Paying College Football Players

[Aries0321]

Which I have a HUGE issue with. College is for education, not for sports, at least in my opinion.

Like the commercial says, the vast majority of college athletes will go pro in something other than sports. Only a small minority will become overnight millionaires in a pro league. But that small minority enables the colleges & universities, speaking of D1 schools, to provide funding for most everything else the school provides. Most, not all, public schools are not getting the funding they actually need. No surprise there. Do I really want to pay even more taxes so you or your kid(s) [you and your - not specifically you] can go to school? Sadly, no. I want my money in my pocket so I can save and pay for kids education. Since the schools are underfunded, the money brought in from football and basketball enable the school to function. By function, I mean not only keeping the lights on, providing academic scholarships, paying salaries, etc. but also providing educational enrichment. For example, it's well known that football player under Meyer at Florida were not the brightest bunch, but the money they generated in large part enables Florida to be a world-class research institution.

Watch the 30 for 30 of The Fab Five. A big reason they left school is not because they only wanted to go pro, but because after being in school, they realized Michigan basketball wasn't just an opportunity to get an education but was more of a business. Pre-Fab Five, Michigan merchandise sales were around $1-2 million a year every year from the championship season with Glenn Rice onward. First year with Fab Five, sales, based on the popularity of the team alone, went over $10 million.

 

[blugold]

Like the commercial says, the vast majority of college athletes will go pro in something other than sports. Only a small minority will become overnight millionaires in a pro league. But that small minority enables the colleges & universities, speaking of D1 schools, to provide funding for most everything else the school provides. Most, not all, public schools are not getting the funding they actually need. No surprise there. Do I really want to pay even more taxes so you or your kid(s) [you and your - not specifically you] can go to school? Sadly, no. I want my money in my pocket so I can save and pay for kids education. Since the schools are underfunded, the money brought in from football and basketball enable the school to function. By function, I mean not only keeping the lights on, providing academic scholarships, paying salaries, etc. but also providing educational enrichment. For example, it's well known that football player under Meyer at Florida were not the brightest bunch, but the money they generated in large part enables Florida to be a world-class research institution.

Watch the 30 for 30 of The Fab Five. A big reason they left school is not because they only wanted to go pro, but because after being in school, they realized Michigan basketball wasn't just an opportunity to get an education but was more of a business. Pre-Fab Five, Michigan merchandise sales were around $1-2 million a year every year from the championship season with Glenn Rice onward. First year with Fab Five, sales, based on the popularity of the team alone, went over $10 million.

Ok, so a college should pay football players to play, so it can get better players and win more games, and raise more money for the institution? There are so many flaws and holes in that system. How much do football players get paid? Do all scholarship athletes get paid? What about the scholarship flute player in the music program? Do they get paid? What about schools that don't have football programs that are high profile but basketball programs that are? What about schools that don't have football programs at all?

 

[Aries0321]

Would that be any different than praying that our kids become gifted athletes so they can get college scholarships to play a sport?

Don't really understand the context of your query. My comment was to counter the logic of going far in life without an education because some of the wealthiest men in the world were able to do so. Yes, it's possible to go far without the education, but study after study proves it much easier to go far, financially speaking, in life with an education.

But to give an answer, for me, if one of my kids turns out to be gifted athletically, they're skipping college. Or only going long enough as required to be excepted into which ever pro league. If they're that gifted, they can get the education during the off-season. Doesn't make financial sense to skip any years of earning potential.

 

[blugold]

But to give an answer, for me, if one of my kids turns out to be gifted athletically, they're skipping college. Or only going long enough as required to be excepted into which ever pro league. If they're that gifted, they can get the education during the off-season. Doesn't make financial sense to skip any years of earning potential.

That's the parent's decision? What if the student/athlete wants to stay and earn a degree?

 

[Aries0321]

Ok, so a college should pay football players to play, so it can get better players and win more games, and raise more money for the institution? Division I football and basketball, yes.There are so many flaws and holes in that system. How much do football players get paid? Whatever the market dictates. Do all scholarship athletes get paid? No. Not all athletes bring money into the school. From my experience, (I'm an accountant for a global IT firm. I track inflows/outflows of millions each and every day.) I'm basing my opinion on ROI (return on investment).What about the scholarship flute player in the music program? No money brought in. And to use another accounting term, if they do happen to bring in money, it's insignificant as compared to other revenue streams. Do they get paid? No. What about schools that don't have football programs that are high profile but basketball programs that are? Yes, division I basketball is just as cash rich as BCS football. Duke, NC and Maryland for example What about schools that don't have football programs at all?

See answers in bold.

 

[blugold]

See answers in bold.

As much as I respect your right to have your opinion. I think you are wrong.

Treating degree granting institutions as businesses, has helped lead to our education system to the tank.

 

[blugold]

Also, I'm not a legal expert, but I do believe that there are Anti-Trust Laws would not allow certain scholarship athletes to get paid and not others.

 

[Aries0321]

That's the parent's decision? What if the student/athlete wants to stay and earn a degree?

For me, coming from a financial background, I would talk my kid out of staying. If they stay, they loose earning years; which can not be made up. They can get a degree at there leisure. But that's not to say I can't see the other side. I have no issue with Andrew Luck, and his family, deciding to stay at Stanford. Maybe a bad example, as I would have told my own kids to stay in school with the lockout looming. I had no problem with Sam Bradford, and his family, deciding to stay at Oklahoma. It was best for them. And with football, the money is always there as the contracts are really only about the signing bonus. If Bradford was a basketball player and was projected to be #1 in NBA draft, no way, if he was my kid, would I have let him stay in school. Money in a guaranteed contract can not be made up in subsequent years as a max contract, under current rules, has a max dollar amount. The earlier one gets in the NBA, the earlier one can get to the max contract. And if one gets in the NBA soon enough, one has the potential to get multiple max contracts.

 

[Aries0321]

As much as I respect your right to have your opinion. I think you are wrong.

Treating degree granting institutions as businesses, has helped lead to our education system to the tank.

How do you figure our education system is in the tank? The thread is referring to college & universities. We have the best in the world. People come from all over to attend university in the US.

Now the elementary, grammar and high school public school systems in the US all lag behind the rest of the world. But colleges...we still lead and the rest of the world follows.

 

[blugold]

None of your reasoning has changed my mind in the slightest that college football players should get paid. If a scholarship athlete cannot follow the NCAA rules that he signed up to follow, he probably isn't worth the paper he signed his name to.

 

[Aries0321]

Also, I'm not a legal expert, but I do believe that there are Anti-Trust Laws would not allow certain scholarship athletes to get paid and not others.

You're right. When I referencing paying "players" I'm speaking in terms of a portion of the profits they are bringing to the schools. Most of the athletes are already being paid in terms of education value, room/board, stipends, etc. So for the non- football/basketball players, I'd increase the stipend to some amount (nothing really significant in terms of money being generated). The revenue generators, as in the rest of the business world, would get a much nicer commission, bonus or incentive based on their value-added (another accounting term) revenue generated.

 

[Canadan]

For me, coming from a financial background, I would talk my kid out of staying. If they stay, they loose earning years; which can not be made up. They can get a degree at there leisure. But that's not to say I can't see the other side. I have no issue with Andrew Luck, and his family, deciding to stay at Stanford. Maybe a bad example, as I would have told my own kids to stay in school with the lockout looming. I had no problem with Sam Bradford, and his family, deciding to stay at Oklahoma. It was best for them. And with football, the money is always there as the contracts are really only about the signing bonus. If Bradford was a basketball player and was projected to be #1 in NBA draft, no way, if he was my kid, would I have let him stay in school. Money in a guaranteed contract can not be made up in subsequent years as a max contract, under current rules, has a max dollar amount. The earlier one gets in the NBA, the earlier one can get to the max contract. And if one gets in the NBA soon enough, one has the potential to get multiple max contracts.

So it's greed over education. You're welcome to that train of thought. I'll take the other road.

 

[Aries0321]

None of your reasoning has changed my mind in the slightest that college football players should get paid. If a scholarship athlete cannot follow the NCAA rules that he signed up to follow, he probably isn't worth the paper he signed his name to.

No argument there. Completely agree with this. As for the rest of my posts, not saying it's right or wrong either way, I'm just providing the pro-side of why they, football & basketball, should be paid and why to pay them is financially feasible.

 

[blugold]

The revenue generators, as in the rest of the business world, would get a much nicer commission, bonus or incentive based on their value-added (another accounting term) revenue generated.

But colleges are not businesses.

Does MIT or CIT even have athletic programs? I'm pretty sure that most MIT grads will contribute more to the world than Tim Tebow ever will.

 

[Aries0321]

So it's greed over education. You're welcome to that train of thought. I'll take the other road.

It's perfectly acceptable to take the road less traveled. It's even admirable.

It's not a "train of thought" as much as it's sound financial advise. Like I said before, it's about the ROI. As a bean counter, I'm not allowed to take into account the moral aspect of a financial issue. That's the CEO's job.

 

[Aries0321]

But colleges are not businesses.

Does MIT or CIT even have athletic programs? I'm pretty sure that most MIT grads will contribute more to the world than Tim Tebow ever will.

Yes, they are businesses. Most are, for tax purposes, not-for-profits. But being a NFP, does not mean you don't or can't make money.
Yes, they have athletic programs. No argument about the contribution, but the world has long valued athletic prowess to the sometimes detriment of other aspects of life. It wasn't the smart viking who lead his clan; it was the biggest and strongest. G. Washington wasn't nominated to be general because of strategic prowess; it was partly due to the fact he was bigger than everyone else. Most everyone of the time literally looked up to him for leadership.

 

[Canadan]

It's perfectly acceptable to take the road less traveled. It's even admirable.

It's not a "train of thought" as much as it's sound financial advise. Like I said before, it's about the ROI. As a bean counter, I'm not allowed to take into account the moral aspect of a financial issue. That's the CEO's job.

You can call it what you want. I call it a pass through from high school sports to professional sports, as opposed to a focus on quality education. Some people may think that is fine, but I personally don't. I'm not trying to start a fire or anything, I just believe a quality education is extremely important for every person.

 

[Aries0321]

You can call it what you want. I call it a pass through from high school sports to professional sports, as opposed to a focus on quality education. Some people may think that is fine, but I personally don't. I'm not trying to start a fire or anything, I just believe a quality education is extremely important for every person.

Absolutely, agree. I stated if one of my kids are that gifted athletically, they would only go to college (straight from high school) long enough to satisfy the requirement of which ever pro league they would enter. They could then get their education during the off-season.

 

[JB]

Gates is the ultimate exception, not the rule. His foundation's main focus, in the US, is improving public education. I.e., he believes in the value of education and sees it as paramount to improving one's life. It's a complete flip of the coin of life that he achieved all he has after dropping out of school.

Zuckerberg is another exception and not the rule. If we go by the example of some of the wealthiest men, we should just pray our kids are naturally gifted with enough intellect to get accepted into Harvard so they can drop out and be billionaires.

Except you are missing the ULTIMATE part of this. These kids ARE exceptions to the rule. They are outstanding athletes. If they want to play the ratio game, then dont play college athletics and take on student loans and get a job to focus on their degree like everybody else.
STILL THEIR CHOICE!

Don't really understand the context of your query. My comment was to counter the logic of going far in life without an education because some of the wealthiest men in the world were able to do so. Yes, it's possible to go far without the education, but study after study proves it much easier to go far, financially speaking, in life with an education.

But to give an answer, for me, if one of my kids turns out to be gifted athletically, they're skipping college. Or only going long enough as required to be excepted into which ever pro league. If they're that gifted, they can get the education during the off-season. Doesn't make financial sense to skip any years of earning potential.

Since when does an athlete in college have to make the decision of college sports or no degree? College is an option for almost anybody if they apply themselves. The media can paint this portrait that without sports none of these kids can go to college, but that is just not true. That is what community colleges were made for and with student loans, grants and working hard to pay the bill, no matter what the economic climate is, it can be done. Then they can also work and get some money, because apparently according to some here, that is more important than earning the education. This way the best of both worlds and then they dont have to worry about some university making money on them.

As far as the 2nd part of your statement about skipping earning years, well that depends on the sport. Having spent most of my career around athletes, it would depend on how good they truly are. See in some sports rookie contracts are not the big ones. Its the 2nd contract where the money is outrageous. Unfortunately you have to get that 2nd contract and many times playing in college for extra years takes you to that next level. For every Kobe Bryant or Lebron James there are 25 other guys that came out too early and have never been heard from again. Rookie wages are not the same in every sport.

 

[Hanks]

Let's suppose that the NCAA agrees to pay athletes....how do you decide what to pay them? You can't pay everyone on the football team the same amount because the star QB will never stand to be paid as much as the 3rd string DT. And does that mean you pay every athlete from football to basketball to field hockey? The only reason field hockey and other lesser sports exist is from the revenue derived from the football or basketball program so a basketball player would never welcome being paid the same as the backup goalie on the women's soccer team. Would certain sports get paid more than others? Sounds nice but in today's litigious society I'm sure some athlete's mommy or daddy would have a nice gender equality or discrimination lawsuit waiting to be filed against the school when Susie lacrosse player isn't paid the same as Tommy the hoops star.

Sometimes there are problems that just can't be fixed and this is one of them. I don't see any upside to paying college athletes.

 

[blugold]

College is an option for almost anybody if they apply themselves. The media can paint this portrait that without sports none of these kids can go to college, but that is just not true. That is what community colleges were made for and with student loans, grants and working hard to pay the bill, no matter what the economic climate is, it can be done. Then they can also work and get some money, because apparently according to some here, that is more important than earning the education. This way the best of both worlds and then they dont have to worry about some university making money on them.

As a person who was responsible for paying 100% of his college education, any excuse why somebody can't, is ridiculous to me. I worked 40 hours a week, graduated in 4 years, and left with managable student loan debt. If somebody/anybody says that they can't go to college without an athletic scholarship, they should just stay away from higher education because they lack the work ethic necessary to go to college anyway.

 

[ogiebogie]

But colleges are not businesses.

Does MIT or CIT even have athletic programs? I'm pretty sure that most MIT grads will contribute more to the world than Tim Tebow ever will.

I know some MIT grads that are just about worthless , not saying Tim Tebow is anything special, but cmon now

 

[Aries0321]

Except you are missing the ULTIMATE part of this. These kids ARE exceptions to the rule. They are outstanding athletes. If they want to play the ratio game, then dont play college athletics and take on student loans and get a job to focus on their degree like everybody else.
STILL THEIR CHOICE!

I'm not missing anything. Just as the wealthiest men dropping out of school are exceptions, so are the kids involved in "big time" college athletics; speaking to basically football and basketball. They are not like everybody else going to school to earn an education. And they are not treated by the schools like everybody else. Wherein, the school is actively trying to educate them. Those kids who could possibly be paid, not should be paid, are, in large part are going to school to audition for the pro level and not to be educated. And the schools, in large part, aren't concerned with educating them. The schools' concern lay more with maximizing revenues.

Since when does an athlete in college have to make the decision of college sports or no degree? College is an option for almost anybody if they apply themselves. The media can paint this portrait that without sports none of these kids can go to college, but that is just not true. That is what community colleges were made for and with student loans, grants and working hard to pay the bill, no matter what the economic climate is, it can be done. Then they can also work and get some money, because apparently according to some here, that is more important than earning the education. This way the best of both worlds and then they dont have to worry about some university making money on them.

They don't. But I guess this is a general response to other posts because I never said they have to decide between the two or that they need to decide between the two.

As far as the 2nd part of your statement about skipping earning years, well that depends on the sport. Having spent most of my career around athletes, it would depend on how good they truly are. See in some sports rookie contracts are not the big ones. Its the 2nd contract where the money is outrageous. Unfortunately you have to get that 2nd contract and many times playing in college for extra years takes you to that next level. For every Kobe Bryant or Lebron James there are 25 other guys that came out too early and have never been heard from again. Rookie wages are not the same in every sport.

Correct. I'm speaking to if my kids are "crazily" gifted in athletics. I would advise them to get to the 2nd contract (basketball, football or baseball) as soon as possible so that they could be young enough to do as Kobe and Lebron or A-Rod or Manning will do (have done); get to a 3rd contract with outrageous money. They can always educate themselves during the off-season.

 

[JB]

I'm not missing anything. Just as the wealthiest men dropping out of school are exceptions, so are the kids involved in "big time" college athletics; speaking to basically football and basketball. They are not like everybody else going to school to earn an education. And they are not treated by the schools like everybody else. Wherein, the school is actively trying to educate them. Those kids who could possibly be paid, not should be paid, are, in large part are going to school to audition for the pro level and not to be educated. And the schools, in large part, aren't concerned with educating them. The schools' concern lay more with maximizing revenues.

Did you ever play college athletics or surround yourself with college athletes? I could not disagree more with that assessment. That assessment is barely fair to the top 1% of any academic athletes and certainly not the norm in my opinion. I think you might be discounting just how many athletes are at universities and the goals of both sides.

 

[Aries0321]

Did you ever play college athletics or surround yourself with college athletes? I could not disagree more with that assessment. That assessment is barely fair to the top 1% of any academic athletes and certainly not the norm in my opinion. I think you might be discounting just how many athletes are at universities and the goals of both sides.

Played - No, I had a full academic ride. Surround - Yes.

Like the commercial says, the vast majority of college athletes will go pro in something other than sports. Only a small minority will become overnight millionaires in a pro league.

I'm not discounting the actual student-athletes (emphasis on student). I'm speaking to the exception and not normalcy.

I'll try clarifying (hopefully). I'm not saying paying college athletes is right or wrong. I'm speaking just from the financial aspects of "big time" college athletics being big business. As in the coaches being paid millions, apparel contracts (for the teams to wear) being signed worth millions, millions being made from apparel being sold to "average Joes," millions being paid for broadcast rights (in the case of PAC-10 or 12, billions being paid), etc.

I completely get the side of not paying students because they already get preferential status with no cost education, meals, room/board, etc. And I have no problem with not paying the players. But to me, it's the utmost hypocrisy for the NCAA to treat all aspects of big time college athletics as a business, except for the players readily known not attempting to educate themselves and the players the schools are not actively trying to educate. Yes, the NCAA "polices" itself for cheating (wink, wink) by vacating wins and handing down fines of some sort. But did Michigan have to give back the millions it earned while C-Web was there? Did USC have to give back the millions it earned while Bush was there? Will tOSU have to give back all the millions it earned during Tressel's tenure? No, no and no, they all kept the money.