Paying College Athletes

[tktaylor1]

Sorry if this is a thread already. But to the main point, should college athletes get paid? Me and a friend have been debating and finally came to a happy medium. We think the athletes should get scholarships based on their performance, covering: tuition, book, room and board, and any other fees they have retaining to college that is not personal. According to him the scholarships the colleges give to student athletes don't cover room and board, I am not sure on this. Also, we came to the conclusion that the athletes should get paid the same way as if it was a job. They should get paid minimum wage for however many hours they invest into football a week (as a team, not individually). If the team practices for 20 hours a week then each student should get a check for around 150 bucks, taxed of course. (7.50X20=150) And the athletes can't get a job outside of the sport they play under these rules because they are there for school, and in our case, football.

Please chime in on your thoughts.

 

[dukebound85]

They get paid in terms of a free education....

What makes football players more special than those that play club sports (and they personally pay for travel costs and the like) in addition to paying for school? Or what about those who are students but are bringing in grant money via research through unpaid internships and still pay for their education?

They should not get paid. It is an effing child's game that they participate in and there are quite a few who squander having access to a free education.

 

[Demosthenes X]

What makes athletes special? There are plenty of people who contribute lots of time to extra-curriculars while in college/university who do not get paid. People who act in school productions put hundreds of hours into rehearsals and practise - should they get paid?

I have no problem with college athletes getting a partial scholarship. Even a full scholarship, if they're exceptional. College sports are a great way of building school pride (just ask Pen State...).

But paying them? No. Playing college sports is a choice, just like any other extra-curricular. Unless you're going to pay them all...

 

[tktaylor1]

They get paid in terms of a free education....

What makes football players more special than those that play club sports (and they personally pay for travel costs and the like) in addition to paying for school? Or what about those who are students but are bringing in grant money via research through unpaid internships and still pay for their education?

They should not get paid. It is an effing child's game that they participate in and there are quite a few who squander having access to a free education.

Yea, that is how I originally thought it should be. The free education is the payment.

What makes football (and every other sport) players more special than club sports? The fact that NCAA makes millions of dollars off of them and they don't get a dime whereas club sports (I am assuming like fraternity sports) the college doesn't get paid anything.

----------

What makes athletes special? There are plenty of people who contribute lots of time to extra-curriculars while in college/university who do not get paid. People who act in school productions put hundreds of hours into rehearsals and practise - should they get paid?

I have no problem with college athletes getting a partial scholarship. Even a full scholarship, if they're exceptional. College sports are a great way of building school pride (just ask Pen State...).

But paying them? No. Playing college sports is a choice, just like any other extra-curricular. Unless you're going to pay them all...

It still comes down to the fact that the NCAA makes millions, maybe billions (I don't know) on these athletes, and in a school play they make hardly anything so the school could possibly lose money. The NCAA or the school would never lose money if they decided to pay out a little bit.

 

[steve2112]

I really don't see a problem with it. At my alma mater, graduate assistants (teaching and research) get tuition paid plus a monthly stipend paid to them. I don't see much difference between paying grad assistants and paying athletes. While the athletic scholarships may pay for tuition and other costs, it doesn't give any money for things outside of school. If you want to get a pizza, for example, you have to dig up that money from somewhere else. Athletes are also generally forbidden to have a job as well.

 

[dukebound85]

Yea, that is how I originally thought it should be. The free education is the payment.

What makes football (and every other sport) players more special than club sports? The fact that NCAA makes millions of dollars off of them and they don't get a dime whereas club sports (I am assuming like fraternity sports) the college doesn't get paid anything.

ooooh so these athletes student salaries should be tied to the revenue they bring in, not the time requirement now?

See that is why I brought up those that play club sports as they have students who put in just as much time and have to pay their way through school and the costs of playing those sports. The specialness that football players get is free education that those that play club or do anything else do not get. That can be upwards of 40k a year. Not a bad job...

 

[zioxide]

What makes athletes special?

The fact that the schools make millions of dollars off the athletic programs.

 

[ericrwalker]

Nope, they are getting their college for free, they should be there to get an education anyway. Getting paid to play college ball would be an excellent way to keep studying if you aren't getting picked up by the pros. Plus if they are any good, they are getting plenty of other perks as well already. Not to mention, if they are good enough to get paid, they may get picked up professionally.

 

[tktaylor1]

ooooh so these athletes student salaries should be tied to the revenue they bring in, not the time requirement now?

Yes, the revenue they bring in and the time they put in. These athletes are pretty much forced to practice and do things of that nature whereas club sports its pretty much a hobby. (If when you say club sports you mean intramural or fraternity sports).

I mean really, these athletes don't have time to get a job whereas the students who play intramural sports do have time. This is why I think they should get a little spending money.

 

[dmr727]

Geez..as much as the NCAA would like to say differently, a big time college player isn't a 'student athlete'. He's there to get himself ready for the pros. The education doesn't matter. It never has. At the upper levels, college is a farm system for professional athletes.

I went to the University of Texas. We recently had a basketball player come through by the name of Kevin Durant. Perhaps you've heard of him. He did his mandatory one year of college and split for the NBA. Between his salary and endorsement contract, he made about $11M his rookie year, and most experts say he could have gotten a lot more if he chose to.

Now I'm your typical college educated, upper middle class dips***, and I'm pretty sure I won't earn $11M over my lifetime. Can someone please tell me why Kevin Durant should give two craps about his education, especially when every year he stays in school is another opportunity for him to get hurt and forfeit his future earnings?

Kevin Durant provided Texas far, far more in revenue than he ever received in free tuition, etc. To compare him with some grant seeking grad student is ludicrous.

 

[dukebound85]

Yes, the revenue they bring in and the time they put in. These athletes are pretty much forced to practice and do things of that nature whereas club sports its pretty much a hobby. (If when you say club sports you mean intramural or fraternity sports).

I mean really, these athletes don't have time to get a job whereas the students who play intramural sports do have time. This is why I think they should get a little spending money.

Why do students need jobs? To pay for rent, school, and food. Student Athletes on scholarships get all of this plus a crap ton of additional perks

Not to mention a national audience to advertise themselves

Kevin Durant provided Texas far, far more in revenue than he ever received in free tuition, etc. To compare him with some grant seeking grad student is ludicrous.

Really? College sports are not as lucrative as many make them out to be. Regardless, grant money is a huge funding source for colleges.

http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/

A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.

 

[leekohler]

I say pay them- not a ton, but something. The schools make a lot of money off these kids. It's only the fair thing to do.

 

[dukebound85]

I say pay them- not a ton, but something. The schools make a lot of money off these kids. It's only the fair thing to do.

No, they really don't on the whole

The average expenditure per student athlete was nearly 76k/year

I'd like that salary as a full time job....and to think they should get paid more sheesh!

 

[puma1552]

The way I see it:

1) No they should not be paid
2) They already receive scholarships, many of them would never get into college otherwise
3) There is already too much emphasis on college sports
4) Paying them would only make them care less about school

 

[iJohnHenry]

Why do students need jobs? To pay for rent, school, and food. Student Athletes on scholarships get all of this plus a crap ton of additional perks

Not to mention a national audience to advertise themselves

Really? College sports are not as lucrative as many make them out to be. Regardless, grant money is a huge funding source for colleges.

Yes, all this is true, but schools should place education above everything, otherwise they lose credibility.

Notre Dame I believe holds that you can lose your 'right' to play for the home side if you don't keep your grades up. No matter the sport.

Still, they do reasonably well using this approach, and they have very loyal fans/alumni.

 

[tktaylor1]

Why do students need jobs? To pay for rent, school, and food. Student Athletes on scholarships get all of this plus a crap ton of additional perks

Not to mention a national audience to advertise themselves

They need a job to buy stuff (like those fancy apple products, kidding). Yes the scholarships pay for that stuff but I mean really, does any student stay on campus and completely rely on the campus to provide for their every need? They need some money to do stuff off of campus. As I suggested, the 150 check would be perfect for this.

And from what I keep seeing on ESPN these athletes don't get crap. It seems like schools are always getting fined because of these 'special perks' the athletes are getting.

What are these special perks you speak of?

 

[dukebound85]

The way I see it:

1) No they should not be paid
2) They already receive scholarships, many of them would never get into college otherwise
3) There is already too much emphasis on college sports
4) Paying them would only make them care less about school

In addition, paying athletes for how much revenue their sport brings in would kill all the sports in hs or college. I mean why focus on soccer/swimming/track/etc when you could make more money playing football at the college level!

 

[ericrwalker]

Right, and the school making money on these sport programs makes it cheaper for other students to attend school there.

The way I see it:

1) No they should not be paid
2) They already receive scholarships, many of them would never get into college otherwise
3) There is already too much emphasis on college sports
4) Paying them would only make them care less about school

 

[foxyfabio]

If Universities began paying their sports players then the athletic department of the universities would become a separate entity of the school

 

[puma1552]

What makes football (and every other sport) players more special than club sports? The fact that NCAA makes millions of dollars off of them and they don't get a dime whereas club sports (I am assuming like fraternity sports) the college doesn't get paid anything.

----------



It still comes down to the fact that the NCAA makes millions, maybe billions (I don't know) on these athletes, and in a school play they make hardly anything so the school could possibly lose money. The NCAA or the school would never lose money if they decided to pay out a little bit.

But then what's to separate college sports from professional sports? The whole enjoyment of college sports is that the kids are there supposedly because they want to be, because they have a passion for the game. Not like in professional sports where it's a bunch of lowlife thugs who are entitled and overpaid, yet still wind up broke after they retire.

 

[dukebound85]

What are these special perks you speak of?

Perks include multi-weekely team meals at nice restaurants, staying at a hotel for a home game, access to private (sport only) gyms, free tutoring, zero travel expenses, to name a few.

My college ran an article on a "day in the life" and I was appalled at how much they get handed.

 

[tktaylor1]

Yes, all this is true, but schools should place education above everything, otherwise they lose credibility.

Notre Dame I believe holds that you can lose your 'right' to play for the home side if you don't keep your grades up. No matter the sport.

Still, they do reasonably well using this approach, and they have very loyal fans/alumni.

This is another thing, I seemed to left it off the OP. If the student receiving the scholarship drops below a certain GPA (I suggest a 3.0 but I have high standards/goals. More reasonably 2.5) or gets in trouble with the law, they should lose their scholarship. No questions asked. A good example is Jordan Jefferson (LSU), he should not be allowed to play any college sport period. He is a felon, yet gets a free ride for school. I don't agree with this at all. Back to the grades issue, the college I go to has a mandatory 1.5 hour a day study hall for all athletes. I like this rule but wouldn't necessarily make it mandatory. I would leave it up to the student to decide if he or she really wants to maintain the scholarship.

 

[motulist]

Frankly, I don't know why someone doesn't just start a new basketball and football league for 18 to ~23 year olds that isn't tied to any colleges, and have that new league actually pay these players for the job they do. No player in his right mind would choose to play for a college team if it meant they had to pass up playing for a league that payed them even $500,000 per year (which is relatively extremely cheap for the revenue the league would bring in).

Sure, having the teams supported by a built-in alma mater audience will bring in a certain percent of their viewership and bring in a certain amount of revenue, but I bet that that pales in comparison to the non-alma mater national audiences and the revenue brought in by tv broadcast rights and sponsorship deals.

 

[Shrink]

From a post on another thread...

The whole issue of big time college football is a topic for it's own thread.

But a comment; I have felt for years that the hypocrisy and lying involved in big name college football is appalling. Secret payments to players, pimping off female students to prospective recruits, demanding faculty pass players who will lose eligibility if their grades are poor (something I witness while in grad school) - all create an environment of compromised ethics and rule breaking as an integral part of the sport culture.

I have felt that one way to reduce this culture of lying and deception was to chuck the "student athlete" myth entirely. The athletes (again, I'm talking about big time programs) would be paid employees of the university. Their job would be to play sports. and be paid for it - like any pro sports farm system. If they wished to take classes, they could do that as any university employee could. Usually, university employees can take classes, and matriculate, for greatly reduced, or free tuition. This eliminates the b**********t of the so-called student athlete

 

[zioxide]

Why do students need jobs? To pay for rent, school, and food.

Its not that simple. What about paying for their cars, car insurance, gas, cell phone? How about spending money? To go to a show, movie, sporting event? Take a girl out to dinner? Buy beer? Buy a video game?

These kids need some spending money to live their lives outside of football. But between classes, homework, and all the hours the sports take up, how are they going to fit a job too?

But then what's to separate college sports from professional sports? The whole enjoyment of college sports is that the kids are there supposedly because they want to be, because they have a passion for the game. Not like in professional sports where it's a bunch of lowlife thugs who are entitled and overpaid, yet still wind up broke after they retire.

Don't kid yourself. The majority of NCAA D1 football and basketball are EXACTLY what you describe here.


These student athletes should be paid something. Nothing crazy, but a couple hundred bucks a week. Something similar to what you would earn if you were working a regular job those hours you are practicing.

However, if you're going to be paying them, you need to raise the standards. No more of these "student" athletes (like a poster referring to Durant earlier in the thread). Make passing classes a requirement to get the money.

Boston College football has a 100% graduation rate. That's what these programs should focus on. I'd have no problem with a program like BC paying their student athletes so they'll have some spending money. But not for a program like USC which the students don't even go to class.