$100,000+ isn't enough?
ohio state blogs will post literally anything
$100,000+ isn't enough?
The "+" you mention is a big deal - it's called "board" and it includes all books AND meals. And we're not talking about simple cafeteria meals. The spreads set out for football players are legit.
True Story: The Michigan Athletic Department actually pays out-of-state tuition to the University for all football players, even if they are from the state of Michigan.
$149K*: 4-year tuition paid for football student athlete by U of M Athletic Department.
$187K* for players receiving a redshirt scholarship (5 years total under scholarship.)
$3.17* Million: total money paid yearly by the Athletic Department for football player scholarships.
(*Calculated from tuition cost only from the Office of Financial Aid, not including any possible stipends for room and board.)
Athletic Department's 2008-09 Finances:
Revenue of $95.2M;
Expenses of $84.5M;
Net Gain of $10.7M
A Michigan Daily article suggests the AD is projecting a surplus of $16.1M in 2009-10, and the expected surplus is only $4.7M in 2011.
In order to protect the integrity of the sport I don't think they should be paid. It's one of the only things that separates them from the NFL and allows the players to play for the love of the game instead of a paycheck. They may generate more revenue for their school than just about any other sport but I don't think that gives them the right to recieve free trips to the Bahamas. You must remember these are still student-athletes we are dealing with, and paying them would put the athlete before student.
The "integrity of the sport"? "Put the athlete before student"? We're talking about Division I football players here -- they may love the game, but they're playing for a shot at a big-league roster. And at that level you're hoping that the money-making machine that is a bigtime football program can keep its "integrity"?
The "for the love of the game" argument might apply to Mount Union or John Carroll, but while I don't doubt that many I-A football players love the game, that's not the only reason many if not most are playing. I'm sure there're NFL players who love the game, too.
There also becomes a problem with recruiting players as certain big time schools can offer to pay more than a small school, or if the NCAA mandates the same for all players, then certain schools may not be able to afford it at all (not every Div-1 athletic department makes money so some would not be able to pay players).
I think they should be entitled to earn wages that would allow them to do things other college students do. That being said, I'm not sure that they don't already have this privilege. I have a friend who was a scholarship baseball player at NY school and if I'm not mistaken, his scholarship paid for his school, books, and still had a little left over.
I think for most, getting into a school they may usually not get into is money enough. On top of that, if they want to play in the NFL, where else are they going to go? Start up a league to rival the college system and then they won't have to worry about going to class. Until then, if the go to the NCAA, they play by their rules.
What about for guys who don't want to go to school? What about the guys who want to get paid in cash, so their parent's house doesn't get foreclosed or so they can invest in a small business? They don't get an option in this. The NCAA decides the contract between schools and players and the players have no say. What if all restaurant owners decided that all their waiters will be paid in Sour Skittles and the waiters had no choice but to accept? Sure, it might work for some guys but everyone should have the right to negotiate their contract. We would not support this abuse of employees in any other industry, but it has become so entrenched in American culture that we can't imagine it any other way.
If they don't want to go to school and want to be given cash then they can go work at 7-11. I want people to give me money or a high paying job as well, but I have to pay $100,000+ first to get it. All they have to do is wait a few years.
But they are prohibited from selling their most marketable assets. Why should we force these players into an agreement they had no part in creating but is instead presented as a take it or leave it?
Again, it's not the NCAA stopping them. The NFL refuses to "hire" kids right out of HS. It's no different than companies requiring you to have a college education to get a job.
The schools aren't forcing anyone to do anything. These kids aren't able to go to the NFL because they aren't three years out of high school. The NFL doesn't make them play college ball. They could sit at home and watch TV for three years, try out for the NFL and make millions of dollars. Obviously that doesn't work. So they can play in college, for a free tuition. It's the same as a job requiring an unpaid internship. they can take it or leave it.
Completely agree with this sentiment. Many of the kids aren't going to college to get an education, they go to play football (or whatever other sport) so they can make it big. Money is the driving factor and unfortunately they're forced to take classes as well. Basketball has the d-league and europe. Baseball has minor leagues. I believe hockey does something similar. As far as I know, football doesn't have the opportunity for kids to forgo college and get paid (does the UFL?). 5k in their pocket is more valuable than the 100k education that they don't want in the first place.
like I said, if they don't like the options presented, then tough. The NFL says you must be out of high school for at least three years. Don't like it, sue (Mr. Clarrett) or make a new league.
And your example doesn't apply here. The more apt example is if you want a good professional job, you need to intern or volunteer. You may get some payment, but not enough. If you do well, then you make the big bucks. You may want to make the big bucks right away, but the company wants you to intern first. Thats a valid reason for the person to accept the intern, whether they like it or not.
Hell no. Don't they get to go to college for free? They even get free meal plans.
In addition, they get to use facilities that are off-limits for most students and have free access to great tutors and other forms of academic help.
All valid points, but in all reality, think about how much money the Athletic department generates off of these athletes. I know that this money goes toward the other sports and AD operational costs, but the scholarship money is nothing compared to the money that is brought in (particularly for football.)
Factor in the fact that these players are risking their lives, bodies playing at an amateur level. With all the concussions and other injuries that we've seen, it's a tougher call than just "don't they go to college for free?"
So the athletes in sports that don't bring in money shouldn't get anything? I really thought TMQ's assertion that fencers and divers could get stuffed was insulting, actually. I doubt you'd find that swimmers and soccer players and such do much less work than football players. You pay everyone or you pay nobody, that's the only fair way to do it. And I don't think they should be paid.
As for the "risking their lives", well, hence the free health care they get. If "risking their lives" is a fair assessment - there are many, many more dangerous than playing a sport in college.
No, all athletes to some extent are putting their bodies at risk. Even runners who push their bodies to the limit can suffer serious injuries. Just using football as an example.
Football isn't the only sport where players are risking their bodies. What about hockey? Players get blasted into walls and often end up with injuries. They may not generate as much revenue for their school (maybe at some schools though) but still put their bodies on the line. Would you pay them as well?
Women's softball: Bree Evans can vouch for putting her body/life on the line.
in 2008 only 19 of the D-1 schools athletic departments made money and all of the rest lost money.
No. Because if you pay Denard Robinson you have to pay the 12th runner on the women's cross country the same amount or their would be lawsuits. And that is almost as unfair as the athlete's making nothing at all while the university and the bowls and the BCS makes a ton of cash.
Although, if it were a situation of being able to afford it, the NCAA could just do away with the BCS all together and they could pay for it that way.
In any event, this is one of those topics that could be discussed all day. I think a better idea is to get NCAA approved agents for each conference, or one per state. I don't know. Some sort of resource to teach kids something, so they can have and agent, paid by the NCAA by the NCAA football/basketball profits. In turn the agents give back to the athletes, allow them to understand what it means to turn pro. Also, this could eliminate the need for players to be unable to return to their teams after declaring for drafts.
Even if you could answer the whether or not, impossible to answer the how for precisely the reason you stated. Every student athlete would have to get and the schools couldn't afford it.
I believe if you live off campus, you are given a housing stipend that far exceeds the price of rent. Plus, you get a free education. That is enough.
Correct, end of discussion.
Its called college you are suppose to be broke.
Why is that enough? We are denying them the right to make money using their skills on the open market. Can you imagine if the auto companies got together and agreed not to hire anyone for X amount of years? That these potential employess would have to work 3 years with the compensation of "we'll pay your tuition at a local university and here's some food"?
What about student teachers? or unpaid interns?
I would love for a company to pay for me to go to college, room and board included. Wouldn't anyone???
Would you love it you had skills that could make you millions, but you were prohibited from profiting from them?
Those skills aren't ready at age 18 or 19 for football players. The only example of someone who was physically mature enough to go straight to the pros was Randy Moss. Like most, those skills need to be harnessed before they are actually worth millions.
However, forces conspire against them to limit their ability to try. Who's to say that Maurice Clarett couldn't have been drafted as a Sophomore? Maybe Mike Williams isn't a bust if he didn't have to sit out a year after declaring.
The NFL and NBA have a rule against athletes leaping into their sport. MLB and the NHL do not. They draft kids all the time. 99% of them aren't ready to play either.
I don't think they should be paid, I think that the road should be opened to them to do whatever they want. The system exists because its lucrative for the NCAA and its member schools on the one end, and gives the NFL essentially a free minor league system. College football is effectively one huge farm system for NFL teams, one that's hugely popular and they don't have to spend money on to develop players.
I really don't see why a baseball player can be drafted in the 30th round and stuck in the rookie leagues but the #700 overall 2* CB has to play at Akron for 3 years.
I'm more familiar with baseball rules, but just because a kid gets drafted doesn't mean he forgoes college. If a kid can be drafted in the 7th round of NFL draft he could make the decision to go or stay without being paid in college just like baseball players do now.
Would Warren have stayed for this year if he was getting a stipend...probably not. Would he have stayed had he known he would not have been taken in the draft...most likely.
This would take a lot of the incentive away from these kids to be involved with agents in the first place.
The NCAA doesn't prohibit kids who are 18, 19, whatever, from playing pro football, the NFL does. The comparison is not valid.
I'm well aware that the NFL prohibits it. But the NCAA is very much in favor of this arrangement and profits from it.
Yes they are aware of it, and yes they do profit from it. Still, the players are given many priveleges and scholarships that ordinary students are not, $100,000+ over four years is quite a generous payment. Besides, stipends wouldn't stop agents at all; players would just be given money along with their stipends.
Of course they are. David Molk also provides far more value to the university than my friends in the nursing program.
Yes, but David Molk receives more from the University also. These players aren't forced to play, they don't have to go to college.
If David Molk finds this to be an acceptable arrangement, so be it. However the fact remains that many collegiate athletes do not find this acceptable and I feel they should have the right to negotiate alternate compensation.
I think it's fair for the schools to make their offer, and if the kids do not like it, then they don't have to take it. Personally I think players should be able to leave for the NFL after high school (and stay in school for three years if they don't), just as I think they should be able to do in CBB.
If they were able to leave for the NFL, I would have no issues with the situation.
However, I think if the player says "Hey, I have an academic scholarship so can you give mine to my sister?" or "I have an Aunt that lives near campus so you don't need to pay for my dorm room or meal plan. Can you use that money to help my parents avoid foreclosure?" and the school agrees, that option should be on the table.
Do all student athletes need money for foreclosed houses? Lets not talk in extremes
Ok. How about this: You're a 5* WR from a desperately poor area of the deep south (let's say... Pahokee, FL). Maybe you have multiple younger siblings that you have to help take care of.
Scouts say you're a lock to be a 1st round talent. What seems fair to you then? You can take the scholarship to any school you want, and get $250k spent on you over 4 years, but only spent on you. There's no option to say, get drafted in the 3rd or 4th round now and make what 400k a year as a rookie in the NFL. Nothing.
It might not be an optimal choice for every athlete (it's probably a terrible choice, given how short NFL careers are, the draft pick bust rate that will surely skyrocket, and the lack of a degree/connections as a fallback) but it should still be a choice.
You can't make the rules for everyone based on extreem circumstances. And for someone who is desperately poor wouldn't you agreed that they should go to college so that they can receive a degree so that even if their football career fails they have the ability to go out and get a good paying job. Considering the numbers are stagering on how many players end up broke or in debt just a few years after their playing careers are over.
In theory you are correct, but in reality how is waiting four years to get your degree going to help out a young man's family in the present. He may be fine at school but his scholarship money could be used to help out his folks back home.
So you are saying that these athletes are forced to wait a few years to get to their high paying jobs? Hmm it's kind of like anyone else in the United States since you can't get a decent job anymore without a degree. Only difference is they aren't out $100,000+.
If a company would hire you right out of high school for a high paying job, you would be able to accept it. If they Lions offered Mark Ingrahm $5 million last year, he wouldn't have. That's the difference.
It's the NFL that won't hire right out of HS, the NCAA isn't stopping anyone. So it's the same thing. Google says you need a degree, the NFL says you need to be a few years out of HS. Only difference is that the degree costs money.
Then the NFL should be paying the players a stipend, just like MLB pays minor leaguers. The question was not about NFL v. NCAA. The question was should players be paid a stipend?
Why? There aren't any companies paying me just because they won't hire me without a degree.
Because the NFL profits from their future players getting 3 years of practice and no coaching at no cost to them. These are players who sacrifice a lot and most of them get chewed up and spit out by the machine, while the NFL rakes in millions upon millions. Baseball is doing just fine with their minor leagues, I think it is reasonable to hope that the NFL would pay a stipend to the players it profits off of and the ones who get chewed up by the system they support.
Again, companies profit from their future employees getting 4+ years of practice (education) at absolutely no cost to them. The NFL is a company and is no different than any other.
If things are not fucked up enough now, that will certainly fix it.
I think that has been the issue of previous lawsuits. The NCAA is the defacto minor league of the NFL.
NSFMF...they're choosing to go to school because many are not ready for the NFL. Most do not have skills that would make money on the open market. It's exactly like any other student that goes to school to learn a trade and then goes out and gets a job after 4 years of training. If I could make enough money to support a family one day without paying to go to college, I would...unfortunately, I can't, so it's off to school for me.
EDIT: beaten to the punch 4 times over! +1s all around, we have vanquished our foe!
Some of them are choosing this. The others are shoehorned into an arrangement that they had no say in. AJ Green could have played in the NFL this year, what if he gets a career ending injury this Saturday? Is he protected? No. But he was forced to accept this contract that he was not able to negotiate.
And then he would be able to complete his college degree at no charge and be far better off than 99 percent of college grads who leave school with a large amount of debt. They get paid. Just not in the way you think they should be. And they are not forced to accept any contract. As a matter of fact most of them are dying to hold a press conference to announce where they will go play.
You know, I'm a really good future Engineer. I'm in college right now and they aren't paying me, even though I could go to work at a company and make $80,000 a year if only they would hire me without a degree. I'm going to go to the financial aid office and try and "negotiate my contract". Since I'm not able to get a job with my dream company somebody should be paying for my skills!
You're missing the point. If you were an Aeronautical Engineer prodigy, and somehow you made a huge advancement in your field (let's say you invented a full up jet turbine that can run for hours on a gallon of fuel while spewing rainbows as exhaust). I'm sure Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin, BAE, Airbus etc. would hire you, degree be damned. No offense, but you just aren't that good at what you do yet.
Meanwhile, Marcus Lattimore is trucking SEC defenses AS A TRUE FRESHMAN. You're telling me that he's less ready than however many senior RB's will be drafted this year? Why does he have to stay in school for 3 years, making zero legitimate dollars along the way? If it were an open market, he probably would have been drafted out of high school. So why can't he choose to be in the NFL?
I mean, the current system is something like if Boeing dominated the Aerospace market so thoroughly that they could make up whatever rules they wanted regarding hiring. Sure, you could drop out and go work for random foreign competitor (CFL/Airbus) but the pay is shit, the hours are long, and people speak French. So, its great that you invented this awesome new jet engine, but you're going to have to stay in school a few more years to earn the big bucks.
Who says he has to stay in school? Why can't he go to the CFL or work out on his own for two years? Why is there this notion that if someone has a skill, they have the inherent right to earn zillions of dollars for it?
The NFL's and NBA's requirement for being out of high school is a different debate, but the problem is people always make it about the Kobe Bryants and Kevin Garnetts of the world. Really, it should be about the Korleone Youngs.
This is a joke. They don't have the choice of playing professionally. The NFLPA bars them from it till 3 years after their high school class has graduated. The only other game in town is one in which everybody gets rich except the players.
Except that very few athletic departments actually make money. We are a rare exception (and even we now have to pay off a massive debt for the stadium renovation). Just providing a free education, room and board, and training for college athletes is costing most athletic departments an arm and a leg.
I'm not saying all athletes should get paid, but I think some should.
I say yes. I know they get free school and food, but they can't work because of sports so they should get a little money on the side. Not all of their parents can afford to give them money to go out.
They already do get money on the side. Anyone know how much room and board costs at UM? I know guys in the late 90's early 2000's at a MAC school were getting checks for over a grand every month. I'd imagine the cost of living at UM is a bit higher than say Toledo or BGSU. I'd bet these guys are getting checks for over $1500 every month. Yeah, it's not great money, but certainly enough to buy some extra things.
I don't care what anyone says, they get a free education, room, food, healthcare, and a few bucks extra. Not sure how paying them would even work out. The biggest schools with the most alumni cash coming in would dominate.........nevermind, let's pay them.
The get free meal plans and tuition and tutors because of the value they provide the university. If Michigan didn't think they were getting their money's worth, they wouldn't do it. I think players should be paid somehow because it's not as if they can go to the NFL. That market is closed off to them. If we, as a society, are okay with denying these players the ability to make the maximum from their talents, then it is hypocritical to suggest that they should go to class, practice many hours, travel around the country and still earn side income.
fantastic until you get to the end and he changes tonality and glosses over the reasons he got canned as an agent.
Throwing all those people under the bus because he could not hang with the big dogs who told him he could not play the same way he did when he was Doc Daniels protege.
I hope he has enough cash left to hire protection.
"I gave the check to my lawyer" = "The dog ate my homework"
Howeva, the article proves Ryan Leaf is still a dick.
They don't pay for anything at college. I'm sorry but they don't need anymore money. If there good enough they'll go on and make a lot more.....
Their education, food, housing- All free. Its like they're being paid 25k a year already....
Sure, if that's what the player wants. But what if he also won an academic scholarship to Southeast Georgia Valley A&M and he doesn't need that. Why can't he negotiate his own contract for money, and send his sister to college?
If you don't like the compensation then don't take the job.
The same thing that was said to poor miners in the 19th century. I really thought we had accepted the ability to negotiate a contract as a basic right for employees in the past 100 years.
To compare modern day college athletes to the miners of the 19th century is a joke. Is it not also the right of the "employer" to offer a contract and say take it or leave it? And not to compare football players to soldiers but I have it on good authority they don't get to negotiate their contracts either.
When I joined the Army, I was able to negotiate with a recruiter what job I wanted, where I wanted to live, and how much my signing bonus was. They offered me $6,000 to be an MP, $40,000 to be EOD. I took MP and the 6 grand with the guarantee I would get one of my top 3 duty stations. When It came time for me to re-enlist I negotiated a $20,000 dollar re-up bonus and a school for training I wanted to attend. I ended up declining the offer to become a civilian again but soldiers have the ability to negotiate their contract.
While you are correct that in the military you get the opportunity to negotiate your contract there is no guarantee. When you sign on the line to "your terms" those are only kept up until the military runs out of room or believes you're a better fit somewhere else. You are in fact property of the government and while recruiters typically get you your dream job it can be switched as I'm sure you've witnessed. You will get whatever signing bonus you agreed to but not necessarily the job. Also in your contract is the clause that you can be kept indefinitely if the government signs certain acts to keep you. When I was in the Marines many a pissed off jarheads were kept way over their end time service date after 9/11.
I've always been fond of when guys would accidentally get really sunburned and get punished for "damage to government property"
Those are bonuses, not your salary. Your salary was determined by Congress and it was take it or leave it. There's no negotiating of yearly raises, and even re-enlistment bonuses (at least in the Navy) are determined by a formula, not negotiation.
Cash, scholarship or give the scholarship to your sibling etc. This would save us all from the bullshit of players like John Wall. I think he attended like 6 hrs, of which 6hrs was sports management or something pathetic.
You can make good arguments for both sides, but I guess I fall on the side that these guys do receive tuition, room+board, clothing, etc. all free, which is a significant financial gain. Paying them in addition would seem a bit excessive, though I do think the players should receive a cut from their likeness being used to sell jerseys, video games, etc. I'm not sure how you compute that, but if Denard Robinson's jersey sells for $55 and the MDen sells out every Saturday, it seems strange that he does not receive some cut of that profit.
There are no Denard Robinson jerseys, that would he an NCAA violation. There are #16 jerseys for sale however. Who gets a cut on a #16 jersey? Everyone who has ever worn the number?
I understand that there are no official jerseys with a name on the back (that said, people can add it after the fact). But right now, I doubt anyone is buying the #16 now to retroactively show support for Brent Washington, Rudy Smith, John Navarre, Adrian Arrington, or a freshman Roy Roundtree. I know that enforcement might be difficult, and I'm not saying they deserve a 50/50 cut, but it also troubles me when the University can make hundreds of thousands in jersey sales relating to individual players.
Oh please. That's like saying the QB #16 in NCAA '11 could be any random #16 in Michigan history, rather than Denard. Except for #1, there aren't that many jersey numbers that enough different big time players have worn to be able to legitimately say you're not singling one out specifically. "What, this #2 jersey? Charles Woodson? Never heard of him. This is my authentic 2008 Sam McGuffie jersey!"
Yes, but only if they win
To many schools do not make money on football. This would make stipends untenable. You pay stipends and you have to talk about"profit sharing". This its not going to happen.
My wife was a full ride athlete at a MAC school and her room and board check was more than enough for us to pay rent and eat. The idea that they don't get paid is a joke. Just because their full compensation is in the form of cash doesn't mean they are not compensated well.
A stipend would constitute a employer/employee relationship; that would be too complicated. Worse yet, it would make Title IX even more onerous than it already is.
I have suggested all along that players be allowed to get whatever income they can get from whoever wants to pay them. Agents, Joe's Automobile Lot, golden handshakes, whatever: a cut of the jerseys with their names on them would be nice, too. Players should be allowed to accept gifts from whoever wants to "gift" them.
The prevailing "wisdom" on the matter is that the rich would get richer. In reality, they already are. And teams like TCU, SMU, and OK ST would be able to get back into the game with their wealthy donors.
Better yet, Michigan would no longer be competing on an uneven playing field with the OSU's, USC's, and Bamas of the world. It sounds like everybody would win here.
I was with you until you suggested that Michigan was somehow better than OSU and the other big programs. That's ridiculously naive.
I think the only way that it would work would be if it were a private entity as part of a private amateur league -- e.g., can you imagine an amateur league matchup between the The Columbus Rubes and The East Lansing Absconders?
Speaking as an aside from the "Should players be paid?" debate, you should never, ever reference TMQ.
In no particular order, Easterbrook: hates on Rich Rod, hates the spread, is waaaaay creepier than Pat Forde about random hot girl pics, disagrees with many subject matter experts on the topics he writes about, seemingly thinks there's nothing wrong with the odd concussion or two in football (apparently he's changed his mind about this), and is kind of an anti-Semite, maybe.
I don't hate on ESPN often, but Gregg Easterbrook is in my troikaof evil along with Pam Ward and New Rick Reilly.
Absolutely players should get a stipend. It's not like they can get jobs with the amount of time they devote to their sports and school. And for those who think a scholarship is enough, if that was truly their market value then schools wouldn't have to guard against boosters or agents giving them special perks on top of that.
So how about a compromise. The schools are making tons of money off of jersey sales. Now I know that there aren't names on the jersey's but you can't tell me that #16 sales aren't high right now. So what if there's a contract say 40 percent of jersey sales goes to the player but only after he completes his time in school. Whenever he chooses to leave if it's after he gets a degree or leaves for the NFL. Any student found in violation of team or NCAA rules forfeits all monies.
Secondly, go after the agents harshly. First offense suspension for one year. Second you're banned. There has to be some way that agents are scared to deal early with athletes.
If stipends were being paid it would reduce one of the competitive advantages Michigan has in recruiting. The value of a Michigan degree is far greater than the value of degrees from other institutions because of the quality of education, access to alumni, and even starting salaries upon graduation. If other universities could compensate by paying recruits then the value would equalize over time.
Let's not be ridiculous. We all love Michigan but you can still get a fantastic education at North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, UCLA etc.
commodification/commercialization of everything is not always more commercialization/commodification. Players already reap a lot of benefits.
I would like to see all athletes assured a chance to finish their degrees, however; I know that they have that at some schools, but I'm not sure it's universal.
I would work harder to keep agents away from players, myself. And I think that this has to begin with coaches and the sporting community, since they tend to reap benefits--including feeling important--from such associations, too.
i would be cool with some sort of deferred trust fund redeemable 5 years after graduation or something like that. the same amount for all varsity athletes.
A. The players are paid in the form of room and board
B. Players can refuse to go to college if they would like
C. Players aren't ready for the NFL so they aren't ready to get paid, just like I wasn't ready for my job until I had my college education.
D. The people you are talking about are the exception (There are a less Mike Martins and Denard Robinsons than there are Greg Banks and Rhocko Khourys out there) You're proposing that we pay all players because a couple dozen kids each year have to wait one extra year to get paid.
E. Where do you draw the line on who gets paid and can you draw a line?
F. People who compare college th the minor leagues or the D-league have a seriously flawed comparison. 95% of these players will never set foot in a NFL training camp. It's not the minor leagues, it's college just like college baseball, basketball and every other sport.
G. If you want to make a minor leagues comparison, here's one. The value of an athletic scholarshipis equal or more valuable than a minor leaguers salary and when a minor leaguers career fizzles out they are left without an education. Athletic scholarships set up athletes better for the rest of their life can the minor leagues do.
H. Just because people don't take advantage of their compensation doesn't mean they aren't fairly compensated. People propose paying players because of the large number of players who don't take advantage of their educational opportunity. If I blow my paycheck at the casino it doesn't mean my boss didn't pay me enough it means I was foolish. And don't tell me that football players can't get good educations because they're too busy or whatever because I can give you a long list of football players that were good scholars.
I. These examples of home foreclosures and 5* WR's who might be 5th round picks (the NFL would never take a kid who hasn't demonstrated his talents at least one year in college) are the 1 in 10,000 scenarios. Why further corrupt a system for two kids in the whole country.
I am currently an undergraduate science major, and I work in a research lab. Right now I'm just earning credit for my work, but during the past 2 summers I received a stipend that allowed me to pay rent and eat for four months with some left over at the end.
I think this is directly analogous: my work has the potential to contribute income and prestige to the University, but this "contribution" will never bring anything close to the money and prestige that men's basketball, football, and hockey are bringing. The players should receive a stipend because they are earning it every day by doing daily "research" that is entirely extracurricular. Title IX shouldn't apply because, frankly, most, if not all, of the other sports (men's and women's) are not profitable at all. It should only be a question of whether or not a group of hardworking students, who are earning the university huge sums of money and national attention, should be compensated for their extracurricular work.
Your researching doesn't cover your school though. So what you said isn't the same situation at all. If your research that you had throughout the year paid for room and board, 15 credits of class, your food, and your clothes, then yes you would have a point. But it doesn't....You got SOME money but near as much as all these kids are getting.
well, I could be receiving full tuition based on my previous academic success in high school. The stipend money doesn't depend on that at all, I earn it based on my potential for contribution and current track record while in college.
No. They are given an education that would cost most people tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. They get it for free and make millions out of college when most people spend years paying back whatever lending institution they used. If they never play professionally, they still have a free education. They aren't starving or struggling and have been given an opportunity most would kill for.
It can't realistically be done. Most college athletic departments are losing money as it is. The combination of Title IX (which led to a huge increase in money-losing women's teams) and skyrocketing tuition (which somehow always exceeds the inflation rate at virtually every campus in the country) has made running an AD a financial mess at most schools. So where will ADs now come up with the money to pay all their scholarship athletes? You can't just reserve it for football and men's basketball. If the NCAA ever tried to only allow athletes in profitable sports to be paid, it'd be sued at the drop of a hat.
The problem with this discussion is that people keep bringing up the extremes - those who make it to the NFL. I think usually only 2% of college players ever make it to the NFL. So colleges look at what needs to be done for the 98% who are there for the education. For 98% getting a very good free education is plenty. For the other 2%, the NFL will compensate you nicely to make up for it.
I'm a fence sitter on this - they are getting an education and a degree, but at the same time they are laborers who are making money for the school and not getting market vaue for it - and as pointed out above, grad students bring in money for the school and often get a stipend in return. I think it's a fair point though that the entire athletic department is filled with kids who are upping the Michigan brand, but at varying degrees, and sports would certainly be cut if all athletes were paid a stipend.
So why not allow them to do endorsements, controlled through their school/athletic department? The athletic departments can act as the agents, and give money to the athlete who's actually doing the endorsement, a fund for all of his teammates, and a fund for all athletes in the school. The NCAA can limit how much they earn if they want, or how much time is spent on this. This way Denard Robinson can capitalize on his fame, so can his teammates, and so can all varsity athletes. And they aren't getting something that's not given to all college students - it's the same, in my eyes, to a paid internship, or an extra job at Espresso Royale.