<< <i>For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? >>
Resistance is that folks want to believe that their alma mater is so wonderful that prospects from around the nation will eagerly give up 4 years of their lives for an education at the beloved school.
University of Arizona is half a dozen miles from here and has been number #1 in the basketball rankings for several weeks. Good stuff I suppose, but the athletes did not come here for the academics. They chose this school because of the high number of players that make it into the NBA.
Sean Miller will earn $3,000,000 plus this year. Share it with the folks that put the wins on the board.
why not just start paying them in high school? heck, the recruiting wheel is already spinning full speed before the best kids even get there. to get ahead in HS, they will do things like take non-prescribed meds, cut classes & pass them, receive reduced punishments for infractions, and of course, rake in money from outside sources to which they are not rightfully entitled. just like college!!
but that's just my speculation here, so anyone who wants to call me out about it, i'm already admitting that it's just SPECULATION, but i feel pretty safe making this assumption.
the college is fielding a punt by enrolling these kids. they see no reason to call a fair catch. why would they? the best players already come up with their pockets and bellies plenty full. their parents and families get "help" if they need it. that's how the world works. if you don't believe it you're just being naïve.
So what you're saying is having close to $100,000 in tuition, $20,000 in housing, $10,000+ in meal plan, etc over a course of 4 years paid for you isn't enough?
I might be ok with paying players, if there was a limit to it. Cause there is no need for college kids to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions just to play a sport. Also, there should be a stipulation that in order to receive compensation, you must stay at school all 4 years or however long it takes to get your degree, and you must actually graduate college. No one here can argue with me that it would be wrong to make kids graduate college in order to get some money.
And who cares if athletics brings in millions of dollars for the college. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that the point of athletics? It's not like all that money goes towards paying coaches. It goes towards all the athletic programs. At most schools, football is what funds almost every other sport on campus. All the money doesn't stay in the athletic department either. Some gets distributed to other areas of the university for things like research activities and building plans. It's not like a handful of people just pocket the money.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
No I don't have to graduate (I work at the bookstore). But then, I also don't have a scholarship to play a game. These guys are already getting a lot of things, if they're going to get paid as well (even though they basically already are), make the money a bonus. Make that an incentive to graduate and stay in school rather than leave for the pros early. They could still go to the pros early if they want, they just wouldn't get their college paycheck, which sounds ridiculous to say.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
if the brightest minds in the world were worthy of butts in seats attention, then we'd have an even better argument.
how about getting the future brain surgeons, science professors and structural engineers a paycheck while they're preparing for a life of actual contributions to society?
<< <i>For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? Are those that are opposed so deadset on running these kids lives that you will give up all reason to deny them a fair wage in regards to the untold millions they bring in for their universities? Are you so determined on returning this country to the olden days of years past that you think these kids should be honored just to take the field for their school (while you ignore the millions that now flow in from advertisers and the NCAA?)
Look, we're in a different era now. Schools are making tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from collegiate sports. Money that wasn't there in the supposedly good ole days. Sitting there and gnashing your teeth about 'greedy' players while completely ignoring the money coaches, administrations, and the schools in general are making is beyond ignorant. College sports long ago stopped being a pure pursuit-it's a massive money-making machine that is only getting more profitable. It's long past time to do the right thing and start fairly compensating the most important cogs in that machine (and no, tuition and a room is NOT fair compensation). >>
This is incorrect in almost every regard. College athletics are not some 'massive money-making machine', it is a failing system that is costing schools, students and the state millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars. College athletics are failing across the entire nation. Division 1 football and basketball players make up less than 1% of the student athlete population, yet we are seeing funding cut across the board to fund these programs.
We have a fundamental difference in opinion; I believe every college program should succeed and we should not sacrifice the players and coaches of other programs to accommodate college football and basketball. While it seems others believe the individual player should succeed no matter the damage it causes.
If you need "proof" that players, coaches and other programs will suffer to accommodate college football and basketball, just open a newspaper:
To help fund a struggling football team and a growing basketball team Temple has cut 7 Division 1 sports including baseball and rowing. Every player has been cut every coach has been let go (and these aren't the "overpaid" coaches). Every scholarship promised to incoming students have been voided. Could you imagine how many more programs will get cut and staff fired once the football players demand a salary?
On a side note: Temple's rowing team has produced several Olympians over the years (including a few in the past two games). This program did a great job producing young, talented rowers. Not anymore.
Robert Morris has had recent success in Basketball and they want to grow the team. As a result, the athletic department has decided to cut 7 programs and 80 student athletes. The staff have been let go and the students have been given the option to transfer schools without an NCAA penalty. Could you imagine having to be faced with the decision to pack up and leave your school or quit the sport you love?
On a side note: When basketball players start demanding a salary, smaller schools like Robert Morris will be unable to properly recruit and afford talent.
Like Temple, to fund a struggling football team, Maryland has to cut 7 varsity sports. That is seven more coaching staffs fired and another 80 or so student athletes left with a tough choice.
I keep hearing the argument "what about the players" well, what about these players? These kids are forced to transfer schools or quit their respective sport!! These are high school kids that were promised a scholarship that is now voided because their program was cut before they could start the season. If you want to do the most good for "the players" then pumping money into football and basketball is clearly not the way to go. The articles above are just a small portion of what you can find online. Each program that is cut is another coaching staff let go. These aren't the "over-paid" coaches that everyone is complaining about, these are the everyday full-time track coaches and baseball coaches that are being fired. When people start arguing about paying football players and basketball players think about the big picture and what is actually happening in college athletics.
<< <i>if the brightest minds in the world were worthy of butts in seats attention, then we'd have an even better argument.
how about getting the future brain surgeons, science professors and structural engineers a paycheck while they're preparing for a life of actual contributions to society? >>
Not sure that anyone is paying $100 bucks a ticket to see a med student saw through a skull.
The question is not whether schools should be forced to pay players, but whether the NCAA should continue the prohibition.
It would be fine with me if the University down the street dropped athletics altogether and concentrated on educating future professionals.
To help fund a struggling football team and a growing basketball team Temple has cut 7 Division 1 sports including baseball and rowing. Every player has been cut every coach has been let go (and these aren't the "overpaid" coaches). Every scholarship promised to incoming students have been voided. Could you imagine how many more programs will get cut and staff fired once the football players demand a salary? >>
Would Temple have been allowed to instead cut football to help fund those other struggling sports teams? If that option was available, the only reason they choose to commit so many resources to football is because that's what they valued most. It sounds like you believe every college should spend their resources based on your values, not theirs
To answer your question, once football players demand a salary, the number of programs cut will be either zero or one. If the college is able to afford the salary they will pay it. Otherwise, they won't give in to the demands and either continue letting them play without a salary or cut that program. Which is exactly the same as if the rowers started to demand a salary
<< <i>To answer your question, once football players demand a salary, the number of programs cut will be either zero or one. If the college is able to afford the salary they will pay it. Otherwise, they won't give in to the demands and either continue letting them play without a salary or cut that program. Which is exactly the same as if the rowers started to demand a salary >>
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Read the articles I just posted. Struggling football teams are ALREADY the cause of program cuts across the country.
<< <i>That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Read the articles I just posted. Struggling football teams are ALREADY the cause of program cuts across the country. >>
If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs?
<< <i>If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs? >>
History has proven an athletic department would prefer to cut numerous smaller programs over their larger, more popular sports.
<< <i>If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs? >>
History has proven an athletic department would prefer to cut numerous smaller programs over their larger, more popular sports. >>
Why is this bad, again?
Why do to feel schools should cater to what YOU want and not what a majority of people want?
<< <i>So the real answer is that these schools shouldn't spend their resources based on what they value, it should be based on what you value >>
When did I say that? I'm saying that Division 1 Athletic Departments are failing across the country and there are very clear reasons why paying the players is not a smart move for college athletics as a whole. It will do far more harm than good. If you feel that cutting swimming, baseball, track, soccer and lacrosse to help fund a signing bonus for the next Tim Tebow is a smart move, then fine. I just disagree with you.
There will be schools that choose to cut its football programs, especially schools in which football loses money, and devote those resources to other sports.
<< <i>There will be schools that choose to cut its football programs, especially schools in which football loses money, and devote those resources to other sports. >>
Is that what we want? Pay the players enough so that the teams fold. Who does that help?
<< <i>What about paying the players whatever is most profitable for the school? >>
They are >>
So the that means the article that started this discussion is the correct way the players should go. Union would simply mean they all negotiate their compensation as a single entity rather than everyone doing it as individuals -- and both the schools and players would earn the most money that they can
<< <i>There will be schools that choose to cut its football programs, especially schools in which football loses money, and devote those resources to other sports. >>
Is that what we want? Pay the players enough so that the teams fold. Who does that help? >>
Yes, we want these athletes who bring revenues to be rewarded for it. We want schools to be financially responsible institutions no longer enslaved to boosters. We want financial accountability.
If a football program is losing money for its school that school should cut that program. Why are you so devoted to a way of schools doing business that by your own research is losing gobs of money for those schools?
<< <i>So the that means the article that started this discussion is the correct way the players should go. Union would simply mean they all negotiate their compensation as a single entity rather than everyone doing it as individuals -- and both the schools and players would earn the most money that they can >>
<< <i>So what you're saying is having close to $100,000 in tuition, $20,000 in housing, $10,000+ in meal plan, etc over a course of 4 years paid for you isn't enough? >>
First of all, the meal plans don't cover all meals - athletes get one meal per day:
Secondly, scholarships don't pay for movies or pizza or anything else. Would you work at a job that just gave you room and board? No?
Third, lemme play my broken record for you: Not every NCAA athlete is on scholarship yet all are subject to the same restrictions.
Would you object to a simple lifting of the "outside benefits" rule? How about compensating players for the NCAA and EA using their likenesses in video games and on merchandise? The NCAA bans player names on jerseys and the like yet would turn up Texas A&M #2 jerseys if you typed "Johnny Manziel" into their online store's search engine. How about letting players sign autographs for money? Stuff that wouldn't cost the schools a dime yet would allow players to make money?
could we all agree that it's highly likely that most of these guys have a support system in place when they enter college, like maybe, um........PARENTS?!?!?!?
does a student earning a scholarship automatically absolve parents or any family member or source of support from continuing to do so? i think not. the ridiculous assumption that a meal plan is the only source of food which can be offered to a student/athlete is plain wrong. presumably, we also should believe that clothing, shoes, personal hygiene necessities, etc. come directly from a scholarship as nobody else is required to take further responsibility. silly guys. come on.
there are several excellent points being made to this discussion and it's been a good one, but let's forget that a scholarship is supposed to enclose you in an impenetrable bubble. it won't. it's just a gift.
<< <i>could we all agree that it's highly likely that most of these guys have a support system in place when they enter college, like maybe, um........PARENTS?!?!?!? >>
Of course it's possible. What's also possible is these athlete-students come from low-income families where this support system is not in place.
<< <i>does a student earning a scholarship automatically absolve parents or any family member or source of support from continuing to do so? i think not. the ridiculous assumption that a meal plan is the only source of food which can be offered to a student/athlete is plain wrong. presumably, we also should believe that clothing, shoes, personal hygiene necessities, etc. come directly from a scholarship as nobody else is required to take further responsibility. silly guys. come on. >>
So instead of the university paying it's employees (i.e. the athletes), they should be required to get financial assistance in the form of food from their families? Talk about silly.
<< <i>there are several excellent points being made to this discussion and it's been a good one, but let's forget that a scholarship is supposed to enclose you in an impenetrable bubble. it won't. it's just a gift. >>
It's not a gift, it's the result of hard work on the field.
<< <i>could we all agree that it's highly likely that most of these guys have a support system in place when they enter college, like maybe, um........PARENTS?!?!?!? >>
Can't agree with you, Jeff. I cited an example yesterday, and stories like that are a dime a dozen here in Texas where football is a religion. Not necessarily student athletes who ultimately got in trouble with the law, but kids who simply couldn't cope due to the fact that their financial situations were lamentable. Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read stories of a recruit who left the state, only to transfer back soon thereafter -- and often done so very close to home.
Edit: I initially missed 1985fan's post directly above mine because I was composing, but on this very rare occasion I couldn't agree more with him.
i wanna know how it's possible that a family can stop the process of supporting a child (athlete) once he/she enters college. how did that child arrive there? must have taken some pretty darn good care and attention to get that far. i don't read any stories about starving and emaciated kids entering a college football program. of course, there are financial considerations, but those considerations apply to everyone. what of the families who do provide far reaching financial assistance for their child who may be competing in a different sport?
try explaining to them why football players oughta get paid.
i will acknowledge the concept of a child leaving the state and the lost protection afforded by being close to family, but these decisions get made based on need and/or greed. families exploiting kids is nothing new. when the kid should be close to home attending community college instead of the big time program. make that distinction, too. some of these kids should not be leaving home. that's where the trouble starts.
<< <i>Schools spend billions (literally billions) on these kids. The average D1 football player receives compensation well into six-figures.
I would argue that student athletes are currently paid too much since D1 athletic departments lost over $2 billion combined last year.. >>
I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals.
<< <i>I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals. >>
I never said they received income, they receive compensation.
There are plenty of professional football leagues that offer contracts to students out of high school. If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? No one is forcing them into anything and the athletic departments are going bankrupt catering to them.
<< <i> If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? >>
excellent question. think about what it takes to lure an athlete into your world. ya gotta have some money, obviously. location means a lot to some.
then, take a look at the facilities these guys get introduced to upon their first visit with the thought of potentially benefiting from their use for however long they stay there. and i don't mean classrooms.
being a D1 college football player kicks a$$. if that's your career path, you can't do any better.
<< <i>I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals. >>
I never said they received income, they receive compensation.
There are plenty of professional football leagues that offer contracts to students out of high school. If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? No one is forcing them into anything and the athletic departments are going bankrupt catering to them. >>
Fine then. Remove the Nike emblems, cap the head coaches at a salary less than the school president and only allow players that meet academic admission standards. You want amateur athletics, make them truly amateur.
<< <i>Fine then. Remove the Nike emblems, cap the head coaches at a salary less than the school president and only allow players that meet academic admission standards. You want amateur athletics, make them truly amateur. >>
I am more than fine with the admission standards. Athletes generally bring down the value of a degree.
Keep the Nike logos, like I said, Athletic Departments are already going bankrupt across the country - they need the help.
There should be a universal salary cap for coaches, but it needs to be high enough to keep talent in the NCAA (because talented coaches ultimately help student athletes grow). I would say $500,000?
success. puts butts in the seats and sells more tickets. you want success? find the next Nick Saban. and pay him.
it's not a matter of capping what a coach should earn. the university president and board of directors decides. the same people who absorb the pressure from alumni and fans to put a winner on the football field each season.
which can logically be done best with a really expensive coach.
<< <i>which can logically be done best with a really expensive coach. >>
...as well as really expensive players. But we don't want to so that, we want the young men to donate their services while the coaches earn low to high 7 figure incomes.
Choose either capitalism or socialism but not both.
<< <i>i wanna know how it's possible that a family can stop the process of supporting a child (athlete) once he/she enters college. how did that child arrive there? must have taken some pretty darn good care and attention to get that far. i don't read any stories about starving and emaciated kids entering a college football program. of course, there are financial considerations, but those considerations apply to everyone. what of the families who do provide far reaching financial assistance for their child who may be competing in a different sport?
try explaining to them why football players oughta get paid.. >>
You tell them that their child isn't getting paid to play field hockey, or whatever, because their child is not playing a revenue-generating sport.
Look-- all anyone is saying is that the market should be allowed to clear for the labor of college athletes. NV has made this point in the most logical and succinct way possible in at least seven posts in this thread, as well as in God-knows-how-many posts in similar threads that have come and gone on these boards, so I won't rehash his arguments here. But the gist his this:
1) If you are arguing that 'college athletes are already well compensated' then you are missing his point. 2) If you are arguing that 'paying players will bankrupt athletic departments' then you are missing his point.
The point is that colleges should have the OPTION of offering players a wage if they see fit, and players should have the OPTION of collecting that wage if they so desire. That's it. Nothing else.
<< <i>Choose either capitalism or socialism but not both. >>
i don't know who to defend anymore. i choose neither.
the coach and his staff are entitled to whatever they can reap from their talents. do you think for a moment that THEY would have concerns about being overpaid when they are training young men to ultimately negotiate 100 million dollar contracts? which coach can you name that will ever have an opportunity to ink a contract like a top-shelf player?
let's take it a step further. what kind of animosity might exist between coaches and players when the coaches KNOW that these future multi-millionaires are just using them to get to the next level?
and now someone is trying to convince us and them that these future multi-millionaires might be entitled to even more money? ha!
<< <i>Schools spend billions (literally billions) on these kids. The average D1 football player receives compensation well into six-figures.
I would argue that student athletes are currently paid too much since D1 athletic departments lost over $2 billion combined last year.. >>
So why do you argue so strenuously that the schools should be forced to continue such an inefficient compensation structure instead of letting the free market come up with something profitable?
<< <i>The point is that colleges should have the OPTION of offering players a wage if they see fit, and players should have the OPTION of collecting that wage if they so desire. That's it. Nothing else. >>
i respectfully disagree with you. that's it. nothing else.
and that's good for this thread. a healthy debate with differing points of view. if it wasn't so good, i'm sure some of us would have left it already.
<< <i>i respectfully disagree with you. that's it. nothing else.
and that's good for this thread. a healthy debate with differing points of view. if it wasn't so good, i'm sure some of us would have left it already. >>
+1
It is a good debate.
On one hand people would like to see the free market extend into College Athletics so athletes can earn what they deserve.
I can certainly stand behind that in theory. College athletes certainly sacrifice a lot for their sport and earn athletic departments a lot of money. Some of these athletes are financially struggling and everyone wants these kids to be financially supported.
On the other hand, colleges already financially support these athletes way past their means (they are literally paying players every penny they have and more) and additional funding towards salaries would come from cuts and higher ticket prices. Colleges would seek more funding through boosters and advertising while stripping benefits from certain players to better accommodate the "more prized" athletes. Less popular sports will suffer, while more popular sports receive no benefit.
<< <i>If all the players are considered to be equal, why not the coaches?
Perhaps the job category should pay $75K a year, plus benefits, whether one is coaching Division 1 football or ladies Golf at the same school.
I am willing to go socialism for schools, especially the publically funded ones, but let's be consistent.
-----Agreed, this is a great debate with respectful opinions. >>
I agree coaches get paid too much, but Nick Saban would rather be a Special Teams Coordinator for the Raiders than make $75k at Alabama. Talented coaches only benefit the players they coach. I see no problem paying for talent since the benefit makes a direct impact on the players value after college.
<< <i>Until you force every student at the school to wear the Nike logo, don't prostitute the athletes who are supporting the rest of the university. >>
I played soccer and college and I never minded the free Nike cleats. I can't remember a player who did. I don't mind the NCAA making exclusivity deals, they use the money to support the athletes.
<< <i>On the other hand, colleges already financially support these athletes way past their means (they are literally paying players every penny they have and more) and additional funding towards salaries would come from cuts and higher ticket prices. Colleges would seek more funding through boosters and advertising while stripping benefits from certain players to better accommodate the "more prized" athletes. Less popular sports will suffer, while more popular sports receive no benefit. >>
make no mistake, if the economics of collegiate athletics get overhauled, it will do more harm than good. let's envision the possibility of slashing funding for other sports as a means of offering something more to football players. the trickle down effect of this will discourage younger athletes from staying involved in other competitive sports if there is nowhere to go after a certain age. aren't we trying to encourage these very same children to stay active so they CAN participate in other sports?
seems kind of irrational to me to consider wiping out less popular sports because only a few people want to watch. almost hypocritical.
<< <i>I agree coaches get paid too much, but Nick Saban would rather be a Special Teams Coordinator for the Raiders than make $75k at Alabama. >>
College sports would do fine without Nick Saban. Tiger Woods attended Stanford and Phil Mickelson went to Arizona State. I doubt that their Golf coaches earned much over $75k.
Edit to add. AZ state mens and ladies golf coaches each earned $94K in 2007.
<< <i>make no mistake, if the economics of collegiate athletics get overhauled, it will do more harm than good. let's envision the possibility of slashing funding for other sports as a means of offering something more to football players. the trickle down effect of this will discourage younger athletes from staying involved in other competitive sports if there is nowhere to go after a certain age. aren't we trying to encourage these very same children to stay active so they CAN participate in other sports?
seems kind of irrational to me to consider wiping out less popular sports because only a few people want to watch. almost hypocritical. >>
+1
Could imagine Texas A&M cutting baseball, softball, field hockey, lacrosse and track just to pay Johnny Manziel a $2,000,000 signing bonus?
Comments
<< <i>For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? >>
Resistance is that folks want to believe that their alma mater is so wonderful that prospects from around the nation will eagerly give up 4 years of their lives for an education at the beloved school.
University of Arizona is half a dozen miles from here and has been number #1 in the basketball rankings for several weeks. Good stuff I suppose, but the athletes did not come here for the academics. They chose this school because of the high number of players that make it into the NBA.
Sean Miller will earn $3,000,000 plus this year. Share it with the folks that put the wins on the board.
but that's just my speculation here, so anyone who wants to call me out about it, i'm already admitting that it's just SPECULATION, but i feel pretty safe making this assumption.
the college is fielding a punt by enrolling these kids. they see no reason to call a fair catch. why would they? the best players already come up with their pockets and bellies plenty full. their parents and families get "help" if they need it. that's how the world works. if you don't believe it you're just being naïve.
I might be ok with paying players, if there was a limit to it. Cause there is no need for college kids to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions just to play a sport. Also, there should be a stipulation that in order to receive compensation, you must stay at school all 4 years or however long it takes to get your degree, and you must actually graduate college. No one here can argue with me that it would be wrong to make kids graduate college in order to get some money.
And who cares if athletics brings in millions of dollars for the college. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that the point of athletics? It's not like all that money goes towards paying coaches. It goes towards all the athletic programs. At most schools, football is what funds almost every other sport on campus. All the money doesn't stay in the athletic department either. Some gets distributed to other areas of the university for things like research activities and building plans. It's not like a handful of people just pocket the money.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>No one here can argue with me that it would be wrong to make kids graduate college in order to get some money. >>
Does the student who works in the school library for $8.00 an hour have to graduate?
Why put all the limitations on the guys that put the butts in the seats?
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
how about getting the future brain surgeons, science professors and structural engineers a paycheck while they're preparing for a life of actual contributions to society?
<< <i>For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? Are those that are opposed so deadset on running these kids lives that you will give up all reason to deny them a fair wage in regards to the untold millions they bring in for their universities? Are you so determined on returning this country to the olden days of years past that you think these kids should be honored just to take the field for their school (while you ignore the millions that now flow in from advertisers and the NCAA?)
Look, we're in a different era now. Schools are making tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from collegiate sports. Money that wasn't there in the supposedly good ole days. Sitting there and gnashing your teeth about 'greedy' players while completely ignoring the money coaches, administrations, and the schools in general are making is beyond ignorant. College sports long ago stopped being a pure pursuit-it's a massive money-making machine that is only getting more profitable. It's long past time to do the right thing and start fairly compensating the most important cogs in that machine (and no, tuition and a room is NOT fair compensation). >>
This is incorrect in almost every regard. College athletics are not some 'massive money-making machine', it is a failing system that is costing schools, students and the state millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars. College athletics are failing across the entire nation. Division 1 football and basketball players make up less than 1% of the student athlete population, yet we are seeing funding cut across the board to fund these programs.
We have a fundamental difference in opinion; I believe every college program should succeed and we should not sacrifice the players and coaches of other programs to accommodate college football and basketball. While it seems others believe the individual player should succeed no matter the damage it causes.
If you need "proof" that players, coaches and other programs will suffer to accommodate college football and basketball, just open a newspaper:
Experts: Temple cut sports because football not producing enough revenue
To help fund a struggling football team and a growing basketball team Temple has cut 7 Division 1 sports including baseball and rowing. Every player has been cut every coach has been let go (and these aren't the "overpaid" coaches). Every scholarship promised to incoming students have been voided. Could you imagine how many more programs will get cut and staff fired once the football players demand a salary?
On a side note: Temple's rowing team has produced several Olympians over the years (including a few in the past two games). This program did a great job producing young, talented rowers. Not anymore.
Robert Morris to cut 7 programs
Robert Morris has had recent success in Basketball and they want to grow the team. As a result, the athletic department has decided to cut 7 programs and 80 student athletes. The staff have been let go and the students have been given the option to transfer schools without an NCAA penalty. Could you imagine having to be faced with the decision to pack up and leave your school or quit the sport you love?
On a side note: When basketball players start demanding a salary, smaller schools like Robert Morris will be unable to properly recruit and afford talent.
Maryland cuts seven sports on ‘sad day’ in College Park
Like Temple, to fund a struggling football team, Maryland has to cut 7 varsity sports. That is seven more coaching staffs fired and another 80 or so student athletes left with a tough choice.
I keep hearing the argument "what about the players" well, what about these players? These kids are forced to transfer schools or quit their respective sport!! These are high school kids that were promised a scholarship that is now voided because their program was cut before they could start the season. If you want to do the most good for "the players" then pumping money into football and basketball is clearly not the way to go. The articles above are just a small portion of what you can find online. Each program that is cut is another coaching staff let go. These aren't the "over-paid" coaches that everyone is complaining about, these are the everyday full-time track coaches and baseball coaches that are being fired. When people start arguing about paying football players and basketball players think about the big picture and what is actually happening in college athletics.
Jason
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>if the brightest minds in the world were worthy of butts in seats attention, then we'd have an even better argument.
how about getting the future brain surgeons, science professors and structural engineers a paycheck while they're preparing for a life of actual contributions to society? >>
Not sure that anyone is paying $100 bucks a ticket to see a med student saw through a skull.
The question is not whether schools should be forced to pay players, but whether the NCAA should continue the prohibition.
It would be fine with me if the University down the street dropped athletics altogether and concentrated on educating future professionals.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>
Experts: Temple cut sports because football not producing enough revenue
To help fund a struggling football team and a growing basketball team Temple has cut 7 Division 1 sports including baseball and rowing. Every player has been cut every coach has been let go (and these aren't the "overpaid" coaches). Every scholarship promised to incoming students have been voided. Could you imagine how many more programs will get cut and staff fired once the football players demand a salary? >>
Would Temple have been allowed to instead cut football to help fund those other struggling sports teams? If that option was available, the only reason they choose to commit so many resources to football is because that's what they valued most. It sounds like you believe every college should spend their resources based on your values, not theirs
To answer your question, once football players demand a salary, the number of programs cut will be either zero or one. If the college is able to afford the salary they will pay it. Otherwise, they won't give in to the demands and either continue letting them play without a salary or cut that program. Which is exactly the same as if the rowers started to demand a salary
<< <i>To answer your question, once football players demand a salary, the number of programs cut will be either zero or one. If the college is able to afford the salary they will pay it. Otherwise, they won't give in to the demands and either continue letting them play without a salary or cut that program. Which is exactly the same as if the rowers started to demand a salary >>
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Read the articles I just posted. Struggling football teams are ALREADY the cause of program cuts across the country.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Read the articles I just posted. Struggling football teams are ALREADY the cause of program cuts across the country. >>
If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs?
<< <i>If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs? >>
History has proven an athletic department would prefer to cut numerous smaller programs over their larger, more popular sports.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>If Maryland and Temple ALREADY cut those programs, how could they cut them again?
If players salaries makes the sport too expensive, the schools would have the choice of not paying or getting rid of only football instead of a hoard or other sports. Why would a school ever refuse either of those paths and instead cut so many other programs? >>
History has proven an athletic department would prefer to cut numerous smaller programs over their larger, more popular sports. >>
Why is this bad, again?
Why do to feel schools should cater to what YOU want and not what a majority of people want?
<< <i>So the real answer is that these schools shouldn't spend their resources based on what they value, it should be based on what you value >>
When did I say that? I'm saying that Division 1 Athletic Departments are failing across the country and there are very clear reasons why paying the players is not a smart move for college athletics as a whole. It will do far more harm than good. If you feel that cutting swimming, baseball, track, soccer and lacrosse to help fund a signing bonus for the next Tim Tebow is a smart move, then fine. I just disagree with you.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>There will be schools that choose to cut its football programs, especially schools in which football loses money, and devote those resources to other sports. >>
Is that what we want? Pay the players enough so that the teams fold. Who does that help?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
Is that what we want? Pay the players enough so that the teams fold. Who does that help? >>
What about paying the players whatever is most profitable for the school?
<< <i>What about paying the players whatever is most profitable for the school? >>
They are
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>What about paying the players whatever is most profitable for the school? >>
They are
So the that means the article that started this discussion is the correct way the players should go. Union would simply mean they all negotiate their compensation as a single entity rather than everyone doing it as individuals -- and both the schools and players would earn the most money that they can
<< <i>
<< <i>There will be schools that choose to cut its football programs, especially schools in which football loses money, and devote those resources to other sports. >>
Is that what we want? Pay the players enough so that the teams fold. Who does that help? >>
Yes, we want these athletes who bring revenues to be rewarded for it. We want schools to be financially responsible institutions no longer enslaved to boosters. We want financial accountability.
If a football program is losing money for its school that school should cut that program. Why are you so devoted to a way of schools doing business that by your own research is losing gobs of money for those schools?
<< <i>So the that means the article that started this discussion is the correct way the players should go. Union would simply mean they all negotiate their compensation as a single entity rather than everyone doing it as individuals -- and both the schools and players would earn the most money that they can >>
Haha, no. Not at all.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>So what you're saying is having close to $100,000 in tuition, $20,000 in housing, $10,000+ in meal plan, etc over a course of 4 years paid for you isn't enough? >>
First of all, the meal plans don't cover all meals - athletes get one meal per day:
One meal per day for NCAA athletes
Secondly, scholarships don't pay for movies or pizza or anything else. Would you work at a job that just gave you room and board? No?
Third, lemme play my broken record for you: Not every NCAA athlete is on scholarship yet all are subject to the same restrictions.
Would you object to a simple lifting of the "outside benefits" rule? How about compensating players for the NCAA and EA using their likenesses in video games and on merchandise? The NCAA bans player names on jerseys and the like yet would turn up Texas A&M #2 jerseys if you typed "Johnny Manziel" into their online store's search engine. How about letting players sign autographs for money? Stuff that wouldn't cost the schools a dime yet would allow players to make money?
does a student earning a scholarship automatically absolve parents or any family member or source of support from continuing to do so? i think not. the ridiculous assumption that a meal plan is the only source of food which can be offered to a student/athlete is plain wrong. presumably, we also should believe that clothing, shoes, personal hygiene necessities, etc. come directly from a scholarship as nobody else is required to take further responsibility. silly guys. come on.
there are several excellent points being made to this discussion and it's been a good one, but let's forget that a scholarship is supposed to enclose you in an impenetrable bubble. it won't. it's just a gift.
<< <i>could we all agree that it's highly likely that most of these guys have a support system in place when they enter college, like maybe, um........PARENTS?!?!?!? >>
Of course it's possible. What's also possible is these athlete-students come from low-income families where this support system is not in place.
<< <i>does a student earning a scholarship automatically absolve parents or any family member or source of support from continuing to do so? i think not. the ridiculous assumption that a meal plan is the only source of food which can be offered to a student/athlete is plain wrong. presumably, we also should believe that clothing, shoes, personal hygiene necessities, etc. come directly from a scholarship as nobody else is required to take further responsibility. silly guys. come on. >>
So instead of the university paying it's employees (i.e. the athletes), they should be required to get financial assistance in the form of food from their families? Talk about silly.
<< <i>there are several excellent points being made to this discussion and it's been a good one, but let's forget that a scholarship is supposed to enclose you in an impenetrable bubble. it won't. it's just a gift. >>
It's not a gift, it's the result of hard work on the field.
<< <i>could we all agree that it's highly likely that most of these guys have a support system in place when they enter college, like maybe, um........PARENTS?!?!?!? >>
Can't agree with you, Jeff. I cited an example yesterday, and stories like that are a dime a dozen here in Texas where football is a religion. Not necessarily student athletes who ultimately got in trouble with the law, but kids who simply couldn't cope due to the fact that their financial situations were lamentable. Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read stories of a recruit who left the state, only to transfer back soon thereafter -- and often done so very close to home.
Edit: I initially missed 1985fan's post directly above mine because I was composing, but on this very rare occasion I couldn't agree more with him.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I will agree for no compensation for the athletes, when the coaches are capped at $300k a year and the corporate sponsors are booted out the door.
Either the school teams are capatilistic or they are not. They cannot pick and choose.
try explaining to them why football players oughta get paid.
i will acknowledge the concept of a child leaving the state and the lost protection afforded by being close to family, but these decisions get made based on need and/or greed. families exploiting kids is nothing new. when the kid should be close to home attending community college instead of the big time program. make that distinction, too. some of these kids should not be leaving home. that's where the trouble starts.
I would argue that student athletes are currently paid too much since D1 athletic departments lost over $2 billion combined last year..
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Schools spend billions (literally billions) on these kids. The average D1 football player receives compensation well into six-figures.
I would argue that student athletes are currently paid too much since D1 athletic departments lost over $2 billion combined last year.. >>
I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals.
<< <i>I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals. >>
I never said they received income, they receive compensation.
There are plenty of professional football leagues that offer contracts to students out of high school. If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? No one is forcing them into anything and the athletic departments are going bankrupt catering to them.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i> If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? >>
excellent question. think about what it takes to lure an athlete into your world. ya gotta have some money, obviously. location means a lot to some.
then, take a look at the facilities these guys get introduced to upon their first visit with the thought of potentially benefiting from their use for however long they stay there. and i don't mean classrooms.
being a D1 college football player kicks a$$. if that's your career path, you can't do any better.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would argue that the benefits accrued to student athletes are not income as they are non taxable. Perhaps a 30% income tax should be imposed on the scholarships, apparel and meals. >>
I never said they received income, they receive compensation.
There are plenty of professional football leagues that offer contracts to students out of high school. If the NCAA was such a raw deal, why do students make the conscious decision to forego the pros to go to the NCAA first? No one is forcing them into anything and the athletic departments are going bankrupt catering to them. >>
Fine then. Remove the Nike emblems, cap the head coaches at a salary less than the school president and only allow players that meet academic admission standards. You want amateur athletics, make them truly amateur.
<< <i>Fine then. Remove the Nike emblems, cap the head coaches at a salary less than the school president and only allow players that meet academic admission standards. You want amateur athletics, make them truly amateur. >>
I am more than fine with the admission standards. Athletes generally bring down the value of a degree.
Keep the Nike logos, like I said, Athletic Departments are already going bankrupt across the country - they need the help.
There should be a universal salary cap for coaches, but it needs to be high enough to keep talent in the NCAA (because talented coaches ultimately help student athletes grow). I would say $500,000?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Keep the Nike logos, like I said, Athletic Departments are already going bankrupt across the country - they need the help. >>
Until you force every student at the school to wear the Nike logo, don't prostitute the athletes who are supporting the rest of the university.
it's not a matter of capping what a coach should earn. the university president and board of directors decides. the same people who absorb the pressure from alumni and fans to put a winner on the football field each season.
which can logically be done best with a really expensive coach.
<< <i>which can logically be done best with a really expensive coach. >>
...as well as really expensive players. But we don't want to so that, we want the young men to donate their services while the coaches earn low to high 7 figure incomes.
Choose either capitalism or socialism but not both.
<< <i>i wanna know how it's possible that a family can stop the process of supporting a child (athlete) once he/she enters college. how did that child arrive there? must have taken some pretty darn good care and attention to get that far. i don't read any stories about starving and emaciated kids entering a college football program. of course, there are financial considerations, but those considerations apply to everyone. what of the families who do provide far reaching financial assistance for their child who may be competing in a different sport?
try explaining to them why football players oughta get paid.. >>
You tell them that their child isn't getting paid to play field hockey, or whatever, because their child is not playing a revenue-generating sport.
Look-- all anyone is saying is that the market should be allowed to clear for the labor of college athletes. NV has made this point in the most logical and succinct way possible in at least seven posts in this thread, as well as in God-knows-how-many posts in similar threads that have come and gone on these boards, so I won't rehash his arguments here. But the gist his this:
1) If you are arguing that 'college athletes are already well compensated' then you are missing his point.
2) If you are arguing that 'paying players will bankrupt athletic departments' then you are missing his point.
The point is that colleges should have the OPTION of offering players a wage if they see fit, and players should have the OPTION of collecting that wage if they so desire. That's it. Nothing else.
<< <i>Choose either capitalism or socialism but not both. >>
i don't know who to defend anymore. i choose neither.
the coach and his staff are entitled to whatever they can reap from their talents. do you think for a moment that THEY would have concerns about being overpaid when they are training young men to ultimately negotiate 100 million dollar contracts? which coach can you name that will ever have an opportunity to ink a contract like a top-shelf player?
let's take it a step further. what kind of animosity might exist between coaches and players when the coaches KNOW that these future multi-millionaires are just using them to get to the next level?
and now someone is trying to convince us and them that these future multi-millionaires might be entitled to even more money? ha!
<< <i>Schools spend billions (literally billions) on these kids. The average D1 football player receives compensation well into six-figures.
I would argue that student athletes are currently paid too much since D1 athletic departments lost over $2 billion combined last year.. >>
So why do you argue so strenuously that the schools should be forced to continue such an inefficient compensation structure instead of letting the free market come up with something profitable?
<< <i>The point is that colleges should have the OPTION of offering players a wage if they see fit, and players should have the OPTION of collecting that wage if they so desire. That's it. Nothing else. >>
i respectfully disagree with you. that's it. nothing else.
and that's good for this thread. a healthy debate with differing points of view. if it wasn't so good, i'm sure some of us would have left it already.
<< <i>i respectfully disagree with you. that's it. nothing else.
and that's good for this thread. a healthy debate with differing points of view. if it wasn't so good, i'm sure some of us would have left it already. >>
+1
It is a good debate.
On one hand people would like to see the free market extend into College Athletics so athletes can earn what they deserve.
I can certainly stand behind that in theory. College athletes certainly sacrifice a lot for their sport and earn athletic departments a lot of money. Some of these athletes are financially struggling and everyone wants these kids to be financially supported.
On the other hand, colleges already financially support these athletes way past their means (they are literally paying players every penny they have and more) and additional funding towards salaries would come from cuts and higher ticket prices. Colleges would seek more funding through boosters and advertising while stripping benefits from certain players to better accommodate the "more prized" athletes. Less popular sports will suffer, while more popular sports receive no benefit.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Perhaps the job category should pay $75K a year, plus benefits, whether one is coaching Division 1 football or ladies Golf at the same school.
I am willing to go socialism for schools, especially the publically funded ones, but let's be consistent.
-----Agreed, this is a great debate with respectful opinions.
<< <i>If all the players are considered to be equal, why not the coaches?
Perhaps the job category should pay $75K a year, plus benefits, whether one is coaching Division 1 football or ladies Golf at the same school.
I am willing to go socialism for schools, especially the publically funded ones, but let's be consistent.
-----Agreed, this is a great debate with respectful opinions. >>
I agree coaches get paid too much, but Nick Saban would rather be a Special Teams Coordinator for the Raiders than make $75k at Alabama. Talented coaches only benefit the players they coach. I see no problem paying for talent since the benefit makes a direct impact on the players value after college.
<< <i>Until you force every student at the school to wear the Nike logo, don't prostitute the athletes who are supporting the rest of the university. >>
I played soccer and college and I never minded the free Nike cleats. I can't remember a player who did. I don't mind the NCAA making exclusivity deals, they use the money to support the athletes.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>On the other hand, colleges already financially support these athletes way past their means (they are literally paying players every penny they have and more) and additional funding towards salaries would come from cuts and higher ticket prices. Colleges would seek more funding through boosters and advertising while stripping benefits from certain players to better accommodate the "more prized" athletes. Less popular sports will suffer, while more popular sports receive no benefit. >>
make no mistake, if the economics of collegiate athletics get overhauled, it will do more harm than good. let's envision the possibility of slashing funding for other sports as a means of offering something more to football players. the trickle down effect of this will discourage younger athletes from staying involved in other competitive sports if there is nowhere to go after a certain age. aren't we trying to encourage these very same children to stay active so they CAN participate in other sports?
seems kind of irrational to me to consider wiping out less popular sports because only a few people want to watch. almost hypocritical.
<< <i>I agree coaches get paid too much, but Nick Saban would rather be a Special Teams Coordinator for the Raiders than make $75k at Alabama. >>
College sports would do fine without Nick Saban. Tiger Woods attended Stanford and Phil Mickelson went to Arizona State. I doubt that their Golf coaches earned much over $75k.
Edit to add. AZ state mens and ladies golf coaches each earned $94K in 2007.
<< <i>make no mistake, if the economics of collegiate athletics get overhauled, it will do more harm than good. let's envision the possibility of slashing funding for other sports as a means of offering something more to football players. the trickle down effect of this will discourage younger athletes from staying involved in other competitive sports if there is nowhere to go after a certain age. aren't we trying to encourage these very same children to stay active so they CAN participate in other sports?
seems kind of irrational to me to consider wiping out less popular sports because only a few people want to watch. almost hypocritical. >>
+1
Could imagine Texas A&M cutting baseball, softball, field hockey, lacrosse and track just to pay Johnny Manziel a $2,000,000 signing bonus?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Could imagine Texas A&M cutting baseball, softball, field hockey, lacrosse and track just to pay Johnny Manziel a $2,000,000 signing bonus? >>
Non income producing sports should be pay to play. Taxpayers have been hosed for too long for non essentials.