College Athletes

[Texsox]

I don't know if you are serious or not, but I think this is a great idea.  Why should an institution of higher learning exploit athletes for a purpose that has nothing to do with higher learning.  Do you think anyone would know who Miami, Nebraska, Florida State etc were if it wasn't for football?  Are the players going there for the education?  Hell no.

 

Should there be a salary cap, some sort of a revenue sharing to keep a level playing field? Should each conference have a different plan? Should players be guaranteed 4 year contracts or year by year? Would the money be limited like the number of scholarships?

[Rex Kickass]

I'm totally serious. Cap the profit sharing at 25% of net profits to the program, and have it distributed it to athletes who play in the sports that make money.

 

It means most basketball players would get paid (which might help stem the tide of HS draftees) but most football players won't. Most football teams in NCAA Division 1-A break about even.

[He_Gawn]

 

 

Why on earth should we? Thats the main reason I hate the NBA, none of them play as a team because they want more money.

[OfficerKarkovice]

Why on earth should we? Thats the main reason I hate the NBA, none of them play as a team because they want more money.

 

No this tread is actually a good debate on a topic that there is seemingly no correct answer to.

[WilliamTell]

I'm split in the decision of it. But if I had to go with one, I'd lean towards tradition because they do get a free education.

[Texsox]

Would it be hourly pay or a stipend for the season?

 

Would Mel Kiper have a list of the best pay checks for student athletes?

 

Would players be required to attend classes?

 

Could the University offer payments or a scholarship not always both?

[Rex Hudler]

Opening Pandora's Box. Would every varsity athlete receive the same pay? Regardless of sport, regardless of skill? QBs get $1,500 per semester, tennis players $150? Would colleges be allowed to set their own wage scale? Perhaps Oklahoma is offering $1,000 per semester and Michigan only $750. If a kid is injured does he lose his pay? If you think the system is messed up now, wait until this is implimented.

 

The current rules are too strict and non sensical. If you are on a band scholarship and want to play in a wedding band for pay, no problem, keep the pay and the scholarship. If you are a varsity golfer and want to work at a golf course for spending money, you lose.

 

There are problems, but it could be a lot worse.

 

Actually a golfer can work at a golf course, as long as it is not during his college season. He just can't play in professional tournaments or win money playing.

[Rex Hudler]

I'm totally serious. Cap the profit sharing at 25% of net profits to the program, and have it distributed it to athletes who play in the sports that make money.

 

It means most basketball players would get paid (which might help stem the tide of HS draftees) but most football players won't. Most football teams in NCAA Division 1-A break about even.

 

There are serious flaws here.....

 

First of all, Title IX makes it illegal to differentiate between the sports. If athletes are paid, all varsity athletes would have to be paid and paid the same. You cannot factor the "profitability of the football program" vs. that of another sport. Money goes to the athletic department as a whole.

 

Secondly, much of the money schools make are not from "exploitation of athletes". Yes, they make money off of their licensing programs, but they make their money predominantly off of conference TV contracts, ticket sales and donations from boosters. If you make the players into "professionals" by paying them, I guarantee you the booster revenue would drop.

 

College athletics are a big business. But they will thrive regardless of who the athletes are. Baseball in the SEC and Big 12 Conferences thrive even though many of the best HS players sign professional contracts. College basketball has continued to thrive despite players jumping to the NBA early. The players that got to major universities have it great. They have it much better than the general student population. College athletics will thrive regardless of which players are there. There is no real exploitation going on here.

 

I don't agree with everything the NCAA says or does, but I just don't see any justification to pay players beyond what they are already getting. They have it pretty good while in school and they make a good enough name for themselves that even if they do not make it professionally, they have an advantage based on the their name and the booster contacts they have met in terms of getting a job.

[Rex Kickass]

So why not change Title IX? When you consider what Michigan State got out of Mateen Cleaves in comparison to what Mateen got out of Michigan State? I'd say he came out ahead.

 

I think it makes sense to have money making programs pay all their players evenly with a revenue sharing policy. If the school gets 4 million for a bowl, whatever the net profit is to the school oughta be shared by the students who got them to the bowl game.

 

MSU is a great example to me of why players oughta get some payments for what they provide the program. In the last ten years, the Athletic Department has cashed in huge. And not just from gate receipts, sportsgear, ads and concessions. When Michigan State makes a bowl, the school gets a lot of cash from Alumni. When MSU makes the Final Four, donations go way up. The hockey team breaks even and the Womens basketball team is close. Its partially the fruit of the AD and Coaches labor. They get rewarded with better contracts and bonuses. Why shouldn't the players be rewarded as well?

[Rex Hudler]

So why not change Title IX? When you consider what Michigan State got out of Mateen Cleaves in comparison to what Mateen got out of Michigan State? I'd say he came out ahead.

 

I think it makes sense to have money making programs pay all their players evenly with a revenue sharing policy. If the school gets 4 million for a bowl, whatever the net profit is to the school oughta be shared by the students who got them to the bowl game.

 

MSU is a great example to me of why players oughta get some payments for what they provide the program. In the last ten years, the Athletic Department has cashed in huge. And not just from gate receipts, sportsgear, ads and concessions. When Michigan State makes a bowl, the school gets a lot of cash from Alumni. When MSU makes the Final Four, donations go way up. The hockey team breaks even and the Womens basketball team is close. Its partially the fruit of the AD and Coaches labor. They get rewarded with better contracts and bonuses. Why shouldn't the players be rewarded as well?

 

Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling. It can't be changed. They schools DO share revenue. They build better facilities. They hire or keep great coaches the best they can. They attract recruits with all of the glitz and glamour.

 

The athletes at MSU have come out just fine. Only the dumbassed point guard who left early only to get cut from the NBA got hurt and that was his own fault. I can't even remember his name, which seems fitting.

 

Again, the players are rewarded with conditions normal students do not have access to. They get a quality education for free, they get better opportunities once they graduate even if they are not able to play professionally. They get better treatment while they are in school. They get first class meals. Great living arrangements. Free tutoring. I could go on and on. So they don't get money. Big deal. If they want that, then skip right to the professional ranks. If they want to go to college, then get an education, play for the name on the front of their jersey, not the one on their back. They have an option.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't have a problem with College players not getting paid. I have a problem with schools who rake in tons of cash, exploiting them to cash in even more. (Mich, ND football - MSU, Duke, IU basketball...)

[southsider2k5]

I don't have a problem with College players not getting paid. I have a problem with schools who rake in tons of cash, exploiting them to cash in even more. (Mich, ND football - MSU, Duke, IU basketball...)

 

That's exactly how I feel. And then on top of it, the NCAA restricts their movement and ability to work.

[Rex Kickass]

Holy crap, we agree?

[whitesoxfan99]

And then on top of it, the NCAA restricts their movement and ability to work.

 

If I'm getting a full scholarship, my meals paid for, and my living arrangements paid for the NCAA restricting my ability to work would not matter to me one bit. How many jobs can you work while attending college that are worth in most cases well over $20,000 dollars?

[Rex Kickass]

I worked two. And did about 30 hours a week extracurricular activities at the college radio station.

[southsider2k5]

Holy crap, we agree?

 

I'm scared.

[southsider2k5]

If I'm getting a full scholarship, my meals paid for, and my living arrangements paid for the NCAA restricting my ability to work would not matter to me one bit.  How many jobs can you work while attending college that are worth in most cases well over $20,000 dollars?

 

Academic scholarships get all of that as well, and they don't have to give up any of thier freedoms to work or transfer.

[Rex Hudler]

Academic scholarships get all of that as well, and they don't have to give up any of thier freedoms to work or transfer.

 

People on academic scholarships don't get the same treatment as athletes. Athletes get special meals that could include filet mignon. They generally live in better housing than regular dorms and have access to facilities that the general student body does not.

 

Athletes work hard. Yet they are rewarded in every way possible other than money. And it is a misnomer that they cannot work. They cannot work during their season. They can hold jobs in the offseason. I used to make enough money working in the summer to have enough cash to last all year. It wasn't that hard.

 

I find the notion that athletes are exploited and taken advantage of, quite comical.

[Rex Hudler]

For all of you that think college athletic programs are swimming in "profits", this is from an article on football recruiting that was posted as its own thread.

 

Athletic department money comes from ticket sales, advertising, broadcast rights and donors -- and often university subsidies. The athletic departments try to pay all their own expenses, including recruiting, but they rarely succeed. That's because, other than football and men's basketball, sports generally lose money.

 

The plain fact is that most programs don't make "tons of profits" overall, especially when you factor in the building of better facilities and that debt load. The concept of paying college athletes, while it sounds lovely, still has to be considered equally for all sports and all athletic programs. The argument does not wash if you are just looking at the top 20-30 schools that bring in the most cake.

 

You have to consider not only the Michigan State or LSU's of the college world, but also the Southern Illinois and Drexel's too. Paying the players just is not feasible or necessary in my mind.

 

Those that are good enough to move on get paid handsomely. Those that are not, are still given priority in the business world in most cases. Athletes have it good as it is.

[Reddy]

Well for one reason, the incredible amount of time that a D1 athlete has to commit to his or her sport does not allow for them to have even a part time job that a normal college student would be able to have.  While often times...but not always...they have at least some of their tuition payed, that still provides no spending money whatsoever.

 

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with athletes getting payed...but it's at least something to consider.

 

 

so i do theatre, it takes up massive amounts of time and i dont have time for a job either. should i be paid?