Paying College Football Players

[JB]

In my opinion, that has little to do with this debate.
Life is full of choices and the simple idea that athletes are not getting paid is ludicrous. All of those "scholarships", room and board, stipends, travel, etc....all come from somewhere. And its across the board in ever sport a university has.
Nobody is questioning whether college athletics is big business.

 

[CraftyLefty]

I completely get the side of not paying students because they already get preferential status with no cost education, meals, room/board, etc.

The only thing I would say here is that a kid with an academic full ride gets the same benefits but would still be allowed to have a job outside his or her academic schedule. Not so with athletes. I worked during the off season but even then my work schedule was severely limited because of requirements for scheduled workouts, non-mandatory (always means mandatory) 7 on 7s and other players only workouts, etc.

There is a lot of support (institutionally) for increasing scholarships to actually cover the true cost of attendance instead of tuition and board. In that it wouldn't amount to paying players for playing, it would be an increase in the total compensation for a scholarship. So the 85 kids that get a full ride on an FBS football team would be getting the full cost of attendance without regard for playing time etc.

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.

I think this could be addressed by increasing the total compensation of a scholarship. Right now that star QB does get the same compensation as the 3rd string DT (considering they are both on scholarship). The same goes for the kid playing lacrosse or the girl playing golf. If they are on a full athletic scholarship, their compensation is the same.

 

[CraftyLefty]

College athletes shouldn't get paid for playing sports! A lot of times they get paid with scholarships. This is just dumb really, athletics are just a bonus of being a college student. I love and support athletics, but you are paying to be a student and the fact that you may be really good at a sport doesn't mean you should get paid for having fun on the side of your education.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.

If you have never been a college athlete I don't think you can understand how much of a job athletics becomes. The first day of fall camp my freshmen year our head coach told us that if we were there to have fun we needed to get up and leave. It's not about 'fun' anymore once you get to college.

Is it fun? At times yes. Winning is fun. Competition is fun. Getting bigger, stronger, faster is fun. Working out is fun. There's a lot of work that goes into that. The NCAA allows schools 20 hours of practice time a week during the season. On top of that you have meetings, film study, weight lifting. Then you have to go to class and do your work out there. Most programs have community outreach programs that you have to be a part of. I can't tell you how packed the schedule of a college athlete is compared to the average student. When I was playing we got 2 weeks a year off of football. The week surrounding Christmas, 3 days around the 4th of July and 4 days after school got out in May. Every other day we had requirements we had to meet, places we had to be, things we had to do. You don't just roll out of bed and go play a game.

Seven concussions were not fun. Joint pain is not fun. Shoulder surgery is not fun. But you pays your money and you takes your chance. I wouldn't change the choices I made. The guys I played with and coached are closer to me than family.

What does that teach you? How does that help you? It teaches you time management. It teaches you how to compete with your peers while still supporting their efforts. It teaches you how to be part of a larger system. It teaches you to be an adult. To get your work done, go home and come back and do the same darn thing the next day and the day after. It teaches you to be a leader, to take risks, to push yourself to the brink and then push a little more. Is it fun? Hell yes it is. But it's not the same fun of high school. Fun comes from the pride you get through the accomplishment. Athletics is the supplement that teaches you how to work and operate in a man's world. At least it was for me.

Some people don't need that extra help to get where they want to be. Some people do. I probably didn't need that support system to get my degree. I'm sure as heck thankful I had the opportunity. I'm positive that I'm a better man for it.

Long and short of it. Being a college athlete is a fun time. Did I get treated differently by my profs because I was a player? Not really. I got to know them because we had to turn in academic progress forms every 2 weeks so I had to go talk to them and get my grade sheet signed. That helped. Other students? Probably, but most people just wanted to get their stuff done and go home. Sure there are jersey chasers and people who want to hang around athletes because they are athletes. There's also a lot of students/profs who think we didn't serve a purpose on campus and wanted us to be gone. That's a wash in my mind.

If you're good at math and have fun doing math and can get a scholarship for your skills in calculus or whatever then more power to you. So the academic scholarship gets you through school and then you go get a 9-5 job that pays decent. Great. Was it worth the money the college gave you? Who can say?

 

[Canadan]

And yet still, full rides for athletes are comparatively WAY more money in the long run as opposed to a summer job + working during the school year.

Especially some of the higher end schools. Full rides to Michigan as an example, that charges 33k each year for out of state tuition and another 8k for living.. You think that's not enough? You think trading that for a job is a good idea?

You have your options. Pay for school, or get a full ride playing a potentially dangerous sport. You won't get sympathy out of me for having to work hard, or putting yourself in harms way. It's your right to make that choice for yourself.

 

[CraftyLefty]

And yet still, full rides for athletes are comparatively WAY more money in the long run as opposed to a summer job + working during the school year.

Especially some of the higher end schools. Full rides to Michigan as an example, that charges 33k each year for out of state tuition and another 8k for living.. You think that's not enough? You think trading that for a job is a good idea?

You have your options. Pay for school, or get a full ride playing a potentially dangerous sport. You won't get sympathy out of me for having to work hard, or putting yourself in harms way. It's your right to make that choice for yourself.

Not looking for sympathy. Get your money through academics, athletics, or get a job and take a loan. If you have a skillset that people will pay you to do your thing then go do it.

 

[Aries0321]

In my opinion, that has little to do with this debate.

How can the fact schools are making millions from the efforts of a select few not be part of the equation to determine if those same schools should have players being paid/not being paid? The money is the crux of the debate. Again, not saying players should or shouldn't be paid. I'm stating a case of why it's feasible to pay them.

Life is full of choices and the simple idea that athletes are not getting paid is ludicrous.

Everyone's path is different. Choices one would make may not be the choice another would, or could, make.

Nobody is questioning whether college athletics is big business.

Incorrect.

But colleges are not businesses.

And I wasn't the first to invoke college athletics as a business.

If you really believe that then you need to write then NCAA and tell them to give back the millions/billions of dollars their schools bring in from sporting events and the tv contracts associated with those sports...The NCAA is a huge business...

 

[Hanks]

are you talking about increasing comp for everyone or just select few?

The only thing I would say here is that a kid with an academic full ride gets the same benefits but would still be allowed to have a job outside his or her academic schedule. Not so with athletes. I worked during the off season but even then my work schedule was severely limited because of requirements for scheduled workouts, non-mandatory (always means mandatory) 7 on 7s and other players only workouts, etc.

There is a lot of support (institutionally) for increasing scholarships to actually cover the true cost of attendance instead of tuition and board. In that it wouldn't amount to paying players for playing, it would be an increase in the total compensation for a scholarship. So the 85 kids that get a full ride on an FBS football team would be getting the full cost of attendance without regard for playing time etc.



I think this could be addressed by increasing the total compensation of a scholarship. Right now that star QB does get the same compensation as the 3rd string DT (considering they are both on scholarship). The same goes for the kid playing lacrosse or the girl playing golf. If they are on a full athletic scholarship, their compensation is the same.

 

[CraftyLefty]

are you talking about increasing comp for everyone or just select few?

Across the board (to those who receive scholarships). I think that's the only way it would/could work and be accepted by the NCAA. Title IX is a sticky issue. I think that the way it's written is that you have to provide equal opportunity for women in athletics. That may or may not mean an equal amount of scholarships (so long as the roster spots line up). There hasn't been a legal challenge on that to my knowledge.

 

[JB]

How can the fact schools are making millions from the efforts of a select few not be part of the equation to determine if those same schools should have players being paid/not being paid? The money is the crux of the debate. Again, not saying players should or shouldn't be paid. I'm stating a case of why it's feasible to pay them.

First off. Not ALL schools make millions from the efforts of a few. You keep talking about big business and frankly its not for a large number of schools.
Second, where or not a school is profitable really should have no bearing on whether or not an amateur athlete gets paid.
An athlete CHOOSES to decide to tak on this path with the pay that is determined. In this case more than just about any college job will give them.

 

[CraftyLefty]

First off. Not ALL schools make millions from the efforts of a few. You keep talking about big business and frankly its not for a large number of schools.
Second, where or not a school is profitable really should have no bearing on whether or not an amateur athlete gets paid.
An athlete CHOOSES to decide to tak on this path with the pay that is determined. In this case more than just about any college job will give them.

Aren't there only like 20 schools with athletic departments that are completely self supporting?

 

[JB]

Aren't there only like 20 schools with athletic departments that are completely self supporting?

By last count I think 23 were self supporting, so you are correct. The idea that "schools make millions" is absurd and based on only the select few that are profitable at the time.

 

[CraftyLefty]

By last count I think 23 were self supporting, so you are correct. The idea that "schools make millions" is absurd and based on only the select few that are profitable at the time.

Yeah. Big misconception.

I'm going to continue to stress the educational opportunity of athletics. We just saw my alma matter cut our football team because it "wasn't profitable". If that's the basis for having a program or not it seems there would be a lot less programs. :disapointed:

 

[Aries0321]

First off. Not ALL schools make millions from the efforts of a few. You keep talking about big business and frankly its not for a large number of schools.

No where did I say ALL. I stated "big time." I didn't realize I had to define, but I'm referring to BCS schools. I'm not referring to Marshall, Fordham, or any other small school.

Second, where or not a school is profitable really should have no bearing on whether or not an amateur athlete gets paid.

I never stated this. But I agree, profitable shouldn't have any bearing, but that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't.

By last count I think 23 were self supporting, so you are correct. The idea that "schools make millions" is absurd and based on only the select few that are profitable at the time.

Self-supporting only means the schools' athletic departments are not "borrowing" from the general school funds. Athletic departments which are fully, partially or non self-supporting is a financially immaterial measure of whether a school is profitable overall. For example, last fiscal year Microsoft's Online Services unit loss over $2B (very non self-supporting), but Microsoft as a whole had income of over $24B.

Earlier you implied my thinking was ludicrous and now you imply it's absurd. In another thread, I was ridiculous. Why the personal attacks when you've more than once in other threads issued an edict not to personally attack anyone just because views are different?

In any case, "schools make millions" is not an idea I pulled out of thin air. For the schools to which I'm referring, it's a financial fact. The new PAC-whatever inked a $3B deal just to broadcast football and basketball. Will other sports be broadcast? I'd assume so, but the deal is about the big 2 sports. The math is $21M to each school of the PAC for 12 years; over $250 million each year. Before this new deal, the PAC-10 was getting just of $60M/year. It's not an "idea" that 10 schools go from $6 million each per year to 12 schools getting $21 million each per year, just for broadcast rights.

The ACC will be getting $155 million a year. The Big 12 will be getting $130 million. The SEC will be getting $205 million. And the Big 10 will be getting $220 million. All for just broadcast rights of football and basketball. This doesn't include apparel contracts or merchandise royalties.

 

[JB]

No where did I say ALL. I stated "big time." I didn't realize I had to define, but I'm referring to BCS schools. I'm not referring to Marshall, Fordham, or any other small school.



I never stated this. But I agree, profitable shouldn't have any bearing, but that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't.



Self-supporting only means the schools' athletic departments are not "borrowing" from the general school funds. Athletic departments which are fully, partially or non self-supporting is a financially immaterial measure of whether a school is profitable overall. For example, last fiscal year Microsoft's Online Services unit loss over $2B (very non self-supporting), but Microsoft as a whole had income of over $24B.

Earlier you implied my thinking was ludicrous and now you imply it's absurd. In another thread, I was ridiculous. Why the personal attacks when you've more than once in other threads issued an edict not to personally attack anyone just because views are different?

In any case, "schools make millions" is not an idea I pulled out of thin air. For the schools to which I'm referring, it's a financial fact. The new PAC-whatever inked a $3B deal just to broadcast football and basketball. Will other sports be broadcast? I'd assume so, but the deal is about the big 2 sports. The math is $21M to each school of the PAC for 12 years; over $250 million each year. Before this new deal, the PAC-10 was getting just of $60M/year. It's not an "idea" that 10 schools go from $6 million each per year to 12 schools getting $21 million each per year, just for broadcast rights.

The ACC will be getting $155 million a year. The Big 12 will be getting $130 million. The SEC will be getting $205 million. And the Big 10 will be getting $220 million. All for just broadcast rights of football and basketball. This doesn't include apparel contracts or merchandise royalties.

First of all, I have never personally attacked you.
Second of all, finding someones "idea" absurd is hardly a personal attack.
After spending the last decade working in sports and being surrounded by college and professional athletes on a day to day basis (pre-THP), I think my opinion matters as much as the next guy. What you are debating about a school making money in the larger scenario has no basis for the argument. The kids ARE getting paid. Moreso than any job they would find as a college worker. And you CAN separate whether or not the school is profitable from the athletics because you are only talking about paying athletes, NOT the general public of the school.
In the end this is THEIR CHOICE! Only THEY can make the choice and are doing so voluntarily.
You cannot separate these "Big Programs" from the rest. They are all part of the same organization.

EDIT: The entire debate is should college football players get paid "money".

 

[Canio]

I do NOT think that college athletes should get 'paid' like a job. School SHOULD be for education. But with big time athletics, that has NOT been the case, EVER. Kids have been paid under the table FOREVER. Even now, I would bet that a football player could get sly handshakes with cash from alumni if they wanted. I did. After a particularly 'good' game I would have a ten or twenty dollar handshake or a no charge steak dinner. I know that this is peanuts compared to what everybody is talking about, but it was a lot for me. I didn't have a car so I didn't need gas money. I certainly didn't need to pay for tattoos! Those kinds of people are just greedy!

I went to school on voice and football scholarships, neither of which paid for my college completely. I still had to pay for my books and most of my room. I actually lived in a rooming house one block from campus. I played in D3. I also took part in the Work-Study program. I spent 10 hours a week working for the athletic dept and 10 hours working for the music dept. and I was paid about 75 cents/hr. (late 60s-early 70s!) Even with the work-study and scholarships, I still had to work part-time in regular jobs, a pizza parlor, gas station etc... I worked during the summer on farms. I bucked hay. Those hay bales could weigh anywhere from 80-100 lbs. so I stayed in shape and was ready for fall football. I was and still am (to a degree) a country hayseed!

I will date myself here. I played in the late 60s to early 70s. I had friends who played for the big D1 schools, Colorado, Nebraska Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Some of them received cars for going to certain schools, Camero SS and Firebirds were the cars of choice then. I like to joke that my school didn't even offer me a bicycle!!!

I know that the colleges act as minor leagues for the pro football and basketball teams. But those cheap pro teams should pay for their OWN minor leagues like baseball does!!!! Then collegiate sports would be able to go back to STUDENT/athletes.

 

[blugold]

EDIT: The entire debate is should college football players get paid "money".

No, the debate is whether college football players should get more than they already do so they don't act out and violate the NCAA rules that they, as athletes, agreed to follow.

 

[Aries0321]

First of all, I have never personally attacked you.

You may have not meant anything to come across this way, but no one can say how I feel or should feel after reading a statement directed to me. It would be like telling one of my bosses an off-color joke of some sort and a female staffer overhears. If she reports to HR she has been harassed, it's not for me to decide if I harassed her. It how she feels; even though I didn't, or wasn't trying to, harass her.

Second of all, finding someones "idea" absurd is hardly a personal attack.

If I'm presented an idea in my next meeting, there would be more expected than a reply of absurdity and a paraphrase of what the absurdity is based upon. So, maybe personal attack is too strong. It's more rude to not provide some context as to why the idea is believed to be absurd.

After spending the last decade working in sports and being surrounded by college and professional athletes on a day to day basis (pre-THP), I think my opinion matters as much as the next guy.

No where did I explicitly or implicitly state yours, or anyone else's, opinion didn't matter. The whole purpose of a public forum debate is to counter/counterpoint while at least attempting to find some validity in the opposing view(s).

No, the debate is whether college football players should get more than they already do so they don't act out and violate the NCAA rules that they, as athletes, agreed to follow.

In the context of the news with tOSU, I took the debate this way as well.

 

[JB]

Comparing your meetings with a debate on THP is definitely a perfect analogy. Umm okay then.
I love it, one cannot say an idea is absurd, but the other can say someone is being rude. makes all the sense in the world. I believe I gave a pretty good reason why I formed that opinion and posted it. My posts never said "your absurd" and ended there. There was far more information if one chooses to read it.
I will bow out and you can continue these ideas personally.

 

[blugold]

In the context of the news with OSU, I took the debate this way as well.

Even if college football and basketball players got paid more than they do now, there would still be plenty of rules violations by some of the athletes and people who are taking advantage of the athletes. Like most problems, throwing money at it, will not make it go away. It may actually make it worse.

 

[CraftyLefty]

No, the debate is whether college football players should get more than they already do so they don't act out and violate the NCAA rules that they, as athletes, agreed to follow.

I don't think anything is going to stop that. Somebody is always going to want more, some booster is always going to want to get close to a player, some coach is going to try to gain the edge on a rival in recruiting.

Increasing scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance may curb some from partaking in extra benefits but it's always going to happen.

 

[Aries0321]

Comparing your meetings with a debate on THP is definitely a perfect analogy.

The analogy wasn't between the two settings. The analogy was in the reply to an idea in the two settings.

I love it, one cannot say an idea is absurd, but the other can say someone is being rude. makes all the sense in the world.

"You may have not meant anything to come across this way, but no one can say how I feel or should feel after reading a statement directed to me." So you do see this point. Because there is no infliction of voice and no body language to be seen, you, I or anyone else can only take the words typed at face value. It reads with the implication of me calling you rude, but I am not actually meaning to say you are being rude to me. It just reads that way.

I believe I gave a pretty good reason why I formed that opinion and posted it. My posts never said "your absurd" and ended there. There was far more information if one chooses to read it.

I read everything. There was no reason given. If it's supposed to be a debate; great! I enjoy them. They're fun and often times eye-opening. But there was no context given.

The idea that "schools make millions" is absurd and based on only the select few that are profitable at the time.

 

[JB]

Looks like a reason was given to me. Good day, enjoy your debate.

 

[blugold]

Increasing scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance may curb some from partaking in extra benefits but it's always going to happen.

The cost of an apartment for the players' parents and a Nissan 350Z, are not part of the cost of attendance.

What costs don't scholarships cover?

 

[CraftyLefty]

The cost of an apartment for the players' parents and a Nissan 350Z, are not part of the cost of attendance.

What costs don't scholarships cover?

Gas, food (when training table is closed), textbooks, incidental supplies (pencils/notebooks/batteries), parking passes, laundry. You get a certain amount for rent if you live off campus so if you room with people you can stretch it a little.

At my alma matter some student fees were not covered by scholarships. Any more universities raise their fees instead of tuition to make ends meet.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/26992/clarifying-big-tens-scholarship-upgrade-plan

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134

 

[JB]

Gas, food (when training table is closed), textbooks, incidental supplies (pencils/notebooks/batteries). You get a certain amount for rent if you live off campus so if you room with people you can stretch it a little.

Some universities handle textbooks that I have been around.
Food has always been available to athletes should they choose to eat it. Sure time is a part of this, but that is part of anything.
Housing is offered of course. If someone chooses to live elsewhere, that is up to them, yet most schools still offer that as well in smaller doses.
But batteries? Seriously? And Gas? Why should an athlete get gas money? Transportation is available at some schools and so are many other means to support gas money.
Stipend pays for food when on the road and usually gives players enough to grab gas or other meals if they are tight with their money.