Whatcha Think

[Always Learning]

Live in Houston, father to a pair of A&M grads (and a pair of LSU grads) so my interest in college football sets with those two schools (until Xavier returns football - not that will happen). Thus, and living in Houston, the question of the day, week, and month - 7/24 - is about the Johnny Manziel alleged autographing for money and an NCAA investigation.

Couple that with the recent osu "tatoo scandal" and USA Today's (go to Google and enter Bilas NCAA shop) huge story about the NCAA itself selling jerseys with the number 2 on the front and "Football" on the back (an blatant skirt around the Manziel family trademark) and toss in the very recent discussion of the BCS powerhouses wanting stipends (as much as $2,000 per month per athlete) makes me wonder.

Some of my thoughts are:

Back in the day, waaay back in the day, the NCAA approved $15 per month per player for "laundry." At Xavier, that wasn't allowed by the University, but make no mistake about it, boosters in handshakes saw that some players, not all, got at least that much. And more than once, I took a player to a store in Norwood where he could get a coat in the wintertime at a reduced cost and cash from me. Once I argued with a top NCAA official that what I was doing was just being human. He said the NCAA could put us on probation and we'd be barred from TV in football, or the Dance in basketball. I asked him when was Xavier or any similar size program ever on TV, and since we were 5-21 that season, when did he think we'd get to the tournament. It was just an argument FOR getting help to the players above the $15.

For 18 years I was brought in to the Final Four to work the media covering it, and in the lobby of the team's hotels companies were set up selling team shirts, Final Four stuff etc and the prices were $25 to $100 depending on the product. The event was a multi-million profit gig for the NCAA, and for the four schools. But players by the rules couldn't be given any cash other than a "per diem" check. I used to see players haggle with the sellers for a better price, to buy souvenirs for family members, etc. But give them enough to cover, no way said the NCAA. Now that may have changed, Muskieman may have better up to date info, but nevertheless the question remains.

Now for eons, I have thought players should get something more than RBBTF. The NCAA rules are funny about it. No cash, but yes, a cel phone and the monthly bill is OK. Married? OK, your wife's hospitalization cost can be paid. Meals? Sure, four times a day at the training center, and no, its not what the rest of the student body gets at the school cafeteria..

So, whatcha think?

Should players get paid? How much? What about walk-on's? Year around or just in the season?

Sound off......

[Xville]

College athletes are already paid as far as I am concerned. How much does it cost to attend Xavier now?? Something in the neighborhood of 30-40k per year including room and board....I am guessing here as I graduated in 2004 and not sure how much it has gone up since I left. So in essence, they are being paid about 120-160k to attend if they stay all four years. No matter where they go, if they put their head in the game, they are getting a quality education and a network of high profile people that is invaluable.

Now, does the NCAA along with the colleges and universities profit and use these kids? Yes absolutely and that is wrong. However, I don't think paying players is exactly the answer here. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, aren't the kids themselves also using the university and the NCAA in a way? They are using them to receive a free education, and in some cases, they are using them to go on to professional sports.

[xavierj]

I am fine with them getting money as long as everyone has to play by the same rules. Pay them minimum wage for hours at practice and game time. That's like 15 to 20 hours a week. But the argument that because the school makes money off them is a little much since the school already gives them roughly $40,000 a year at a school like Xavier.

Also how much do you pay the guys in med school, business school and law school? I am pretty sure the students, not the athletes, end up donating more money to the schools throughout time, than Johnny Football will bring in during his time.

[Giacomazzi]

It's ridiculous and completely ignorant to assert that the NCAA and its member institutions "profit" off of collegiate athletes. By definition, the NCAA and its member institutions are non profits. Any money that is made (and there is a TON of money being made) gets put directly back into the overhead costs of running organizations, setting up tournaments, paying officials, as well as paying for athletic budgets and scholarships of all NCAA member schools, from DIII all the way up to DI.

Does the NCAA have some problems? Absolutely. Should those problems be taken care of? Absolutely. But this whole idea of blowing up the model in order to pay those starving athletes enough money for their tattoos, guns, weed (I'm looking at you, Ohio State, Tennessee and UNC), and whatever else broke college students spend their non existent money on is crazy.

[sirthought]

It's ridiculous and completely ignorant to assert that the NCAA and its member institutions "profit" off of collegiate athletes. By definition, the NCAA and its member institutions are non profits. Any money that is made (and there is a TON of money being made) gets put directly back into the overhead costs of running organizations, setting up tournaments, paying officials, as well as paying for athletic budgets and scholarships of all NCAA member schools, from DIII all the way up to DI.

Does the NCAA have some problems? Absolutely. Should those problems be taken care of? Absolutely. But this whole idea of blowing up the model in order to pay those starving athletes enough money for their tattoos, guns, weed (I'm looking at you, Ohio State, Tennessee and UNC), and whatever else broke college students spend their non existent money on is crazy.

I pretty much agree with this 100%. And it gets hairy when you start to look at who should get paid. Walk-ons? Only scholarship players? Only scholarship players in sports that earn real revenue (i.e. basketball and football)? There isn't enough to cover it all. And what if some hotshot decides he isn't getting as much as he should and goes on strike or something?

Yes, someone is profiting, but it's not necessarily the schools themselves. Although, there are several coaches and admins making a much bigger income than anyone in their position should be making, but that's a different topic. Media networks profit. Merchandise manufacturers profit. Healthcare providers profit. Service people such as security profit. And probably some lawyers...there's always grubby lawyers. LOL

The areas that seems to be gray are when a kid who otherwise has his freetime committed and can't truly spend any extra time on a regular basis to work for spending cash and then can't get help from someone who might be inclined to help. Clothes for a special event; spending money for taking out a date once in a blue moon; a night in a hotel for a basketball camp. This must seem so unfair at times to guys who really invest a lot of their lives to the school's team. I can see why resentment might exist, but the fact of the matter is higher education costs a lot and they need to focus on the opportunity they've been given.

[Juice]

It's ridiculous and completely ignorant to assert that the NCAA and its member institutions "profit" off of collegiate athletes. By definition, the NCAA and its member institutions are non profits. Any money that is made (and there is a TON of money being made) gets put directly back into the overhead costs of running organizations, setting up tournaments, paying officials, as well as paying for athletic budgets and scholarships of all NCAA member schools, from DIII all the way up to DI.

Does the NCAA have some problems? Absolutely. Should those problems be taken care of? Absolutely. But this whole idea of blowing up the model in order to pay those starving athletes enough money for their tattoos, guns, weed (I'm looking at you, Ohio State, Tennessee and UNC), and whatever else broke college students spend their non existent money on is crazy.

RAYCESS!

And it doesn't matter if they're poor or not, they earned the revenue. People pay to watch them play. They do not pay to see some middle aged coach, some old out of touch school president, or any other person who has an inflated salary because of the athletes playing college football and basketball.

[ammtd34]

RAYCESS!

And it doesn't matter if they're poor or not, they earned the revenue. People pay to watch them play. They do not pay to see some middle aged coach, some old out of touch school president, or any other person who has an inflated salary because of the athletes playing college football and basketball.

Then it shouldn't matter who the coach is, right?

[MADXSTER]

RAYCESS!

And it doesn't matter if they're poor or not, they earned the revenue. People pay to watch them play. They do not pay to see some middle aged coach, some old out of touch school president, or any other person who has an inflated salary because of the athletes playing college football and basketball.

Not entirely. There are a lot of Div I teams that schedule buy games in order to subsidize their overhead. Div II & III don't pack the stands either. Outside of Basketball, Football and Hockey, there can't be too many revenue sports.

My guess is that this is another thing being pushed by the football schools. Do what we say or we'll start our own organization.

[blobfan]

Paying student athletes seems a bit much but what about letting them take jobs at a fare wage even if it's above NCAA determined maximum? I've heard of cases where a kid was able to get a job in the summer where the union minimum for the work was higher than the NCAA allowed and got in trouble for it. That's just stupid. And why can't the NCAA set up a financial need fund for ALL student athletes that truly have a need not covered by room and board? If a kid is so poor that he/she can't afford new clothes but their sport doesn't allow time for a minimum wage part time job, there should be a mechanism to get them help. Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn't seem interested in such creative solutions and is chasing down kids for small violations like playing one game in 2nd summer league and dragging their feet in the clearinghouse.

[LadyMuskie]

Would you pay more to watch Xavier Basketball if Xavier had to pay its players? What about OSU Football or ND Football? Because there is no way that these schools are going to start paying its players without passing at least some of the cost on to the fans.

I personally think it's a terrible idea. I agree with Blobfan, that the NCAA regulations on the jobs athletes can have is ridiculous, but I think paying student athletes is going to lead down a really bad path for college sports. The playing field is already not level when schools like Marshall or UC are trying to compete with powerhouses like OSU and Michigan in football. If a small, Catholic University like Xavier, with a small, tight-wad alumni base, had to try to entice players by offering them a salary, there's no way we could compete in that arena with the likes of IU, OSU, or Duke. At least now, we can compete because of comparable facilities, travel arrangements and success, but if we can't out-salary a big state school like OSU, and the only way we could would be to continue to raise prices to see Xavier play teams like Miami and so on.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that sports like baseball and soccer don't draw even half of the crowds basketball and football do. It's a logistical nightmare, and really doesn't make much sense. Some of these kids are getting extremely expensive educations for free at quality universities, while their peers pay thousands of dollars a semester to be in the same classes. That's their paycheck right there. My degree is worth just as much as David West's degree, but I didn't get a full ride to attend Xavier. I don't begrudge the basketball players their scholarships anymore than I begrudge the non-athletes who had full rides, but nevertheless, it is a perk that most of the students at a university don't receive!

[Giacomazzi]

Paying student athletes seems a bit much but what about letting them take jobs at a fare wage even if it's above NCAA determined maximum? I've heard of cases where a kid was able to get a job in the summer where the union minimum for the work was higher than the NCAA allowed and got in trouble for it. That's just stupid. And why can't the NCAA set up a financial need fund for ALL student athletes that truly have a need not covered by room and board? If a kid is so poor that he/she can't afford new clothes but their sport doesn't allow time for a minimum wage part time job, there should be a mechanism to get them help. Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn't seem interested in such creative solutions and is chasing down kids for small violations like playing one game in 2nd summer league and dragging their feet in the clearinghouse.

1. The rule doesn't exist. As long as student athletes are paid the going rate for work actually performed during the summer, then they get paid. There is no NCAA cap.

2. The NCAA has a system in place to allow for expenses during the school year. It's for student athletes that would qualify for a Pell Grant (or actually receive one if they are not on a full ride scholarship). After filling out the exactly ONE page of paperwork, a check is delivered about 2 weeks later to the athlete for $500. This is called the Special Needs fund or something like that. It is to be used on school supplies (not books), clothing, and gas money or a flight for one trip home during the school year. The athlete keeps all receipts and turns them into someone at compliance as he or she spends the money, or at the end of the year. Someone from compliance emails eligible athletes at Xavier every year about this, and I'm sure it happens at other schools as well.

[xubrew]

College players on full scholarship receive free tuition. But, so do the children of university employees. For that matter, so do university employees. They can continue to go to school and get as many master's degrees and PhD's as they want. Yet, it would be ludicrous to suggest that we stop paying coaches, and simply allow them and their families to take classes for free (which, they can anyway). I'm not saying that's no small thing, but I am saying that athletes are not the only ones who receive that privilege.

When I was in graduate school, I had an assistantship that paid my tuition, room, board, books, and gave me $5000.00 a year on top of all that. My graduate assistantship was in.....student affairs. They had a lot less money to work with than what the athletic department had. My role was hardly essential. I was, after all, merely a grad assistant, yet I received more money and benefits than any athlete in the history of college athletics has ever legally received.

In other areas within the university, students are not only allowed to seek out money, they are encouraged to do so. Theater students are allowed to perform professionally if they get that chance. Journalism students are encouraged to get published, and get money, if they're able to do so. Art students can submit and sell their art at galleries. Well, most of them. I know of a case where a softball player was majoring in art, and had the chance to sell some of her pieces. The school had to monitor that to make sure she wasn't getting an "unfair price" for them, because the NCAA would view that as an extra benefit. She was actually advised not to sell them.

If you write for the school paper, it's a paid position. If you're an RA, it's a paid position. If you work in student government, it's a paid position. Some of those students have scholarships, yet there is no outcry about paying them.

Student-athletes, despite being far more visible and being in a department that has more money in their budget than any three or four other departments combined (at least), doesn't pay players and does not allow for players to make money on their own within their field. Why does this romantic ideal of "amateurism" apply to basketball, but not to art?? or journalism?? or acting?? or even Business, where you are allowed and encouraged to have internships, many of which are in fact paid internships??

Now, we're not talking about a lot of money. We're talking about $2000 per scholarship athlete per year as a subsidy to the scholarship. That's all players in all sports who are on scholarship. That was what was recently proposed and was voted down. Personally, I think it can be and should be more than that, but that's just me. At the end of the day, it's a mere tuition increase, which is something that all schools are always able to find a way to afford. And, when you have coaches making as much as they do, and perks being as extreme as they are for athletic department employees (cars, gear, new computers every year, new phones ever year, new TVs in offices every year, etc) I do not believe that any school, not even the Big South schools, do not have it within their means to pay scholarship athletes the $2000 subsidy.

As far as making money off your likeness (autographs, video games, commercials, etc), I do see that as something that needs to be monitored, but I also think it should be allowed. You don't want a booster paying someone $50,000 for an autograph poster, but you do want to create a climate to where they can get a fair price off of their images. The best idea I can come up with is a cap. $10K??, $15k??, I don't know the number, but it would be the same amount for everyone. If you have a Lolo Jones on your track team that transcends the sport and is able to make up to $15k off her likeness, then good for her. Same with football, basketball and baseball players. It wouldn't be hard to monitor either, since there is already a process in place that monitors what types of jobs athletes are and are not allowed to have, and what their incomes are. You would report this the same way, and you would not be allowed to surpass whatever the agreed upon cap is.

[xubrew]

One more thought....

I think allowing players to make a limited amount of money off of their likenesses would actually help the smaller programs. The reason?? Steffan Curry would have been a star wherever he went, but he was a SUPERSTAR to the Davidson fanbase and community. There are a lot of good players on major programs that would be the face and name if they were to play for a mid-major or low major program. Being the star makes it easier to make money off of your likeness. If you go to Indiana, you'll see a lot of playing time, but if you go to Western Kentucky, you'll be on a billboard.

[Fireball]

So, a couple of thoughts. First, while I definitely would not agree with opening the floodgates to paying college athletes, I do think that they should be allowed to be paid a small hourly wage for time spent at practice, games, mandatory workouts and such. I had a scholarship and made a pretty decent hourly wage as a computer lab consultant as a university employee, and these student-athletes are essentially university employees as well. It shouldn't be a large rate, but it would be completely in play to pay athletes for that time.

Secondly, if universities and/or the NCAA are going to profit from an athlete's likeness, the athlete should be paid for that. I would suggest putting a percentage of the profits into a trust that the athlete would get after they graduate from the school or turn professional. In my opinion, that should include jersey sales as well.

[smileyy]

How much money has Johnny Manziel made for Texas A&M? Probably approaching $100M.

A gilded cage is still a cage.

[More Cowbell]

How much money has Johnny Manziel made for Texas A&M? Probably approaching $100M.

A gilded cage is still a cage.

probably a little high. They were only paid $3.6 million for the *bowl game and tv contracts are negotiated by the conference ahead of time.

Fixed

[GoMuskies]

A&M didn't make a BCS game. They played in the Cotton Bowl.

And 'brew, I still think my point from the other thread on this stands: colleges have ZERO trouble filling up their rosters with the most talented 18-22 year olds in the country for the price of a scholarship and room and board. With that being the case, why would they pay more? The players clearly aren't demanding more. Most of them seem to be pretty damned happy with the deal they got. Quite a few want in so bad that they walk-on and pay for the privilege.

[Juice]

probably a little high. They were only paid $3.6 million for the *bowl game and tv contracts are negotiated by the conference ahead of time.

Fixed

I read that TAMU got something $30 million in exposure from the season he and the team had, and his Heisman win.

[smileyy]

The players clearly aren't demanding more. Most of them seem to be pretty damned happy with the deal they got.

Well, they don't have any leverage either. Give them some leverage and that position changes real quick.

[GoMuskies]

They have plenty of leverage. They don't have to play. They seem to think college athletics is a such a great deal that they're lining up by the thousands.

[xavierj]

I read that TAMU got something $30 million in exposure from the season he and the team had, and his Heisman win.

Texas A&M was one of 14 schools to crack $100,000 million in revenue last year. That is before expenses. So yes they did well. But I think a lot of that was also their move to the SEC. Of the 14 who cracked $100,000 million in revenue, all were from either the Sec, Big 10, and Big 12 with the exception of Notre Dame and Florida State.

[xubrew]

They have plenty of leverage. They don't have to play. They seem to think college athletics is a such a great deal that they're lining up by the thousands.

You're right about that. They don't have to play. That would require a serious concentrated effort. So much so that it probably isn't likely to happen, but that may be what it takes to create change.

Remember 1996 (I think it was)?? There were rumors going into that NCAA Tournament that many of the teams (or maybe it was all of the teams) were threatening not to play. I was in high school and don't remember the details (and didn't know enough about it at the time to make sense of the details even if I did know), but I do recall there was real concern that the players would just refuse to play. Obviously, that didn't happen.

I'm not in favor of that, per say, but it may take something like that to force the issue. Something like that would require a great deal of organization and sophistication, which is why it is very unlikely to ever actually happen. You're right. They do have leverage, but chances are they don't know how to use it.

[GoMuskies]

Remember 1996 (I think it was)?? There were rumors going into that NCAA Tournament that many of the teams (or maybe it was all of the teams) were threatening not to play. I was in high school and don't remember the details (and didn't know enough about it at the time to make sense of the details even if I did know), but I do recall there was real concern that the players would just refuse to play. Obviously, that didn't happen.


I definitely do not recall this. It would have been awesome, though, since UK was basically a mortal lock to win it all that year (UMass was the only team with a prayer of beating them).

[blobfan]

1. The rule doesn't exist. As long as student athletes are paid the going rate for work actually performed during the summer, then they get paid. There is no NCAA cap.

2. The NCAA has a system in place to allow for expenses during the school year. It's for student athletes that would qualify for a Pell Grant (or actually receive one if they are not on a full ride scholarship). After filling out the exactly ONE page of paperwork, a check is delivered about 2 weeks later to the athlete for $500. This is called the Special Needs fund or something like that. It is to be used on school supplies (not books), clothing, and gas money or a flight for one trip home during the school year. The athlete keeps all receipts and turns them into someone at compliance as he or she spends the money, or at the end of the year. Someone from compliance emails eligible athletes at Xavier every year about this, and I'm sure it happens at other schools as well.
1. I was told about a player that had to report a violation for making union minimum but can't find confirmation. My source was a friend of the player adn that friend is a member of my family not prone to exaggeration, although I cannot vouch for the player.
2. $500? For supplies clothing AND gas money during the school year? And that sounds reasonable to you?

[Giacomazzi]

What school supplies does a student athlete need outside of a few notebooks, maybe some binders, and pens? Remember, this is specifically not for textbooks, which are already comped in a basketball player's scholarship. What clothing does a student athlete need outside of what they already receive? Do they need the hippest items? Probably not. Let's go with department store suit for $200 for a job interview or something like that. That leaves another 200 for gas money for "one trip home."

Look, is it ideal? Probably not. But it is absolutely reasonable. I know athletes from different schools that have made situations like that work and on far less scholarship money than a basketball player receives. The athlete knows what he or she is signing up for (and if they don't, it's their own fault for not doing the research and preparation beforehand). If an athlete/his family doesn't like it, turn professional and go to Europe.

[STL_XUfan]

What school supplies does a student athlete need outside of a few notebooks, maybe some binders, and pens? Remember, this is specifically not for textbooks, which are already comped in a basketball player's scholarship. What clothing does a student athlete need outside of what they already receive? Do they need the hippest items? Probably not. Let's go with department store suit for $200 for a job interview or something like that. That leaves another 200 for gas money for "one trip home."

Look, is it ideal? Probably not. But it is absolutely reasonable. I know athletes from different schools that have made situations like that work and on far less scholarship money than a basketball player receives. The athlete knows what he or she is signing up for (and if they don't, it's their own fault for not doing the research and preparation beforehand). If an athlete/his family doesn't like it, turn professional and go to Europe.

I agree with your last line and that is about it. There is an alternate market in college basketball. Part of my problem with college football is that this alternate market doesn't exist. I think the NFL has shown that they are in cahoots with the NCAA in making colleges their very own minor league system and therefore draw much more of my ire on this topic (Pryor and Tressel getting NFL suspensions for breaking NCAA rules, are you freaking kidding me).


However, your first paragraph is just ignorant. $500 is not enough for anyone to live on. If you want a fun experiment try filling out an income and expense statement (they are available online). Start with a basic item like a haircut. What do you spend a month on haircuts? Now I am cheap ass, and even I go about once a month for a haircut. It costs me 17 bucks after tip at great clips. Over a year I am looking at $204 a year.

Now lets move onto clothes. I have to wear a suit almost everyday and I own plenty of $200 to $300 department store suits. However I wear a 42 regular. I doubt a 6'9 300lb linebacker or center is going to be able to buy off the rack. And that is just for an interview. How much a year do you spend on clothes? While I live in gym clothes and would have no problem in my team giveaways, there are occasions that you need something a bit nicer if you want to go out to dinner, church, or somewhere that isn't chipotle.

What about a car? How many of us had a car at Xavier? I did after my freshman year. But what if he got his car for free as a graduation gift (and have fun explaining that gift to the NCAA)? 18 year old male with liability insurance is going to run them around $80 a month, if they are lucky, so another $960. Then oil changes around $80 a year ($20 every 3 months). And then gas is only what 3.60 a gallon. Lets say they only go through a tank a month, we are talking about $3.60 x 15 gallons x 12 months = $648 a year.

And then a cell phone $45 a month x 12 = 540 (unless you got that Obama phone).

I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

[STL_XUfan]

1. I was told about a player that had to report a violation for making union minimum but can't find confirmation. My source was a friend of the player adn that friend is a member of my family not prone to exaggeration, although I cannot vouch for the player.


I believe this was a rule a while back. A compliance officer I use to work for took credit for getting that rule rescinded while she was a student athlete (after writing a check to the charity of her choice for going over the amount).

[Giacomazzi]

That's what the summer job is for, to make the kind of money needed to support yourself during the academic year when you're too busy doing athletics to pull a job that a regular student may have time for.

The bottom line is that it is possible, it has been done and this era of entitlement from spoiled, selfish student athletes will destroy the collegiate model for thousands of athletes that would otherwise have ZERO shot at getting to college.

[Juice]

That's what the summer job is for, to make the kind of money needed to support yourself during the academic year when you're too busy doing athletics to pull a job that a regular student may have time for.

The bottom line is that it is possible, it has been done and this era of entitlement from spoiled, selfish student athletes will destroy the collegiate model for thousands of athletes that would otherwise have ZERO shot at getting to college.

You do realize that college athletes, especially football players, are home for like a month or maybe two before they have to go back right?

Are you from 1955? Do you honestly believe this BS?

[Giacomazzi]

Our own basketball players basically don't go home for any significant length of time year round. But does that stop them? No, over the summer some of them work camps every week while and others work jobs or get internships. They make it work.

And I was a collegiate athlete from this century, so I have a pretty good idea what happens on the inside.

[Juice]

Our own basketball players basically don't go home for any significant length of time year round. But does that stop them? No, over the summer some of them work camps every week while and others work jobs or get internships. They make it work.

And I was a collegiate athlete from this century, so I have a pretty good idea what happens on the inside.

"Hey college football and basketball players, while you're training in the off season to help make us millions upon millions, just make it work." - the NCAA

"Oh, ok. Well why didn't you say so?" - College athletes

[Giacomazzi]

You want to know where those millions and millions go? It's not like the NCAA offices in Indianapolis are built out of gold bars or the executives sit in chairs made from Franklins. Those millions and millions go back to NCAA member schools at every level to help fund athletic budgets and scholarships. The NCAA doesn't profit off of these athletes. That's crazy talk. Even Xavier gets a pot of cash from the NCAA every year for this purpose.

But by all means, kill thousands of athlete's dreams of getting a college education.

[smileyy]

The NCAA doesn't profit off of these athletes

The schools and their staff sure do.

[smileyy]

Also see: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/low_concept/2013/08/if_the_ncaa_ran_the_country_how_the_college_sports _business_model_would.html

[X-band '01]

The NCAA doesn't profit off of these athletes.

Not after Jay Bilas caught them red-handed: (http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/timbrando/41384515697/0/ncaa-will-stop-sales-on-website)

[X-band '01]

Not after Jay Bilas caught them red-handed: (http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/timbrando/41384515697/0/ncaa-will-stop-sales-on-website)

Nah, better make that green-handed.

[Giacomazzi]

@CoachChrisMack 14 Aug
Really tiring of hearing about NCAA players being "exploited". Real simple solution. Dont play sports. Dont be a S/A at a D1 school.

Coach also takes on a few people on Twitter with his opinion if you want a little light reading.

This is also a link to how the NCAA reports their revenue being spent from the 2011-2012 year: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Revenue#.Ug2t1AsCo_c.twitter

[bleedXblue]

I see both sides of the argument. The kids do for the most part get a free education. The only way it would work would be to put the $$ into a fund that they could access AFTER they graduate. Yes, can't get the $$ unless you get a degree. All kids would have to get the same amount of $$ regardless of sport and regardless of who they play for. You start paying the OSU kids more than some other school and the slope gets really slippery. As far as autographs...I say if someone wants to pay you for your autograph, let them.....this is America for crying out loud.

[Juice]

Coach also takes on a few people on Twitter with his opinion if you want a little light reading.

This is also a link to how the NCAA reports their revenue being spent from the 2011-2012 year: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Revenue#.Ug2t1AsCo_c.twitter

That great, logical, fair minded, useful, truthful organization called the NCAA? Oh ok.

[Masterofreality]

Not after Jay Bilas caught them red-handed: (http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/timbrando/41384515697/0/ncaa-will-stop-sales-on-website)

Yeah. Sanctimonious Jay Bilas seems to pick what to be outraged over. Nails the NCAA on that, although it was really a 3rd party licensee selling licensed merchandise. Meanwhile , a Duke basketball player buys $90,000 in jewelry in NY with $30 grand down, skates, and Bilas says nothing about the NCAA. Meanwhile, North Carolina has obvious academic fraud, skates, and Bilas says nothing about the NCAA.

His whistle-blowing depends upon who's Ox is being gored.....me thinks.

[smileyy]

I see both sides of the argument. The kids do for the most part get a free education. The only way it would work would be to put the $$ into a fund that they could access AFTER they graduate. Yes, can't get the $$ unless you get a degree. All kids would have to get the same amount of $$ regardless of sport and regardless of who they play for. You start paying the OSU kids more than some other school and the slope gets really slippery. As far as autographs...I say if someone wants to pay you for your autograph, let them.....this is America for crying out loud.

I feel like the recognition that college football exploits its athletes for profits will destroy much of what we call college football today. I'm ok with that.

I really don't understand why people are so emotionally connected to making sure people don't get paid for their work.

[Juice]

I feel like the recognition that college football exploits its athletes for profits will destroy much of what we call college football today. I'm ok with that.

I really don't understand why people are so emotionally connected to making sure people don't get paid for their work.

But they do get paid. It's called a scholarship (hits self in the head every time someone says that).

[X-band '01]

Yeah. Sanctimonious Jay Bilas seems to pick what to be outraged over. Nails the NCAA on that, although it was really a 3rd party licensee selling licensed merchandise. Meanwhile , a Duke basketball player buys $90,000 in jewelry in NY with $30 grand down, skates, and Bilas says nothing about the NCAA. Meanwhile, North Carolina has obvious academic fraud, skates, and Bilas says nothing about the NCAA.

His whistle-blowing depends upon who's Ox is being gored.....me thinks.

So in other words, I shouldn't hold my breath to see what the NCAA ultimately decides what to do with the U?

[xu2013]

If you could find away to pay athletes without it getting out of hand then I'd probably be OK with it. 3k stipend would be fine with me. Although if it doesn't happen, my heart sure as hell ain't gonna break for people who get 250k over 4 years. Students go to college to prepare for a professional career why should it be different for athletes?

[Juice]

If you could find away to pay athletes without it getting out of hand then I'd probably be OK with it. 3k stipend would be fine with me. Although if it doesn't happen, my heart sure as hell ain't gonna break for people who get 250k over 4 years. Students go to college to prepare for a professional career why should it be different for athletes?

Because athletes, especially football and basketball players, have a marketable skill already. People already want to pay money to watch them use that skill. I would say the same for musicians and really smart kids who get scholarships. Universities want them because of that skill. My advice to every other student (myself included) who didn't get a full scholarship anywhere: get really good at something.

[xu2013]

Because athletes, especially football and basketball players, have a marketable skill already. People already want to pay money to watch them use that skill. I would say the same for musicians and really smart kids who get scholarships. Universities want them because of that skill. My advice to every other student (myself included) who didn't get a full scholarship anywhere: get really good at something.

And if they aren't good? Should the school still have to pay them? Now if you're talking about getting paid for likeness that's different. But if you're getting paid to play a sport I'd expect that whatever you make plus a scholarship better be taken away if you don't meet expectations just like any other scholarship.

[xu2013]

And I understand that it happens and kids just transfer to other schools, but if you're getting paid the level of expectations should be much higher. If you're getting paid to play then they should no longer be treated like college students but professionals. Again, this is only regarding pay for play, but if it does happen, I can see college sports become nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries playing for a school until a higher paycheck comes along.

[waggy]

Because athletes, especially football and basketball players, have a marketable skill already.

I don't think it's all that marketable. It maybe reaches the level of semi-pro, which hardly anyone is willing to pay to watch. None of this happens without the name on the front of the jersey.

They only have two rounds of the draft now for a reason. There just aren't that many guys that are pro level.

[smileyy]

But they do get paid. It's called a scholarship (hits self in the head every time someone says that).

Its real hard to spend a scholarship.

[smileyy]

Students go to college to prepare for a professional career why should it be different for athletes?

Because nobody stops _ANYONE_ else from earning a living in their field while in college.

[Juice]

Its real hard to spend a scholarship.

I was being sarcastic.

[blobfan]

Because nobody stops _ANYONE_ else from earning a living in their field while in college.

To me, this is the crux of the issue. It's not that student athletes are held to a standard. It's that they are held to a higher standard than other scholarship students. What's worse is the restrictions are laid down by an organization that reserves the right to profit off a students popularity for itself. If the NCAA were doing and ace job of getting students through the clearing-house quickly and consistently focusing on the high threat violations, they'd upset me less.

[smileyy]

I was being sarcastic.

Whoops -- sorry. I've been reading this pretty disjointly.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't really get how athletes are so "exploited" for playing a game. They get all kinds of special treatment, benefits that extend well beyond free tuition, and they get to leverage a system that can result in huge payoffs for the best of the best. And they all signed up for it voluntarily, because that is exactly what they want to be doing.

If the argument is that players should be paid, who should pay them? Where should the money come from? Should money sports get more?

There are 450,000 student athletes at the 1,200 ncaa member schools. If they all get a $3,000 stipend, that is $1.3 billion dollars. Can someone tell me who is pulling the $1.3 billion out of the system now that can just redistribute it to the student athletes to make the whole system more fair?

The NCAA (which is really just the member schools) had a record year last year, increasing net assets about $70 million. Should each athlete get a dividend check for $155? Does that solve anything?

Top money football and basketball programs make money for school's athletic departments. The schools spend the money they make on scholarships and education. I don't really see where the huge problem is on the money side.

[GoMuskies]

I don't really get how athletes are so "exploited" for playing a game. They get all kinds of special treatment, benefits that extend well beyond free tuition, and they get to leverage a system that can result in huge payoffs for the best of the best. And they all signed up for it voluntarily, because that is exactly what they want to be doing.

This is my thought exactly. If these kids are so "exploited", why is there a line of kids out the door willing to take their place? Is Coach Mack forcing kids at gunpoint to attend walkon tryouts?

[SM#24]

Put me in with Go, Kahn's and Coach Mack. I could write for hours and post something so long it would make Snipe proud; but in a nutshell, there is no better deal in life I can think of right now for an 18yo than a full athletic scholarship.

[Giacomazzi]

I would also argue that the majority (especially if you take football out of the equation) of male student athletes at the D1 level are not even on full scholarships if you go across the entire sport spectrum. What happens to them? Do they get a stipend that becomes tacked onto their scholarship, or do they get left out in the cold because they aren't a full ride athlete? How does Title IX work into all of this?

[xubrew]

Put me in with Go, Kahn's and Coach Mack. I could write for hours and post something so long it would make Snipe proud; but in a nutshell, there is no better deal in life I can think of right now for an 18yo than a full athletic scholarship.

How about coaching, or working in athletic administration??

You make way more money than the average working person does, and on top of that you get free education if you want it, your entire family gets free education if you want it, you get the use of "department" vehicles, you get a new computer almost every year, a new phone every year, new clothes and gear every year, tickets to virtually any college sporting event you want for nothing, for that matter tickets to most pro sporting events (although not all), a flat screen in your office (or more than one if you want more than one) with maxed out satellite TV, a meal plan if you want one, and I'm sure there are other things that I'm leaving off the list.

I don't think players are being exploited, and I hate whenever anyone makes that argument. They're not being exploited. they also don't need the stipend. But, most people who work in college athletics don't actually need most of the shit they're given either, yet no one thinks of them as spoiled. I don't think players need more. I just think they deserve more and it is within the means of every div1 athletic department to give them a little more. Of course, to do that, they may have to give up some of their toys and pay....which I think is the main reason athletes aren't paid anything on top of their scholarship.

I'm sorry, but Chris Mack is having a pretty nice dinner most nights of the week. I just don't think he should attack players for being spoiled simply because they feel they deserve a little more than what they're getting. They do deserve a little more. They don't need it, but Chris Mack, and most of the XU athletic department don't actually NEED a lot of the nice things they've got either. That's why I hate that argument against paying the players.

[SM#24]

Brew, we're mostly on the same page. I don't agree that the players deserve more; I think they get enough already. I know most of the football and basketball players at the upper level schools look at this as a means to an end, but the one thing they get that is not mentioned enough, is that they get to be on the team. There is no shortage of people that wouldn't trade places in a heartbeat (even without the scholoarship). There is too much of an entitlement feeeling going on.

The one thing I do think is out of balance in college athletics is the head coaching salaries in football and basketball. But I can't think of anything to rein it in. If that's the marketplace, so be it I guess. Although, I'd be willing to bet there isn't a person in the state of Alabama that thinks Nick Saban is overpaid.

[Kahns Krazy]

Chris Mack is a terrible example to use. For every Mack, there are dozens of assistants, admins, volunteers, etc, that are grinding it out for the love of the game and a paycheck that is close to illegally low.

Amateurism is the rule of the game. If you don't like that rule, there are professional options.

[Juice]

Brew, we're mostly on the same page. I don't agree that the players deserve more; I think they get enough already. I know most of the football and basketball players at the upper level schools look at this as a means to an end, but the one thing they get that is not mentioned enough, is that they get to be on the team. There is no shortage of people that wouldn't trade places in a heartbeat (even without the scholoarship). There is too much of an entitlement feeeling going on.

The one thing I do think is out of balance in college athletics is the head coaching salaries in football and basketball. But I can't think of anything to rein it in. If that's the marketplace, so be it I guess. Although, I'd be willing to bet there isn't a person in the state of Alabama that thinks Nick Saban is overpaid.

Of course tons of people would change places with college athletes, but that's because they (myself included) suck at sports or only good at dumb sports. No shit I would give anything to play for a D1 college team but that's because I am terrible. To compare those who are good at basketball, football, etc. to those that are not is apples and oranges.

[xubrew]

Chris Mack is a terrible example to use. For every Mack, there are dozens of assistants, admins, volunteers, etc, that are grinding it out for the love of the game and a paycheck that is close to illegally low.

Amateurism is the rule of the game. If you don't like that rule, there are professional options.

Chris Mack was the person who, according to a previous post, tweeted out that he thought players were spoiled. That's why I used him. Also, even at MEAC schools, once you rise above the level of DOBO in basketball, you're doing all right financially. You're not making millions, but you're able to live comfortably. Even assistant Olympic sports coaches are paid enough money to live comfortably at the div1 level. Department employees at the administrative level make good money too.

Amateurism is not the rule of the game for the coaches, or administrators, or the trainers (now most of them are underpaid, so perhaps that's not the best example), or any other aspect of college athletics other than the players. And again, I'm not talking about giving them a lot of money. I'm talking about a few thousand dollars a year on top of their scholarship AND the opportunity to make up to a certain amount of money off of their names and likenesses. That is well within the means of every div1 athletic department. It's nothing. It's a tuition increase, and they never seem to have any trouble affording that.

[SM#24]

Of course tons of people would change places with college athletes, but that's because they (myself included) suck at sports or only good at dumb sports. No shit I would give anything to play for a D1 college team but that's because I am terrible. To compare those who are good at basketball, football, etc. to those that are not is apples and oranges.

Not sure what ability has to do with desire. Are you telling me if you were good at basketball you would have a "take it ir leave it" attitude about the opportunity to play at the D1 level ?
I just don't see where full ride, plus the all other benefits that come with being a D1 basketball or football player is such a bad deal that players are being exploited or taken advantage of. It's a two-way street, yes, the athletes are giving of themselves, but they are also getting.

[SM#24]

Amateurism is not the rule of the game for the coaches, or administrators, or the trainers (now most of them are underpaid, so perhaps that's not the best example), or any other aspect of college athletics other than the players. And again, I'm not talking about giving them a lot of money. I'm talking about a few thousand dollars a year on top of their scholarship AND the opportunity to make up to a certain amount of money off of their names and likenesses. That is well within the means of every div1 athletic department. It's nothing. It's a tuition increase, and they never seem to have any trouble affording that.
Amateurism is also not the rule at the high school level and even below, should those players be paid, even if only a few hundred $$ ?
I'd be willing to bet that most D1 athletes have more walking around money than the vast majority of other college students. When I see a player all sleeved out with tats complaining about not having enough money to take a date to a movie, i just laugh.

[xubrew]

Amateurism is also not the rule at the high school level and even below, should those players be paid, even if only a few hundred $$ ?
I'd be willing to bet that most D1 athletes have more walking around money than the vast majority of other college students. When I see a player all sleeved out with tats complaining about not having enough money to take a date to a movie, i just laugh.

I really don't have an opinion on HS sports one way or another. I have a high appreciation for high school sports, but know absolutely nothing about them. I do know several coaches, and they aren't paid hardly anything above their teaching salaries. I played sports in H.S., but was not recruited to do so, and it was open to all students who wanted to participate, so it was basically an extra curricular or extension that was available to the students. So, I guess with that in mind, I wouldn't be in favor of paying them. I wouldn't describe college sports that way, especially not at the div1 level. It's not an extra curricular that is open to everyone who wants to play/try out.

I agree that most div1 athletes have more walking around money, and the people that say they can't afford to order a pizza are way off the mark. If they live on campus, they're housing and food is taken care of. If they live off campus, they're given monthly checks that equate to the most expensive campus housing and meal plan, and if you've been to any college in America, you know that living on campus is way more expensive than living off campus, especially if you're cramming six and eight people into a house and eating frozen food all the time, so yeah, they have money.

Here is where you and I differ. You say that they already have a good deal and that they don't need anymore, and therefore should not get anymore. If a person works for a business firm and is getting by on their current salary, but is then promoted and given more responsibility, doesn't he deserve a raise even if he doesn't need it??

If coaches were only allowed to make $500,000 a year, that's a very good deal. That's way more than what most working people make. So, should the NCAA make a rule that says coaches are only allowed to make $500,000 a year?? (Actually, that's a rule I'd like to see). I mean, they don't need any more than that, so why give them more than that??

Why is the rule to only give the students/players what they are perceived to need, yet the same people who make those rules in the name of "amateurism" enjoy large salaries and extreme perks?? The hypocrisy of it has more to do with my opinion on the matter than anything else.

[smileyy]

Put me in with Go, Kahn's and Coach Mack. I could write for hours and post something so long it would make Snipe proud; but in a nutshell, there is no better deal in life I can think of right now for an 18yo than a full athletic scholarship.

You might not feel that way when you see how much your coach and athletic director's back hurts from all the money you're making for them. Its real easy to pretend to be in their shoes, but I'm guessing most people would get pissed off pretty quick.

[GoMuskies]

You might not feel that way when you see how much your coach and athletic director's back hurts from all the money you're making for them. Its real easy to pretend to be in their shoes, but I'm guessing most people would get pissed off pretty quick.

Those poor souls should give up their scholarships.

[SM#24]

I'd love to see a spending cap on college athletics and head coaches salaries, even if it was set high enough that MAC/CUSA/Sun Belt schools could not afford it, at least it would curb the spiraling costs. Unfortunately it will never happen.

There are many problems with college athletics currently and I don't see how paying the players solves any of them. I think it will make things worse.
And, what's the plan ? Who gets paid ?
Just football and men's bball ? Hello Title IX and gender equity lawsuits.
All scholarship players ? How will that sit with football and men's bb players ? I can see it now, we're generating the money, yet you gymnasts and swimmers and laxers are being paid as well, heck, we're already paying for your scholarships.
Right now, players can be paid no more than $0; if you increase that to $5,000, just as many players will be looking for more than that as there are looking for more than $0. They'll do it just on principle, just like Manziel. I just don't see what that has solved.

I think the ultimate downfall of college athletics will be the erosion of the student-athlete concept. The more we strip that away, the more it just becomes minor league sports. There's better basketball than NCAA that's not the NBA in the US already, it's the D-league. Yet, that's played in relative anonymity.

[GoMuskies]

There's better basketball than NCAA that's not the NBA in the US already, it's the D-league. Yet, that's played in relative anonymity.

Who do you think has a better life: BMOC star basketball player or D-league "star" making $40k? I think you and I agree on which guy has the better life. There's no way to re-create the college athlete experience if you start paying these guys.

[SM#24]

You might not feel that way when you see how much your coach and athletic director's back hurts from all the money you're making for them. Its real easy to pretend to be in their shoes, but I'm guessing most people would get pissed off pretty quick.
How are they making the money for them ? College athletics is built on the concept of rooting for the name on the front of the uniform, not the back.

College is all about preparing for the real world, well here's lesson #1 for the young athlete, in most organization it's the CEOs and executives that make a disproportionate amount of money, not those further down the food chain.

I ask again, someone tell me a better deal out there for an 18 year old, that's not a baseball or hockey player, even then, it's a select few.

I used to think a free college education was a very valuable thing, and I thought everyone else felt the same way, but apparently not.

[SM#24]

Who do you think has a better life: BMOC star basketball player or D-league "star" making $40k? I think you and I agree on which guy has the better life. There's no way to re-create the college athlete experience if you start paying these guys.
I know who has more walking around money and it's not the pro

[xubrew]

I'd love to see a spending cap on college athletics and head coaches salaries, even if it was set high enough that MAC/CUSA/Sun Belt schools could not afford it, at least it would curb the spiraling costs. Unfortunately it will never happen.

There are many problems with college athletics currently and I don't see how paying the players solves any of them. I think it will make things worse.
And, what's the plan ? Who gets paid ?
Just football and men's bball ? Hello Title IX and gender equity lawsuits.
All scholarship players ? How will that sit with football and men's bb players ? I can see it now, we're generating the money, yet you gymnasts and swimmers and laxers are being paid as well, heck, we're already paying for your scholarships.
Right now, players can be paid no more than $0; if you increase that to $5,000, just as many players will be looking for more than that as there are looking for more than $0. They'll do it just on principle, just like Manziel. I just don't see what that has solved.

I think the ultimate downfall of college athletics will be the erosion of the student-athlete concept. The more we strip that away, the more it just becomes minor league sports. There's better basketball than NCAA that's not the NBA in the US already, it's the D-league. Yet, that's played in relative anonymity.

Again, the previous proposal was a $2000 subsidy that "could" be made available to all scholarship athletes. Not a stipend or salary, because that would jack up Title IX in a bad way. By that I mean if there were salaries or stipends, the athletes would be considered employees and Title IX would no longer apply to them, so any Title IX lawsuit would likely lose. I think it should be more than $2000, but that is the plan and it is reasonable and manageable for pretty much every div1 school.


How are they making the money for them ? College athletics is built on the concept of rooting for the name on the front of the uniform, not the back.

That's not entirely true. That's definitely a part of it, and it's a part that no other level of sports really has. But, that's not the totality of it. How good a team is has a lot to do with how many people are rooting for them. Baseball is a very popular sport in America, but college baseball is not. So if baseball is popular, and college sports are popular, then why isn't college baseball more popular?? Could it be that many of the best players within that age demographic are not playing college baseball??

GoMuskies has pointed out several times that colleges have no trouble filling their rosters, and that many who don't get the opportunity to play would love that opportunity. He's right. However, many people want to be actors and don't get the chance. Many people want to be rock stars and don't get the chance. College players have that opportunity because they're able to do something at a level that most people can't. It's not like the highly paid coaches and administrators can have the same level of success irregardless of who it is that plays for them. They can't. It's asinine to imply otherwise.

Whoever your favorite band is, you would probably be much less excited about seeing them with a different lead singer or guitar player, or whoever. Yeah, it's still the band, but the individual members do bring something to it. Same with movies. Good actors do have something to do with why good movies are as good as they are. It's a partnership. It's a team, and the players DO contribute, and without them the team wouldn't be as good or as popular. You can't just throw anybody out there.

[xubrew]

Who do you think has a better life: BMOC star basketball player or D-league "star" making $40k? I think you and I agree on which guy has the better life. There's no way to re-create the college athlete experience if you start paying these guys.

...and would you be against implementing a policy that would help to keep it that way??

This is an interesting point. The best baseball players and soccer players generally don't play in college. The reason?? They actually do have other options. Over 99% of the football and basketball players who are fresh out of high school have no other options other than to play in college, but that is SLOWLY becoming less and less the case in basketball. If college is no longer the best opportunity, and the majority of good players opt for something else, the quality and popularity of the game will decrease. I promise you that.

...and again, why do most people (I'm not talking about SM 24) who are so adamantly against paying the athletes not against paying coaches and administrators high salaries?? There is nothing amateur about being a college coach or administrator.

[SM#24]

...and again, why do most people (I'm not talking about SM 24) who are so adamantly against paying the athletes not against paying coaches and administrators high salaries?? There is nothing amateur about being a college coach or administrator.
I agree there is nothing amateur about being a coach, but they're no different than any other employee at the school. I go back to the student athlete concept. I realize most D1 athletes, particularly in football and men's bb, are there primarily (exclusively with many) to try and make a living at their given sport. Why not view the time they spend at an educational institution practicing/playing their sport as part of the educational process, which to me makes their coach/player relationship a teacher/student relationship. And we all know the teachers aren't doing it for free.

I've always thought there should be a pro athlete major. You would still have to take a basic core set of classes like everyone else (math, english, etc.), but for your "pro athlete" major, you would take classes like public relations, money management and investmaent strategies, marketing, physio related classes, etc. (dare I say criminal justice ?). For their practice and game time, they should get some sort of "lab" like credits the way a science major would.

[SM#24]

That's not entirely true. That's definitely a part of it, and it's a part that no other level of sports really has. But, that's not the totality of it. How good a team is has a lot to do with how many people are rooting for them. Baseball is a very popular sport in America, but college baseball is not. So if baseball is popular, and college sports are popular, then why isn't college baseball more popular?? Could it be that many of the best players within that age demographic are not playing college baseball??

The baseball comment is interesting. Why isn't college baseball more popular ? I agree that a big part is that many of the best players are not playing. But you could say the same about basketball now. Actually I think the % of college players in MLB is higher than ever, and the level of talent playing college is higher than ever. Maybe it's the metal bats that people don't like.
The best answer I can come up with as to why college football and basketball are more popular and mainstream followed than collge baseball is tradition. I think it's the same reason high school football and basketball have always been more popular than high school baseball.

[smileyy]

I'll ask:

If you're helping someone else make millions, wouldn't you want a part of that, beyond what they deign to hand down to you?

[GoMuskies]

I'll ask:

If you're helping someone else make millions, wouldn't you want a part of that, beyond what they deign to hand down to you?

If they give me a sweet deal that puts me in the top .01% of my peers and sets me up for my future? I'll probably come out of that feeling okay.

[xubrew]

Well, here's the thing....

Most athletes are not on full scholarship, and not everyone who is on full scholarship/aid is an athlete. The vast majority of students who receive some sort of financial aid are not athletes.

Should a journalism student who was awarded a scholarship not be allowed to work on the school paper and make money??

Should a fine arts major who earned a full scholarship not be allowed to sell their art pieces??

Should a broadcast major who is on scholarship not be allowed to work at the school's radio station, or work at any radio station and make money??

What about a music major or a theater major that earns a full scholarship??

One of my college roommates was an IT major. He was on full scholarship and was hired full time by the school while he was still a student. Was that unfair??

In literally every other field or aspect, students are not only allowed to receive money from the university or in their field, they are encouraged to do so. Many of them are on scholarship, and the best ones are on full scholarship.

Why is giving money to athletes so outrageous, but giving it to art majors, or theater majors, or IS majors, or journalism majors who also earn scholarships (some of whom earn FULL scholarships) not outrageous??

I don't even see how paying athletes compromises anything that makes college sports special. Again, we're not talking about a lot of money. You say that you want them to be like regular students, yet it is literally the only department within the university where the students are not allowed to make money on top of their scholarships.

Well, okay, them and the social science majors. There just isn't much work in the field of history or theology.

[GoMuskies]

Most athletes are not on full scholarship

Well let's solve that problem first then. Until all athletes are on full scholarship, why are we even talking about paying the ones who are? $2000 to the non-scholarship coxswain at Harvard isn't going to help him much with those $40k tuition bills.

As to your other examples, it would be really hard in most cases to find someone to do that work for free. You'd have no shortage of people lining up to play basketball on national television for free. Hell, or to ride a bus six hours to Pittsburgh to play Duquesne in a baseball game.

[xubrew]

Well let's solve that problem first then. Until all athletes are on full scholarship, why are we even talking about paying the ones who are? $2000 to the non-scholarship coxswain at Harvard isn't going to help him much with those $40k tuition bills.

As to your other examples, it would be really hard in most cases to find someone to do that work for free. You'd have no shortage of people lining up to play basketball on national television for free. Hell, or to ride a bus six hours to Pittsburgh to play Duquesne in a baseball game.

Because whether an athlete was on full scholarship or not, they would have the option of giving them all or some of the $2000 in the equivalency sports as well. I don't understand how not having everyone on full scholarship has anything to do with anything.

I don't agree at all that students would not be in plays, or write for the newspaper, or be on the radio, or be on TV, or be in movies, or paint, or draw, or write, or work on computers for free. Many do it for free as it is, or would like to, but don't do it well enough to where the school will pay them to do it.

Take the students who at the Big Ten schools who worked for the Big Ten Network. Most of them were on scholarship. Some of them were on full scholarship, and were paid by the Big Ten Network. Not much, but they were paid. They made more money covering the game than the players got for playing in the game.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I do not think it is unfair at all that those kids got paid. I think it was a great experience for them, and that they were not undeserving of the money. All I'm saying is that it wouldn't be any less outrageous for the school to give the players a little something as well. I also know that many people would have been willing to do it for free, just like a lot of people would have been willing to play in the game for free. But, they weren't as good, or at least didn't interview as well, as the ones who did get to work for BTN.

[SM#24]

The reason athletes can't work is there was too much cheating going on. All those other students on academic or need scholarships that work and get paid actually show up for their jobs.
People complain all the time about all the NCAA rules and restrictions. Basically every rule they put is to combat abuse and cheating.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'll ask:

If you're helping someone else make millions, wouldn't you want a part of that, beyond what they deign to hand down to you?

I do it every day. I chose my position. If I want to take the risks that are involved in being the boss or owner, I can make different choices.

I am not entitled to what what someone else has simply because I am near it.



For those that are in favor of paying players, what happens when they don't perform? Do they get fired? Do you yank their scholarship? Do walkons get paid too? Do you pay by the minute? Should stars get more?

[Kahns Krazy]

Again, the previous proposal was a $2000 subsidy that "could" be made available to all scholarship athletes. Not a stipend or salary, because that would jack up Title IX in a bad way. By that I mean if there were salaries or stipends, the athletes would be considered employees and Title IX would no longer apply to them, so any Title IX lawsuit would likely lose. I think it should be more than $2000, but that is the plan and it is reasonable and manageable for pretty much every div1 school.

.

Hilarious. Let's just create a $900 million payroll out of thin air. It's reasonable and manageable. Tell that to the taxpayers who fund every public school. Tell that to whatever program gets cut when you take nearly $1 million dollars out of the operating budget at nearly every school in the country.

Why is your proposal limited to D1 schools? Should schools that are losing money on their athletic programs also have to pay? Why or why not?

[paulxu]

I don't know enough (or anything) about this subject, so it's a good place to wade in.
Student athletes get full rides on tuition with room and board. That's enough. For that 10's of thousands of $ they would normally pay for those things and are getting for free, their families should pony up to $2000/yr or whatever they want, just like a regular student. If they can, OK. If they can't, OK. They are already thousands of dollars to the good with the scholarship.

If any student can work, or whatever, to make extra money, the student athlete can if time allows. If not, sell your autograph. What the hell difference does it make. If someone is dumb enough to pay for your autograph, or your hat, then fine.

[xubrew]

Hilarious. Let's just create a $900 million payroll out of thin air. It's reasonable and manageable. Tell that to the taxpayers who fund every public school. Tell that to whatever program gets cut when you take nearly $1 million dollars out of the operating budget at nearly every school in the country.

Why is your proposal limited to D1 schools? Should schools that are losing money on their athletic programs also have to pay? Why or why not?

What the??

Well, I can't think of any schools that have over 500 athletes on scholarship. So, yes, if a school were looking to pay all their scholarship athletes about $2 million a piece, then they would need to come up with $900 million dollars.

Either you suck really badly at math, or you're under the impression that I think the NCAA League Office should pay them and not the universities. I never said that, and have no idea where you'd get that idea from, so maybe you're just really bad at math.

[xubrew]

I do it every day. I chose my position. If I want to take the risks that are involved in being the boss or owner, I can make different choices.

I am not entitled to what what someone else has simply because I am near it.



For those that are in favor of paying players, what happens when they don't perform? Do they get fired? Do you yank their scholarship? Do walkons get paid too? Do you pay by the minute? Should stars get more?

It's a subsidy that is part of the scholarship. Full scholarship athletes would get the full amount. Those on partial scholarships would get some, or all, or none. It depends on what the coach/program is willing to offer. Div2 has their own board of directors, and div3 doesn't have scholarships, so I guess for div3 it would be no, and for div2 it would be whatever they decide.

Stars in head count sports would not get more, and they would not be paid by the minute. It's a subsidy that is part of the scholarship. Nothing more.


Tell that to whatever program gets cut when you take nearly $1 million dollars out of the operating budget at nearly every school in the country.

That's actually not that hard to come up with. Nearly every school could do it without cutting any programs within athletics. Keep in mind that the smaller div1 schools don't offer nearly as many full scholarships or field as many teams, so they wouldn't need to come up with even a third of that amount. They may need to cut down on some of their toys and spiked salaries a little bit, but probably not. They never have any trouble covering the rising costs of tuition every year, and that's really all this would amount to.

[GoMuskies]

The ones who are really getting screwed are the kids in the LLWS. Where are their college scholarships or stipends?

[bleedXblue]

The more I think about it, this is not going to happen. Way too much money even if every student athlete gets just a small amount of money every year. The athletes that are generating huge financial gains for some big schools are doing so mainly b/c their unpaid predecessors from the last 3,4,5 decades have built those programs into what they are today. Plus those same athletes gets free food, free board, free education.......pretty good deal. Go get a part time job if you need some spending money. I think it is a good precursor of what's to come in life as 99% of them don't play professionally.

Selling memorabilia or getting paid for autographs is an entirely different story. I'm still not sure how you handle that and what the right thing to do is.

[Juice]

The more I think about it, this is not going to happen. Way too much money even if every student athlete gets just a small amount of money every year. The athletes that are generating huge financial gains for some big schools are doing so mainly b/c their unpaid predecessors from the last 3,4,5 decades have built those programs into what they are today. Plus those same athletes gets free food, free board, free education.......pretty good deal. Go get a part time job if you need some spending money. I think it is a good precursor of what's to come in life as 99% of them don't play professionally.

Selling memorabilia or getting paid for autographs is an entirely different story. I'm still not sure how you handle that and what the right thing to do is.

When the hell do you think these kids have time to get a part time job between school, practice, and games?

They are already putting in 20 hours per week in practice, and probably more.

[bleedXblue]

When the hell do you think these kids have time to get a part time job between school, practice, and games?

They are already putting in 20 hours per week in practice, and probably more.

Yeah, work in the off season. Work over the summer break. You don't need to make a lot to have some extra spending money while you're in season. And to my earlier point, they already get free food and housing.

This is a choice that every student athlete has. No ones forcing them to do anything. If their not happy with their situation, do something about it.

[LA Muskie]

Yeah, work in the off season. Work over the summer break. You don't need to make a lot to have some extra spending money while you're in season. And to my earlier point, they already get free food and housing.

This is a choice that every student athlete has. No ones forcing them to do anything. If their not happy with their situation, do something about it.

Well, except it's about the only way to get into the NFL or NBA... Assuming you want to be a pro (and have the talent and makeup to do so), college football and basketball have you by the balls. The system is about as anti-competitive as they come.

[Juice]

Yeah, work in the off season. Work over the summer break. You don't need to make a lot to have some extra spending money while you're in season. And to my earlier point, they already get free food and housing.

This is a choice that every student athlete has. No ones forcing them to do anything. If their not happy with their situation, do something about it.

I've said this before in this thread. Most college athletes, especially football players, don't have a real summer. They are back by July. So they can get a minimum wage job for two months and pay for their living expenses for the school year? Ok.

Their choice isn't really a choice at all. It's take it or leave it. And doing something about it? Last time I checked they did do something. They either were born or worked to become really good at something. They already did something.

[XUFan09]

I've said this before in this thread. Most college athletes, especially football players, don't have a real summer. They are back by July. So they can get a minimum wage job for two months and pay for their living expenses for the school year? Ok.

Their choice isn't really a choice at all. It's take it or leave it. And doing something about it? Last time I checked they did do something. They either were born or worked to become really good at something. They already did something.

And that's already assuming that anyone will hire them when that time limit is a factor.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[bleedXblue]

You guys are a bunch of ......

Keep making excuses. Keep pampering these kids more than they already are.

Keep giving them more than 99% of all other college students get.

Mind boggling. Must be left of center.

[Juice]

You guys are a bunch of ......

Keep making excuses. Keep pampering these kids more than they already are.

Keep giving them more than 99% of all other college students get.

Mind boggling. Must be left of center.

But they aren't like other college kids. They actually bring something to the college. Why are you comparing athletes to normal students?

If other kids want a free ride they can get it. They can either get good at sports, get smarter, or join the army.

[Kahns Krazy]

What the??

Well, I can't think of any schools that have over 500 athletes on scholarship. So, yes, if a school were looking to pay all their scholarship athletes about $2 million a piece, then they would need to come up with $900 million dollars.

Either you suck really badly at math, or you're under the impression that I think the NCAA League Office should pay them and not the universities. I never said that, and have no idea where you'd get that idea from, so maybe you're just really bad at math.

From the NCAA website:


Participation levels for both male and female student-athletes were the highest in NCAA history, with total at 453,347 student-athletes participating in sports for which the NCAA conducts championships, according to the NCAA’s Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates report.

450,000 times your $2,000 number equals $900,000,000. I wasn't saying $900M for one school.

[Kahns Krazy]

But they aren't like other college kids. They actually bring something to the college. Why are you comparing athletes to normal students?

If other kids want a free ride they can get it. They can either get good at sports, get smarter, or join the army.

Smart kids bring something to the college too, as do successful alums. Should we pay them a stipend? Construction companies that build buildings like the Cintas center bring something to the college. Should we pay them a stipend beyond what the market rate for their services was? It is not at all uncommon for me to generate more in one day for my company than I get paid all year. Should I just be paid more?

[Juice]

Smart kids bring something to the college too, as do successful alums. Should we pay them a stipend? Construction companies that build buildings like the Cintas center bring something to the college. Should we pay them a stipend beyond what the market rate for their services was? It is not at all uncommon for me to generate more in one day for my company than I get paid all year. Should I just be paid more?

Smart kids do bring something to universities but none of them are filling stadiums and arenas to watch them solve math equations.

And as far as what you get paid, that is dictated by the market, and you and your employer. But at least you have legitimate options.

[SM#24]

So, Juice, who should get paid and how much ?

[bleedXblue]

Think of this ......how many schools would have to raise tuition if they lost their massive revenue streams ?

[Juice]

Think of this ......how many schools would have to raise tuition if they lost their massive revenue streams ?

Ahh yes, we should let about 100-150 students finance the rest of a university. Seems fair.

[Kahns Krazy]

Finance the rest of the university? According to USA today, 90% of athletic programs lose money...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

[bleedXblue]

Finance the rest of the university? According to USA today, 90% of athletic programs lose money...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

Yep, and some expect them to suffer even more in "paying" the athletes. Not going to happen.

[bleedXblue]

Ahh yes, we should let about 100-150 students finance the rest of a university. Seems fair.

The point being that the cost of a college education is already way out of whack. Pay the student athletes, and where do you think most of the schools will have to find the money ? Lowering expenses or raising tuition ?

[SM#24]

http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201309/john-u-bacon-fourth-long-book-reforms-college-sports-jim-delany-big-ten

Personally, I find this to be a good article. I'm not in agreement with all his proposals, but he does a good job of pointing out what it is about college athletics that makes it popular.