My nephew and I have long argued this issue - he thinks they shouldn't and I believe they should.  My biggest point is that student athletes already get paid/compensated several hundred thousand nontaxable dollars via scholarships and other gray area expense reimbursements, and so it seems silly to punish them for charging for autographs or accepting free sneakers.  My other major point is that they are essentially employees of the school and are responsible for the infusion of $10s if not $100s of millions of dollars.  Maybe more.  Shouldn't they get a more reasonable cut, especially, for example, if Coach Tressler is make $1.5 million with benefits. 

 

My nephew makes the argument that paying athletes is unfair to poorer schools and that giving them a salary might completely invalidate the idea of amateur athletes (so what?)

 

Any thoughts?

I agree that they (many of them) are already paid.  They get scholarships and also a stipend in many cases for living expenses.  I also agree that some of them are responsible for the infusion of money to the university.  But certainly not all.  It would create a slippery slope.  Does the star football player get paid, but not the star cross-country runner?  I imagine that the latter sucks more money away than he/she infuses.  Not even all football programs operate at a profit.

 

In the end though, I think the system is fine as is.  Nobody forces these kids to play college sports.  They can go the Brandon Jennings route if desired.  They get a free education from some of the top academic institutions in the country.... institutions that many of them would stand a spitting chance of getting accepted to minus their athletic talents. 

They should not get paid. One reason is that if they did get pay, they then become professionals. Secondly many of them do get compensation with the free tuition and room and board. And also only the big school really make money on the programs. So does that mean smaller schools like Kent athletes dont get paid. It really doesn't make any sense to pay them.

I am so opposed to this idea (which has been out there in the sporting press for years) that I have, in past, written my Alma mater and informed them that I would never contribute another dime to the university if they paid athletes.

 

There are multiplicity of reasons not to pay athletes (more than they get already...I mean a free education...please) but the primary one in my mind is that it elevates them over their "ordinary" fellow students (more than already) and gives the perception that their contribution to the school is more valuable than say a physic major who does volunteer work on campus or works in a lab assisting a prof on important research (just one example of hundreds).  It will separate them from their fellow students more than they already are.  Plus the system will of course value and reward certain student athletes (football players) over others (cross county champs), causing even further resentment.

 

I don't by the argument that they are making millions for the university and should get their cut.  Again they are already getting a valuable commodity in an education (most of whom could care less) as well as an opportunity to learn their trade and show case their talents for free in order to make big bucks later.  They also already knew the score when they signed up. 

 

If the whole college route is such a chore they should just forgo it and wait for the appropriate draft (not a smart idea) or the professional football and basketball leagues should set up minor leagues (at a huge cost) just like baseball.

And if for some dumb@$s reason they did allow the players to get paid, how about the schools instead take the education requirements more seriously. You can be one of the best football players out there but if you dont have the grades, you cant get into a paying school. You'd be stuck at a program like BGSU where they cant pay you and only the smart athletes who take education seriously can get into the good programs and actually get paid.

 

But I am still against the idea of paying student athletes 100%

But student athletes are, as you've (Htsguy) already said, already put on a higher pedestal than non athletes.  They are already perceived as something more than a student, at least at schools where sports are a big deal, a kind of hybrid student-employee and in many cases are students in name only.  They're already vastly separated from their "peers" and are rewarded with the kind of financial compensation that only a few other academics can ever get.  My point is that they are already being paid/compensated/rewarded - these are just semantics for what's essentially the same thing, and so it seems silly to throw the book at them when they're getting free jerseys or selling autographs or even receiving an actual, taxable salary. 

 

As to the question about schools that can't afford athletes, then yes, that's life and schools go through that already.  Think about it this way - some schools can't afford to give students free rides no matter what the quality of the student is.  Meanwhile Harvard has $billions in endowments, which lets it obtain the highest caliber students with complete financial aid.  So smaller schools (and yeah I'm simplifying here a little) don't get the top students.  So what's new? 

 

 

 

I think you are talking about two totally different things, both of which are violations of NCAA rules.  One would be the schools paying the student-athletes to attend that school, such as if the Cam Newton situation were reality and whomever wanted to sign him would have to pay a $180,000 signing bonus.  The other would be student-athletes, on their own incentive, capitalizing on their status as celebrities and making a profit selling their services (autographs) and/or NCAA issued equipment (rings, pants, etc.)

 

The first situation opens a can of worms I don't think you have fully contemplated.  Would their be a cap on what any individual player could recieve?  Would the ability of schools to do this be limited to certain sports or divisions (e.g. DIII can't offer scholarships as is)?  What happens if a star high school player busts a la Justin Zwick?  What happens when a walk-on turns into a star and demands payment?  Could Michigan entice an OSU player to transfer with the promise of more $$?

 

The second situation is more controversial IMO, but the rule makes sense.  Nothing stops Pryor or any other player from going out and earning their own money.  They just can't capitalize on their stardom like that or what stops them from signing on with Nike while just a freshman.  I played college football and had to earn my own money.  It is extremely difficult, but who said life is easy?  Your rent is free and so is your food.  You are given a small stipend that any college kid that doesn't buy an eight-ball every weekend should be able to live with.

 

All that said, I would be more than willing to discuss a higher stipend for D1 athletes because I know how time consuming their training is.  But that would only be agreeable to me if it was applied evenly accross the board to all athletes who make that committment, not just the scholarship players and not just the profitable sports.

The student athlete that brings in millions of dollars to the university, directly or indirectly, should be compensated. More than likely they already are.  Not just by agents either....you have boosters paying athletes and finding them jobs where they don't show up, but still get paid nice paycheck.  This occurs at every program. 

How many student athletes bring in millions of dollars to the university, directly or indirectly?

 

How much should Kofi Sarkodie be compensated?  How about Liz Hogan?

 

And let's talk about what type of compensation we are discussing.  Monthly payments?  Yearly contracts?  Longer-term contracts?  Signing bonuses?

How many student athletes bring in millions of dollars to the university, directly or indirectly?

 

probably a few hundred.

 

Im not talking about paying everyone. I'm talking about the athletes that have their jerseys for sale at Champs. those athletes.  if you sell my jersey you better pay me, or don't sell my jersey. 

gives the perception that their contribution to the school is more valuable than say a physic major who does volunteer work on campus or works in a lab assisting a prof on important research (just one example of hundreds).

 

When was the last time 105k people showed up to see a kid figure out a physic's problem?

Have any of you anti pay athlete people thought about the fact that this would lessen the need for inner city kids (that need the $$) to take money from agents and boosters...............thus cleaning up behind the door shady deals?

 

There's negatives and positives. IMO there's more benefits.  If some colleges weren't making millions of their players I would be against paying them.

Now you're talking about royalties.  Yet another can of worms.  Player's names are sold on items such as jerseys and their likeness is used for things such as video games and posters.  I see the overall point, but I think it would be incredibly difficult to deal with and, on top of that, I have a problem with the concept of a player saying "my jersey".... yes, your name is on it, but it is not YOUR jersey.  It does not belong to you, regardless of whether you are a pro or amateur athlete.  If the jersey is still in your possession after the season is over, it would be at the school's discretion (most schools allow the players to keep their jerseys.  It is a piece of equipment just like their helmets.

gives the perception that their contribution to the school is more valuable than say a physic major who does volunteer work on campus or works in a lab assisting a prof on important research (just one example of hundreds).

 

When was the last time 105k people showed up to see a kid figure out a physic's problem?

 

Thank you, James Caan!  But I believe the correct quote involves a "biology exam"

 

You can also flip the question on its head and ask when the last time a student-athlete invented something (or significantly contributed to the invention) that gives the University some sort of IP rights to the invention?  OK.... maybe Antrelle Rolle, but how many Rhodes Scholars suit up on Saturday?

Nothing is "theirs" technically.  But someone is still making A LOT of $$ on it.  Schools make $20,000,00 in a 3 hour BCS game. 

gives the perception that their contribution to the school is more valuable than say a physic major who does volunteer work on campus or works in a lab assisting a prof on important research (just one example of hundreds).

 

When was the last time 105k people showed up to see a kid figure out a physic's problem?

 

Thank you, James Caan! But I believe the correct quote involves a "biology exam"

 

OK.... maybe Antrelle Rolle, but how many Rhodes Scholars suit up on Saturday?

 

his cousin?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Rolle

gives the perception that their contribution to the school is more valuable than say a physic major who does volunteer work on campus or works in a lab assisting a prof on important research (just one example of hundreds).

 

When was the last time 105k people showed up to see a kid figure out a physic's problem?

 

Thank you, James Caan! But I believe the correct quote involves a "biology exam"

 

You can also flip the question on its head and ask when the last time a student-athlete invented something (or significantly contributed to the invention) that gives the University some sort of IP rights to the invention? OK.... maybe Antrelle Rolle, but how many Rhodes Scholars suit up on Saturday?

 

I used physics because thats the ex. htsguy used in the previous quote. spin man.

Maybe a more appropriate question is whether or not state-supported schools should have sports programs.

 

^Well... they would need more state support without them, no?  I wonder... does OSU's athletic department, in its entirety, turn a profit?  We also can't forget the indirect profit the schools make.  OSU is way more prestigious than it was when I was applying to college.  I was accepted (but did not go) at the time, but wouldn't stand a chance now with the "FA's" littering my HS transcript  :|  I would argue that OSU recent leap in prestige is at least partially tied to the Tressel era.

 

^^^Yes.  Myron.

 

^^^^Where do you think that money goes.  It pays for better facilities, like the Woody Hayes Center... which those athletes use to greatly enhance their abilities and chances at getting paid millions of dollars someday to play a game.  It pays for better clasrooms and labs, which the student-athlete can choose to take advantage of if desired.  It pays for better meals.  It pays for better teachers and coaches, who will help you get where you need to go.  There is not some Bill Gates at the top sucking up all this money.  It is being reinvested back into the school.... the school which is giving you a free education.

^Well... they would need more state support without them, no? I wonder... does OSU's athletic department, in its entirety, turn a profit? We also can't forget the indirect profit the schools make. OSU is way more prestigious than it was when I was applying to college. I was accepted (but did not go) at the time, but wouldn't stand a chance now with the "FA's" littering my HS transcript :| I would argue that OSU recent leap in prestige is at least partially tied to the Tressel era.

 

^^^Yes. Myron.

 

^^^^Where do you think that money goes. It pays for better facilities, like the Woody Hayes Center... which those athletes use to greatly enhance their abilities and chances at getting paid millions of dollars someday to play a game. It pays for better clasrooms and labs, which the student-athlete can choose to take advantage of if desired. It pays for better meals. It pays for better teachers and coaches, who will help you get where you need to go. There is not some Bill Gates at the top sucking up all this money. It is being reinvested back into the school.... the school which is giving you a free education.

 

Exactly.

As a person who played a college sport, have any of you?  Do you know what you told and what you have to read that goes hand-in-hand with eligibility?

Yes on the first question.  I have no idea what you are asking with the second.

A lot of the money that those big sports make goes to help support other programs in the school. If they paid the athletes, several of the smaller sports would have to be dropped.

Yes on the first question.  I have no idea what you are asking with the second.

 

Well I played on a varsity team at OSU.  So did many other family members.  You get so much information on NCAA and School rules and regulatons.  Those kids knew exactly what they could and could not sell.

I agree and said so in the OSU thread.

I tend to fall on the side of compensating the players. However we are really only talking about a handful of NCAA football and basketball (less of a problem with 1 and done in place) programs where the schools are "making money" off the players. And really only a handful of players in that group, the overwhelming majority of NCAA athletes are happy to be playing their sports at a higher level and getting whatever scholarship money they get .

 

I am kind of liking HTS idea for a tiered stipend for D-1 athletes. Or perhaps some sort of profit sharing trust fund for the players that they can carry with them after they leave school tied to marketing and game revenues.

 

Really the problem with NCAA football is that the NFL doesn't have a D-league or minor league unlike MLB or to a lesser extent NBA, so NCAA is basically the only route for the high talent players to get into the NFL. Some of these  players are their to get an education too and see that has value too, but some seem to feel that everyday they play  in college is a day they are not getting paid.

 

But what do I know? I played club sports. We paid to play (minus $500 a year per sport from the Athletic Dept)

No exploitation here!

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/29/news/companies/college_football_dollars/index.htm

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The richest college football programs got richer in 2010, pocketing more than $1 billion in profits for the first time.

 

The profit for the 68 teams that play in the six major conferences was up 11% from the prior school year, according to a CNNMoney analysis of figures filed by each school with the Department of Education

 

As a person who played a college sport, have any of you? Do you know what you told and what you have to read that goes hand-in-hand with eligibility?

 

Yes I played Div I football for 4 years. 

Yes on the first question.  I have no idea what you are asking with the second.

 

Well I played on a varsity team at OSU.  So did many other family members.  You get so much information on NCAA and School rules and regulatons.  Those kids knew exactly what they could and could not sell.

 

You are correct. They most certainly knew.

Thats why I have no sympathy for these kids.  I played volleyball and we a member suspended for giving an autograph on an a OSU volleyball. 

How can AD's afford to pay the student athletes? Very Very few Athletic Departments in D1 make a profit overall. I think it might only be one or two.

How can AD's afford to pay the student athletes? Very Very few Athletic Departments in D1 make a profit overall. I think it might only be one or two.

 

Actually there are more than that.  The Ohio State, USC, Texas, LSU, etc. which have top tier programs in multiple sports can make money. 

 

However, people fail to realize that the expenses of sports programs are high.  scholarships, travel, year round training (one of the biggest budget busters) are expensive.  People only think about income, never expenses.

^ true. but the colleges you've mentioned are making money even after the expenses are paid.

If you propose to pay them, then do you also provide for them health insurance and all other benifits that "professionals" are provided with. 

 

Also, I don't understand why you would pay them.  They are practicing for their careers in life as professional athletes just like engineering students are practicing for their career as engineers. 

 

Where do you draw the line also.  Do you get paid if you're a walk on at Valparaiso University, or do you get paid if you're a top prospect for Ohio State? 

According to this

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101207_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl

Recently the NCAA reported that only 14 Division I-A (football) programs clear a profit, while no college or university in the United States has an athletic department that is financially self-sustaining. Nobody in Division I -- not Alabama, not Auburn, not Oklahoma, nobody -- has an athletic department that pays its own way.