hold they don't have the time to obtain a job. Athletics is their job. For years, college athletes spend more time in practice and the season, not just in the fall. During the winter there is weight lifting, during the spring there is practicing and during the summer there are workouts that the majority of the team attends. Tell me when these kids get some off time. This will be Oregon Quarterback Darron Thomas' 4th year on campus, but he's been to his hometown of Houston, Texas three times since he started college. Now this is just a damn shame and he should either be paid for his services or have the time needed for his services cut.

BAM!

Alex:

Chris, those were all very good points. As I stated earlier, I can see the points of why college athletes should be paid. Nobody believes that they would be able to hold a job whilst in college because football is their job. But In my opinion, what they already receive is more than enough.

In an essay Jay Paterno: Pay Student-Athletes? They’re Already Getting a Great Deal  written by Jay Paterno (son of Joe Paterno), assistant coach for Penn State, he agrees with me by saying "There is the problem. No one sells the student-athletes on the idea that they are getting paid more than $80 an hour for a part-time job. No one tells the student-athlete to go talk to other students on campus who work 30 or 40 hours some weeks and will still owe tens of thousands of dollars when they graduate."

Other students face the same economic difficulties yet they don't receive even close to the same amount of financial support. Athletes receive educations from some of the finest institutions in the country while they also receive free publicity and national recognition as they prepare for their future careers.

Do people think athletes are struggling to get food? No. They can easily manage their money to the point where they don't run into financial troubles. Any extra money would likely go towards entertainment purposes. And with professors being booted and whole programs getting cut, I won't have any sympathy for an athlete not getting extra spending money.

Chris:

The U of O has gotten a lot of publicity for their marvelous idea to use a varying number of jerseys. While these jerseys do give the school more attention, it is more about who's wearing those jerseys. Let me continue to use the example of Darron Thomas. He is a great player and due to that fact and the cool jerseys he wears I bought his jersey. However, none of that money went to Darron Thomas, it all went to the school. Schools are getting an inordinate amount of publicity from these athletes at no cost. However an important issue on this is whether all college athletes should be paid, are being paid the same amount or just the main sports of football and basketball. Alex what is your take on this subject?

Alex:

Chris, you hit one the one solid argument for why I could see athletes getting paid. The fact that revenues for memorabilia based on a player's likeness with them receiving none of the profits isn't right.

But there is a flaw with this point. For instance, you did not buy a "Darron Thomas" jersey. You bought a University of Oregon #1 jersey. This is a major distinction and loophole. Nowhere is his name on the uniform, and therefor Oregon is not profiting from Darron Thomas. It's the same way that the NCAA Football franchise is able to produce their games without playing the players.

And for the argument that the players who are being profited from deserve the money, they likely aren't the ones who need it. LaMichael James will certainly make his fair share of money playing on Sundays, while a 5th string player won't make a dime in either.

This brings me to my next question, how do you suggest struggling universities come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to "pay" their thousands of athletes? And does a reserve volleyball player deserve the same amount as the starting quarterback? Your thoughts?

Chris:

Like many college students I love playing video games and one of my favorite games is NCAA Football. All 70 players from 120 teams in the FBS are used for their likeness to improve the realism of the game. In all, 8400 players are being used for their likeness so the game will be more widely enjoyed. However, the makers of the game don't give any names to these players they are replicating. They just give their number and position, so for Darron Thomas "QB 1".

The game has all the pertinent information for Darron: From Aldine, Texas 6'3 205, Black, fast but because they don't give put his name on there, they deem it to be alright. Madden is almost the exact same game as NCAA Football, with the distinguishing factor being that the players are given their actual names and they are paid for their presence in the game.

Well Sam Keller, the former Nebraska quarterback, wanted to make a stand against this. In 2009, he sued EA Sports, the makers of the NCAA Football and Basketball games and the NCAA on the grounds that the "video-game maker wrongly uses the names and likenesses of athletes and the NCAA sanctions the practice" Keller sues EA Sports over images

On the topic of how struggling universities should come up with the funds to pay their college athletes I would tell them to look at the NCAA's 757 million dollar revenue and tell them to spread the wealth a little. Does a reserve volleyball player deserve the same amount as the starting quarterback? Yes I believe so, all athletes should be treated under the same rules and Volleyball players aren't lacking in the athleticism. All athletes are under the same shield of their respective schools and the NCAA, and they should stand with one another.

Alex I know you play video games even though you aren't very good at them. What are your comments about college athletics video games?

Alex:

Chris, I do love the NCAA Football games and have purchased each one since former Oregon Duck Joey Harrington was on the 2003 cover. While the video game probably is bending legalities to use the players information, I am not going to stop playing them.

My last argument is that paying college athletes is that paying college athletes will kill lower-tier programs.

It's difficult enough for the Western Kentucky's of the football landscape to compete with the Alabama's, but programs with bigger budgets can now legally "buy" their players.

I'll let you have the last word: explain to me how this won't create even more disparity in college athletics.

Chris:

The payment of college athletics won't create even more disparity one bit. All the rules will be the same, colleges will recruit players and the best players will choose their favorite college. The landscape will stay the same and the players won't choose to play with a team just because they will provide them with money; they will choose a team because they think it will be the best place for them to succeed in their lives.

Game. Set. Match. Brooklier