NCAA Players should not receive a salary

JHS5120

I was going to post this under the "What changes would you make in professional sports" but a) this is not a professional sport and b) I didn't want to side track anything.

NCAA Players should not receive a salary

Let me explain (for the purpose of these discussions, let's just stick with NCAA Football):

Players should receive compensation for a third party profiting off of their likeness (video games, jersey sales (but only if their name is on the jersey), posters, etc.) and they should receive compensation for signing autographs if they wish, but they should not receive a salary from the NCAA or their college. Could you imagine a bidding war between Ohio State, Alabama and OSU for an 18 year old out of high school? Just 23 out of 228 Division 1 Athletic Departments generated enough money to cover their expenses in 2012. In other words, 205 schools lost money last year. What would happen if you added an additional $30-40 million in salary expenses to these programs? Schools that are fiscally responsible such as Penn State and Texas would always have the funds to outbid the likes of Alabama, Florida State, Stanford and Baylor (all who either lost money or needed to borrow money to stay in the black). Could you imagine Alabama borrowing $20 million from their students to acquire the top recruits out of high school for their football team? How irresponsible would that be..

Now, I do think these students should receive a small compensation for their work, but this money should not come from the schools. Jersey sales and game rights are a perfect way to bring in cash, and this is revenue generated from the fans, not the students. But, it should be up to the schools weather or not they wish to attached their logo to these products (or sell them in their school stores).

I also do not believe these students should have the same sort of agent structure that is present in the NFL. Agents typically look out for #1 (themselves); it would be completely against the purpose of the program to put pressure on a student athlete to drop out of college.

I do not like the current structure, but I completely disagree with some of the airheads out there who yell "pay the athletes!". It's not that simple.

MGLICKER

So it is ok to pay a hack head coach like Rich Rodriguez $2,500,000 a year and the players work for squat.

JHS5120

<< <i>So it is ok to pay a hack head coach like Rich Rodriguez $2,500,000 a year and the players work for squat. >>



Head coaches should get paid however much the free market will pay them. High school players have the same option through the CFL or any of the other 15 or so professional football leagues in North America. If they choose to pursue a college degree however, they should not receive a salary for attending the university.

MGLICKER

<< <i>Head coaches should get paid however much the free market will pay them >>



Odd that my local school, the University of Arizona, is Socialist when they are begging the state for more money. Communist when they are begging for donations to their NPR affiliate and Marxists when it comes to paying the players.

They only become Capitalists when it is time to pay out $2.5 Million paychecks to the football and basketball coaches.

stown

BAN ATHLETICS!

MGLICKER

<< <i>BAN ATHLETICS! >>



Not a bad idea either.

1985fan

So it's alright for a program like Alabama to pay their head coach $7+ million a year because of the 'free market', but we can't allow that same free market to pay athletes? Why the double standard? Because of the room and board the students receive? Then why limit their ability to get jobs to make money while on scholarship? Because that's how it is now. Alabama paid over $18 million to athletic coaches and just over $11 million in student aid, which is a difference of over $7 million. Keep in mind this is the entire student athlete budget.

Why someone would argue for the free market in allowing coaches to make what they want, but to restrict that very free market to keep athletes poor and under the boot of their schools. If you want to argue about the profitability of athletic programs, then again, the free market should be alliowed to compensate the athletes in a similar manner. If a school can't be profitable, then they need to get their economic house in order.

MGLICKER

I agree with 1985fan.




I better pour another Root Beer and Schnaps.

JHS5120

<< <i>So it's alright for a program like Alabama to pay their head coach $7+ million a year because of the 'free market', but we can't allow that same free market to pay athletes? Why the double standard? Because of the room and board the students receive? Then why limit their ability to get jobs to make money while on scholarship? Because that's how it is now. Alabama paid over $18 million to athletic coaches and just over $11 million in student aid, which is a difference of over $7 million. Keep in mind this is the entire student athlete budget.

Why someone would argue for the free market in allowing coaches to make what they want, but to restrict that very free market to keep athletes poor and under the boot of their schools. If you want to argue about the profitability of athletic programs, then again, the free market should be alliowed to compensate the athletes in a similar manner. If a school can't be profitable, then they need to get their economic house in order. >>



They should be allowed to get jobs (part-time, internships etc.). I don't mind that one bit, but they should not receive a salary from their schools. No one is forcing this on them, they can enter the free market without going to college and get paid a fair price for their skills. Once they choose to go to college, they should not receive a salary from the university.

There is no double standard. Would you consider it a double standard to pay elementary school teachers, but not the students? No. There is no double standard paying the coaches, but not the players. I do not like the system how it is (as outlined above), but certain measures in place should remain in place. College football would become even more of an upward feedback system. The profitable schools (penn state) would get the best players while the less profitable schools (Alabama) would either lose out, or borrow money from the students to obtain players.

There are virtually no benefits:

Pros:
The top NCAA players make a salary prior to entering the NFL
Cons:
Universities will lose millions of dollars paying the salaries of players.
Universities will further subsidize the athletic programs with student funds.
Student Athletes will receive less motivation to obtain an education
Less popular sports/athletes will lose funding/scholarships to fund the new salary system

SanctionII

I also agree with 1985fan.

In college athletics (and in some cases in high school and eve middle school athletics) there are the haves and the have nots; schools where the term "student-athlete" is a reality [because athletes who attend those schools actually attend classes and graduate]; and schools where the term "student-athlete" is a joke.

Many different factors come into play when a college athletic department is formed and sports teams placed on the field of competition. I find that current system to be one cobbled together and maintained by schools that comprise the NCAA. Turf is clearly established, defended and promoted. The powers that be have formed the system and maintain it for many reasons, including pride, ego, livelihood, prestige and money.

For those sports (primarily D-1 football and basketball) that generate income for the member schools, league and NCAA, I say pay the players money that would at least cover their living expenses and educational expenses while they attend school and play on the sports team. Covering the living expenses and educational expenses of the athletes while they play and produce significant revenue for their school (particularly those athletes who do not have family income and resoruces that can pay for these expenses) is morally fair and just.

College sports teams (and even upper echelon high school and middle school sports programs) are merely conduits and pipelines through which a continuing flow of new talent is funnelled, groomed and trained for eventual drafting/signing by professional teams.

Wish I had been paid for my servcies when I played college hoops back before fire and the wheel were invented

1985fan

<< <i>

They should be allowed to get jobs (part-time, internships etc.). I don't mind that one bit, but they should not receive a salary from their schools. No one is forcing this on them, they can enter the free market without going to college and get paid a fair price for their skills. Once they choose to go to college, they should not receive a salary from the university. >>



But they aren't. Under current NFL rules a player must be three years removed from high school before being eligible to play. Remove that and let players go straight to the NFL if you don't wan to pay collegiate athletes.



<< <i>There is no double standard. Would you consider it a double standard to pay elementary school teachers, but not the students? No. There is no double standard paying the coaches, but not the players. I do not like the system how it is (as outlined above), but certain measures in place should remain in place. College football would become even more of an upward feedback system. The profitable schools (penn state) would get the best players while the less profitable schools (Alabama) would either lose out, or borrow money from the students to obtain players. >>



Students don't generate millions in revenue for the school but student athletes do.

Tabe

<< <i>Players should receive compensation for a third party profiting off of their likeness (video games, jersey sales (but only if their name is on the jersey), posters, etc.) >>


Why the exception for names on jerseys? Is it really any mystery whose likeness that Michigan was selling when they had #16 jerseys all over the place while Denard was still there? What about schools that don't put player names on the jerseys at all?

Tabe

<< <i>There is no double standard. Would you consider it a double standard to pay elementary school teachers, but not the students? No. >>


All due respect, this is a dumb analogy. Nobody's buying a ticket to see elementary students and the students aren't part of a larger money-making scheme for the school.



<< <i>There is no double standard paying the coaches, but not the players. >>


Of course it's a double standard.

I can actually live with the idea of not paying the players so long as all other restrictions on their incomes are lifted. Yep, that will mean boosters paying them and players selling their autographs but that's life. If a music student can book concert gigs on the weekend to make money, athletes should have the same kind of opportunities. And they should definitely get paid for the name/number in video games, on merchandise, etc.

JHS5120

<< <i>But they aren't. Under current NFL rules a player must be three years removed from high school before being eligible to play. Remove that and let players go straight to the NFL if you don't wan to pay collegiate athletes. >>



I never said the NFL, they can enter the free market and become trainers or play for any one of the dozen or so professional leagues without college restrictions.



<< <i>Students don't generate millions in revenue for the school but student athletes do. >>



Last I checked, my local elementary school orchestra generated a larger profit than the Stanford football team.

MGLICKER

<< <i>The profitable schools (penn state) would get the best players while the less profitable schools (Alabama) would either lose out, or borrow money from the students to obtain players. >>



Fine, so institute a salary cap. Sorry but the innocence of college football and Basketball is gone.

JHS5120

<< <i>Fine, so institute a salary cap. Sorry but the innocence of college football and Basketball is gone. >>



A salary cap? So a college football program that is already losing $10 million a year now has say another $40 million worth of debt because of a salary cap? That debt is paid by the state and students. The innocence may be gone, but that does not mean we need to abandon ethics for the sake of football.

1985fan

<< <i>
I never said the NFL, they can enter the free market and become trainers or play for any one of the dozen or so professional leagues without college restrictions. >>



Why do you insist on offering two different 'free markets'? You want coaches able to reap the benefits from the free market, and able to earn as much money as they want, but when it comes to the players, you want to lock them out of that very free market? Why the resistance to allowing players to enter this free market you're willing to let the coaches operate in? Why are you so opposed to letting players make any money the free market (the real free market, where any employee can go work where they are wanted) and instead want to keep them from making money?



<< <i>

<< <i>Students don't generate millions in revenue for the school but student athletes do. >>



Last I checked, my local elementary school orchestra generated a larger profit than the Stanford football team. >>

>>



You're local elementary school earns more than $4 million in profits? Wow!

The most recent numbers I can find were from '09-'10, and shows Stanford Football generated over $4 million in profit.

Football Profit
Univ of Washington $14,712,079.00
Arizona State $11,609,249.00
Univ of Oregon $11,434,894.00
Univ of Arizona $10,712,322.00
Univ of Southern California $8,259,649.00
Oregon State $7,075,211.00
Univ of California, Los Angeles $7,037,175.00
Univ of California, Berkeley $5,901,914.00
Stanford Univ $4,073,004.00

Link

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>Fine, so institute a salary cap. Sorry but the innocence of college football and Basketball is gone. >>



A salary cap? So a college football program that is already losing $10 million a year now has say another $40 million worth of debt because of a salary cap? That debt is paid by the state and students. The innocence may be gone, but that does not mean we need to abandon ethics for the sake of football. >>



Any college football program that is losing $10,000,000 a year needs to shut down immediately. Where are ethics in stiffing the state and the students.

JHS5120

<< <i>

<< <i>
I never said the NFL, they can enter the free market and become trainers or play for any one of the dozen or so professional leagues without college restrictions. >>



Why do you insist on offering two different 'free markets'? You want coaches able to reap the benefits from the free market, and able to earn as much money as they want, but when it comes to the players, you want to lock them out of that very free market? Why the resistance to allowing players to enter this free market you're willing to let the coaches operate in? Why are you so opposed to letting players make any money the free market (the real free market, where any employee can go work where they are wanted) and instead want to keep them from making money?



<< <i>

<< <i>Students don't generate millions in revenue for the school but student athletes do. >>



Last I checked, my local elementary school orchestra generated a larger profit than the Stanford football team. >>

>>



You're local elementary school earns more than $4 million in profits? Wow!

The most recent numbers I can find were from '09-'10, and shows Stanford Football generated over $4 million in profit.

Football Profit
Univ of Washington $14,712,079.00
Arizona State $11,609,249.00
Univ of Oregon $11,434,894.00
Univ of Arizona $10,712,322.00
Univ of Southern California $8,259,649.00
Oregon State $7,075,211.00
Univ of California, Los Angeles $7,037,175.00
Univ of California, Berkeley $5,901,914.00
Stanford Univ $4,073,004.00

Link >>



Stanford lost money in 2012, and the only reason they were in the black in 2010 is because of subsidies borrowed from the students.

1985fan

Where are these facts backing up your claim Stanford football lost money in 2012? I need data, as would any sensible person would in a debate.

JHS5120

<< <i>Any college football program that is losing $10,000,000 a year needs to shut down immediately. Where are ethics in stiffing the state and the students. >>



Looks like we'll be shutting down quite a few programs, and if we install a salary cap above $10,000,000 we will be shutting down all but maybe 30.

If you need to ask what is unethical about moving tens of millions of dollars away from educatio and putting that money into a failing football program then there is no point arguing.

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>Any college football program that is losing $10,000,000 a year needs to shut down immediately. Where are ethics in stiffing the state and the students. >>



Looks like we'll be shutting down quite a few programs, and if we install a salary cap above $10,000,000 we will be shutting down all but maybe 30.

If you need to ask what is unethical about moving tens of millions of dollars away from educatio and putting that money into a failing football program then there is no point arguing. >>



Look, I wish it were 1966 again, but it is not. NCAA football tickets are not $5, they are $50 and $100. Coaches do not work for the love of the game, they take home multi million dollar packages, even the sucky ones like RichRod. Only an idiot running a major football program could lose money in this market and those that do should be eliminated in the best interest of the institution.

stown

<< <i>For those sports (primarily D-1 football and basketball) that generate income for the member schools, league and NCAA, I say pay the players money that would at least cover their living expenses and educational expenses while they attend school and play on the sports team. Covering the living expenses and educational expenses of the athletes while they play and produce significant revenue for their school (particularly those athletes who do not have family income and resoruces that can pay for these expenses) is morally fair and just. >>



This just might be crazy enough to work.

JHS5120

<< <i>Where are these facts backing up your claim Stanford football lost money in 2012? I need data, as would any sensible person would in a debate. >>



Sure, here is a great article if you would like to know more about how much Division 1 programs rely on the state and the school for funding. Link

At the bottom of the article it'll list the programs that were able to turn a profit (note Stanford's absence). You could really use just about any school as an example of an unprofitable program. I chose Stanford.

MGLICKER

You are talking about entire programs losing money, not football. So it is just for Jameis Winston to carry the Lacrosse team on his back while his coach makes a cool 7 figures.

Sort of like Obamacare for sports.

1985fan

Stanford athletic department loses money but football itself is profitable.

JHS5120

<< <i>You are talking about entire programs losing money, not football. So it is just for Jameis Winston to carry the Lacrosse team on his back while his coach makes a cool 7 figures.

Sort of like Obamacare for sports. >>



It's worse than that. "I'm sorry, but we're going to have to cut the track team and baseball team because Winston is asking 5 mil next year"

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>You are talking about entire programs losing money, not football. So it is just for Jameis Winston to carry the Lacrosse team on his back while his coach makes a cool 7 figures.

Sort of like Obamacare for sports. >>



It's worse than that. "I'm sorry, but we're going to have to cut the track team and baseball team because Winston is asking 5 mil next year" >>



More like the head coach is asking 5 million. In my opening post in the other thread I used a benchmark of the players earning in aggregate the same as the coaches. The head coach could scrape by on say $1.5 million while the players that are getting slammed into the turf each week split up a like amount.

JHS5120

<< <i>More like the head coach is asking 5 million. In my opening post in the other thread I used a benchmark of the players earning in aggregate the same as the coaches. The head coach could scrape by on say $1.5 million while the players that are getting slammed into the turf each week split up a like amount. >>



I agree that head coaches should get paid less, but using their salary as your "cap" is ridiculous. Could you imagine resigning a coach to a 1 year/$60 million extension just so you could have a ridiculous salary cap?

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>More like the head coach is asking 5 million. In my opening post in the other thread I used a benchmark of the players earning in aggregate the same as the coaches. The head coach could scrape by on say $1.5 million while the players that are getting slammed into the turf each week split up a like amount. >>



I agree that head coaches should get paid less, but using their salary as your "cap" is ridiculous. Could you imagine resigning a coach to a 1 year/$60 million extension just so you could have a ridiculous salary cap? >>



This is America, why not. If the school has the resources and the board of regents goes along with it, bring it on. Maybe some NFL's would jump ship and play in college.

Tabe

Forbes says the Texas Longhorns football program made an $82m profit:

Forbes Article

wrestlingcardking

small stipend or being able to sell their likeness has my vote......

JHS5120

<< <i>Forbes says the Texas Longhorns football program made an $82m profit:

Forbes Article >>



The Texas Longhorns had the second most profitable athletic department in 2012 (second only to Texas A&M). The Longhorns were one of only seven division 1 schools to post a profit in 2012 without borrowing money from students or the state.

The 221 remaining division 1 universities either lost money (205) or borrowed money to help stay profitable (16).

Players should profit off of their likeness, but I don't think they should receive stipends past what they already receive.

On a side note, should a player accept bribes from booster clubs? Say Warren Buffet wanted to build up the Michigan recruiting class, should he be allowed to pay the top 20 recruits $1,000,000 a piece to come to Michigan?

halosfan

College athletes should absolutely not get paid.

1985fan

I see a lot of people opposed but giving no reason why. Other the the 'they receive a scholarship' why don't you think the free market should extend to college athletes? If not a salary why are you opposed to football players being able to enter the job market immediately after high school like any other non sport profession?

MGLICKER

<< <i>I see a lot of people opposed but giving no reason why. Other the the 'they receive a scholarship' why don't you think the free market should extend to college athletes? If not a salary why are you opposed to football players being able to enter the job market immediately after high school like any other non sport profession? >>



Probably because they cannot justify shelling out big money to see mid level professionals pay football. As long as it is a student playing for Old Hickory Log, all is well in the world.

NVbaseball

<< <i>Stanford athletic department loses money but football itself is profitable. >>



Which means the football profits are used to subsidize the other sports. If football players are paid, the money used to pay their salaries will mean far less money can be used to fund other sports. I like to think educational opportunities can be one of the few places that aren't be ruled exclusively by the free market

JHS5120

<< <i>I see a lot of people opposed but giving no reason why. Other the the 'they receive a scholarship' why don't you think the free market should extend to college athletes? If not a salary why are you opposed to football players being able to enter the job market immediately after high school like any other non sport profession? >>



I clearly listed out all of the reasons I do not believe College Athletes should receive an additional salary from their respective schools.

1. 95% of Athletic Departments cannot handle the cost of "paid" athletes
2. In order for most programs to pay their athletes, they would have to borrow from the state or students.
3. College athletes do receive a salary in the form of scholarships and experience - If I were to apply for an unpaid internship, would I be in the right to then argue that my pay isn't high enough? No one is forcing these kids to go to college.
4. College sports would be unfairly swayed in the direction of well-to-do schools.

The free market IS extended to college athletes. To say it isn't is just ignorant.

An example:

A high school athlete is a star at football (the next big thing). He receives offer letters from every school and every professional league (but the NFL who requires you to go to college). This kid is currently a member of the free market - he can forego college and enter the workplace and receive a fair wage for his skills (a high school graduate who is amazing at football). Granted, "fair wage" is crappy because all the good jobs (including those in the NFL) require at least some college, but this kid is given a choice nonetheless. The NCAA rules on benefits are clearly explained to him and he makes an educated decision (the right decision) based on his two options. He isn't forced into anything - he can make a decent living lighting up the "non-NFL" leagues.

He is a star in college, they gave him four Heisman trophies during his freshman year (in anticipation of the next three years). This kid can still enter the free market whenever he chooses. MOST stay, why? Because they realize the experience, education and recognition in college has a greater value than the salary offered by the NFL (or other leagues). Otherwise, they would leave.


Now that I have answered your question and responded fully to all of your comments, please respond to the question I posted above:

Would it be right for a large benefactor (or booster club) to buy every Top 20 recruit in the country so they would play for their school? Should these students receive large sums of money from certain groups to influence their schooling decisions?

Also, would it be okay to discontinue other sports (track, wrestling, hockey) because an 18 year-old high school kid wants $5,000,000 right out of school?

Would it be okay to borrow money from taxpayers and students to fund the salaries?

MGLICKER

Would it be right for a large benefactor (or booster club) to buy every Top 20 recruit in the country so they would play for their school? Should these students receive large sums of money from certain groups to influence their schooling decisions?

Also, would it be okay to discontinue other sports (track, wrestling, hockey) because an 18 year-old high school kid wants $5,000,000 right out of school?

Would it be okay to borrow money from taxpayers and students to fund the salaries?

1. Yes. College football is no longer an amateur endeavor. Better to pay them above board than under the table.

2. Yup. No college needs to provide any sport (I disagree with Title 9). Let them pay to play. If a high school kid wants $5,000,000 the school has the right to decline.

3. Absolutely not. It is also improper to hose taxpayers with new professional stadium projects.

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>Stanford athletic department loses money but football itself is profitable. >>



I like to think educational opportunities can be one of the few places that aren't be ruled exclusively by the free market >>



Just curious- why does this seem important to you?

1985fan

<< <i>[
1. 95% of Athletic Departments cannot handle the cost of "paid" athletes >>



So they need to get their financial houses in order, just like any other business does. If they can't afford top flight athletes, allow boosters to pay the kids directly or those kids should be able to go to where their services earn them the most money - just like any other school employee is allowed to do. Differentiating between what coaches can do and players is ridiculous.



<< <i>2. In order for most programs to pay their athletes, they would have to borrow from the state or students. >>



Who said this was the case? You're making a big jump here. Nobody is advocating for that, and that assumption is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.



<< <i>3. College athletes do receive a salary in the form of scholarships and experience - If I were to apply for an unpaid internship, would I be in the right to then argue that my pay isn't high enough? No one is forcing these kids to go to college. >>



But your time as an unpaid intern doesn't have the risk for life-altering injury as a football player does, nor does your time as intern result in millions of dollars of revenue being brought in. This is a poor analogy.



<< <i>4. College sports would be unfairly swayed in the direction of well-to-do schools. >>



Just like in the 'real world', well run, more profitable businesses are able to attract better employees, and the power conferences already attract better athletes. Paying kids wouldn't affect this at all.



<< <i>The free market IS extended to college athletes. To say it isn't is just ignorant. >>



No, it's not. They are not allowed to get paid to do the job they want. Suggesting that they can is what's ignorant.



<< <i>An example:

A high school athlete is a star at football (the next big thing). He receives offer letters from every school and every professional league (but the NFL who requires you to go to college). This kid is currently a member of the free market - he can forego college and enter the workplace and receive a fair wage for his skills (a high school graduate who is amazing at football). Granted, "fair wage" is crappy because all the good jobs (including those in the NFL) require at least some college, but this kid is given a choice nonetheless. The NCAA rules on benefits are clearly explained to him and he makes an educated decision (the right decision) based on his two options. He isn't forced into anything - he can make a decent living lighting up the "non-NFL" leagues. >>



The NFL doesn't require college, just requires time between high school and the pros. I'm in favor of ditching this rule, too. If an 18 year old kid can go fight and die for his country, then he's more than capable of playing NFL football.



<< <i>He is a star in college, they gave him four Heisman trophies during his freshman year (in anticipation of the next three years). This kid can still enter the free market whenever he chooses. MOST stay, why? Because they realize the experience, education and recognition in college has a greater value than the salary offered by the NFL (or other leagues). Otherwise, they would leave. >>



They only stay because there is no NFL option. Once the NFL is stripped from this three year rule (and it will happen), you'll see kids forgoing college altogether. It has NOTHING to do with the experience, education, or recognition. Period. Suggesting as much is nothing but being naive.



<< <i>Now that I have answered your question and responded fully to all of your comments, please respond to the question I posted above:

Would it be right for a large benefactor (or booster club) to buy every Top 20 recruit in the country so they would play for their school? Should these students receive large sums of money from certain groups to influence their schooling decisions? >>



Absolutely. If boosters want to pool their money to buy the best kids in the country, let them do it. It's already happening now, having it happen above board, in a manner that can be monitored would be beneficial for everyone. What I find most curious is why some people (and you are the most vocal) are so vehemently against college kids getting paid.



<< <i>Also, would it be okay to discontinue other sports (track, wrestling, hockey) because an 18 year-old high school kid wants $5,000,000 right out of school? >>



If the school felt it was in their best interest to do so, then have at it. Those athletes in those sports cut will find homes in schools where football isn't a priority.



<< <i>Would it be okay to borrow money from taxpayers and students to fund the salaries? >>



Nope. And nobody is suggesting it would be. Just a strawman argument you've constructed trying to rail against kids earning money from the millions the schools already make on their backs.

Tabe

Lots of false or unsupported statements, so lemme address these:




<< <i>3. College athletes do receive a salary in the form of scholarships and experience >>


False. Scholarships are NOT a salary. Just try ordering a pizza with a scholarship.



<< <i>- If I were to apply for an unpaid internship, would I be in the right to then argue that my pay isn't high enough? No one is forcing these kids to go to college. >>


If you had an unpaid internship, you could still work at another job in your off-hours, something the NCAA bans athletes from doing.



<< <i>4. College sports would be unfairly swayed in the direction of well-to-do schools. >>


This would be a change how?



<< <i>The free market IS extended to college athletes. To say it isn't is just ignorant. >>


To say it IS is ignorant. If the market were truly free, there wouldn't be an arbitrary barrier to entry into the most lucrative job market (the NFL) in the form of the "three years out of high school" requirement. If the market were truly free, those capable of entering the NFL out of high school would be allowed to do so.



<< <i>He is a star in college, they gave him four Heisman trophies during his freshman year (in anticipation of the next three years). This kid can still enter the free market whenever he chooses. MOST stay, why? Because they realize the experience, education and recognition in college has a greater value than the salary offered by the NFL (or other leagues). Otherwise, they would leave. >>


Your statement here is based entirely on your false understanding that kids can enter the NFL after one year of college. That's simply not true. They have to be out of high school for three years.



<< <i>Would it be right for a large benefactor (or booster club) to buy every Top 20 recruit in the country so they would play for their school? Should these students receive large sums of money from certain groups to influence their schooling decisions? >>


If they CAN get the money, why shouldn't they? If someone has determined that they are worth that much money, why shouldn't they get it?



<< <i>Also, would it be okay to discontinue other sports (track, wrestling, hockey) because an 18 year-old high school kid wants $5,000,000 right out of school? >>


Exactly why would schools have to discontinue other sports? Who says the schools would be the ones paying athletes? How does Phil Knight paying a kid to go to Oregon for football somehow make the school unable to pay for a track scholarship?

Answer: It doesn't.



<< <i>Would it be okay to borrow money from taxpayers and students to fund the salaries? >>


No. It also wouldn't be necessary.

MGLICKER

...and how do the schools get away with buying large insurance policies on the star players to cover career (is that even the right term for amateurs) ending injuries? Is that not a form of compensation?