Should College Athletes be Paid?

[BrentMc11]

I chose engineering over baseball, sports won't pay the bills for the vast majority of us. Why should I foot the bill for athletes who want an extra stipend in addition to their massive list of freebies?

That is not as bad as me...I chose Indiana School of Journalism over playing with Andy Benes at Evansville  WOW!  What a dumb catcher I was.  

 

Come to find out, Evansville has a darned good journalism school as well.  Oh well...I never did like homework, and I did not do mine on U of E.    Snooze ya lose.  

[mvbighead]

It's pretty simple to me.  Paid is an interesting term, but I'd prefer to think of it as a stipend or something to that effect.  They shouldn't get money based on performance akin to pro players.  They SHOULD get an amount of money that would allow them to go out and have a nice meal every once in a while.

 

$70/week?  Most meals provided during breakfast and lunch I imagine, so $10/night to spend on a meal.  Wise students would save up some and go have a good meal once or twice a week.

 

All in all, I find the NCAA to be the ridiculous.  You're paying coaches 10s of millions of dollars a year and giving a student a free education at $60k-$100k tops for most schools.  Heck, UNL (Cornhuskers) tuition is probably much less than that.  So somehow they can afford to pay a coach $5+ million a year, but they can't give a student $100/week to buy a new pair of pants or something?  And as soon as they do there is red tape.

 

Paid yes.  More at one place than another?  No.  Just give them an allowance to do with as they please.  Not every kid playing a college sport has $50 in his/her pocket.  Assuming everything is roses and rainbows because of free education is horse crap.

[TDavis58]

First of all, the notion that athletes should be paid simply because the NCAA makes a large profit off them is preposterous. How is that different from any other business? The CEO and investors make all the money while the low end workers make peanuts.

Athletes get a free college education. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, books, etc. They also get free housing, free meals, and all the free athletic clothing they could ever need.

That isn't compensation enough? Fine. Treat them as "workers first, students second" as they are saying. Give them employee badges and a time card. Make it a job. They clock in and out when they are doing anything related to their sport; meetings, working out, practice, traveling, games, etc. Pay them $8 an hour, $12 an hour overtime after 40 hours per week. Strip their scholarships and let them pay for tuition, books, housing, food, athletic clothing, etc.

Don't like the current system or that paid system? Fine. No key is forcing you to go to a college and play on scholarship. Pay for your own school, go pro in whatever league you can get into, or go get a job at Wal-Mart.

Yes, the NCAA makes billions. Wal-Mart makes billions & billions more. They pay their employees near minimum wage. Sorry, but your free coerce education is worth a hell of a lot more than what others make.

Get over it. This % is ridiculous. Prior say the NCAA will fold CDROM pressure and athletes have all the power. nonsense. The NCAA needs to end this %. Give them an option.

A- You come to school on a scholarship and get a free education, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, without receiving any monetary compensation. Maintain a 2.0 GPA to remain eligible.

B- Go to school as an employee. You'll be paid minimum wage to play ball. You will not even have to go to class.

C- Sink or swim own your own in the world. Goodbye

[southwest1]

I don't know how to break this to you, SW1....

 

But I have no idea what you're talking about either.

 

What does any of this have to do with whether or not kids should be getting paid for Jersey sales or anything else that we're talking about.    I don't see the connection to what Bogie had to say or what you had to say?

 

Sorry,  you both lost me.    I don't know what point either of you are trying to make.....

If you seriously can't follow Bogie's point or mine in affirming it, there is no point in making you see this transparent light. I'm really perplexed that you a smart guy really can't see it. Oh well, so be it. 

 

In a nutshell, a student's economic starting point will be a huge advantage or disadvantage in life depending on your room or safety net through which to operate from & survive if either a college, NFL, or degree driven profession does not materialize for the student in question. A poor kid will need a stipend to offset their meager financial background than a rich one & therefore so royalty system off their jersey & merchandizing rights seems warranted to me in some capacity. The best way to handle this is make the monthly stipend applicable to all student athletes in a major football, basketball, & even basketball college program. 

 

It really an issue of debt or economic slavery & how to prevent a lack of job prospects if the scholarship is torn up or the market cannot employ the student with the new degree in hand. I'm sick & tired of colleges taking advantage of students game victory wise & not giving a darn about education or their futures beyond bouncing a ball. 

 

"How bout those Badgers in the March Madness Final 4 eh? Now, how much should we as the Board Of Regents raise tuition costs this year?" I hate these fools. It's all about Athletic Dept. budgets & screw the student's future. It always gets me furious. End rant...

[southwest1]

If you seriously can't follow Bogie's point or mine in affirming it, there is no point in making you see this transparent light. I'm really perplexed that you a smart guy really can't see it. Oh well, so be it. 

 

In a nutshell, a student's economic starting point will be a huge advantage or disadvantage in life depending on your room or safety net through which to operate from & survive if either a college, NFL, or degree driven profession does not materialize for the student in question. A poor kid will need a stipend to offset their meager financial background than a rich one & therefore so royalty system off their jersey & merchandizing rights seems warranted to me in some capacity. The best way to handle this is make the monthly stipend applicable to all student athletes in a major football, basketball, & even basketball college program. 

 

It really an issue of debt or economic slavery & how to prevent a lack of job prospects if the scholarship is torn up or the market cannot employ the student with the new degree in hand. I'm sick & tired of colleges taking advantage of students game victory wise & not giving a darn about education or their futures beyond bouncing a ball. 

 

"How bout those Badgers in the March Madness Final 4 eh? Now, how much should we as the Board Of Regents raise tuition costs this year?" I hate these fools. It's all about Athletic Dept. budgets & screw the student's future. It always gets me furious. End rant...

 

If these fools cared less about ling their own pockets & more about high graduation rates in cutting edge employable professions, we would all be better off as a global student body IMHO. 

 

Are you still adrift NCF? because I am now fresh out of life preservers my friend... SW1 tried to explain my position more eloquently. I hope that helped. 

[DougDew]

Yes.  They should be paid in cash.  The ones who want to get an education can then spend that cash on tuition, books, fees, etc....

 

Saying that getting an education is the same thing as being paid is nonsense.

 

Let them all get cash, and the ones who are there for an education will still get it, by spending their money on it, and the ones who would otherwise be freeloading when not playing sports would be able to do that too.

 

Then you wouldn't have the freeloaders elevated to a stauts they don't deserve, by being able to be called student athletes or college students in the first place.  Having them play sports for the college by day, then do whatever they would do at night, would expose a lot of them for what they really are.

 

Just change the form of payment from a scholarship, to cash.

[NewColtsFan]

If you seriously can't follow Bogie's point or mine in affirming it, there is no point in making you see this transparent light. I'm really perplexed that you a smart guy really can't see it. Oh well, so be it. 

 

In a nutshell, a student's economic starting point will be a huge advantage or disadvantage in life depending on your room or safety net through which to operate from & survive if either a college, NFL, or degree driven profession does not materialize for the student in question. A poor kid will need a stipend to offset their meager financial background than a rich one & therefore so royalty system off their jersey & merchandizing rights seems warranted to me in some capacity. The best way to handle this is make the monthly stipend applicable to all student athletes in a major football, basketball, & even basketball college program. 

 

It really an issue of debt or economic slavery & how to prevent a lack of job prospects if the scholarship is torn up or the market cannot employ the student with the new degree in hand. I'm sick & tired of colleges taking advantage of students game victory wise & not giving a darn about education or their futures beyond bouncing a ball. 

 

"How bout those Badgers in the March Madness Final 4 eh? Now, how much should we as the Board Of Regents raise tuition costs this year?" I hate these fools. It's all about Athletic Dept. budgets & screw the student's future. It always gets me furious. End rant...

 

Southwest...

 

I'm NOT saying "I don't understand you..." because I disagree with you and Bogie.

 

I'm saying "I don't understand you...."  because I have no idea what you're talking about!   I'm not trying to be difficult or bust your balls...    Really, I'm not....

 

But, the conversation is about paying athletes or not.

 

And suddenly you and Bogie are talking about rich kids and poor kids,  and economic oppression.

 

What does any of that have to do with the basic point of the conversation we've been having.

 

The two of you are seem to be on a different tangent, and it's left me completely confused.

[Valpo2004]

First of all, the notion that athletes should be paid simply because the NCAA makes a large profit off them is preposterous. How is that different from any other business? The CEO and investors make all the money while the low end workers make peanuts.

Athletes get a free college education. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, books, etc. They also get free housing, free meals, and all the free athletic clothing they could ever need.

That isn't compensation enough? Fine. Treat them as "workers first, students second" as they are saying. Give them employee badges and a time card. Make it a job. They clock in and out when they are doing anything related to their sport; meetings, working out, practice, traveling, games, etc. Pay them $8 an hour, $12 an hour overtime after 40 hours per week. Strip their scholarships and let them pay for tuition, books, housing, food, athletic clothing, etc.

Don't like the current system or that paid system? Fine. No key is forcing you to go to a college and play on scholarship. Pay for your own school, go pro in whatever league you can get into, or go get a job at Wal-Mart.

Yes, the NCAA makes billions. Wal-Mart makes billions & billions more. They pay their employees near minimum wage. Sorry, but your free coerce education is worth a hell of a lot more than what others make.

Get over it. This % is ridiculous. Prior say the NCAA will fold CDROM pressure and athletes have all the power. nonsense. The NCAA needs to end this %. Give them an option.

A- You come to school on a scholarship and get a free education, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, without receiving any monetary compensation. Maintain a 2.0 GPA to remain eligible.

B- Go to school as an employee. You'll be paid minimum wage to play ball. You will not even have to go to class.

C- Sink or swim own your own in the world. Goodbye

 

Here is the problem with your idea.

 

Wages are determined by supply and demand much more then anything else.  

 

So if we did what you said these guys likely wouldn't be making min wage.  They would likely be making a lot more then that.  Plus the star players or the heavily recruited players would be making even more money.

 

Think about it, if you have a top rated quarterback recruit the colleges are going to compete with each other to offer him the most money.

 

Doing that still isn't gonna put these guys on par with the guy delivering pizza's to try to pay his tuition.  In fact doing that would put them even more ahead.  The only difference is that the players who arn't that good would likely be shown the door more quickly.  

 

The system we have is good, there just needs to be changes to the rules and 80% goes to the offices of the NCAA who does exploit these guys for their own profits.  

 

In what messed up world do you get in trouble if your coach buys you food because you don't have the money for it but the NCAA can take your image without your permission put it in a game and make millions if not billions.  The NCAA has too much control.

[southwest1]

Southwest...

 

I'm NOT saying "I don't understand you..." because I disagree with you and Bogie.

 

I'm saying "I don't understand you...."  because I have no idea what you're talking about!

 

The conversation is about paying athletes or not.

 

And suddenly you and Bogie are talking about rich kids and poor kids,  and economic oppression.

 

What does any of that have to do with the basic point of the conversation we've been having.

 

The two of you are seem to be on a different tangent, and it's left me completely confused.

No, the problem is that you appear to be viewing the prospect of paying athletes as a separate entity from basic economics & the fact that  all student athletes are on equal, universal footing from square one. They are not. You cannot separate the 2: Paying athletes directly & different socio economic backgrounds. They are both joined at the hip & a stipend might help level the field on a fairness scale not completely naturally, but it might help bridge the gap somewhat. 

 

Look, I'm not moving from my position & neither are you NCF. Let's just agree to disagree & move on. Thank you. SW1 is not angry with you NCF. I just know from my long tenure as a college student at 3 different universities that athletic directors & head coaches couldn't care less if you graduate or not just as long as you win games, win championships, & increase their salaries when their job security & perks review comes up for evaluation. Students deserve a bigger piece of that revenue sharing pie.

 

It's as simple as that because they played a vital role in winning games that guaranteed that coach or AD more money, more security, & maybe even a decade long extension worth millions & the students get a piece of paper/diploma & the shaft. Why can't they get some greenbacks love & appreciation for their contributions? 

[NewColtsFan]

No, the problem is that you appear to be viewing the prospect of paying athletes as a separate entity from basic economics & the fact that  all student athletes are on equal, universal footing from square one. They are not. You cannot separate the 2: Paying athletes directly & different socio economic backgrounds. They are both joined at the hip & a stipend might help level the field on a fairness scale not completely naturally, but it might help bridge the gap somewhat. 

 

Look, I'm not moving from my position & neither are you NCF. Let's just agree to disagree & move on. Thank you. SW1 is not angry with you NCF. I just know from my long tenure as a college student at 3 different universities that athletic directors & head coaches couldn't care less if you graduate or not just as long as you win games, win championships, & increase their salaries when their job security & perks review comes up for evaluation. Students deserve a bigger piece of that revenue sharing pie. It's as simple as that. 

 

Southwest.....

 

Earlier in this thread, I already agreed that these athletes deserve a larger stipend than they already get.    Scholarship athletes can NOT work.   They can't have a job, unlike the normal students on a campus.    So, I'm in favor of a better stipend.    Perhaps we agree more than we realize.

 

I'm just in favor of things like kids getting a cut of Jersey sales and things like that.    That's where I draw the line.

[southwest1]

Southwest.....

 

Earlier in this thread, I already agreed that these athletes deserve a larger stipend than they already get.    Scholarship athletes can NOT work.   They can't have a job, unlike the normal students on a campus.    So, I'm in favor of a better stipend.    Perhaps we agree more than we realize.

 

I'm just in favor of things like kids getting a cut of Jersey sales and things like that.    That's where I draw the line.

Okay, I can appreciate your stance NCF. From my perspective, that's where the student profit sharing line actually starts jersey sales & let's look at funneling some of that TV broadcasting revenue toward athletes on the active team roster of college football, basketball, & baseball teams too while we are at it. There's more than enough dough to go around IMO.  Trust me, universities can afford it. They are not as poor as they often pretend to be. 

[amfootball]

Okay, I can appreciate your stance NCF. From my perspective, that's where the student profit sharing line actually starts jersey sales & let's look at funneling some of that TV broadcasting revenue toward athletes on the active team roster of college football, basketball, & baseball teams too while we are at it. There's more than enough dough to go around IMO.  Trust me, universities can afford it. They are not as poor as they often pretend to be. 

How do you divide the pie though SW? Do you give the star players more than the role players? It is a team game and hard to draw definitive ROI lines. And as soon as you pay some athletes at a college, you have to pay them all. The cash cow sport athletes and the non-cash cow athletes. No way around the inherit issues with paying any sum of money to these players. I agree they should get paid but by the pro teams that will eventually draft them not the colleges.

[Superman]

My problem is that the schools and the NCAA are allowed to make money off of the players, but the players aren't. The NCAA rules are overly restrictive and create more problems than they solve.

 

Case in point: Katherine Webb can use her new-found celebrity to her advantage, but AJ McCarron can't use his celebrity. And Webb's celebrity only exists because of McCarron. 

 

Another example: Ohio State can make millions off of Terrelle Pryor, but he can't trade some signatures for a tattoo.

 

Another one: Dez Bryant can't go to dinner with Deion Sanders, but the networks can use Bryant's likeness to draw ratings.

 

It's a hypocritical and unnecessarily oppressive system, and it punishes the players exclusively. Then, when a player gets caught, he goes to the NFL (or NBA), and the program and players coming after him suffer the consequences. Reggie Bush is on his second NFL contract, and USC is still on probation. The NCAA system is the main problem.

 

I think there's room for a modest increase in the stipend that student-athletes receive. It might even be possible to set a percentage of funds aside in a trust for players who generate revenue, plus interest, accessible after their graduation year. Medical care should be a given. A salary? I don't think that's feasible.

[Nadine]

Yes.  They should be paid in cash.  The ones who want to get an education can then spend that cash on tuition, books, fees, etc....

 

Saying that getting an education is the same thing as being paid is nonsense.

 

Let them all get cash, and the ones who are there for an education will still get it, by spending their money on it, and the ones who would otherwise be freeloading when not playing sports would be able to do that too.

 

Then you wouldn't have the freeloaders elevated to a stauts they don't deserve, by being able to be called student athletes or college students in the first place.  Having them play sports for the college by day, then do whatever they would do at night, would expose a lot of them for what they really are.

 

Just change the form of payment from a scholarship, to cash.

you would also have to hold them to the same admission requirements as other students

[BOTT]

First of all, the notion that athletes should be paid simply because the NCAA makes a large profit off them is preposterous. How is that different from any other business? The CEO and investors make all the money while the low end workers make peanuts.

Athletes get a free college education. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, books, etc. They also get free housing, free meals, and all the free athletic clothing they could ever need.

That isn't compensation enough? Fine. Treat them as "workers first, students second" as they are saying. Give them employee badges and a time card. Make it a job. They clock in and out when they are doing anything related to their sport; meetings, working out, practice, traveling, games, etc. Pay them $8 an hour, $12 an hour overtime after 40 hours per week. Strip their scholarships and let them pay for tuition, books, housing, food, athletic clothing, etc.

Don't like the current system or that paid system? Fine. No key is forcing you to go to a college and play on scholarship. Pay for your own school, go pro in whatever league you can get into, or go get a job at Wal-Mart.

Yes, the NCAA makes billions. Wal-Mart makes billions & billions more. They pay their employees near minimum wage. Sorry, but your free coerce education is worth a hell of a lot more than what others make.

Get over it. This % is ridiculous. Prior say the NCAA will fold CDROM pressure and athletes have all the power. nonsense. The NCAA needs to end this %. Give them an option.

A- You come to school on a scholarship and get a free education, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, without receiving any monetary compensation. Maintain a 2.0 GPA to remain eligible.

B- Go to school as an employee. You'll be paid minimum wage to play ball. You will not even have to go to class.

C- Sink or swim own your own in the world. Goodbye

Mr Burns?

[amfootball]

Mr Burns?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19878

[shecolt]

Southwest.....

 

Earlier in this thread, I already agreed that these athletes deserve a larger stipend than they already get.    Scholarship athletes can NOT work.   They can't have a job, unlike the normal students on a campus.    So, I'm in favor of a better stipend.    Perhaps we agree more than we realize.

 

I'm just in favor of things like kids getting a cut of Jersey sales and things like that.    That's where I draw the line.

 

This response is not just to you, but to many others in this thread also . . . especially to those who seem to think that student athletes are left to go hungry and dressing like the homeless man on the street.

 

First, student athletes CAN work, but there are restrictions.  You can read more about that here:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html

 

However, most student athletes do not work for two reasons:

 

1.  Between academics and sports, they simply do not have the time.

 

2.  Very few of them really NEED the extra income.

 

Contrary to what so many seem to believe, the majority of student athletes do not come from poverty stricken families.  Instead, most of them come from middle-income families many of whom have spent a lot of money putting their child into travel leagues and camps with the hopes that their child will be good enough to obtain one of those scholarships some day.  And, some who have the ultimate hope that their child will be the next Michael Jordan or Mia Hamm.

 

Sadly, some of those same parents do so at the expense of their child's education . . . meaning that they push their child to excel in sports while overlooking the fact that their child is struggling academically. 

 

For those students who actually do come from families who are living at or near poverty level, Pell Grants are available that give students up to $5,000 (something) per year. 

 

If that is still not enough, the NCAA Special Assistance Fund for Student Athletes covers such things as clothing, course supplies (which includes such items as a laptop or an I-pad), some medical expenses, and travel costs in the case of a family emergency such as the birth of a child or the death of a loved one.

[Superman]

This response is not just to you, but to many others in this thread also . . . especially to those who seem to think that student athletes are left to go hungry and dressing like the homeless man on the street.

 

First, student athletes CAN work, but there are restrictions.  You can read more about that here:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html

 

However, most student athletes do not work for two reasons:

 

1.  Between academics and sports, they simply do not have the time.

 

2.  Very few of them really NEED the extra income.

 

Contrary to what so many seem to believe, the majority of student athletes do not come from poverty stricken families.  Instead, most of them come from middle-income families many of whom have spent a lot of money putting their child into travel leagues and camps with the hopes that their child will be good enough to obtain one of those scholarships some day.  And, some who have the ultimate hope that their child will be the next Michael Jordan or Mia Hamm.

 

Sadly, some of those same parents do so at the expense of their child's education . . . meaning that they push their child to excel in sports while overlooking the fact that their child is struggling academically. 

 

For those students who actually do come from families who are living at or near poverty level, Pell Grants are available that give students up to $5,000 (something) per year. 

 

If that is still not enough, the NCAA Special Assistance Fund for Student Athletes covers such things as clothing, course supplies (which includes such items as a laptop or an I-pad), some medical expenses, and travel costs in the case of a family emergency such as the birth of a child or the death of a loved one.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But it's still not equitable, nor does it do very much to help the athlete who is struggling financially. Giving someone $5,000/year is just over $400/month. Sure, I'll take it, but it's not raising me out of poverty. And having some medical expenses covered doesn't seem right for the athlete who is sacrificing his or her body on the field, court, whatever. 

 

And worst of all, the school and NCAA are making millions off of some of these athletes, but the athlete can't trade his own memorabilia. 

[DougDew]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But it's still not equitable, nor does it do very much to help the athlete who is struggling financially. Giving someone $5,000/year is just over $400/month. Sure, I'll take it, but it's not raising me out of poverty. And having some medical expenses covered doesn't seem right for the athlete who is sacrificing his or her body on the field, court, whatever. 

 

And worst of all, the school and NCAA are making millions off of some of these athletes, but the athlete can't trade his own memorabilia. 

Well...college students are suppossed to be in poverty.  Ramen noodles is a main staple of a nonscholarship student diet.  Off campus housing is suppossed to be 5 kids crammed into a crummy house.  Poverty was, and still should be, normal for most college kids.

 

Being on an athletic scholarship should not necessarily elevate them beyond that.

 

Again, I believe that athletic scholarships should be paid in the form of cash, then let the athlete either spend the cash on their education or whatever else.  Some would have pretty lofty lifestyles, while the serious student, who spends his money on education, would have a lifestyle that resembles poverty. 

 

The illumination between the two types of scholarship receivers would be blinding.

[southwest1]

How do you divide the pie though SW? Do you give the star players more than the role players? It is a team game and hard to draw definitive ROI lines. And as soon as you pay some athletes at a college, you have to pay them all. The cash cow sport athletes and the non-cash cow athletes. No way around the inherit issues with paying any sum of money to these players. I agree they should get paid but by the pro teams that will eventually draft them not the colleges.

I think shecolt said that she objects to the NFL using college as a training ground vessel to begin molding professional football's athletic product in the preliminary stages. If I misinterpreted shecolt, I apologize, I agree with that position as well. Universities should be about academic excellence not championship seasons that pull in massive amounts of revenue for a shiny trophy alone. But, publicly funded schools cannot expand on a property tax base alone or awarded endowment donations alone & therefore sports will always be used as an octopus tentacle to rake in the dough. I get that. 

 

"How do you divide the pie though SW?" That very question creates confusion, ambiguity, the NCAA loves that because it takes the heat completely off them & athletic directors around the country to even begin discussing how to slice up the profit pie. They simply say that since no one can agree on a formula of wealth distribution among parties let's table the issue for further debate thereby stonewalling it & effectively killing any forward progress on the issue. "Further research is needed" a classic bait & switch the topic technique commonly used in ivory tower education circles. 

 

What the public should be asking is why in the world have the NCAA escaped responsibility for treating the student athlete so unfairly for so long & when will this free pass officially stop? 

 

The public must refuse PC nonsense answers to placate them & demand real change as well as a seat at the discipline table for imposing sanctions against university coaches, AD's, & NCAA personnel in management positions who love dipping their hand in the monetary cookie jar for starters. 

[amfootball]

I think shecolt said that she objects to the NFL using college as a training ground vessel to begin molding professional football's athletic product in the preliminary stages. If I misinterpreted shecolt, I apologize, I agree with that position as well. Universities should be about academic excellence not championship seasons that pull in massive amounts of revenue for a shiny trophy alone. But, publicly funded schools cannot expand on a property tax base alone or awarded endowment donations alone & therefore sports will always be used as an octopus tentacle to rake in the dough. I get that. 

 

"How do you divide the pie though SW?" That very question creates confusion, ambiguity, the NCAA loves that because it takes the heat completely off them & athletic directors around the country to even begin discussing how to slice up the profit pie. They simply say that since no one can agree on a formula of wealth distribution among parties let's table the issue for further debate thereby stonewalling it & effectively killing any forward progress on the issue. "Further research is needed" a classic bait & switch the topic technique commonly used in ivory tower education circles. 

 

What the public should be asking is why in the world have the NCAA escaped responsibility for treating the student athlete so unfairly for so long & when will this free pass officially stop? 

Good points SW. But I don't think the public sees student athletes as mistreated when they are getting their education for free and then signing lucrative pro contracts.

[southwest1]

Good points SW. But I don't think the public sees student athletes as mistreated when they are getting their education for free and then signing lucrative pro contracts.

Yes, I agree with you amfootball completely that is exactly how most people perceive the student athlete, but I wanna go one step deeper & critique the quality of the education they received & what they actually know or learned while they sat in class. Yes, part of that is individual responsibility & part of that is the emphasis that the head coach, AD, & chancellor place on hands on learning. It it legitimate or just lip service? 

[ViriLudant]

I have said for awhile that higher education and big time college athletics don't mix. The schools should just get out of it altogether.

Amen, BoTT.

[Superman]

Well...college students are suppossed to be in poverty.  Ramen noodles is a main staple of a nonscholarship student diet.  Off campus housing is suppossed to be 5 kids crammed into a crummy house.  Poverty was, and still should be, normal for most college kids.

 

Being on an athletic scholarship should not necessarily elevate them beyond that.

 

Again, I believe that athletic scholarships should be paid in the form of cash, then let the athlete either spend the cash on their education or whatever else.  Some would have pretty lofty lifestyles, while the serious student, who spends his money on education, would have a lifestyle that resembles poverty. 

 

The illumination between the two types of scholarship receivers would be blinding.

 

I disagree with the idea that college students are supposed to be in poverty. I'm not saying they need to living in the lap of luxury, just that it's not some unwritten rule that you can't have good food and some nice shoes everyone once in a while. Being on an athletic scholarship shouldn't elevate them out of poverty; I'm not suggesting that. I'm only saying that a Pell grant isn't really solving the problem.

 

And again, my sticking point is the pointless restrictions from the NCAA that says what student-athletes can and can't do with their own likeness, while everyone else makes a ton of money off of them. 

 

I don't think your idea makes any sense, by the way. If you give the student the cash value of a scholarship, a semester at a time, or whatever, he won't have a choice but to spend that money on schooling. Otherwise, he's ineligible. If he doesn't spend his tuition money on tuition, he can't enroll, he's not a student, and he can't play. If he doesn't buy his books, he can't do his work, he can't stay academically eligible, and he can't play. And if he can't play, he has to return the value of scholarship, so you've basically taken the student and put them into debt, just like they would have been if they took out loans to go to college. It's a circle-jerk that wouldn't accomplish anything. All your idea does is highlight a distinction between students who really value their schooling and those who don't, so people can point to students who are only there because they have to be and point out how broken the system is. It does nothing to actually fix the system. Just makes it easier to point the finger.

 

What you could do is set the student up with a credit toward schooling, and allow him to spend his credit for tuition, books, supplies, etc. That way, he's actually playing a role in how his scholarship is being spent, other than just picking his classes. If he wants a school related electronic appliance (like a laptop or an iPad), he can spend a portion of his credit, recognizing that it's going to leave him short in his junior and senior years. For many students who plan on going pro, that won't matter, because they won't stay through their senior season. But the credit account would be similar to an employee's FSA account, where health-related expenses are approved, and non-related expenses aren't. So school-related expenses -- books, tuition, school supplies, etc. -- are approved. 

[shecolt]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But it's still not equitable, nor does it do very much to help the athlete who is struggling financially. Giving someone $5,000/year is just over $400/month. Sure, I'll take it, but it's not raising me out of poverty. And having some medical expenses covered doesn't seem right for the athlete who is sacrificing his or her body on the field, court, whatever. 

 

And worst of all, the school and NCAA are making millions off of some of these athletes, but the athlete can't trade his own memorabilia. 

 

As I said before in this thread, I am in full agreement that the NCAA should fully cover any medical expenses related to an injury sustained in the course of play (or practice) not only while the athlete is a student, but also for any further medical attention needed due to that injury in the future. And, I am also supportive of a fund for athletes who need to take more classes to finish their degree after their eligibility expires.

 

Yes, the Pell Grant and the Assistance Fund are not going to raise any student out of poverty and I don't know that I implied that it would, but rather that all the basic needs of a student athlete are met while in college (with the exception of full medical coverage). 

 

I understand that the NCAA and the "major" colleges make millions; but even if nothing changes between now and the year 2525, there will still be student athletes waiting in line while hoping to snare an athletic scholarship.  And, if there are still newspapers at that time; I will continue to see pictures of the proud, smiling student athlete (along with his/her parents and coaches) who has just signed to play while I will have to look really hard to even find a small blurb regarding the student who was awarded a scholarship based on his/her academics and community service. 

 

As for an athlete trading his/her memorabilia, which athletes are we talking about here?  Is it the Emma who got a softball scholarship at IPFW?  Is it the Jerry who got a track & field scholarship at Indiana State?  No, it's the major stars.  It's the Adrian Petersons of the world.  The ones who (barring any unfortunate events) will go on to make great money in the pros. 

 

And, I'm supposed to feel sorry for them just because they can't cash in even earlier on their fame when so many other students graduate head-over-heels in debt while working two part-time jobs and eating ramen noodles for four years?  Sorry, no can do. Yet, very few feel sympathy for those students even though many colleges would soon fold if the only attendees were those with full scholarships or very rich parents. 

 

While the NCAA and some colleges may be making millions, they also have expenses and headaches.  Whereas, the NFL just sits back and watches the colleges develop players at no cost to them which is why I think the NFL especially is the true "bad guy" here. 

 

If the NFL set up a minor league, athletes who are good enough and have no desire to further their education (at least at that point in their life) could enter such a league and be paid accordingly without having to attend any classes or "toe" the NCAA restrictions. 

 

Personally, I would love that.  I could watch even more football and it may also help even the playing field because I am tired of watching the same college "power houses" excel in football (and basketball) year after year merely because they are able to recruit the best of the best . . . some of whom are just serving their time before heading to the pros. 

 

They would then be recruiting from the best of whats left and we may actually see the Daytons of the country crowned. 

[Superman]

As I said before in this thread, I am in full agreement that the NCAA should fully cover any medical expenses related to an injury sustained in the course of play (or practice) not only while the athlete is a student, but also for any further medical attention needed due to that injury in the future. And, I am also supportive of a fund for athletes who need to take more classes to finish their degree after their eligibility expires.

 

Yes, the Pell Grant and the Assistance Fund are not going to raise any student out of poverty and I don't know that I implied that it would, but rather that all the basic needs of a student athlete are met while in college (with the exception of full medical coverage). 

 

I understand that the NCAA and the "major" colleges make millions; but even if nothing changes between now and the year 2525, there will still be student athletes waiting in line while hoping to snare an athletic scholarship.  And, if there are still newspapers at that time; I will continue to see pictures of the proud, smiling student athlete (along with his/her parents and coaches) who has just signed to play while I will have to look really hard to even find a small blurb regarding the student who was awarded a scholarship based on his/her academics and community service. 

 

As for an athlete trading his/her memorabilia, which athletes are we talking about here?  Is it the Emma who got a softball scholarship at IPFW?  Is it the Jerry who got a track & field scholarship at Indiana State?  No, it's the major stars.  It's the Adrian Petersons of the world.  The ones who (barring any unfortunate events) will go on to make great money in the pros. 

 

And, I'm supposed to feel sorry for them just because they can't cash in even earlier on their fame when so many other students graduate head-over-heels in debt while working two part-time jobs and eating ramen noodles for four years?  Sorry, no can do. Yet, very few feel sympathy for those students even though many colleges would soon fold if the only attendees were those with full scholarships or very rich parents. 

 

While the NCAA and some colleges may be making millions, they also have expenses and headaches.  Whereas, the NFL just sits back and watches the colleges develop players at no cost to them which is why I think the NFL especially is the true "bad guy" here. 

 

If the NFL set up a minor league, athletes who are good enough and have no desire to further their education (at least at that point in their life) could enter such a league and be paid accordingly without having to attend any classes or "toe" the NCAA restrictions. 

 

Personally, I would love that.  I could watch even more football and it may also help even the playing field because I am tired of watching the same college "power houses" excel in football (and basketball) year after year merely because they are able to recruit the best of the best . . . some of whom are just serving their time before heading to the pros. 

 

They would then be recruiting from the best of whats left and we may actually see the Daytons of the country crowned. 

 

I apologize if you felt I misrepresented your comment; I don't think it's the college system's job to lift anyone out of poverty. College is supposed to help a person lift himself out of poverty.

 

At the same time, I don't want my viewpoint to be misrepresented. My point is simple: If we want to stop players from "going on the take," we need to get rid of the ridiculous NCAA restrictions. It's not meant to be fair, and it never will be (the same as a corporate structure isn't "fair"; the little guys do the hard work, and the suits at the top get rich. Of course, they paid their dues, presumably.) But that doesn't mean nothing should be done to make it more equitable than it already is.

 

It's true that the star athlete has a better chance of going on to make great money as a professional (even an undrafted rookie stands to make close to half a million/year in the NFL, which a college grad usually won't make in his first ten years out of school). But what if he blows his knee out along the way? The NCAA and the school made a bunch of money off his jersey sales, and he never gets anything out of it. The Jerrys and Emmas that no one knows about aren't trading their memorabilia for goods and favors, because their memorabilia doesn't have the same kind of value. And likewise, the school and the NCAA aren't making anything off their jersey sales either. Women's softball at IPFW isn't exactly known for selling jerseys...

 

The people who move the needle are the ones who make the money. Again, not fair, and it doesn't help the student working two jobs and living off ramen, but it's ridiculous, IMO, that these big institutions can make money off of my likeness, but I'm not allowed to do so. 

 

I don't really agree about the NFL using college as a minor league. (That's more true with the NBA, but college football is very lucrative in its own right.) But that's a different story entirely. Colleges have these players' rights for three or four years, sometimes longer, and they use them as much as they can. It's not without headaches and expenses, but college football and the NCAA are a cash cow of their own. Texas spent $300k in the search for their new head coach, then gave him a $5m/year contract. Their athletic department has an operating budget of $150m. Nothing wrong with any of that, but the point is that they are making money in this deal right along with the NFL.

[shecolt]

I apologize if you felt I misrepresented your comment; I don't think it's the college system's job to lift anyone out of poverty. College is supposed to help a person lift himself out of poverty.

 

At the same time, I don't want my viewpoint to be misrepresented. My point is simple: If we want to stop players from "going on the take," we need to get rid of the ridiculous NCAA restrictions. It's not meant to be fair, and it never will be (the same as a corporate structure isn't "fair"; the little guys do the hard work, and the suits at the top get rich. Of course, they paid their dues, presumably.) But that doesn't mean nothing should be done to make it more equitable than it already is.

 

It's true that the star athlete has a better chance of going on to make great money as a professional (even an undrafted rookie stands to make close to half a million/year in the NFL, which a college grad usually won't make in his first ten years out of school). But what if he blows his knee out along the way? The NCAA and the school made a bunch of money off his jersey sales, and he never gets anything out of it. The Jerrys and Emmas that no one knows about aren't trading their memorabilia for goods and favors, because their memorabilia doesn't have the same kind of value. And likewise, the school and the NCAA aren't making anything off their jersey sales either. Women's softball at IPFW isn't exactly known for selling jerseys...

 

The people who move the needle are the ones who make the money. Again, not fair, and it doesn't help the student working two jobs and living off ramen, but it's ridiculous, IMO, that these big institutions can make money off of my likeness, but I'm not allowed to do so. 

 

I don't really agree about the NFL using college as a minor league. (That's more true with the NBA, but college football is very lucrative in its own right.) But that's a different story entirely. Colleges have these players' rights for three or four years, sometimes longer, and they use them as much as they can. It's not without headaches and expenses, but college football and the NCAA are a cash cow of their own. Texas spent $300k in the search for their new head coach, then gave him a $5m/year contract. Their athletic department has an operating budget of $150m. Nothing wrong with any of that, but the point is that they are making money in this deal right along with the NFL.

 

Yes, there is the risk that an athlete can suffer an injury along the way which I referred to in my post where I said, "barring any unfortunate event". 

 

However, that's a risk that all students face.  Take my example of the young man I know who graduated from the Purdue School of Flight (a very costly degree because students also have to pay for flight time along with tuition/room and board).  He could have suffered an injury along the way that prevented him from being a pilot (had he been lucky enough to secure such employment). 

 

While the university didn't make any money from selling his memorabilia, they did make money off of him as a student who had to pay his way as opposed to a student who was given a full scholarship.  And, as I said, colleges would soon fold if the only students they had were ones with full scholarships or very rich parents . . .  no matter how much memorabilia they can sell.

 

Yes, the Jerrys and Emmas of the world can't profit from their memorabilia because it has no value which was exactly my point.  The only student athletes who would profit are the ones who will go on to make big money (again, barring any unfortunate events).

 

Is it fair that the NCAA can make money off of someone's likeness, but the athlete cannot?  Of course, it isn't.  But, IMO it also isn't fair that a student with a "C" average can get a full scholarship just because he/she can run faster, jump higher, throw further, etc. than a student with an "A" average who wasn't blessed with the same athletic skills.

 

I don't understand what you mean about the NFL not using college as a minor or developmental league.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NFL require that all prospective draftees be at least three years removed from high school if they play in college and four years removed from high school if they do not play in college? 

 

Under the assumption that I am correct, how is that not using college as a minor or developmental league?

[sweetsurrender]

I apologize if you felt I misrepresented your comment; I don't think it's the college system's job to lift anyone out of poverty. College is supposed to help a person lift himself out of poverty.

 

At the same time, I don't want my viewpoint to be misrepresented. My point is simple: If we want to stop players from "going on the take," we need to get rid of the ridiculous NCAA restrictions. It's not meant to be fair, and it never will be (the same as a corporate structure isn't "fair"; the little guys do the hard work, and the suits at the top get rich. Of course, they paid their dues, presumably.) But that doesn't mean nothing should be done to make it more equitable than it already is.

 

It's true that the star athlete has a better chance of going on to make great money as a professional (even an undrafted rookie stands to make close to half a million/year in the NFL, which a college grad usually won't make in his first ten years out of school). But what if he blows his knee out along the way? The NCAA and the school made a bunch of money off his jersey sales, and he never gets anything out of it. The Jerrys and Emmas that no one knows about aren't trading their memorabilia for goods and favors, because their memorabilia doesn't have the same kind of value. And likewise, the school and the NCAA aren't making anything off their jersey sales either. Women's softball at IPFW isn't exactly known for selling jerseys...

 

The people who move the needle are the ones who make the money. Again, not fair, and it doesn't help the student working two jobs and living off ramen, but it's ridiculous, IMO, that these big institutions can make money off of my likeness, but I'm not allowed to do so. 

 

I don't really agree about the NFL using college as a minor league. (That's more true with the NBA, but college football is very lucrative in its own right.) But that's a different story entirely. Colleges have these players' rights for three or four years, sometimes longer, and they use them as much as they can. It's not without headaches and expenses, but college football and the NCAA are a cash cow of their own. Texas spent $300k in the search for their new head coach, then gave him a $5m/year contract. Their athletic department has an operating budget of $150m. Nothing wrong with any of that, but the point is that they are making money in this deal right along with the NFL.

The memorabilia is just a side note. The star athletes want to be paid. When you factor in ticket sales and such and the $150 budget you mentioned it is not hard to see why. The two really don't mix. Education and athletics and the NCAA is abusing these athletes to some extent with the rules but the pro leagues could solve the whole issue but the NCAA wants the fame and the money too.

 

Have you ever seen Moneyball? It is the story of Billy Beane, the GM from the Oakland As. When he was 18 the NY Mets came to him with a minor league deal. He also had a full ride to Stanford on a baseball scholarship. His mother asks the scout if Billy could go to school AND play for the Mets. The scout, of course, says no and Billy ends up playing for the Mets and never really has much of a pro career. He ends up in the scouting department for the As eventually and goes on to become GM. I really think the NFL and NBA need to have a minor league system for the athletes that want their chance now and are willing to forego their education. It is not like there will still not be plenty of players who will still choose to go to school but at least you have the choice to go play minor league ball and get paid and make money off your name.

 

Just my two cents.

[DougDew]

 

I don't think your idea makes any sense, by the way. If you give the student the cash value of a scholarship, a semester at a time, or whatever, he won't have a choice but to spend that money on schooling. Otherwise, he's ineligible. If he doesn't spend his tuition money on tuition, he can't enroll, he's not a student, and he can't play. If he doesn't buy his books, he can't do his work, he can't stay academically eligible, and he can't play. And if he can't play, he has to return the value of scholarship, so you've basically taken the student and put them into debt, just like they would have been if they took out loans to go to college. It's a circle-jerk that wouldn't accomplish anything. All your idea does is highlight a distinction between students who really value their schooling and those who don't, so people can point to students who are only there because they have to be and point out how broken the system is. It does nothing to actually fix the system. Just makes it easier to point the finger.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Yes.  Essentially I am saying the kids who are good enough to get an athletic scholarship should instead be called employees and get paid in cash.  They don't have to be admitted academically.  Their "studies" and GPA is essentially measured by their success on the field.  As long as they have success, they get paid and have a place on the team.  They get housing and training table food too.

 

The ones who care about school will use their money on tuition, or will save their money for school after their playing days.  The ones who don't care about school, won't have to go, and can spend their money the way they want. 

 

I'm not trying to fix anything. Its not fixable because there are groups of kids who have two, completely opposite, views on why they are in college.  Nothing will change that except the kids themselves.

 

I'm trying to align the expeditures to reality.  I'm trying to illuminate reality, and limit the exploitation of kids by the NCAA, which markets them as something they are not.  A lot of the kids on scholarship don't care about education, but are being forced to go to class in order to be marketed as a student athlete.  That image doesn't benefit the kid.  It benefits the image of the college and all of the administrators who make gobs of money off of that product.  It also benefits those in the media who want to market athletes as being some sort of special people, role models, which they are not.

 

Everybody should be able to pursue their interests according to their priorities.  The ones who are there strictly for sports shouldn't be forced into going to class, or force them, or somebody, to spend money on a tutor just to make grades and placate the phoniness that's going on.

[thedude]

I just don't subscribe to the idea that you should get a free ride into college because you are an athlete.

I see nothing wrong with athletic scholarships, but that should be considered their pay so to speak. 

[Knuckles79]

I thank they should be able to get a presenting of their own jersey sales. I also think they should be able to have endorsement deals . Some of these kids do not have the same cash flow as others , and some are forced to enter the draft to provide for their families or their selves. Plain as simple I can't blame a KID that comes from nothing to leave college to make millions when he can't even buy a nice steak dinner while in college.

[thedude]

Maybe they should be required to pay taxes on the cost  of the education they are receiving through the scholarship? 

[thedude]

I thank they should be able to get a presenting of their own jersey sales. I also think they should be able to have endorsement deals . Some of these kids do not have the same cash flow as others , and some are forced to enter the draft to provide for their families or their selves. Plain as simple I can't blame a KID that comes from nothing to leave college to make millions when he can't even buy a nice steak dinner while in college.

Fans who buy college jerseys are doing it based on the school, not the player. NCAA fans are loyal to the school. They don't care who the player is, or is not. They will buy a jersey regardless.

They are receiving a valuable education with room and board provided. What does that cost at Notre Dame or Purdue, or even IU? Their economic background, or family economics is immaterial. If they want to quit school and enter the draft for economic reason, they can do so.

[BrentMc11]

Mr Burns?

Wow...we both used Mr. Burns in different threads....hilarious!!

[JerodMayo51]

They had their tuition, books, room and board, tutors, and stipends all paid for by the university.  They were eligible for pell grants and were afforded many opportunities that the average college student were not.  

 

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 

 

They are not getting screwed by the colleges, they are not forcing the kids to go to college, the professional leagues are the ones saying they have to go to college.  If you have a problem with the current system it should be with the NFL and NBA.  

 

 

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.

[Dustin]

NCAA Approves Unlimited Meals and Snacks for Division I Student-Athletes

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2030620-ncaa-approves-unlimited-meals-and-snacks-for-division-i-student-athletes?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

[JerodMayo51]

 Its simply unfair for them to go to school for free and have free room and in most cases meal plans, and then get paid on top of that. 

 

Its perfectly fair.  They have a rare skill that is highly marketable and are making the college money.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, us normal people either have to work full time while going to school or sign up for more debt than they realize, and included in our cost would be these athlete salaries. Under Title IX

 

 

This may hurt to hear and im not saying it to be rude or anything, but "normal" people aren't special and haven't earned or deserve any special treatment.  They want an education, which is something they want provided to them by a University via its resources (IE Professors, Facilities, Library, Transportation, etc) so they have to pay for it.

 

Star athletes are generating huge sums of money for colleges by filling the stadiums with people who are eating food, drinking beer, buying merchandise and tuning in on their TVs and watching lots of advertisements that are heavily funded.  They also help the team become more successful with their skill set which helps generate more national recognition and helps bring attract more students and athletes.

 

Star athletes are not "normal" and shouldn't be treated the same way that a normal student is because they bring more to the table.  I say this as someone who would fall into the "normal" category as well.  

 

Nothing is stopping the big name athletes from taking out a loan for personal expenses if they want to bet on their chances of going pro...

 

 

So what happens when a college athlete blows out their knee and requires reconstructive surgery, or something even more serious like a spinal or neck injury?  Should they just take a loan out for that too on the "chance" to go pro?

 

They sacrifice their bodies and their health to play a sport that the Colleges profit insanely off of and all the college has to do is put an extra seat in a class room and pay for their books and dorm room.

 

If college athletes didn't get those benefits, the number of kids that would go and participate in those sports would drop, which would mean a lower quality of product.  This would have a trickle effect into the NFL where less talent would be coming in and lower the quality of the product as well.  Seeings how the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry, they'll never allow this to happen and therefor college athletes will continue to get special treatment because they are in fact special and have a skill that you and I don't have.

 

You can find millions of people to be an accountant, a mortgage broker, an insurance salesman, a programmer, etc...  You can't find millions of people that can play in the NFL.  Thats the simple difference.

[JerodMayo51]

 But Im paying into the system, and that covers scholarships for athletes.

 

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.

[JerodMayo51]

 Why should education be predicated on athleticism? Seems to be a slap in the face of what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning. 

 

Education is not predicated on athleticism, its predicated on a business model of making money.  Don't kid yourself into thinking that American Universities are not run like a business. They cost a fortune compared to most other parts of the developed, 1st world.  Lots of countries in Europe provide education for free to all citizens, including college education, but in the US we have a very hard core capitalist society and that flows over into our education and health care system.

 

Athletes provide a skill that is highly marketable and helps the NCAA generate billions of dollars, so naturally they're going to want to bring those athletes in to play their respective sport for the college.  

 

Its all about money. Normal students cost money, student athletes generate money.

 

 Its a very simple concept and I never understood why people get so upset that athletes are getting a "free ride."  

[JerodMayo51]

NCAA Approves Unlimited Meals and Snacks for Division I Student-Athletes

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2030620-ncaa-approves-unlimited-meals-and-snacks-for-division-i-student-athletes?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

 

Makes sense, especially since they have to be on crazy, high calorie diets to sustain their workouts and the muscle mass required to play the sport.