Agreed. They get paid in the form of a scholarship. $30k/year is great for an 18-21 year old if you ask me...
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
Agreed. They get paid in the form of a scholarship. $30k/year is great for an 18-21 year old if you ask me...
I think Jim Joyce made a bad call.
You want to start this thread TONIGHT, with everyone already amped up over the Tigers?
Well we discussed this earlier, and I was pissed off about this, then I came home and saw the tigers robbery, now I'm pissed about that. Also pissed that tomorrow is only thursday.
It's one thing to read the AP story and feel upset. It's very much something different to be watching the game live when the 27th 'out' happened.
Although their value to the team is worth more than the tuition plus all the free gear they get, but NCAA teams are not pro sports franchises. They are not private for-profit entities. There isn't an owner or CEO raking in money on the team's profits, and the players are all students as well as players.
That said, that's not the biggest reason not to pay them, IMO. If we started doing this, the amount of scandal that would be involved in college football would be outrageous. It would only be the wealthy alumni bases that even had a shot at doing well, and kids would not longer pick schools based on tradition, or education, or even depth chart or chance of success, they would pick it based on who paid them the most. This would completely ruin the game. So, no, they should not be paid.
Roe v Wade 11:00pm
Health Care Debate 12:00am
Pearl Harbor Conspiracy: 2:00am
Gallarraga v Joyce 3:00am
Rodney King 6:00am
Leave time for coast-to-coast in there.
Better put on a pot of coffee....sounds like a busy night for us.
Colleges can't pay players?
Oh, shit... Well, I guess that explains today's mail.
~ USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett
I think their scholarships should be guaranteed for 4 years regardless of injury or on the field performance. This ensures they at least have time to finish their degree.
That's an interesting premise. What about team dismissals? They're usually so vague - undisclosed team rule violations and whatnot. Does an offer give you the chance to just slack off and bum around AA?
I don't think that's what you're suggesting, but I also think it would have to be a little more complicated than a straight up guarantee.
I understand the argument that they are already being paid via their scholarships. I think its very difficult to wrap your head around being a full time student plus a full time student athlete. They put in long hours in the classroom and on the field, and the university makes millions of dollars off of these kids. You weren't buying a generic number 7 or 20 jersey in 2004-2008. You were buying a Chad Henne or Mike Hart jersey. They are under a tremendous amount of pressure to perform in the classroom and on the field. I think they should see some share of whatever profit the athletic department makes off ticket sales and jersey sales.
Even if they were to only get paid for the merchandise they sell with their name on it, that gives a huge advantage to large schools like USC, Florida, Texas, and even Michigan. If you think the Big10 was really the Big2 before, wait until players see that they can make 10x as much money at Michigan and OSU.
That's a big issue by itself...if you pay the athletes you might as well become a pro league simply because the universities with more money will get all the good athletes. So much for staying close to home. If you wanna pay them, then take their scholarships away and give ME some of that money.
Smaller football programs that lose money already would still have a problem, but the NCAA could cap the amount that players would be paid. This would at least limit competition based on pay between big-time programs. This might limit some blue chip recruits from going to lesser programs for the opportunity for earlier playing time, but I think there would be a similar pecking order of schools going after recruits to what we see now. The programs that would be able to afford the maximum player stipend would usually be the successful ones that top recruits are interested in anyways.
What they could do is cap the entire team instead of individual players, which would spread blue chips around so that they could earn more money individually.
And that's why they get a full-ride to a university that most of them have no business being in otherwise. No reason to pay them on top of that.
I think its even more difficult to understand how hard these kids have it when they have to travel to away games. If you are a basketball player, you know that you are going to have at least 9 out of town, overnight travels. Have you ever tried studying on a bus or on an airplane? They miss out on opportunities to attend office hours or get extra help at the study tables at the academic center.
Which is why they get 30k+ more a year than 99% of students
The big varsity teams usually get assistance and understanding from their professors, at least when I was there (mid 00s). Also courseload is something to take into account - most of these guys/gals aren't taking 18 credits during the season. The new athletic academic center is a big help too, I'm sure.
The student athletes who really suffer the travel curse are club varsity and club teams. You don't get as much leeway with those, but sometimes still have rigorous travel requirements.
I'm not trying to say being a varsity student athlete is a cakewalk, but they do get opportunities that balance out any hardships due to practice times and travel requirements.
The NCAA should throw out 95 percent of their rulebook and end "shamateurism" for good. If I was in charge, I would allow schools to pay players and I would find a way to guarantee that anyone who ever played on scholarship would be allowed to attend classes as long as they need until they graduate.
The schools make millions of dollars off of athletes; it's time to give them a realistic slice of the pie.
What about that engineering student who is on academic scholarship? You know, the one who also works a local job and gets paid, but doesn't have any academic expenses. Same situation, except one makes millions for the University and works his ass off for free.
Right, no one profits from bowl games or recruiting sites. A team can't cut you whenever they want. The prestige of the university is not enhanced by the success of the football team therefore attracting more donations and more tuition.
I could really use a wish right now, wish right now, wish right now-ow-ow....
I don't think players should be paid either but, the argument in the OP is severely flawed. That said, they should get more than they get especially in regards to guaranteed scholarships (pending academic eligibility, non-criminal behavior, etc) and products licensed by the NCAA. Pool it all up and break 'em off a piece (Tebow gets the same as nameless walk on 3142).
but it should be the same stipend for each player. the majority of high profile college athletes don't come from financially stable homes and they really don't have time to work while in school. this way the kids have enough money to live while they're in school but the bigger schools don't get an advantage over anyone else.
See my post above, but this straightforward idea wouldn't even work. The cost of living at Georgia and very different from the cost of living at Georgia Tech (pick just about any two schools for this...).
that it probably wouldn't stand up in court if a player sues for price-fixing. Recall that about 15 years ago the Ivy leagues, MIT, and a few other schools were getting together and setting their acedemic scholarship offers. This practice got slammed for collusion, as I recall.
Once NCAA athletes get paid, keeping the amount to be paid fixed or limited will be impossible with all of the legal precedent out there. What we will then have is the NFL for 22 and under.
What is the difference between say a Michigan lacrosse player and a Michigan tennis player? Both would bring in the same amount of income for the school and once you factor in the school run tennis facility, the lacrosse player is cheaper. Do you pay the varsity tennis player and shaft the club lacrosse player? Or maybe you just pay the football and hockey players since their sports have a net profit and hose the tennis player? There are so many issues here that you think one little internet thread is going to stumble upon the 'right answer'?
The only thing that will happen is a bunch of people will have their own opinions and a few people will get pissed from this debate.
Football gets a piece, Men's Basketball gets a piece, maybe Hockey (maybe). No one is profiting from any other sport (not talking about Universities). Lacrosse players being compensated with scholarships aren't getting exploited. Football players are definitely getting exploited.
(I might be reading your post wrong...) So is it just a question of which sports make a profit for the school? What about football players at small schools, such as Wyoming, where the football team doesn't make a profit? Does a school still pay them, and at what amont? What is stopping a big school that makes tons of money from paying their players at a level that mid or small school could never hope to match?
Any way you look at it, if you pay players, it's a situation of the rich getting rich and the small school getting hosed.
My previous post in this thread summarizes my position: all players in all FBS programs get the same cut. Same for Basketball. Billions are made off of these people between bowl games and video games and other streams
I explicitly said that the fiduciary health of the programs has nothing to do with this. They have their own reasons for continuing their programs whether they're profitable or not.
The Rose Bowl and EA are definitely for-profit organizations. Who is EA paying royalties to? How about CBS for March Madness? How about the MCalibur 1st Annual Non-Denominational Holiday Classic Bowl? What's the NCAA's justification for pimping these guys out?
How much is a different question than what was asked in the OP and I'll admit that it's a difficult thing to get a handle on.
Here are some proposals:
I think those are all reasonable and fair for a work force that generates billions upon billions of dollars.
While I don't agree with the end conclusion, I respect this argument.
The thing I would certainly like to see instituted is guarenteed 4-year scholarships (for football and basketball).
However, one problem with that (which I allude to below) is that most student-athletes do not receive full rides - football and basketball are the only sports that come anywhere close to giving all their players full rides. Most student-athletes have partial scholarships, some a small fraction of a full-time ride.
So, if you consider that, then football and basketball players are already getting some extra (much extra) dough.
I'm gonna let you finish, but.... Joyce has been added to the on notice board.
write a paper about this not long ago. My view is yes, they should absolutly be paid. They are forced to go to college, or other, for atleast 1 year for the NBA and 3 for the NFL. In my opinion this should be illegal as we are keeping adults from earning a living that they may deserve. If there wasn't a requirement for them to wait x amount of time before being allowed to go pro it would be a different story. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
Bullshit they're forced to go to college. There are any number of ways to earn money playing football or basketball without going to college.
That's not what the NBA says. I guess maybe top-flight basketball recruits should start playing overseas until they can enter the NBA draft. Does the NCAA really want to see that happen en masse?
It's happened before and it'll happen again. When have you ever heard of the NBA writing its rules so that players must spend at least a year in college?
Of course the NCAA wouldn't want that, but the NCAA didn't make the rule, did they? Nor will the NBA be consulting them on it.
So you agree, there aren't many ways to make money in football or basketball without going to college. The NBA wont let you in so your only other choice is to leave the country for a year... does that really seem reasonable to you?
High profile players are good for the NCAA, but the recruitment of these players is putrid with corruption because of how much money is generated by the sport. If players were given some of the action legitimately, they'd be less inclined to stray to the dark side.
At least give them the option: Stay for four-years and you get, I don't know, $40k of the billions of dollars in wealth you helped create. Don't stay and you get squat, make your choice young man.
This kind of hyperbole does nothing but torpedo your own argument. Calling these players responsible for creating billions of dollars of wealth is ridiculous. By that logic, even Lane Kiffin is grossly underpaid.
As long as it's constitutional and legal to set age minimums for things like driving, voting, smoking, drinking, sex, and everything else, then there should never be any problem with a private organization like the NBA setting age minimums as well. They have that right, and there is nobody in this country that can claim the right to earn a living in any field.
Get thisstrawman outta here. I'mnot saying that the NBA shouldn't be able to set a minimum age requirement. I also didn't say the the players are solely responsible for the money they generate for their schools, the NCAA, and the sponsors of each.
What I did say was that the playes are the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry; are you denying that?
I also said that it is in the best interest of the universities and the NCAA to encourage high profile athletes to participate in college basketball and not go overseas to get paid to play. Are you denying that?
I understand that you disagree, but explain to me how I've torpedoed my argument and where hyperbole exists in what I've said.
Your hyperbole comes in the notion that players are creating billions of dollars of wealth and not receiving any of it. In terms of investment in vs. compensation out, they're the best-paid people in the whole enterprise. And they're not the "basis" of the industry any more than, say, the fans are.
Of course it's in the best interests of the universities and NCAA to encourage participation in college basketball. Given the number of players that do (thousands upon thousands, every year) vs. the number of players that don't (maybe one every couple years that goes to Europe) how can you possibly say they're not doing it well enough?
that draw the fans in. Why do you think a game vs a team with a superstar will sell out immidiately and a team without one doesn't? Pro or college.
Further evidence for my point that players being paid relative to the amount of money they bring in is a totally futile exercise. Pay everyone the same or pay nobody at all.....this idea of getting paid arbitrarily based on your sport is ridiculous.
So, workers should be happy to get what they get regardless of how much value they create. Got it. I understand your point, I just disagree. I'm OK with that.
They are forced to go to college, or other. The pros lock out the athletes for x amount of years, which benefits the colleges they choose to go to during that time. Where could the highschool football players go? Canada? The only real choice is to become a hired assassin for 3 years until you can bolt for the NFL. I know the unions are trying to protect their older veterans for longer but not considering a highly qualified individual because of age is unjust. You won't hear the colleges complain, they are scooping up the money from it.
Sticky subject because, on the one hand they are college athletes who already get to go to school for free, but they definitely get taken advantage of/exploited.
There's more to being a FB player than money, like intangibles. I know it's an old pic, but this girls intangibles are off the charts.
I'm all for savings yourself if that's your thing, but I cannot believe Tebow was able to hold out. He could have had ANYONE at that school, or in the state for that matter. I'd be all over her intangibles. I guess that's why he's 'The Chosen One' or whatever.
If we're going to have a serious discussion about this, I think we should first establish exactly what players get.
A full-ride includes: tuition, room, board, money for books and supplies.
Now, what does "room and board" entitle? Is there a stipend involved that should cover rent, utilities, food, spending cash? Or is it strictly re-imbursement (don't think so). If so, maybe that stipend really is plenty and does cover living expenses for an average college student. If that's the case, I think the free education (~100K) is basically paying athletes.
You also have to consider other sports: Most other NCAA athletes don't have full rides. They have partial scholarships. These students don't bring in any money for the university (these sports cost the school money), so how do you account for that? Do you give football players extra money, but not softball players? That doesn't seem fair.
EDIT: According to Tate's offer letter, a full-ride includes:
The only thing missing, to me, is spending money. No offense, but football players already have a very special priveledge: almost everyone on the team gets a FULL ride. Other than basketball, no other teams/student-athletes get this priveledge. So, NO they shouldn't be paid - they are already being given quite a damn bit.
Plus, if the only reason you need money while at school is for spending money (since, as seen above, everything else, including meals, is covered), well... that's what summer jobs are for. Even football players have some time to get a job. During the season? No. But during the summer why not? If the only thing you need to spend money on is unneccessary expenses, I think you're just fine.
Don't forget health care. Better coverage than anyone else on campus.
Players do get quite a bit; that's not at issue. At issue, at least for me, is should they get more?
Participants in non-revenue sports get more than they otherwise would and are not in a situation of exploitation like Football and Men's Basketball are; no one is out there trying to turn a buck on Duke Lacrosse. They are a net financial burden on the athletic program but the school continues participation in the sport for numerous justifiable and logical reasons. I think whatever a player gets is reasonable in this situation.
In the big time sports though, it's complete BS. Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Under Armor, Tostitos, ATT, Nokia, Fed Ex, CBS, Electronic Arts, Disney... all make mad money on the backs of student athletes. This is not wholly different from a sweat shop situation (though admittedly pretty far from the same).
The universities are choosing to relax their admission standards to let these guys in. They are choosing to give them full financial aid. They aren't forced to do either of those things but they do; more power to them.
Everyone is making out here except the players. I don't think its fair though for all of these other parties to profiteer from their efforts without breaking off a proper and modest chunk for these guys. Make sure they have a guaranteed opportunity to complete a degree. Make sure they'll be cared for if they suffer brain damage. Give them a modest amount of money to contribute to their retirements.
Finally, paying them will help neutralize the attraction to take seek money through unscrupulous means (boosters, dirty recruiting, etc).
This notion of exploitation is ridiculous. What percentage of the 18-22 y/o population in this country earns the kind of compensation that college football and basketball players get? They are in the top .05%, I promise you that. Only in America do the poor own TVs and cars, and only in America is a free college education, free shelter, free food, and free health care considered "exploitation."
You argue that football players and basketball players should get more than lacrosse players and, say, swimmers, because they create more money. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you'll need to sit down and determine the value of every individual player, because it's absurd to say that the backup punter is creating as much wealth for others as the quarterback.
You're trying to build another straw-man here and it's another shoddy one at that. Then again, aren't they all? If you think players aren't being exploited, that's your prerogative. I doubt my ability to convince you otherwise.
My reply to your points is, what percencate of the 18-22 y/o population is directly and critically involved in multi-billion dollar industries? Who the hell is talking about poor people here? I'm talking about the people specifically involved in athletic competition. I'm not saying we should make these guys millionaires.
I reject that the notion that individual contribution needs to be determined. The objective of maintaining a reasonably level playing field over rides the objective of fair treatment in this case and in my opinion. If elite players would rather get all or nothing, cool; the status quo will be preserved and they'll continue to get nothing while literally everyone else involved make millions. If you don't define that as exploitation, I'd love to hear your definition.
"Literally everyone else involved will make millions." Again with the absurd hyperbole. Video assistants don't make millions. QC guys don't make millions. Administration worker bees don't make millions. The fans, who are the ones putting money into the system in the first place, don't make millions. Even the vast majority of coaches don't. "Literally everyone" - that's a bullshit claim and you know it....and you claim I'm the one setting up straw men.
Equally bullshit is the idea that the players get nothing. Have you ever paid your way through college or what?
What does this conversation have to do with my personal situation? I'm not an athlete and I wasn't the catalyst for billions of dollars.
Also, where did I say that players aren't getting anything? That notion is indeed bullshit, but that's not my argument, so you're arguing against yourself apparently. All I'm saying is that they are being given the bare minimum and only because it's in the best interest of the university to field a competitive squad. I think they can be reasonably and justifiably be given more in the forms I've described previously. .
We can haggle all day about how much more, but, frankly, our discussion would be irrelevant because we're not the ones who would decide anything. However, if we are indeed haggling over how much more players should get, then I've made my point and the original question that was posed has been answered.
I could, and would, argue that all those companies - Nike, Disney, EA, etc - are making money off the schools, not the players.
Everyone is making out here except the players.
That's not even considering the post-college value of a degree! And you compare this to the working conditions of sweatshop workers?!
Come on ,Tom; a Michigan jersey has little value to Nike if it weren't because of Tom Harmon, Anthony Carter, Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, Braylon Edwards, Chad Henne, and friends. Without the players, the golden goose would die. Please argue against that.
On the other point, I already said that the sweat shop analogy was illustrative only. The $3M figure (or whatever the real tag is) is the cost of doing business for the university. If they want to spend less, they can. But they don't, why? Why are so many programs willing to spend more? Basically its the cost of the wheat needed to make bread.
From the player persepective their compensation is provided in the form of an non-tranferable educational voucher. That is indeed very valuable, but much less so when there is no guarantee that the player will indeed be able to complete his degree. I direct you to Alabama as a case in point; 26 recruits from the previous 4 years get screwed "ethically." When they get cut, do their credits transfer to another school? Would Michigan honor all of Star Jackson's credits if he wanted to continue his education at Michigan in exchange for his athletic talents? What if they guy ends up with Parkinson's disease later in life...will his medical costs be paid by Michigan, Nike, or the NCAA?
Should the workers of Ford be satisfied with being given free vouchers for a Fiesta? I mean, it's compensation, right?
I think I've made my position clear and I acknowledge the difficulties you present. However, I do not think that those difficulties are an acceptable argument for inaction in this case.
As a former college athlete, I would have loved to have been given some money. No matter the sport, they are all like a full-time job. I will say this though, college athletes, at least those on full scholarship already do get paid. As was already stated, the scholarship includes room and meals. If an athlete lives off campus and doesn't eat in the dining halls, they receive a monthly check from the university that is equivalent to the standard expenses of room and meals. Most of the time, rent is much less than what you would pay in the dorms. When I was in college, I knew some athletes that were getting over $1,000 a month, and this was at a MAC school. I'd imagine at a place like UM, the cost of dorms and meals are much more. So, say these guys are getting $2,000 a month and rent is only $400. That's a bit of spending money they have left over, even after food expenses.
With all that said, I also knew quite a few guys who had a tough time just getting by. If their family didn't have money, life was pretty tough, living "paycheck" to "paycheck" especially if you were a guy/girl not on a full scholarship.
I tried to write a term paper on the subject, but my ethics professor told me that the only way I would pass was if I could provide evidence that what the players is already compensated isn't enough to compensate what Universities are making. By making them paid, you enter a whole new realm of taxes, health insurance (beyond what is covered), unemployment benefits for players who cannot compete a la Saban/medical injuries, potential liability on medical injuries on future work, and a laundry list of other things. The professor if I didn't have at least 20 pages of imperical evidence, I would fail.