What if College Athletes Got Paid?

[bleedXblue]

What role do you think athletics plays in student loan debt?? I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

I wasn't trying to make a connection.

I'm simply saying that more time, effort and energy should be spent on what I believe is a much bigger issue.

[Juice]

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

Amen. And those students are allowed to make money from endorsements, have other jobs, make money from their likeness, etc.

[Xville]

Amen. And those students are allowed to make money from endorsements, have other jobs, make money from their likeness, etc.

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

[bleedXblue]

Basketball players aren't the only ones who receive scholarships. Most scholarships aren't athletic scholarships. Many students receive full scholarships and are not athletes.

I went to grad school for free, and received a stipend on top of that. I had an assistantship in student affairs. I generated no revenue for the university whatsoever, yet I went there for free and got paid. Theater students are allowed to get paid even if they're on full scholarship. So are art students. So are journalism majors. So are film students. Not all of them, but some of them. Athletics is the only extra curricular where students are not allowed to be paid on top of their scholarship. That's a fact.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're saying art students get paid? To do what? Film students get paid? For what?

I would really like to know more on this.

[blobfan]

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

We are blaming the students for the corruption? Focus on keeping the universities in check and stop punishing the kids. The unfairness lies in punishing ALL student athletes for the misbehavior of a relative few elite teams/schools/athletes. The purpose of comparisons to students in other majors is to attempt to put the restrictions into perspective. If the rule is patently absurd when applied to non-athletes, like punishing a kid for playing in 1 game in the wrong summer league, then perhaps it shouldn't be strictly applied to athletes. If it makes sense, like not permitting a university rep to contact a perspective student outside particular hours and only during certain times of the year, then let it stand.

And the majority of student athletes in D1 sports are not playing on 'big time' teams yet are held to the same rules. Most schools simply don't have the money in the system to create the kind of corruption the NCAA is pretending to regulate. If they spent more effort on an efficient clearinghouse for eligibility and a quick and efficient appeals process for student rules exceptions/infractions, we might not even be having this argument about providing stipends to student athletes.

[Juice]

Wow....no one cares about the art major, film major or chem student or whoever else....however in ncaa sports, people do care and there is already a ton of corruption. if you add paychecks and endorsements and whatever else, you are adding more corruption to an already corrupt program. Bidding wars and crooked recruiting would be exponentially higher. Stop comparing big time college athletics to a student on a theater scholarship or whatever else...it is short-sighted and ignorant to compare the two..they aren't the same.

Dear student,

We, the adults, are the cause of the problem but we pretend to know better than you. We are desperately trying to keep a system that exploits you, the ones with the skill that we desire. You may ask why can't the rules be changed. Here's the thing, the system is corrupt because we corrupted it and it's always been this way. We really have no other reason to keep the system the way it is. Oh yeah, we are making millions of dollars as "administrators" as you make no money off of your talent so we don't want to lose our hefty paychecks for doing absolutely nothing as others pay to see and watch you.

Take it or leave it.

Signed,
The NCAA, coaches, administrators, and white people who are angry that they had to pay for tuition because they were too stupid/too clumsy to get a scholarship

[ford]

Haven't posted in a long time, but this topic really bugs me. I see two key points of frustration:
1) just because these kids don't value the free education and extras they already receive doesn't make those things any less valuable. To me there is something inherently wrong with the values of these kids who are complaining, call it generational difference, maybe some cultural/racial/socioeconomic influences at play in explaining why the value of that scholarship (and thereby the degree) is being devalued. So it's frustrating that it feels like in giving into paying players you are agreeing with that values system rather than saying hey, a college degree is valuable and getting that degree, working hard for it to get a good paying job, working hard at it to make more money, etc is what should be valued and aspired to. Otherwise you perpetuate the cycle of setting kids up for having no future once their playing days are over and the universities focus should first be on education. This all in the absence of minor leagues for football which is a whole nother solution.

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!! I'm in marketing so I'm biased, but this would take the financial burden off the school so they don't pass it through to ticket holders and other students. And it would let the free market dictate based not on the budget of the school but the budget and rabid ness of local fanbases and national marketers. Of a player is really good he can make millions (which is fine because he is prob gonna be a pro eventually anyway). If he's a lower profile player, he could still get $500 bucks here and there for doing local ads for Joes pizza or Bobs Cadillac dealer. Yes you will have rich boosters and bidding wars but at least it's based on free market money outside the schools budget. There is booster money disparity in the big programs today, but allowing businesses to pay endorsement money would flood new money into the market and equalize it a bit so the lower level schools still can offer an environment where there is some money to be made it you are good enough on the field to warrant it.

[Xavier]

not that hard to figure out...just because someone can put a ball into a hoop they get free tuition and free room and board while the average student has 100k in debt because they don't have the same physical gifts. It costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...that is a factor that raises tuition for the kid who doesn't have that physical ability.

Just because someone is smarter means they get free tuition and free room and board. So unfair, in your mind....right? I mean it costs the school money to allow kids to go to school for free...its a factor that raises tuition for kids who don't have the same academic ability.

[GoMuskies]

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!!

This is still a huge problem for me. It's an even bigger advantage for Kentucky and North Carolina (etc.) in basketball and Alabama/Michigan/etc. in football. And you know that alums would be lining up to promise to pay star recruits for "endorsements".

[Juice]

Haven't posted in a long time, but this topic really bugs me. I see two key points of frustration:
1) just because these kids don't value the free education and extras they already receive doesn't make those things any less valuable. To me there is something inherently wrong with the values of these kids who are complaining, call it generational difference, maybe some cultural/racial/socioeconomic influences at play in explaining why the value of that scholarship (and thereby the degree) is being devalued. So it's frustrating that it feels like in giving into paying players you are agreeing with that values system rather than saying hey, a college degree is valuable and getting that degree, working hard for it to get a good paying job, working hard at it to make more money, etc is what should be valued and aspired to. Otherwise you perpetuate the cycle of setting kids up for having no future once their playing days are over and the universities focus should first be on education. This all in the absence of minor leagues for football which is a whole nother solution.

2) let the kids make money on endorsements!!! I'm in marketing so I'm biased, but this would take the financial burden off the school so they don't pass it through to ticket holders and other students. And it would let the free market dictate based not on the budget of the school but the budget and rabid ness of local fanbases and national marketers. Of a player is really good he can make millions (which is fine because he is prob gonna be a pro eventually anyway). If he's a lower profile player, he could still get $500 bucks here and there for doing local ads for Joes pizza or Bobs Cadillac dealer. Yes you will have rich boosters and bidding wars but at least it's based on free market money outside the schools budget. There is booster money disparity in the big programs today, but allowing businesses to pay endorsement money would flood new money into the market and equalize it a bit so the lower level schools still can offer an environment where there is some money to be made it you are good enough on the field to warrant it.

The schools don't value this education either, i.e. Michigan and UNC. They create fake classes, change grades, force players to practice more than study, etc. How could a "student-athlete" value the education if they are forced to take easy classes and just pass?

They simply try to keep players eligible so they can play and make more money for the school.