6/10/2011 8:51 PM
6/11/2011 5:58 PM
For the record if anyone is still reading this thread...

Coming from a former college athlete, the scholarships are fantastic if you get a full ride, HOWEVER, what many of you are missing is that while their bills are covered as are meals on campus, they NOT ALLOWED to hold a job.  Say what you want but these are 18 - 22 year olds, do you think they are not going to go out on a date for 4 years?  How about pay for gas?  How about to just buy a coffee somewhere.

The rules ARE broken.  I am not suggesting athletes get paid, though if they got a monthly stipend of like $300, each, across the board, it would solve alot of this.  Not likely all of it, someone will still give a kid a Lexus and the kid will take it.  Another option, ALLOW THEM TO WORK A JOB.  It is ridiculous that these kids are not allowed work a job during the school year.

Anyways, I will call it quits here, Just think it is important to understand all the facts.
6/11/2011 8:53 PM
Posted by jhoege on 6/11/2011 5:58:00 PM (view original):
For the record if anyone is still reading this thread...

Coming from a former college athlete, the scholarships are fantastic if you get a full ride, HOWEVER, what many of you are missing is that while their bills are covered as are meals on campus, they NOT ALLOWED to hold a job.  Say what you want but these are 18 - 22 year olds, do you think they are not going to go out on a date for 4 years?  How about pay for gas?  How about to just buy a coffee somewhere.

The rules ARE broken.  I am not suggesting athletes get paid, though if they got a monthly stipend of like $300, each, across the board, it would solve alot of this.  Not likely all of it, someone will still give a kid a Lexus and the kid will take it.  Another option, ALLOW THEM TO WORK A JOB.  It is ridiculous that these kids are not allowed work a job during the school year.

Anyways, I will call it quits here, Just think it is important to understand all the facts.
I agree, work a job, any job, for any salary, as long as it doesn't include getting paid to play the sport they are getting a scholarship to play. I played university soccer - without a schorarship and worked all year round. Probably made more than those who had a schoarship.
6/12/2011 1:26 AM
The problem with jobs is the alumni provided type (being responsible forturning on the sprinklers every morning even though they are automated, etc...) which is why the job ban came into being in the first place.
6/12/2011 1:25 PM
I don't know what level you played in college, but at the D1 level there is no way you can work a job.  It's tough enough to get your classes to fit your schedule let alone have time to work any kind of part time job.  

Playing baseball, this was my typical day:  "voluntary" morning conditioning and weight lifting from 7:00-8:00, classes from 9:00 to 2:00, practices or games at 3:00 or 4:00.  You could take advantage of training table at 6:00-9:00.  If you were a FR or SO or you just wanted academic help, there was study table from 7:00-10:00.  Factor in travel and weekend games, and there wasn't any time for a job unless just didn't sleep.

I'm sure other sports had similar schedules since we would see those athletes in the morning and at night.  
 
6/12/2011 3:25 PM
I just assumed he was referring to an off season job when the time commitment is less.
6/12/2011 9:36 PM (edited)
This thread is about paying players for sports that make money, correct? Am I correct in assuming that the vast majority of college baseball programs do NOT make money? Therefore no one is arguing that baseball players should be paid, right? Swimmers, women's basketball players, etc. should NOT be paid, correct?

The problem is that universities are making millions of dollars off the labor of college football (and mens basketball) athletes and not compensating them -- not that the student athletes work so hard, correct?

(EDIT: reading back over some of the posts, I'm pretty sure the answer to those questions are "yes" - please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If the problem is that the universities are not sharing the profits with the laborers, then if we got rid of the profits (by not allowing them to be earned) then that would solve the problem as well. Get rid of TV contracts. Sell tickets for games at a low enough price so that only costs are covered.

I think it would take less than a year for a professional (non-university) option to arise for these players. Either through the NFL or some new business organization. Let the market take care of it. Get universities out of it. No more exploitation of student-athlete labor.
6/12/2011 9:46 PM
Seriously, though - a stipend makes sense. I got one as a graduate student (and I was not allowed to work as a condition of my study). $500 a semester. Not much in a large city, but survivable.

Student athletes should not be paid a salary or be able to negotiate better offers. A salary makes the student athlete a professional athlete and a university should not be running a professional sports franchise any more than it should be running a chain of supermarkets.
6/13/2011 12:05 AM
Posted by arcadecowboy on 6/12/2011 9:36:00 PM (view original):
This thread is about paying players for sports that make money, correct? Am I correct in assuming that the vast majority of college baseball programs do NOT make money? Therefore no one is arguing that baseball players should be paid, right? Swimmers, women's basketball players, etc. should NOT be paid, correct?

The problem is that universities are making millions of dollars off the labor of college football (and mens basketball) athletes and not compensating them -- not that the student athletes work so hard, correct?

(EDIT: reading back over some of the posts, I'm pretty sure the answer to those questions are "yes" - please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If the problem is that the universities are not sharing the profits with the laborers, then if we got rid of the profits (by not allowing them to be earned) then that would solve the problem as well. Get rid of TV contracts. Sell tickets for games at a low enough price so that only costs are covered.

I think it would take less than a year for a professional (non-university) option to arise for these players. Either through the NFL or some new business organization. Let the market take care of it. Get universities out of it. No more exploitation of student-athlete labor.
Well said.  Two...maybe one and a half...sports fund a whole athletic department.  Actually like the idea of taking the money incentive away from the schools.  Limit what a school can spend on sports.  It's about education, right?  
6/13/2011 8:34 AM
Posted by arcadecowboy on 6/12/2011 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Seriously, though - a stipend makes sense. I got one as a graduate student (and I was not allowed to work as a condition of my study). $500 a semester. Not much in a large city, but survivable.

Student athletes should not be paid a salary or be able to negotiate better offers. A salary makes the student athlete a professional athlete and a university should not be running a professional sports franchise any more than it should be running a chain of supermarkets.
they already get stipends for things like rent and food. these are not based on the amount they need, but rather based on a set amount. so if they get 500 bucks a month, and their rent is only 150 because they share a house with 5 other football players, bom 350 free bucks.


ATHLETES ALREADY GET PAID.
6/13/2011 3:47 PM
William Rhoden of the New York Times weighs in on the hypocrisy of the Tressel Affair.

www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/sports/ncaafootball/jim-tressel-ohio-state.html
6/13/2011 6:03 PM

The only reason college football and basketball make millions is because it is popular and people pay to see and networks pay to show. Why should"nt the universities make the money?  They have a product in high demand. Thats why they give the best athletes schollies in the first place.

It doesn't seem that many people know how college sports work.

6/13/2011 7:04 PM
Posted by osgonlz on 6/13/2011 6:03:00 PM (view original):

The only reason college football and basketball make millions is because it is popular and people pay to see and networks pay to show. Why should"nt the universities make the money?  They have a product in high demand. Thats why they give the best athletes schollies in the first place.

It doesn't seem that many people know how college sports work.

The current system wasn't designed to deal with the massive amounts of cash being infused into the system by media rights, either through television networks or schools selling their own package. There is too much money for the athletes not to want some of it. There is too much at stake for coaches not to look for that winning edge in bringing in top recruits. There's too much money put up by networks for the NCAA to sentence a big program such as Ohio State to an SMU-type death penalty.

You can either regulate the payments or accept the fact that there's going to be a lot of programs who'll play outside the rules who'll occassionally get caught and have their wrists slapped. There's no hope the NFL or NBA will step in to create minor league franchises as it would **** off the big-time programs that really do benefit from the current arrangement.
6/14/2011 10:37 PM

I coach a non-revenue sport at a well recognized D1A school and can tell you that the money made from football doesn't just go to fill the pockets of coaches. Certainly, coaches get pretty good salaries, but a large portion of the money goes to support non-revenue sports as well as summer school (tuition, room, board, books) for football players, operations, team travel, and many other areas.  There are a few D1A schools that make the kind of money that would allow them to pay players.  College football is "big business", but not solely based on media rights but also booster donations and apparel sales each year.  The booster at schools like the OSU donate over 60 million a year.  Additionally, you can go research how much money is made on apparel from the top Football programs in the country.  Since State schools have guidelines/rules on which pot of money can be spent on items like stadium upgrades, new facilities, lockerrooms and other things, most schools put the money back into the athletics program to improve the welfare of student-athletes while donor/booster dollars are used for the big ticket items. 
We currently have two major renovations that will take place on our campus and the funds are being donated for the projects to be completed.  In a down economy with less money coming from the state, universities have been forced to rely more and more each year on raising funds to survive and maintain an athletics program.  Just look at the number of Universites that sponsor all 36 NCAA sports or more than 20 sports.
College athletics is a significant part of the college experience and a great way to bring communities together.  In my opinion, paying student-athletes is not the answer.  Student-athletes, just like the general population, can take out loans or work a job in the off-season to INVEST in their own education and personal life.  Athletic scholarships provide the opportunity to learn, earn a degree, and play in a sport of their interest which each prospect understands before they ever sign a NLI. 
 

6/14/2011 11:15 PM
Posted by willgibson on 6/13/2011 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by osgonlz on 6/13/2011 6:03:00 PM (view original):

The only reason college football and basketball make millions is because it is popular and people pay to see and networks pay to show. Why should"nt the universities make the money?  They have a product in high demand. Thats why they give the best athletes schollies in the first place.

It doesn't seem that many people know how college sports work.

The current system wasn't designed to deal with the massive amounts of cash being infused into the system by media rights, either through television networks or schools selling their own package. There is too much money for the athletes not to want some of it. There is too much at stake for coaches not to look for that winning edge in bringing in top recruits. There's too much money put up by networks for the NCAA to sentence a big program such as Ohio State to an SMU-type death penalty.

You can either regulate the payments or accept the fact that there's going to be a lot of programs who'll play outside the rules who'll occassionally get caught and have their wrists slapped. There's no hope the NFL or NBA will step in to create minor league franchises as it would **** off the big-time programs that really do benefit from the current arrangement.
No way pay these guys. A free ride in college is worth more than a couple hundred thousand in the long run. They can/will use it the rest of thier lives, even after sports. As for the slap on the wrist....It should be much more. When you put a stiff enough penality on it it will stop. Maybe if the coachs are dismissed from college entirely they will think it about more. And the players should lose all scholarships and start paying own way. If they are lucky enough to make the big show and mega bucks leaving early, I think they should repay the cost of scholarships used. At least the money can be used for people who need help to attend. If you feel free rides are the way to go, I can always use $200,000.00.
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.