Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Should College Athletes be Paid?


amfootball

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure, that's what it's about "now."  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Show me a union and I'll show you a group of people who want to be paid.  It's already been discussed as a potential benefit later on down the road.  People will always want more, and young kids that are celebrities on campus is about the best example of a group of people who never have enough other than national celebrities who get millions a la Justin Bieber.  Anyway, the first step is to unionize, pay will come later.  When you want to institute change, especially when you're not the one holding the barganing chips, you play the public policy standpoint (which they have, though I disagree with it to an extent).  Once you break past the threshhold, tha'ts when you go for teh jugular.  The union representatives and the union at large are a lot of things, btu stupid isn't one of them.  If there were some mechanism in place, whether it come from the NCAA, the Supreme Court (depending on how far this lawsuit goes), Congress, whomever, if wages were taken off the table indefinitely, then I don't really care what happens as most of the requests seem reasonable.  I just see the potential for this to go off the deep end.  If salary were part of the discussion, it will be part of the discussion for all student athletes.  You can't discriminate between men and women, nor can you discriminate between one Title IX sport and another Title IX sport.  If that's the case, it will destroy many smaller schools that don't make a profit with most if not all their sports.  Not to mention schools will just shift the costs to all the tuition paying students.  You think college is expensive now?  God save us if we pay student athletes.

 

I think a fair compromise is to let players benefit off their names, licensing, getting paid for autographs, etc.  I agree with you on that.  Also, with boosters, if a guy wants to give a kid $50 bucks or whatever, who cares?  I think the NCAA took a nugget of policy - that they don't want gifts to be influential in the recruiting process - and ran with it.  Regulate it, report it, have recruiting communications recorded.  It may be difficult to do, but at the same token, this stuff is happening under the table and always has.  The NCAA hasn't stopped it, and even when ti does get wind of it, it penalizes in the most arbitrary and consistent manner anyway.  I mean, cap it, and if a kid gets a car or soemthing, yeah, penalize it. 

 

I understand your point of view, and I agree with it. Mostly.

 

But it's worth noting that the players have not formed a union, to this point. That's a very big step. All that has happened is the NLRB has concluded that they are legally able to form a union, based on the requirements the college has placed on them (essentially, they are being treated as employees, so they can unionize). That's a very big step itself, but it's short of actually forming a union and having collective bargaining. And by the way, collective bargaining is an entirely different step itself, wherein these benefits would be determined.

 

And what's noteworthy about that, is the schools could essentially lock a formed union out, and offer scholarships to a new group of players who aren't unionized, and continue to have an athletic department. For an institution that only holds on to players for two or three years, that's not as difficult a decision as the NFL, where they have star players for a decade-plus. 

 

Last thing, I agree that some of the cost would be passed on to tuition paying students. But realistically, looking at TV deals and naming rights, and how much is being made on those deals, it doesn't have to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the NCAA can lift their ridiculous restrictions, and college athletics will continue to exist and thrive.

 

I'm a little underwhelmed at the "if you don't like it, get out" nature of the response. Rather than acknowledge the inherent inequity, which is driven by the NCAA's desire for control of players' rights and likenesses (in short, money), and consider ways to lessen that inequity and make life a little easier for the athletes who are generating the revenue, you'd rather just tell them to go play pro ball in Europe?

 

Think of the money college athletics has made in the last five years off of high profile athletes. They can't get an increased stipend and a trust account? The Texas AD can make $5m/year, but Mike Davis can't make some money off of his own likeness? Jim Tressel made an average of $2.2m/year at Ohio State (nearly $5m of that came directly from Nike), but Terrelle Pryor can't trade signed Nike jerseys for a tattoo? It's silly. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6847366/jim-tressel-made-217m-tenure-ohio-state-buckeyes

I don't see it as inequitable I guess as you do. The top athletes biggest benefit is the free education and the fact that they will be drafted. I also don't think the NCAA is trying to make stringent rules to hurt athletes but they have to also consider their entire student body. If you make an exception for athletes having 5-7 meals a day then you have to do it for everyone. And this has been my point. UConn is not just a basketball school. They are first and foremost an academic institution with a study body made up of both non-athletes and athletes. This is why I say go play on a pro team. There are so many considerations at a university that have to be applied to all. And these guys want special treatment because their sport happens to make the most money for the college. Like I said, they knew the rules when they accepted the scholarship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as inequitable I guess as you do. The top athletes biggest benefit is the free education and the fact that they will be drafted. I also don't think the NCAA is trying to make stringent rules to hurt athletes but they have to also consider their entire student body. If you make an exception for athletes having 5-7 meals a day then you have to do it for everyone. And this has been my point. UConn is not just a basketball school. They are first and foremost an academic institution with a study body made up of both non-athletes and athletes. This is why I say go play on a pro team. There are so many considerations at a university that have to be applied to all. And these guys want special treatment because their sport happens to make the most money for the college. Like I said, they knew the rules when they accepted the scholarship.

 

Yeah. Like I said, you at a point where you'd rather say "this is how it is; conform or pursue other options," rather than acknowledge the problems in the current system and embrace potential solutions.

 

Free education is a bit of a misnomer, by the way. The education is given in exchange for their talents as an athlete, and it comes with conditions. There's no guarantee of being drafted. Nothing wrong with any of that, but it's not just out of the graciousness of the university's heart that the four star recruit gets a full ride.

 

It's not an exception for athletes that they are provided with the meals they need. It's an expense, and it's necessary in order for the player to maintain his athletic talents, conditioning, etc. Besides, NCAA restrictions don't apply to non-athletes, so there never was any impact on non-athletes. If the university wanted to provide a physics major on scholarship with 10 meals a day, they could before, and they still can. 

 

Getting a reasonable meal plan isn't "special treatment." Receiving a portion of profits from your likeness isn't "special treatment." As a matter of fact, just like with the meal plan, these restrictions only apply to athletes, not non-athletes. So if a university makes money from using the likeness of a biology major, the biology major can be paid for that. The biology major can do paid speaking engagements and commercials and magazine advertisements (if there is a demand, and sometimes there is). AND, the biology major can have a part time job, assuming they have the time to do so, which they are more likely to have if they are not athletes.

 

But if you're a biology major AND the starting point guard, you can't get paid for those other things, and you're less likely to have the time to hold a part time job, given the time constraints that go along with your athletic scholarship (which is the reason for the NLRB ruling). So you're MORE restricted than the regular student. Asking to have those restrictions lifted or lessened is NOT asking for special treatment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point of view, and I agree with it. Mostly.

 

But it's worth noting that the players have not formed a union, to this point. That's a very big step. All that has happened is the NLRB has concluded that they are legally able to form a union, based on the requirements the college has placed on them (essentially, they are being treated as employees, so they can unionize). That's a very big step itself, but it's short of actually forming a union and having collective bargaining. And by the way, collective bargaining is an entirely different step itself, wherein these benefits would be determined.

 

And what's noteworthy about that, is the schools could essentially lock a formed union out, and offer scholarships to a new group of players who aren't unionized, and continue to have an athletic department. For an institution that only holds on to players for two or three years, that's not as difficult a decision as the NFL, where they have star players for a decade-plus. 

 

Last thing, I agree that some of the cost would be passed on to tuition paying students. But realistically, looking at TV deals and naming rights, and how much is being made on those deals, it doesn't have to be.

It's a truly unique scenario when a lockout benefits the employer more than the employee.  It wouldn't always benefit the NCAA.  But, if the students and NCAA don't come to an agreement, are they locked out from classes, too?  And what about meals, tuition and other benefits of their so called employment?  I don't know the answer, and perhaps it presents a somewhat anomalous issue, but it's certainly not as simple as not going to practice or games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're afforded those opportunities over other students because as you said, those other students are "average" and have to pay their way.  These athletes have a rare talent that is highly marketable and generates the college tons and tons of money.

 

Im not saying you're one of these people, but I always find it funny how upset people get that college athletes get full scholarships and how its so "unfair."  Wrong.  They're going to class on top of training like a freak and competing in a violent sport that generates that college MILLIONS of dollars.

 

Thats 

 

Id agree with this, its the NFL that requires all students to be 3 years removed from high school and would never draft or sign someone who didn't play in college, so its a necessary stepping stone to make it to the pros.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the colleges are getting rich off of these athletes sacrificing their bodies to play this violent sport.  They essentially have to train, practice and study like its a full time job on top of keeping their academic grades up.

 

 

 

Thats the fundamental difference between an athletic and an average college student though.

 An average college student is costing the school money by going to classes and using up a professors time, campus resources, etc.  

A student athlete is generating the college lots of money by playing a highly marketable sport.

In reality only very few athletes have a "rare" talent that will allow them to go on to the pros and by all means let them go. Probably only around 1% of college athetes will be able to play professionally. There are those big time programs that make the universities athletic departments a lot of money, but that money is used to subsidize all of the other sports, other coaches and athletic facilities that are played at that college. In truth, the vast majority of sports cost universities money, the Michigan football and men's basketball teams do make Michigan a lot of money. The Michigan lacrosse, volleyball, field hockey, wrestling teams and all the other "minor" sports cost the university a lot of money.

The average college student does not cost the university money, because they are actually paying tuition, room and board. Now Susie/Danny who plays waterpolo and gets a full ride schoralship or even a 75% schoralship, she/he is costing the university money. I would rather see colleges stop offering athletic scholarships all together than start giving more money to those few, let the professional leagues set up developmental leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a truly unique scenario when a lockout benefits the employer more than the employee.  It wouldn't always benefit the NCAA.  But, if the students and NCAA don't come to an agreement, are they locked out from classes, too?  And what about meals, tuition and other benefits of their so called employment?  I don't know the answer, and perhaps it presents a somewhat anomalous issue, but it's certainly not as simple as not going to practice or games.

 

A lockout is the business saying "we're not going to deal with your union," for whatever reasons. Not a strike, which is the union or the workers saying "we're not coming to work until we get what we want." Not all players are on scholarship, but for the ones that are, their scholarship is dependent on their athletic performance and compliance. So if they aren't on the field, then their scholarship would be suspended/revoked. Ouch. I definitely think the student-athletes' union would be at a severe disadvantage in this case.

 

And that's before you start thinking about union dues, paying attorneys, etc. I don't really see how a student-athlete union can work, and I doubt it comes to that any time soon. Could very well be wrong, but it seems like a long shot.

 

Ultimately, I could see the players, even unionized, negotiating certain benefits in exchange for restrictions. But if an eventual student-athlete union tried to negotiate for salary in exchange for play, I would expect the university to shut that down right away, to the point of locking the union out and dealing with non-unionized student-athletes who are willing to accept the previously negotiated terms, without salary. And in Northwestern's case, and the majority of collegiate athletics, the program isn't dependent on specific players. Northwestern doesn't have a Johnny Manziel-type figure. Casual fans probably don't even know who Kain Colter is. And before a student-athlete union allows themselves to be locked out, there would likely be a no-confidence situation and a change of leadership. Again, I just don't see them having the bargaining power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure the billions of dollars that the NCAA makes more than covers the costs of providing free education to the athletes that make it up.

 

Your tuition goes towards your use of the facilities, faculty and other resources of the college campus to earn a degree that increases your market value in the work place.  Your money is not being used to give athletes a "free ride" through college.

 

In fact it could be argued that your education is significantly improved because of the college athletes, since they help generate tons of money for the college, they can then use that money on upgrading their facilities, hiring better professors, etc.

 

The athletes are helping you way more than you're helping them, and they certainly aren't costing you a single dime either, that money you're paying is for a service being provided to you.  You have nothing to offer the college other than your money, so that is what you exchange for your education.

In a perfect world you'd be spot on. But you can't just pay the big name athletes. You'd have to pay everyone on the roster. And not just the football roster. Baseball, soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, softball, track and field, cross country, crew, basketball both men and women's, cheerleaders, gymnastics, swimmers, golf, etc. The extra money from the big name sports helps pay for these smaller programs. While players are making the school money, a lot of these other sports programs are taking major losses. Plus these athletes are getting to showcase their skills for free, which if you know ANYTHING about attracting the next level, these is a huge deal because those opportunities are rare and very expensive. Athletes are getting paid in scholarship, if its not enough, do what the rest of us do and take out a loan. If its too much to handle, you can always drop the sport and fall in line with the rest of the students the university is screwing over.

 

EDIT: Include D1, D2, and D3 schools. not even all the big sports turn a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's food for thought:

 

 

CBS and NCAA has a 10.8 billion dollar contract (14 yrs) just for March Madness (approx 3 weeks out of the season)

 

ESPN pays the BCS 500 million (4yr deal)

 

Each team within the Big Ten, for example, received 23.7 million from the B1G Network, tv contracts, etc (this doesn't include BCS, and other monetary bonuses)

 

 

In my opinion, college athletes should get paid. Should all of them get paid? No..why should all of them get paid? Soccer, baseball, lacrosse players, etc don't bring in revenue like CFB and basketball. Would it be fair to only pay football and basketball players? No. Is life fair? No. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry thanks largely to CFB and basketball; consequently, the players should see the fruits of their labor. Sure, you can argue that they are already receiving compensation through a scholarship; however, that still doesn't justify not getting paid. Let's say you're working for a pharmaceutical company, and you...by yourself...find the cure for HIV/AIDS. The company rewards you by doubling your salary, so you're making double that of the average pharm scientist. On one side, they are paying you double than the avg pharm scientist..so you should be grateful for what you got. Yet, is it fair? No. The pharm company is making billions off of your idea, while you're making a significant amount less. Similarly, for instance, look from a college basketball player's perspective. The CBS/NCAA reached a deal of nearly 11 BILLLION dollars for just THREE weeks of broadcasting...that doesn't include the rest of the season (which will be significantly less, but still a substantial amount of money). Who made the NCAA that money? The basketball players did. Personally, I would feel its unfair. I'm not saying that the players should get paid a big hefty check....just a stipend would suffice...something more than just their scholarships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The young man who graduated from the Purdue school of flight potentially had other options for paying for school. Academic scholarships, grants, military options (probably a valuable commodity to the Air Force as a future pilot), etc. I'm not saying that he should have taken any of those other options, just that the risk associated with his schooling wasn't necessarily all on his shoulders. And the main difference between a future pilot and a future football player is that the pilot can overcome an injury and still have a career. He can also change his focus and have a different career. Pilots can make a lot of money eventually, but not the kind of money a football player makes. Not that one is better or should be treated as more important, but there are differences. It's not an apples to apples comparison, IMO.

 

Scholarships are given out for a lot of different reasons, not just athletic (although that's the biggest reason at most major schools). I don't see what's "unfair" about an athletic scholarship, at all. It's economics, and universities are businesses. The athlete will presumably offset the cash value of the scholarship with the value he brings to the university's athletics department (or the overall value of the sports program, which is dependent on many athletes, not just "stars").

 

To me, that's entirely different from the NCAA stipulating that a player may not profit from their own likeness. As a matter of fact, if I go to a school with a prominent physics program, and I get published and gain some fame, I can use my fame to my own benefit. I can be hired and gainfully employed in my field of expertise, and continue to be enrolled as a student. If I'm there on scholarship, it won't be revoked. I can do paid speaking engagements, advertisements, etc., and be paid. But if I'm an amateur athlete, I can't use my fame as a player to my own benefit. Everyone else can -- the school, the NCAA, the networks -- but if I use my likeness for personal gain, my scholarship is revoked, I am no longer an eligible amateur, and I am likely dismissed from the school. The NCAA has set it up so that, if I'm a college athlete, I do not own my own likeness; they do. And in the name of protecting their interest in your likeness, any use of your likeness -- whether official licensing or casual benefits -- results in serious sanctions against you, the university, etc.

 

Regarding the minor league situation, the NFL doesn't stipulate that players spend three years playing college football. There are other pro and semi-pro leagues that players can go to, get paid, and then declare for the NFL draft when eligible. College football exists because college football is a money maker. If the NFL loosened their restrictions, it would cost college football a ton of money. If the NFL spent the millions or billions it would take to establish a viable minor league system, it would destroy college football. There goes the NCAA, there goes Alabama, Texas, USC, Florida State, Texas A&M, etc., etc. NCAA and college football can complain about the costs of caring for the athletes that they make money off of, but it's a disingenuous complaint, IMO, because that's the cost of doing business. The NFL has to care for the players that make up their business, and they have to share revenue with them because they are a professional union. 

 

I am not arguing that college athletes should be paid. I am only arguing that the NCAA restrictions are motivated by money, and are unfair to the players who actually generate revenue. The NCAA system has to change.

 

Yes, the student who graduated from the Purdue School of Flight had other options available to him for assistance in paying for his schooling other than taking out student loans.  However, doesn't the same apply to the student athlete?  They are not forced to accept an athletic scholarship and can also seek academic scholarships, grants, and the option of the military.

 

Dependent on the injury, a future pilot cannot still have a great career in his/her chosen profession any more than the injured athlete as a pilot is required to have a medical certificate showing that he/she has passed a physical examination. 

 

As far as a pilot changing his/her focus and having a different career, isn't that same option also available to the athlete?  I agree that it is not an apples to apples comparison; but for the reason that the injured pilot may very well be burdened with students loans, while the injured athlete is not.

 

I never said that it was "unfair" to receive an athletic scholarship.  The majority of those students work very hard both athletically and academically.  I said that  I felt it wasn't fair for an athlete with “C” grades to receive a full scholarship when so many others with “A” grades receive nothing unless they are fortunate enough to snare an academic scholarship, grant, or enter the military.

 

Sure, that athlete may offset the cash value of the scholarship with the value he/she brings to an athletic department; but IMO, many of those same athletes (especially the mega stars) are using the college just as much as the college is using them.  I'm referring to those student athletes who are in college for one reason and one reason only which is to further their career in the sport in which they excel and using the college as a stepping stone.

 

As far as the NCAA stipulating that a player cannot profit on their likeness, I have already said that I didn't think that was fair.  And, I am very happy to read about the unlimited meal/snack plan. I just have a hard time feeling the same amount of sympathy as you for those who can’t profit on their likeness because these are the same players who will more than likely go on to make big money (again, barring any unfortunate events).  My sympathy lies primarily with all those other students who are saddled with huge student loans. 

 

No, the NFL does not say that players have to spend three years in college.  They do say that a player four years removed from high school is eligible.  And, I realize that there are other leagues players can go to where they get paid prior to becoming eligible for the NFL.  But, the overwhelming majority do not go that route.  Why do think that is?

 

If the NFL established a minor league, I’m not sure that it would destroy college football; but it sure would give it a major kick in the butt.  And, I have no doubt that the NCAA is more than happy that the NFL has not set up such a league. 

 

My argument is that if we are truly concerned about the student athlete, that the NFL setting up a minor league would be in the best interest of those athletes especially those who have no real desire to further their education but are using the Alabama, Texas, USC powerhouses (again, just as much as these colleges are using them) to further their career because those athletes know that by attending those colleges they will have access to great coaching, great training, great facilities, and greater  publicity and exposure . . . not to mention being the "big man" on campus who has girls flocking to him . . . when they could just as easily have accepted a scholarship to a DII or DIII school that would be overjoyed to have them.

 

As far as I'm concerned, sports can be taken out of college (and all of other levels of education) entirely and those institutions can concentrate fully on education which is supposedly their main purpose.  And, just maybe, doing so could help raise the woeful worldwide ranking of American students.

 

But, that isn’t going to happen.  The NCAA doesn’t want that to happen.  The alumni and fans don’t want that to happen.  And, the student athletes (who are just waiting in line to be as mistreated as some seem to believe) don’t want that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Like I said, you at a point where you'd rather say "this is how it is; conform or pursue other options," rather than acknowledge the problems in the current system and embrace potential solutions.

 

Free education is a bit of a misnomer, by the way. The education is given in exchange for their talents as an athlete, and it comes with conditions. There's no guarantee of being drafted. Nothing wrong with any of that, but it's not just out of the graciousness of the university's heart that the four star recruit gets a full ride.

 

It's not an exception for athletes that they are provided with the meals they need. It's an expense, and it's necessary in order for the player to maintain his athletic talents, conditioning, etc. Besides, NCAA restrictions don't apply to non-athletes, so there never was any impact on non-athletes. If the university wanted to provide a physics major on scholarship with 10 meals a day, they could before, and they still can. 

 

Getting a reasonable meal plan isn't "special treatment." Receiving a portion of profits from your likeness isn't "special treatment." As a matter of fact, just like with the meal plan, these restrictions only apply to athletes, not non-athletes. So if a university makes money from using the likeness of a biology major, the biology major can be paid for that. The biology major can do paid speaking engagements and commercials and magazine advertisements (if there is a demand, and sometimes there is). AND, the biology major can have a part time job, assuming they have the time to do so, which they are more likely to have if they are not athletes.

 

But if you're a biology major AND the starting point guard, you can't get paid for those other things, and you're less likely to have the time to hold a part time job, given the time constraints that go along with your athletic scholarship (which is the reason for the NLRB ruling). So you're MORE restricted than the regular student. Asking to have those restrictions lifted or lessened is NOT asking for special treatment. 

I think much of this depends on if you think players will be satisfied will just some of the restrictions being removed like increased meals and the ability to work, etc. The proceeds from memorabilia will never happen.

 

I tend to agree with OffensivelyPC that this is just the easiest path right now for the athletes to demand more later down the road and possibly unionize. Although unionizing will hurt them more. In other words, I don't believe the UConn player speaking up was purely just so he could get some food. He knows the power of those comments especially after just winning the national title.

 

I think the NCAA and sports has been a terrible mix for quite some time. Sure the colleges are making a boat load of money but profiteering from the athletes while their administrators and coaches make millions has always been ridiculous. This is why I keep bringing up a minor league system. I realize that the colleges are entrenched right now but that can change too. It really needs to change IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lockout is the business saying "we're not going to deal with your union," for whatever reasons. Not a strike, which is the union or the workers saying "we're not coming to work until we get what we want." Not all players are on scholarship, but for the ones that are, their scholarship is dependent on their athletic performance and compliance. So if they aren't on the field, then their scholarship would be suspended/revoked. Ouch. I definitely think the student-athletes' union would be at a severe disadvantage in this case.

 

And that's before you start thinking about union dues, paying attorneys, etc. I don't really see how a student-athlete union can work, and I doubt it comes to that any time soon. Could very well be wrong, but it seems like a long shot.

 

Ultimately, I could see the players, even unionized, negotiating certain benefits in exchange for restrictions. But if an eventual student-athlete union tried to negotiate for salary in exchange for play, I would expect the university to shut that down right away, to the point of locking the union out and dealing with non-unionized student-athletes who are willing to accept the previously negotiated terms, without salary. And in Northwestern's case, and the majority of collegiate athletics, the program isn't dependent on specific players. Northwestern doesn't have a Johnny Manziel-type figure. Casual fans probably don't even know who Kain Colter is. And before a student-athlete union allows themselves to be locked out, there would likely be a no-confidence situation and a change of leadership. Again, I just don't see them having the bargaining power.

Yeah, I don't really see it myself, at least a traditional union anyway.  There's some upside, but I think the costs of it will outweigh the benefits in the long run.  And perhaps this whole thing is just to get the NCAA to reconsider how it conducts business.  The NCAA has waved it's power around so long and in such a manner that it's turned so many people against it in a lot of regards, most notably in it's disciplinary and business aspects.  It's due for a restructure of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only good argument..There does need to be a fund that [pays from seriously hurt college athletes.

 

But it cant be payments for life....that's not realistic in any business.

 

The problem with the union saying NOW that they dont want players paid...is that the union's leadership will change every 3 or 4 years and future union heads may indeed want cash .

 

I think money from the sale of jerseys and autographs can be used for a catastrophic injury fund..but not to pad the pockets of amatuer athletes

 

My only disagreement here is that the money is already padding the pockets of some suit and tie who could care less about the education offered at their institution.

 

I don't think college athletes should be paid. I also don't think colleges should be able to give free scholarship rides to 'student athletes'. I wouldn't want to see college athletics absolved but it shouldn't be the primary outlet to major league sports.

 

There needs to be a 'minor league' type of system where those with aspirations to play NFL football can go learn the game, develop skills and progress to the NFL - Without impeding the education system. Let's just stop pretending most of these guys are there to better themselves academically, open more doors for those who are and let the athletes go make their money in farm leagues before getting their golden opportunity in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extra money from the big name sports helps pay for these smaller programs. While players are making the school money, a lot of these other sports programs are taking major losses.

A great point.

 

Which begs the question.....why does someone get a free education for playing a sport that nobody cares about?  Really, what value to society is there? 

 

IMO, a lot of the issues we are dealing with are driven by sports-mafia like business practices.  Rules and regulations designed primarily to keep sports-people employed in the sports industry. 

 

With universities being a major employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the student who graduated from the Purdue School of Flight had other options available to him for assistance in paying for his schooling other than taking out student loans.  However, doesn't the same apply to the student athlete?  They are not forced to accept an athletic scholarship and can also seek academic scholarships, grants, and the option of the military.

 

Dependent on the injury, a future pilot cannot still have a great career in his/her chosen profession any more than the injured athlete as a pilot is required to have a medical certificate showing that he/she has passed a physical examination. 

 

As far as a pilot changing his/her focus and having a different career, isn't that same option also available to the athlete?  I agree that it is not an apples to apples comparison; but for the reason that the injured pilot may very well be burdened with students loans, while the injured athlete is not.

 

I never said that it was "unfair" to receive an athletic scholarship.  The majority of those students work very hard both athletically and academically.  I said that  I felt it wasn't fair for an athlete with “C” grades to receive a full scholarship when so many others with “A” grades receive nothing unless they are fortunate enough to snare an academic scholarship, grant, or enter the military.

 

Sure, that athlete may offset the cash value of the scholarship with the value he/she brings to an athletic department; but IMO, many of those same athletes (especially the mega stars) are using the college just as much as the college is using them.  I'm referring to those student athletes who are in college for one reason and one reason only which is to further their career in the sport in which they excel and using the college as a stepping stone.

 

As far as the NCAA stipulating that a player cannot profit on their likeness, I have already said that I didn't think that was fair.  And, I am very happy to read about the unlimited meal/snack plan. I just have a hard time feeling the same amount of sympathy as you for those who can’t profit on their likeness because these are the same players who will more than likely go on to make big money (again, barring any unfortunate events).  My sympathy lies primarily with all those other students who are saddled with huge student loans. 

 

No, the NFL does not say that players have to spend three years in college.  They do say that a player four years removed from high school is eligible.  And, I realize that there are other leagues players can go to where they get paid prior to becoming eligible for the NFL.  But, the overwhelming majority do not go that route.  Why do think that is?

 

If the NFL established a minor league, I’m not sure that it would destroy college football; but it sure would give it a major kick in the butt.  And, I have no doubt that the NCAA is more than happy that the NFL has not set up such a league. 

 

My argument is that if we are truly concerned about the student athlete, that the NFL setting up a minor league would be in the best interest of those athletes especially those who have no real desire to further their education but are using the Alabama, Texas, USC powerhouses (again, just as much as these colleges are using them) to further their career because those athletes know that by attending those colleges they will have access to great coaching, great training, great facilities, and greater  publicity and exposure . . . not to mention being the "big man" on campus who has girls flocking to him . . . when they could just as easily have accepted a scholarship to a DII or DIII school that would be overjoyed to have them.

 

As far as I'm concerned, sports can be taken out of college (and all of other levels of education) entirely and those institutions can concentrate fully on education which is supposedly their main purpose.  And, just maybe, doing so could help raise the woeful worldwide ranking of American students.

 

But, that isn’t going to happen.  The NCAA doesn’t want that to happen.  The alumni and fans don’t want that to happen.  And, the student athletes (who are just waiting in line to be as mistreated as some seem to believe) don’t want that to happen.

 

Lots of good thoughts here.

 

I'll just say that I'm not crying over athletes who can't make money off of themselves, while the NCAA and schools make millions. It's just very hypocritical of the NCAA, and examples like the Fab Five, Terrell Pryor and Dez Bryant (just to name a few off the top of my head) illustrate the hypocrisy very well. And if you want to take it a step further, situations like AJ McCarron and Katherine Webb show how foolish the restrictions are in the first place.

 

So it rings hollow, to me, when major institutions and the NCAA talk about how impossible it is to cut these players in, and try to push the burden off on other institutions (the NBA, the NFL, etc.) "You can't take our money; it would ruin us. Take their money." 

 

College athletics (and other aspects of college) is big business. It's run like big business, it makes money like big business, they lawyer up like big business... I know the sort of puritanical ideal is that it's a place of higher learning, and everything should revolve around that (and I agree, for the most part). But the reality is that it's all about money, and that's not going to change. None of these institutions is eager to stop making the millions and billions that athletics brings in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good thoughts here.

 

I'll just say that I'm not crying over athletes who can't make money off of themselves, while the NCAA and schools make millions. It's just very hypocritical of the NCAA, and examples like the Fab Five, Terrell Pryor and Dez Bryant (just to name a few off the top of my head) illustrate the hypocrisy very well. And if you want to take it a step further, situations like AJ McCarron and Katherine Webb show how foolish the restrictions are in the first place.

 

So it rings hollow, to me, when major institutions and the NCAA talk about how impossible it is to cut these players in, and try to push the burden off on other institutions (the NBA, the NFL, etc.) "You can't take our money; it would ruin us. Take their money." 

 

College athletics (and other aspects of college) is big business. It's run like big business, it makes money like big business, they lawyer up like big business... I know the sort of puritanical ideal is that it's a place of higher learning, and everything should revolve around that (and I agree, for the most part). But the reality is that it's all about money, and that's not going to change. None of these institutions is eager to stop making the millions and billions that athletics brings in.

 

I’m really at a loss as to what you are debating with me about in this thread.

 

I have already said twice and I will say it again, I do not think that it is fair that athletes can’t make money off of themselves while the NCAA and colleges can.  Yet, you keep coming back to that even though you say that you’re not crying over such athletes.

 

I have said that I think the NFL should set up a minor league.  I understand that the NCAA would not want the NFL to set up a minor league as is there is no doubt that they are making big money off of some of those athletes.  And, I  don’t think the NFL cares to do so as the colleges are already doing a great job in developing the athletes. 

 

Therefore, I feel that the odds of the NFL setting up a minor league rank somewhere with the odds of pigs flying even though I feel it would be in the best interest of the athlete.  Yet, you seem to be against such a minor league and  I am completely dumbfounded as to why since you do seem to really care about the student athlete.

 

I feel that such a league (assuming the NFL gives it the amount of support that they can afford to do) would be a great asset especially to the athlete who really doesn’t want to attend college, but does because he knows that doing so is in his best interests regarding his football career.

 

With Propostion 48, colleges have come a long way since the days of Dexter Manley.  However, I have listened to some of these pro football players speak.  And, based on what I have heard;  I often wonder if they could write an intelligent, grammatically correct sentence beyond “Spot runs.”  . . . let alone pass a speech class which is a basic requirement in most colleges for most degrees.  Yet, they somehow manage to get through college for three or four years.

 

Do you think such students really want to be in college for the academics?  I don’t.  I think they are using the college just as much as the college is using them and that given the choice, they would be ever so happy to be paid by the NFL to play in a minor league.  Why would you be against that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

87% of stats are made up.

Agreed, but my point remains:

Tennis

Soccer

Baseball

Lacrosse

Swimming

Track and field

Field hockey

Volleyball

Football

Hockey

Ultimate frisbee (some schools do have official teams)

Rugby

Basketball

Among many others.

How many of those make money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but my point remains:

Tennis

Soccer

Baseball

Lacrosse

Swimming

Track and field

Field hockey

Volleyball

Football

Hockey

Ultimate frisbee (some schools do have official teams)

Rugby

Basketball

Among many others.

How many of those make money?

 

You're correct, very few college sports actually make money.  The sports that lose money may not be 99.9%, but it is sure greater than 90% that lose money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really at a loss as to what you are debating with me about in this thread.

 

I have already said twice and I will say it again, I do not think that it is fair that athletes can’t make money off of themselves while the NCAA and colleges can.  Yet, you keep coming back to that even though you say that you’re not crying over such athletes.

 

I have said that I think the NFL should set up a minor league.  I understand that the NCAA would not want the NFL to set up a minor league as is there is no doubt that they are making big money off of some of those athletes.  And, I  don’t think the NFL cares to do so as the colleges are already doing a great job in developing the athletes. 

 

Therefore, I feel that the odds of the NFL setting up a minor league rank somewhere with the odds of pigs flying even though I feel it would be in the best interest of the athlete.  Yet, you seem to be against such a minor league and  I am completely dumbfounded as to why since you do seem to really care about the student athlete.

 

I feel that such a league (assuming the NFL gives it the amount of support that they can afford to do) would be a great asset especially to the athlete who really doesn’t want to attend college, but does because he knows that doing so is in his best interests regarding his football career.

 

With Propostion 48, colleges have come a long way since the days of Dexter Manley.  However, I have listened to some of these pro football players speak.  And, based on what I have heard;  I often wonder if they could write an intelligent, grammatically correct sentence beyond “Spot runs.”  . . . let alone pass a speech class which is a basic requirement in most colleges for most degrees.  Yet, they somehow manage to get through college for three or four years.

 

Do you think such students really want to be in college for the academics?  I don’t.  I think they are using the college just as much as the college is using them and that given the choice, they would be ever so happy to be paid by the NFL to play in a minor league.  Why would you be against that?

 

I don't mean to be argumentative. But you are contrasting a student-athlete who hopes to make it big in the pros with a "normal" student who doesn't have a scholarship and has to deal with other realities of life. By doing that, you're emphasizing sympathy for the future pro star, which isn't my point at all. So when I say I'm not crying over them, I only mean to say that I understand that their life and future prospects aren't so terrible. I'm not leading a prayer vigil over the plight of the star athlete who can't get rich off of his memorabilia in college.

 

My issue -- again -- is with the hypocrisy. So when the NCAA and college athletic directors -- institutions and people who are rich because of college athletics -- talk about how untenable it is to cut the players in, and how college should be about academics, not athletics, and the whole "student-athlete experience" and whatnot, I think they're merely paying lip service to the ideal. For instance, NCAA president Mark Emmert knows full well that if the NBA or NFL formed and supported a true minor league system, the NCAA's cash cows of college football and college basketball would shrivel up like a grape in the sun. The ADs making seven figures a year would see their income drastically reduced. (And maybe their motivation is to get out of the college game altogether, and go be the arbiters of these minor league systems, where they don't have to worry about the academic ideals anymore. But that really speaks to their dishonesty, doesn't it?) 

 

I'm not against minor leagues, and I don't think establishing minor leagues for football and basketball would be detrimental to the athletes that have no interest in academics. I do think the reality doesn't match the perception, though. For every football player who is only using college to get to the pros, there are 20 of his teammates who have no shot at the NFL whatsoever, and who are trying to take their schooling seriously. For every one-and-done basketball star, there are a hundred guys who stay for four years and get their degrees (again, many of them have no shot at going pro). To say nothing of the student-athletes who play less popular sports. The guys who are only interested in using the college system to propel themselves into the pros represent a very noteworthy but very minor percentage of the college athletics system. There are far more players who do have aspirations of continuing their athletic career beyond college, but also want to earn their degree. For every Johnny Manziel, there's an Andrew Luck; for every Jabari Parker, there's a Shabazz Napier. 

 

So while the 1/100 student-athletes who want to go pro asap would benefit from a minor league system, the rest of the college athletics system would not benefit. They would probably suffer. If you take Johnny Manziel away from Texas A&M, how much revenue do they miss out on? And how much of that revenue gets funneled into other athletic programs at that university? If you bleed Kentucky basketball of all the one-and-doners, what does that do to their athletic department? I think it severely cripples many of them. And the other hundreds or thousands of student-athletes suffer.

 

See what I mean about the hypocrisy of the NCAA and major athletic departments? They want to have their cake and eat it too. It's hard to reconcile their so-called ideals with the way they run their institutions. There are and there have been alternatives to college athletics; there are pro and semi-pro leagues that players can pursue if they don't want to go to college, but don't yet qualify for the NBA or the NFL. But the NCAA has made itself the premier institution for football and basketball players, to the detriment of many of these lower level pro leagues. Because of money. That's why I keep coming back to the hypocrisy.

 

It seems that you'd be fine with shrinking the athletic departments at major universities. You said earlier that it would give the smaller schools more of a chance. That's true, and I agree with that. But you'd be making due with a lot less money in college athletics, some of which is funneled toward education. I don't think you can reduce the size of the pie like that without having significant auxiliary impact. It might make the college experience more about academics than about athletics, but that's a big downward adjustment for some schools. 

 

Again, don't mean to be argumentative. Just expressing my viewpoint. Like you say, I think we agree on a lot of levels. I just think the onus is on the NCAA and major college athletic departments just as much as it is on the NBA and NFL, perhaps moreso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be argumentative. But you are contrasting a student-athlete who hopes to make it big in the pros with a "normal" student who doesn't have a scholarship and has to deal with other realities of life. By doing that, you're emphasizing sympathy for the future pro star, which isn't my point at all. So when I say I'm not crying over them, I only mean to say that I understand that their life and future prospects aren't so terrible. I'm not leading a prayer vigil over the plight of the star athlete who can't get rich off of his memorabilia in college.

 

My issue -- again -- is with the hypocrisy. So when the NCAA and college athletic directors -- institutions and people who are rich because of college athletics -- talk about how untenable it is to cut the players in, and how college should be about academics, not athletics, and the whole "student-athlete experience" and whatnot, I think they're merely paying lip service to the ideal. For instance, NCAA president Mark Emmert knows full well that if the NBA or NFL formed and supported a true minor league system, the NCAA's cash cows of college football and college basketball would shrivel up like a grape in the sun. The ADs making seven figures a year would see their income drastically reduced. (And maybe their motivation is to get out of the college game altogether, and go be the arbiters of these minor league systems, where they don't have to worry about the academic ideals anymore. But that really speaks to their dishonesty, doesn't it?) 

 

I'm not against minor leagues, and I don't think establishing minor leagues for football and basketball would be detrimental to the athletes that have no interest in academics. I do think the reality doesn't match the perception, though. For every football player who is only using college to get to the pros, there are 20 of his teammates who have no shot at the NFL whatsoever, and who are trying to take their schooling seriously. For every one-and-done basketball star, there are a hundred guys who stay for four years and get their degrees (again, many of them have no shot at going pro). To say nothing of the student-athletes who play less popular sports. The guys who are only interested in using the college system to propel themselves into the pros represent a very noteworthy but very minor percentage of the college athletics system. There are far more players who do have aspirations of continuing their athletic career beyond college, but also want to earn their degree. For every Johnny Manziel, there's an Andrew Luck; for every Jabari Parker, there's a Shabazz Napier. 

 

So while the 1/100 student-athletes who want to go pro asap would benefit from a minor league system, the rest of the college athletics system would not benefit. They would probably suffer. If you take Johnny Manziel away from Texas A&M, how much revenue do they miss out on? And how much of that revenue gets funneled into other athletic programs at that university? If you bleed Kentucky basketball of all the one-and-doners, what does that do to their athletic department? I think it severely cripples many of them. And the other hundreds or thousands of student-athletes suffer.

 

See what I mean about the hypocrisy of the NCAA and major athletic departments? They want to have their cake and eat it too. It's hard to reconcile their so-called ideals with the way they run their institutions. There are and there have been alternatives to college athletics; there are pro and semi-pro leagues that players can pursue if they don't want to go to college, but don't yet qualify for the NBA or the NFL. But the NCAA has made itself the premier institution for football and basketball players, to the detriment of many of these lower level pro leagues. Because of money. That's why I keep coming back to the hypocrisy.

 

It seems that you'd be fine with shrinking the athletic departments at major universities. You said earlier that it would give the smaller schools more of a chance. That's true, and I agree with that. But you'd be making due with a lot less money in college athletics, some of which is funneled toward education. I don't think you can reduce the size of the pie like that without having significant auxiliary impact. It might make the college experience more about academics than about athletics, but that's a big downward adjustment for some schools. 

 

Again, don't mean to be argumentative. Just expressing my viewpoint. Like you say, I think we agree on a lot of levels. I just think the onus is on the NCAA and major college athletic departments just as much as it is on the NBA and NFL, perhaps moreso.

 

You started out in this thread by quoting me to say that being a student athlete does not raise one out of poverty when I never said that it did. 

 

Later, you went on again to twist my words by saying that you didn’t see what was unfair about students receiving an athletic scholarship when I never made such a blanket statement. 

 

You were the one who continued the discussion of the athlete not cashing in on his likeness by saying something about a potential pro athlete getting injured and not being able to continue his/her career.  To which I responded that I had already addressed that and then said that all students face the same risk and gave the example of a pilot. 

 

You then told me that the injured pilot has the option of pursuing another career and that such a student  also had options (other than student loans) available to them for funding their schooling . . . as if an athlete does  not have the same options??? After all, they are supposedly majoring in something other than the sport they play and no one forces them to accept an athletic scholarship.

 

So, yes, I do think that you are being argumentative by twisting my words and presenting biased scenarios. I also feel that you are showing much more sympathy to the student athlete which makes no sense to me because I don’t happen to think that they are deserving of that much sympathy especially since the ones who are the most affected by the hypocrisy of the NCAA are the very ones who will likely go on to have great sport careers (again, barring any unfortunate event). 

 

I don’t disagree about the hypocrisy of the NCAA, but I do disagree that setting up an NFL minor league would severely cripple athletics and have a great impact on academics.  I don’t see that happening especially in the big name powerhouses that you have mentioned. 

 

There are plenty of small DII and DIII colleges that have football programs.  Those programs do not generate huge bucks.  Yet, those colleges continue to survive while offering other athletic programs and quality education.  So, I have no reason to think that the powerhouses would not also. The only way that I see any college truly suffering would be if there was a sudden drop in the number of tuition paying students whom I believe are the true backbone of any university. 

 

Andrew Luck is a great example of an athlete who wanted to be in college not just for athletics, but also for academics.  He could have easily entered the draft after his junior year (my brother, a Panther’s fan, is still upset that he did not).  But, he chose to finish his degree and that is great.  If an NFL minor league existed, I think that players like Luck would continue to go the college route the same as many baseball players do.  

 

But, as I said before, the NFL is not going to be setting up a minor league anytime soon.  While you don’t agree that the NFL is using college as a minor league, they sure aren’t complaining about the NCAA either.  And, the NCAA doesn’t want the NFL to set up a minor league.  Therefore, any perceived consequences that you or I may have of setting up such a minor league really aren’t important enough for me to want to debate any further regarding something that is more than likely to never happen. We may just as well be debating which came first . . . the fried egg or the roasted chicken.   

 

So, you can continue to rail about the hypocrisy of the NCAA in relation to such things as a potential star not being able to cash in on the selling of his likeness and I will continue to maintain that student athletes just don’t have it that bad . . . especially the very ones who are doing the most complaining.         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess a degree worth anywhere from $20K to 60K a year is simply a slap in the face to most CLOWNS that would NEVER EVER enter college to begin with.

 

Let the KIDS who want to go PRO go...       And let he kids who VALUE a degree go to U.

 

Pay them?    Pay who?   Volleyball players?    This is the problem.

Volleyball doesn't make the slave-owners filthy rich. Football, baseball and basketball however, a slave-owners dream. It should be done on percentages, each player getting a cut to be placed in a savings account. 

 

College degrees aren't always worth the extraordinary costs, which go up every year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...