Should College Athletes be Paid?

[amfootball]

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."  

That is a separate issue altogether about how US colleges are run and why. We all get it has become big business but the topic at hand in this thread is whether the athletes should be paid. And you only run into this issue when you hand out athletic scholarships precisely because the athletes are going to bring money into the institution. But this is done in the guise of education. That is the issue I and most others have. Just because colleges are run like big business does not mean we have to like it or think things need to change. 

[Superman]

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.

 

I've been arguing that the NFL should expand rosters for a couple years now. That would create more opportunities for third year college players, and other players as well. A minor league system is an entirely different enterprise. I don't get why the NFL should create an alternative pro league, when alternative pro leagues already exist. And I don't see why the NCAA would want them to, when it would take star players away. It just doesn't seem like a solution to me.

 

I'm not sure exactly how that relates to Moneyball, but I have seen it, and thought it was a good movie. The major difference is that MLB already has an extensive minor league system, and has for some time. So college baseball isn't and probably never will be the cashcow that college football is. There are some prominent programs, but overall, the NCAA isn't overly reliant on college baseball for revenue.

 

The star athletes may want to be paid, but that's a different story as well. I think the main problem is that the schools and the NCAA and the networks are making money off of the star players' likenesses, while the player himself can't. Texas pays their athletic director $5m/year because their athletics department is lucrative, but the players who draw the dollars are locked out of that equation. And if they try to make a little bit on the side, they get penalized. I don't think Terrelle Pryor would have been so satisfied with a $300/week salary and full health benefits that he wouldn't have tried to trade thousands of dollars worth of memorabilia. I don't think star players who sometimes generate millions in revenue are worried about a few hundred dollars in salary. I think they want a piece of the bigger pie.

[Superman]

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?

 

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.

[Superman]

That is a separate issue altogether about how US colleges are run and why. We all get it has become big business but the topic at hand in this thread is whether the athletes should be paid. And you only run into this issue when you hand out athletic scholarships precisely because the athletes are going to bring money into the institution. But this is done in the guise of education. That is the issue I and most others have. Just because colleges are run like big business does not mean we have to like it or think things need to change. 

 

It's not done under the guise of education. Only a naive person would think that an athletic scholarship, particularly for a football or basketball player, is about education. It's about economics.

 

And scholarships are awarded for academic reasons as well. A university makes out better giving a scholarship to a one-and-done basketball player (besides the potential millions they make off of him), than they do giving an academic scholarship to a student who stays for four years.

[Superman]

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.

 

Not necessarily an accurate representation. Michigan fans bought a lot more jerseys during the Fab Four years than they did before or after...

[BrentMc11]

All I ever wanted was a bag of popcorn before my coffee in my all nighter study sessions.....Nope...don't ask for much...

 

 

Darned thing was always empty leaving me starved at bedtime.

[amfootball]

It's not done under the guise of education. Only a naive person would think that an athletic scholarship, particularly for a football or basketball player, is about education. It's about economics.

 

And scholarships are awarded for academic reasons as well. A university makes out better giving a scholarship to a one-and-done basketball player (besides the potential millions they make off of him), than they do giving an academic scholarship to a student who stays for four years.

It is done under the guise of education otherwise these star athletes would go play pro ball or go to a minor league system if one existed for the NFL or NBA. As soon as you take what is an educational system and make it about economics then you run into these issues. Like I said, there are many things wrong with the US college system but this thread is about paying athletes. And that only exists because they play for colleges as opposed to the minor leagues where they belong. They clearly don't want the education. That is where the ruse lays. They want the chance to play pro ball and understand how much money the colleges are making off of them. But in turn the colleges will say we are giving you an education for free so be happy with that knowing full well that the b-ball players will only stay a year or two.

[sweetsurrender]

I've been arguing that the NFL should expand rosters for a couple years now. That would create more opportunities for third year college players, and other players as well. A minor league system is an entirely different enterprise. I don't get why the NFL should create an alternative pro league, when alternative pro leagues already exist. And I don't see why the NCAA would want them to, when it would take star players away. It just doesn't seem like a solution to me.

 

I'm not sure exactly how that relates to Moneyball, but I have seen it, and thought it was a good movie. The major difference is that MLB already has an extensive minor league system, and has for some time. So college baseball isn't and probably never will be the cashcow that college football is. There are some prominent programs, but overall, the NCAA isn't overly reliant on college baseball for revenue.

 

The star athletes may want to be paid, but that's a different story as well. I think the main problem is that the schools and the NCAA and the networks are making money off of the star players' likenesses, while the player himself can't. Texas pays their athletic director $5m/year because their athletics department is lucrative, but the players who draw the dollars are locked out of that equation. And if they try to make a little bit on the side, they get penalized. I don't think Terrelle Pryor would have been so satisfied with a $300/week salary and full health benefits that he wouldn't have tried to trade thousands of dollars worth of memorabilia. I don't think star players who sometimes generate millions in revenue are worried about a few hundred dollars in salary. I think they want a piece of the bigger pie.

As long as colleges are the source of talent for the pro leagues then the players will never get a cut. I get why the colleges don't want a minor league system and why the NFL and NBA like having one for free. 

 

The Moneyball reference was about Beane having the choice at 18 to go play for the Mets minor league team or take a full athletic scholarship to Stanford. He had the choice was my point. The NFL and NBA stars have no choice. They have to go to the colleges to get drafted and that is where the rub is. And like you said, the colleges are making a ton of money but it leaves the athletes out. This will not be solved until the colleges are out of the equation which has almost no chance of happening.

 

I like the idea of expanding the rosters though especially in the NFL where depth is needed. Parcells used to always lament when they went from 75 rosters down to 60 and then to 53. Not sure why that is exactly other than owners saving money I suppose.

[Superman]

It is done under the guise of education otherwise these star athletes would go play pro ball or go to a minor league system if one existed for the NFL or NBA. As soon as you take what is an educational system and make it about economics then you run into these issues. Like I said, there are many things wrong with the US college system but this thread is about paying athletes. And that only exists because they play for colleges as opposed to the minor leagues where they belong. They clearly don't want the education. That is where the ruse lays. They want the chance to play pro ball and understand how much money the colleges are making off of them. But in turn the colleges will say we are giving you an education for free so be happy with that knowing full well that the b-ball players will only stay a year or two.

 

I disagree, especially with the bolded. Many college athletes value their education tremendously, even though they plan to go on to play pro ball.

[Superman]

As long as colleges are the source of talent for the pro leagues then the players will never get a cut. I get why the colleges don't want a minor league system and why the NFL and NBA like having one for free. 

 

The Moneyball reference was about Beane having the choice at 18 to go play for the Mets minor league team or take a full athletic scholarship to Stanford. He had the choice was my point. The NFL and NBA stars have no choice. They have to go to the colleges to get drafted and that is where the rub is. And like you said, the colleges are making a ton of money but it leaves the athletes out. This will not be solved until the colleges are out of the equation which has almost no chance of happening.

 

I like the idea of expanding the rosters though especially in the NFL where depth is needed. Parcells used to always lament when they went from 75 rosters down to 60 and then to 53. Not sure why that is exactly other than owners saving money I suppose.

 

NFL and NBA prospects DO have a choice. They choose college because the collegiate programs have made themselves prominent. But those players can go play professionally in another league until they are eligible for the pro league they want to go to. No one is forcing them to go to college.

 

OJ Mayo could have gone to Europe for a year and made a lot of money. Instead, he chose to go to USC because USC made it worth his while. Poor USC, right? Poor NCAA? I disagree. Pro prospects go to college to play because the college athletic system has made itself their best option. I don't feel sorry for the schools and the NCAA because they have to provide scholarships to these kids, or because they have to provide health care. The schools and the NCAA do what they do because it's lucrative, bottom line.

[amfootball]

I disagree, especially with the bolded. Many college athletes value their education tremendously, even though they plan to go on to play pro ball.

I was referencing the basketball players that come out after one year. Clearly they are there just to get to the pros which is fine. And now football players like Roethlisberger and Sanchez are coming out after their junior year.

 

But you still really have not addressed the issue at hand. We can go back and forth about the colleges and the athletes and what is right/wrong with the system but do you think the athletes should be paid? Memorabilia is one thing but being paid is completely different. If you say yes, pay them then how do you do it equitable for all student athletes?

[sweetsurrender]

NFL and NBA prospects DO have a choice. They choose college because the collegiate programs have made themselves prominent. But those players can go play professionally in another league until they are eligible for the pro league they want to go to. No one is forcing them to go to college.

 

OJ Mayo could have gone to Europe for a year and made a lot of money. Instead, he chose to go to USC because USC made it worth his while. Poor USC, right? Poor NCAA? I disagree. Pro prospects go to college to play because the college athletic system has made itself their best option. I don't feel sorry for the schools and the NCAA because they have to provide scholarships to these kids, or because they have to provide health care. The schools and the NCAA do what they do because it's lucrative, bottom line.

Right but the issue is now these same players want the colleges to also pay them. I agree that they should just go play in Europe but like you said they will get noticed more by the pro teams by going to a top football college. That is the catch 22. The players really don't have a choice if they are a top prospect. 

[thedude]

Not necessarily an accurate representation. Michigan fans bought a lot more jerseys during the Fab Four years than they did before or after...

Because the team was more successful during that era. Winning has that effect, no matter who the players may be.

[IndyTrav]

Pretty interesting. 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/report-says-the-average-college-football-player-is-worth--178-000-145613431.html

 

Says the average College Athlete is worth $178,000 a year. 

[Superman]

I was referencing the basketball players that come out after one year. Clearly they are there just to get to the pros which is fine. And now football players like Roethlisberger and Sanchez are coming out after their junior year.

But you still really have not addressed the issue at hand. We can go back and forth about the colleges and the athletes and what is right/wrong with the system but do you think the athletes should be paid? Memorabilia is one thing but being paid is completely different. If you say yes, pay them then how do you do it equitable for all student athletes?

Only the very best go one and done. There are a handful of projected first rounders this year that are seniors, and another dozen or so with 2-3 years.

And there are thousands of other college basketball players who won't get anywhere near an NBA team. The majority, by far, value their education. Any many who leave early finish their degrees. Vince Carter went to his graduation during a playoff series (I believe it was the conference finals). But yeah, he doesn't care about school.

Even the football players you mentioned, they finished their degrees. Again, the vast majority don't leave early, and most of them will never go pro.

As for paying them, I already said I don't think it's feasible. You can give a modest increase to their stipend, and I think they should have full medical and dental benefits. But giving them a salary can't work, not across the board. UT can afford it; Middle Tennessee State can't. To me, the bigger issue is the NCAA's restrictions on amateur athletes.

[Superman]

Right but the issue is now these same players want the colleges to also pay them. I agree that they should just go play in Europe but like you said they will get noticed more by the pro teams by going to a top football college. That is the catch 22. The players really don't have a choice if they are a top prospect.

What players want to get "paid"? I think players feel entitled to some revenue, not to salaries. The Northwestern suit is about benefits, requirements, and conditions. Not pay.

The NCAA just loosened restrictions on meal allowances for athletes, scholarship and none scholarship. I think the issue is with these basic things, for the most part. Not pay.

Then the star athletes, the revenue boosters, want a piece of the pie that they are directly involved in: licensing, memorabilia, etc. Not a piddly salary.

[Superman]

Because the team was more successful during that era. Winning has that effect, no matter who the players may be.

And those players weren't entitled to any of that increased revenue during that period. They took money from boosters, and now they've been ostracized, deleted from the school's history books, etc. But UofM and NCAA didn't give any of that money back...

[amfootball]

Only the very best go one and done. There are a handful of projected first rounders this year that are seniors, and another dozen or so with 2-3 years.

And there are thousands of other college basketball players who won't get anywhere near an NBA team. The majority, by far, value their education. Any many who leave early finish their degrees. Vince Carter went to his graduation during a playoff series (I believe it was the conference finals). But yeah, he doesn't care about school.

Even the football players you mentioned, they finished their degrees. Again, the vast majority don't leave early, and most of them will never go pro.

As for paying them, I already said I don't think it's feasible. You can give a modest increase to their stipend, and I think they should have full medical and dental benefits. But giving them a salary can't work, not across the board. UT can afford it; Middle Tennessee State can't. To me, the bigger issue is the NCAA's restrictions on amateur athletes.

Right but this thread is about the top athletes wanting to be paid. So that is really where the discussion belongs. If you agree it is not feasible to pay them then you pretty much agree with the majority of sentiments on this thread.

[sweetsurrender]

What players want to get "paid"? I think players feel entitled to some revenue, not to salaries. The Northwestern suit is about benefits, requirements, and conditions. Not pay.

The NCAA just loosened restrictions on meal allowances for athletes, scholarship and none scholarship. I think the issue is with these basic things, for the most part. Not pay.

Then the star athletes, the revenue boosters, want a piece of the pie that they are directly involved in: licensing, memorabilia, etc. Not a piddly salary.

I guess it depends on how we interpret that loaded word, "paid." I think Adrian Peterson meant a salary. I think the UCONN player meant a salary too. But it will never happen. They will get paid in benefits and other luxuries not a salary.

[Superman]

Right but this thread is about the top athletes wanting to be paid. So that is really where the discussion belongs. If you agree it is not feasible to pay them then you pretty much agree with the majority of sentiments on this thread.

 

I said that a long time ago. Pardon me, but I wasn't aware the thread was restricted to one rigid topic, without room for related discussion. 

[amfootball]

I said that a long time ago. Pardon me, but I wasn't aware the thread was restricted to one rigid topic, without room for related discussion. 

I think I just missed your original post. lol.

[Superman]

I guess it depends on how we interpret that loaded word, "paid." I think Adrian Peterson meant a salary. I think the UCONN player meant a salary too. But it will never happen. They will get paid in benefits and other luxuries not a salary.

 

Are you talking about Shabazz Napier? Here are his comments directly: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/

 

"I don't feel student-athletes should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving," he said.

 

Asked whether he felt like an employee -- a key distinction cited in the labor board's Northwestern ruling -- the Huskies point guard responded, "I just feel like a student-athlete, and sometimes, like I said, there's hungry nights and I'm not able to eat and I still got to play up to my capabilities. ... When you see your jersey getting sold -- it may not have your last name on it -- but when you see your jersey getting sold and things like that, you feel like you want something in return."

 

 

He tied his comments directly to merchandise sales. Never used the word salary. Said that he appreciates his scholarship, but sometimes it doesn't cover his expenses. I take his comments to mean that he feels like he should get a piece of the revenue his likeness is generating, not a salary.

 

This is an area where equal pay and Title IX would presumably not apply. And that sucks for the players who don't generate revenue, but that's partly why I think a modest stipend would work. Benefits would work. 

 

(I'd also like to point out that Napier is a senior, set to graduate in May. Not a one-and-doner...)

[T Y Goodbye]

If you pay one or two sports, then the colleges and universities need to pay all athletes evenly, both men and women, even in sports as water polo, field hockey, tennis. gymnastics, wrestling, But since football and basketball are so "high profiled", this would never happen.

 

To me, if you get a any kind of scholarship, it should be treated as a contract.. We..(college) promise to pay x amount of dollars for your tuition, books, housing, MEALS etc for 2 to 4 years, depending on the length of time i take to get a degree. I as a student accepting this promise to..play sports for the aforementioned school, maintain a c+ or better gpa etc. Unless there is a major life changing event, aka, losing a family member,, etc, they cannot terminate said contract until that time of period is up. If the students want to be paid as if its  a job, then should be upheld to the same rules as employee signing a contract to work for x amount of dollars for such and such length of time (aka contractors)..Should said student leave, or fail to live up to said contract, the contract would be considered  as a breech of contract, and be held liable for any disciplinary action, including loss of scholarship, fines, monetary refund of tuition, books, etc.

 

For those in sports like football and basketball that might have have the talent to make it in the pros, there should be a re-vamped developmental league, allowing players not having the grades or desire to get a good education. If in a certain amount of time, aka 2 years or less, they then can have the option on going back to college, possibly getting scholarship, and adhere to the contracts provided..

 

College is for students first and foremost..

 

Just my opinion.......

[sweetsurrender]

Are you talking about Shabazz Napier? Here are his comments directly: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-basketball-finals-shabazz-napier-hungry/

 

"I don't feel student-athletes should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving," he said.

 

Asked whether he felt like an employee -- a key distinction cited in the labor board's Northwestern ruling -- the Huskies point guard responded, "I just feel like a student-athlete, and sometimes, like I said, there's hungry nights and I'm not able to eat and I still got to play up to my capabilities. ... When you see your jersey getting sold -- it may not have your last name on it -- but when you see your jersey getting sold and things like that, you feel like you want something in return."

 

 

He tied his comments directly to merchandise sales. Never used the word salary. Said that he appreciates his scholarship, but sometimes it doesn't cover his expenses. I take his comments to mean that he feels like he should get a piece of the revenue his likeness is generating, not a salary.

 

This is an area where equal pay and Title IX would presumably not apply. And that sucks for the players who don't generate revenue, but that's partly why I think a modest stipend would work. Benefits would work. 

 

(I'd also like to point out that Napier is a senior, set to graduate in May. Not a one-and-doner...)

I think someone else has posted that his scholarship covers room and board and a meal plan so this idea that he is starving seems a bit far fetched IMO. But I think he said it best when he said "I feel like a student athlete." Hello? That is what he is. I get the part about his jersey selling but the jersey is a UCONN jersey without his name on it. 

[Superman]

I think someone else has posted that his scholarship covers room and board and a meal plan so this idea that he is starving seems a bit far fetched IMO. But I think he said it best when he said "I feel like a student athlete." Hello? That is what he is. I get the part about his jersey selling but the jersey is a UCONN jersey without his name on it.

He was asked if he feels like an employee. He said he feels like a student-athlete. He agrees with you.

The NCAA previously restricted the meal plan to three meals a day. Maybe he's not starving, but I eat more than three times a day. Most athletes do. I'm glad they just got rid of that, but it's an example of one of the stupid restrictions from NCAA.

I don't think it matters whether his name is on the jersey. Takes willful blindness to not acknowledge that the jersey is moving because of him.

[sweetsurrender]

He was asked if he feels like an employee. He said he feels like a student-athlete. He agrees with you.

The NCAA previously restricted the meal plan to three meals a day. Maybe he's not starving, but I eat more than three times a day. Most athletes do. I'm glad they just got rid of that, but it's an example of one of the stupid restrictions from NCAA.

I don't think it matters whether his name is on the jersey. Takes willful blindness to not acknowledge that the jersey is moving because of him.

Maybe I am not up to date on these things but I have never heard of a meal plan that was for more than 3 meals a day. Perhaps he should eat more at dinner time. To say he is "starving" seems a bit dramatic to me. And most meal plans that have meals also have a point system for eating after the cafes closed. Though I can't speak for UConn.

 

So you agree that the NCAA should not pay these athletes because it would not be feasible but you think giving them a portion of the memorabilia proceeds IS feasible? 

[Superman]

Maybe I am not up to date on these things but I have never heard of a meal plan that was for more than 3 meals a day. Perhaps he should eat more at dinner time. To say he is "starving" seems a bit dramatic to me. And most meal plans that have meals also have a point system for eating after the cafes closed. Though I can't speak for UConn.

 

So you agree that the NCAA should not pay these athletes because it would not be feasible but you think giving them a portion of the memorabilia proceeds IS feasible? 

 

Most athletes eat 5-7 times a day. Perhaps "starving" is an embellishment. Hungry and broke? That's a different story.

 

Yes, sharing revenue (or profits, more likely) from memorabilia is more feasible, because those profits go to the players generating the revenue, as a bonus. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe it would be subject to equal pay or Title IX restrictions. Every school wouldn't have to pay every athlete the same amount. 

[sweetsurrender]

Most athletes eat 5-7 times a day. Perhaps "starving" is an embellishment. Hungry and broke? That's a different story.

 

Yes, sharing revenue (or profits, more likely) from memorabilia is more feasible, because those profits go to the players generating the revenue, as a bonus. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe it would be subject to equal pay or Title IX restrictions. Every school wouldn't have to pay every athlete the same amount. 

If they just now increased the three meals a day then I suppose the memorabilia proceed sharing is waaay off down the line. 

 

And just noodling this around. But given how well known this guy is on campus, celebrity status pretty much, he can't bum a meal off of someone? I am sure there are some petite girls who probably only eat two meals a day that could give him a meal. 

[Superman]

If they just now increased the three meals a day then I suppose the memorabilia proceed sharing is waaay off down the line. 

 

And just noodling this around. But given how well known this guy is on campus, celebrity status pretty much, he can't bum a meal off of someone? I am sure there are some petite girls who probably only eat two meals a day that could give him a meal. 

 

Depends on who he's bumming the meal off of. If Deion Sanders buys you dinner, you're suspended.

 

But should he have to bum a meal? The AD is making $5m/year, which is possible because the athletic department is generating a lot of revenue and coming out ahead. Shouldn't the athletes have sufficient food to fuel their bodies, so that they can perform? I would think that would be a minimum benefit...

[sweetsurrender]

Depends on who he's bumming the meal off of. If Deion Sanders buys you dinner, you're suspended.

 

But should he have to bum a meal? The AD is making $5m/year, which is possible because the athletic department is generating a lot of revenue and coming out ahead. Shouldn't the athletes have sufficient food to fuel their bodies, so that they can perform? I would think that would be a minimum benefit...

I think when they are in season the food should be on the practice premises for them before and after practice and games. To me that is just good business sense on the colleges' part to ensure their athletes have energy which is why I tend to doubt his starving comment as if UConn noticed any type of drop in his play due to lack of food than the coaching staff would get it for him. 

 

And hungry and broke is pretty much every student's plight.

[ViriLudant]

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.

99.9% of college athletes cost their schools money.

[Superman]

I think when they are in season the food should be on the practice premises for them before and after practice and games. To me that is just good business sense on the colleges' part to ensure their athletes have energy which is why I tend to doubt his starving comment as if UConn noticed any type of drop in his play due to lack of food than the coaching staff would get it for him. 

 

And hungry and broke is pretty much every student's plight.

 

And every student has marketable talent and skills that are making money for the institution, right? 

 

That's my main sticking point. The school and the NCAA make a bunch of money off of someone like Napier, but he can't do a commercial or a photoshoot for a few thousand dollars? It's silly...

[Nadine]

Depends on who he's bumming the meal off of. If Deion Sanders buys you dinner, you're suspended.

 

But should he have to bum a meal? The AD is making $5m/year, which is possible because the athletic department is generating a lot of revenue and coming out ahead. Shouldn't the athletes have sufficient food to fuel their bodies, so that they can perform? I would think that would be a minimum benefit...

 

Althletic administrators salaries have skyrocketed in recent years..........it's ridiculous

[sweetsurrender]

And every student has marketable talent and skills that are making money for the institution, right? 

 

That's my main sticking point. The school and the NCAA make a bunch of money off of someone like Napier, but he can't do a commercial or a photoshoot for a few thousand dollars? It's silly...

But that goes back to the original point. He should have went to a pro league in Europe instead of college then. He could have made money and marketed himself. He knew what the rules were before he accepted his scholarship. Just because the sport he plays makes big money does not mean the school should divide out proceeds for him or anyone else otherwise they have to do it across the board. And the NCAA is under no obligation to do that. They are their own governing body. Don't like it then you don't have to go there. But these guys are trading on their future value. A little hungry now, multi-millionaire once you graduate.

[OffensivelyPC]

What players want to get "paid"? I think players feel entitled to some revenue, not to salaries. The Northwestern suit is about benefits, requirements, and conditions. Not pay.

The NCAA just loosened restrictions on meal allowances for athletes, scholarship and none scholarship. I think the issue is with these basic things, for the most part. Not pay.

Then the star athletes, the revenue boosters, want a piece of the pie that they are directly involved in: licensing, memorabilia, etc. Not a piddly salary.

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. 

[Dustin]

99.9% of college athletes cost their schools money.

87% of stats are made up.

[jvan1973]

I think when they are in season the food should be on the practice premises for them before and after practice and games. To me that is just good business sense on the colleges' part to ensure their athletes have energy which is why I tend to doubt his starving comment as if UConn noticed any type of drop in his play due to lack of food than the coaching staff would get it for him.

And hungry and broke is pretty much every student's plight.

the average student isn't burning 3 to 7 thousand calories a day.

[jvan1973]

99.9% of college athletes cost their schools money.

can i get a link to that completely made up stat?

[Superman]

But that goes back to the original point. He should have went to a pro league in Europe instead of college then. He could have made money and marketed himself. He knew what the rules were before he accepted his scholarship. Just because the sport he plays makes big money does not mean the school should divide out proceeds for him or anyone else otherwise they have to do it across the board. And the NCAA is under no obligation to do that. They are their own governing body. Don't like it then you don't have to go there. But these guys are trading on their future value. A little hungry now, multi-millionaire once you graduate.

 

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

[jvan1973]

But that goes back to the original point. He should have went to a pro league in Europe instead of college then. He could have made money and marketed himself. He knew what the rules were before he accepted his scholarship. Just because the sport he plays makes big money does not mean the school should divide out proceeds for him or anyone else otherwise they have to do it across the board. And the NCAA is under no obligation to do that. They are their own governing body. Don't like it then you don't have to go there. But these guys are trading on their future value. A little hungry now, multi-millionaire once you graduate.

Fifty years ago there was no minimum wage or a 40 hour work week. I guess you want to go back to that as well since thats just the way it used to be