Paying College Athletes

 Most schools aren't reeling in millions on athletics. Who do you pay? Only ones at high net schools? Who's going to pay the girl rowing crew, or is money only for the sports that make money? If we pay players, can we fire them and kick them out of school if they aren't performing and winning championships? The only sham is this topic coming up all the time. Athletes are compensated with six figure valued education. If you want to pay the players, it should be a nominal amount for expenses.

Maybe a few grand per year, but tons of schools won't be able to swing that into their bottom line. It's a ridiculous postulation IMO, and for it to work must be able to bridge all sports and keep schools on a level playing field across the NCAA. I don't think it can nor should be done.
 
 Most schools aren't reeling in millions on athletics. Who do you pay? Only ones at high net schools? Who's going to pay the girl rowing crew, or is money only for the sports that make money? If we pay players, can we fire them and kick them out of school if they aren't performing and winning championships? The only sham is this topic coming up all the time. Athletes are compensated with six figure valued education. If you want to pay the players, it should be a nominal amount for expenses.

Maybe a few grand per year, but tons of schools won't be able to swing that into their bottom line. It's a ridiculous postulation IMO, and for it to work must be able to bridge all sports and keep schools on a level playing field across the NCAA. I don't think it can nor should be done.
Click to expand...
 

100% agree
 
 From today's Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577151212467142838.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Click to expand...
 

When you consider than schools such as Louisville and UCONN bring in $50 million per year from athletics, its almost a sham that college athletes have to bank on pro careers while the schools reel in millions.
Click to expand...
 

They are getting a free education at a very good university, so I wouldn't call it a sham. And it's nobody's fault but their own if they choose to not take advantage of that education and feel that they have to 'bank' on going pro in order to make a good living.

Also, using UConn as an example, the average tuition is $ 25,598/year for in-state, and $ 42,594/year for out-of-state, which would be about $102,000 and $170,000 over a 4year career, respectively. That's money that they never have to worry about paying back, and as someone who is paying back student loans myself and probably will be for a long time, I feel that free tuition is more than adequate payment for the student athletes.
 
 Most schools aren't reeling in millions on athletics. Who do you pay? Only ones at high net schools? Who's going to pay the girl rowing crew, or is money only for the sports that make money? If we pay players, can we fire them and kick them out of school if they aren't performing and winning championships? The only sham is this topic coming up all the time. Athletes are compensated with six figure valued education. If you want to pay the players, it should be a nominal amount for expenses.

Maybe a few grand per year, but tons of schools won't be able to swing that into their bottom line. It's a ridiculous postulation IMO, and for it to work must be able to bridge all sports and keep schools on a level playing field across the NCAA. I don't think it can nor should be done.
Click to expand...
 

I know the slip side of that argument, which you articulated well. Here's my point. Most high level D1 college basketball players (participating in a relatively low cost, profitable sport) get only a seat in a classroom that many aren't fully prepared for and most really don't want. Most are there for a grab at the brass ring of a professional career. Universities compensating a kid that can put 10,000 fans in seats and lucrative TV contracts are way ahead when all they provide is room and board and a small living stipend.

I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up. It would be nice if top programs could pay something like $50K per year into an annuity that can be touched at age 30 or so. To add another $600K to the cost of a basketball program that pays it's head coach $1-3 million per year would be a small price.

I agree that implementing or administering a program may be difficult to impossible, but I think it woul dbe also nice to know that some kids who make a lot of money for their school could be compensated beyond their education. After all, if this is just collegiate sports, why not charge a small amount for admission, and not prices that cost more than a good seat at an MLB game in many parts of the country.

Again, I know the flip side, and agree with lots of it, but if Bryant Gumbel wanted to comment on a plantation mentality in sports, he should have focused on collegiate athletics, not the NBA. 
 
 Most schools aren't reeling in millions on athletics. Who do you pay? Only ones at high net schools? Who's going to pay the girl rowing crew, or is money only for the sports that make money? If we pay players, can we fire them and kick them out of school if they aren't performing and winning championships? The only sham is this topic coming up all the time. Athletes are compensated with six figure valued education. If you want to pay the players, it should be a nominal amount for expenses.

Maybe a few grand per year, but tons of schools won't be able to swing that into their bottom line. It's a ridiculous postulation IMO, and for it to work must be able to bridge all sports and keep schools on a level playing field across the NCAA. I don't think it can nor should be done.
Click to expand...
 

I know the slip side of that argument, which you articulated well. Here's my point. Most high level D1 college basketball players (participating in a relatively low cost, profitable sport) get only a seat in a classroom that many aren't fully prepared for and most really don't want. Most are there for a grab at the brass ring of a professional career. Universities compensating a kid that can put 10,000 fans in seats and lucrative TV contracts are way ahead when all they provide is room and board and a small living stipend.

I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up. It would be nice if top programs could pay something like $50K per year into an annuity that can be touched at age 30 or so. To add another $600K to the cost of a basketball program that pays it's head coach $1-3 million per year would be a small price.

Again, I know the flip side, and agree with lots of it, but if Bryant Gumbel wanted to comment on a plantation mentality in sports, he should have focused on collegiate athletics, not the NBA.
Click to expand...
 

And who's fault is it that they go home to the projects? By then they should have a college degree and be able to make something of themselves. If a kid graduates with a degree from Duke University and still goes home to the projects, then he/she has no one to blame but himself. Some of these players are kids, yes, but eventually they are going to have to grow up and learn some responsibility. I don't think its the school's or ncaa's fault if a student chooses to take ballroom dancing (ala matt leinart).
 
 Yes, student athletes that compete in revenue producing sports should be paid a stipend.

That's right - - a stipend, not a great sum of money, but a stipen equal to what the athlete would make if they worked 20 hours each week at a minimum wage job ($160).

Please don't give me the drivel that the athletes are getting a " free education" since the football and basketball players at D1. Institutions put in 30 to 40 hours each week during the entire academic year. If that athlete want to schedule a class that conflicts with their practice or lifting times they cannot do so. I am acquaintances with a guy that played football at The Ohio State University and he never once selected his classes because the football counselor did it for him to schedule courses and times to keep him available when he had practice but hey, OSU got their football player to maintain their cash cow maching.

Given the fact that AAU and high school coaches are greased by the sneaker companies it is indefensible that a player from an indigent family not have "WAM" (walking around money) to purchase the pens, calculators, computers air fares to return home for sick family members, suit for travel Nd other things which the old guys on this site may take for granted.

In addition, the student athlete should have some property interest in their image and name which the University sells. There is no reason why Syracuse University should be able to sell poster with the image of one of their players, or jerseys with the players name and number on it and the player not get a slice of the revenue since the athlete made the image or jersey name and number salable.
 
 Yes, student athletes that compete in revenue producing sports should be paid a stipend.

That's right - - a stipend, not a great sum of money, but a stipen equal to what the athlete would make if they worked 20 hours each week at a minimum wage job ($160).

Please don't give me the drivel that the athletes are getting a " free education" since the football and basketball players at D1. Institutions put in 30 to 40 hours each week during the entire academic year. If that athlete want to schedule a class that conflicts with their practice or lifting times they cannot do so. I am acquaintances with a guy that played football at The Ohio State University and he never once selected his classes because the football counselor did it for him to schedule courses and times to keep him available when he had practice but hey, OSU got their football player to maintain their cash cow maching.

Given the fact that AAU and high school coaches are greased by the sneaker companies it is indefensible that a player from an indigent family not have "WAM" (walking around money) to purchase the pens, calculators, computers air fares to return home for sick family members, suit for travel Nd other things which the old guys on this site may take for granted.

In addition, the student athlete should have some property interest in their image and name which the University sells. There is no reason why Syracuse University should be able to sell poster with the image of one of their players, or jerseys with the players name and number on it and the player not get a slice of the revenue since the athlete made the image or jersey name and number salable.
Click to expand...
 

1) small stipend is fine like you suggest Otis. It's reasonable just to have a few bucks for expenses/

2) money for player's likeness can never work. They are the face of their team and school while on scholarship at sju. It wouldn't work because big money schools would use it to alter the playing field. It would favor BCS schools with big fan bases and better players would only go to schools where they'd get the biggest piece of the action. Using their likeness as is helps to better advertise these kids and the school as a whole. Only certain schools would benefit. Will not and cant happen.
 
I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up.
Click to expand...
 
And who's fault is it that they go home to the projects?
Click to expand...
 
You guys are a hoot, worrying about the poor negroes going back to the projects because they can't play in the NBA. In the first place, you forget that many minorities can have satisfying careers as manservants and tap dancers. In the second place, the vast majority of colllege athletes are white: seventy percent of college athletes are white, only 20 percent are black. Across all three divisions the percentage of white athletes

baseball - 85
basketball 46
football 57
lacrosse 91
soccer 75
track 70
wrestling 80

Those percentages hold relatively across division and gender.

So to recap: most college athletes are white and come from trailer parks, not ghettos. Once they flunk out of school and their dream of playing professional sports dies, they move back to Arkansas, marry their cousins, and open meth labs.

Back to the projects. Hilarious.
 
I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up.
Click to expand...
 
And who's fault is it that they go home to the projects?
Click to expand...
 
You guys are a hoot, worrying about the poor negroes going back to the projects because they can't play in the NBA. In the first place, you forget that many minorities can have satisfying careers as manservants and tap dancers. In the second place, the vast majority of colllege athletes are white: seventy percent of college athletes are white, only 20 percent are black. Across all three divisions the percentage of white athletes

baseball - 85
basketball 46
football 57
lacrosse 91
soccer 75
track 70
wrestling 80

Those percentages hold relatively across division and gender.

So to recap: most college athletes are white and come from trailer parks, not ghettos. Once they flunk out of school and their dream of playing professional sports dies, they move back to Arkansas, marry their cousins, and open meth labs.

Back to the projects. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
 

Of course we are talking about the major reveunue producing sports which are by and large basketball and football. The percentages by race of top athletes change dramatically in those two sports, as compared to say lacrosse and baseball. I think looking at your numbers, once you extend them to starting players at the schools that really produce significant revenue from those two sports, you will find more black players than your numbers suggest.

Again, this will never happen because the NCAA is a professional sports organization that cares oly about producing revenue, but schools get rich off the backs of kids who are using the sport as audition for the pros. The kid gets a shot at a brass ring, the school brings in millions. Just think - who produces more wins, a first team all american, or the coach. The coach gets paid millions, the all american gets tuition and room and board.




Not surprisingly when schools recruit inner city kids in disproportionate numbers, they are often academically unqualified to stad up to the rigors of college academics, hence all the juco and prep school kids (we had 3 of 9 that didn't qualify). Toss in a 2 semester sport like basketball (football is only 1 semester by and large), and succeeding academically is rough for any kid.

I think at a minimum schoalrship athletes be given a full tuition ride that could extend as much as 10 years past their eligibility if the school really cared about them getting an education. It would cost the school virtually nothing to provide this.
 
I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up.
Click to expand...
 
And who's fault is it that they go home to the projects?
Click to expand...
 
You guys are a hoot, worrying about the poor negroes going back to the projects because they can't play in the NBA. In the first place, you forget that many minorities can have satisfying careers as manservants and tap dancers. In the second place, the vast majority of colllege athletes are white: seventy percent of college athletes are white, only 20 percent are black. Across all three divisions the percentage of white athletes

baseball - 85
basketball 46
football 57
lacrosse 91
soccer 75
track 70
wrestling 80

Those percentages hold relatively across division and gender.

So to recap: most college athletes are white and come from trailer parks, not ghettos. Once they flunk out of school and their dream of playing professional sports dies, they move back to Arkansas, marry their cousins, and open meth labs.

Back to the projects. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
 

Of course we are talking about the major reveunue producing sports which are by and large basketball and football. The percentages by race of top athletes change dramatically in those two sports, as compared to say lacrosse and baseball. I think looking at your numbers, once you extend them to starting players at the schools that really produce significant revenue from those two sports, you will find more black players than your numbers suggest.

Again, this will never happen because the NCAA is a professional sports organization that cares oly about producing revenue, but schools get rich off the backs of kids who are using the sport as audition for the pros. The kid gets a shot at a brass ring, the school brings in millions. Just think - who produces more wins, a first team all american, or the coach. The coach gets paid millions, the all american gets tuition and room and board.




Not surprisingly when schools recruit inner city kids in disproportionate numbers, they are often academically unqualified to stad up to the rigors of college academics, hence all the juco and prep school kids (we had 3 of 9 that didn't qualify). Toss in a 2 semester sport like basketball (football is only 1 semester by and large), and succeeding academically is rough for any kid.

I think at a minimum schoalrship athletes be given a full tuition ride that could extend as much as 10 years past their eligibility if the school really cared about them getting an education. It would cost the school virtually nothing to provide this.
Click to expand...
 

So in essence, you are saying we should only play the black kids, because the black kids play football and basketball mainly and the money colleges make is on their backs. Whereas non-revenue sports that the white kids just play for the love of the game and a free education should be enough because the whites are fully capable of getting an education in 4 years as compared to 10 for blacks... I think Fun is on to something....
 
I often think that many of the kids who help universities bring in millions (and provide branding for a school), go home to the projects after their 4 years is up.
Click to expand...
 
And who's fault is it that they go home to the projects?
Click to expand...
 
You guys are a hoot, worrying about the poor negroes going back to the projects because they can't play in the NBA. In the first place, you forget that many minorities can have satisfying careers as manservants and tap dancers. In the second place, the vast majority of colllege athletes are white: seventy percent of college athletes are white, only 20 percent are black. Across all three divisions the percentage of white athletes

baseball - 85
basketball 46
football 57
lacrosse 91
soccer 75
track 70
wrestling 80

Those percentages hold relatively across division and gender.

So to recap: most college athletes are white and come from trailer parks, not ghettos. Once they flunk out of school and their dream of playing professional sports dies, they move back to Arkansas, marry their cousins, and open meth labs.

Back to the projects. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
 

Of course we are talking about the major reveunue producing sports which are by and large basketball and football. The percentages by race of top athletes change dramatically in those two sports, as compared to say lacrosse and baseball. I think looking at your numbers, once you extend them to starting players at the schools that really produce significant revenue from those two sports, you will find more black players than your numbers suggest.

Again, this will never happen because the NCAA is a professional sports organization that cares oly about producing revenue, but schools get rich off the backs of kids who are using the sport as audition for the pros. The kid gets a shot at a brass ring, the school brings in millions. Just think - who produces more wins, a first team all american, or the coach. The coach gets paid millions, the all american gets tuition and room and board.




Not surprisingly when schools recruit inner city kids in disproportionate numbers, they are often academically unqualified to stad up to the rigors of college academics, hence all the juco and prep school kids (we had 3 of 9 that didn't qualify). Toss in a 2 semester sport like basketball (football is only 1 semester by and large), and succeeding academically is rough for any kid.

I think at a minimum schoalrship athletes be given a full tuition ride that could extend as much as 10 years past their eligibility if the school really cared about them getting an education. It would cost the school virtually nothing to provide this.
Click to expand...
 

So in essence, you are saying we should only play the black kids, because the black kids play football and basketball mainly and the money colleges make is on their backs. Whereas non-revenue sports that the white kids just play for the love of the game and a free education should be enough because the whites are fully capable of getting an education in 4 years as compared to 10 for blacks... I think Fun is on to something....
Click to expand...
 

If that's the slant you want to take, that's your prerogative. My point is that schools use superior athletes to generate revenue, and bend their academic standards to let them in. Small price to pay for a kid who will generate millions for the school. It doesn't matter if the kid is black or white, but the relaity is that most high D1 athletes coming from the poorest areas are black.

The "products" are the players. They generate millions for their schools. They come out of it only with a seat in class that is difficult enough for a normal student, no less someone having to play a major sport.

I'd love to see study of where these kids are after there playing days are over. A while back, Curtis Redding was a security guard in a dept store. In today's dollars a kid who leads a team to the Final four, as Redding did, would have made a ton of money for his school - he got nothing but a chance at an education.

The system will never change, because unlike free agency in baseball, these kids are amateurs.
 
Nothing should change. No one's putting a gun to these kids heads and saying go to college. You think you don't need an education pull a Brandon Jennings/Jeremy Tyler and go to Europe. Maybe they should let underage players from HS straight into the NBDL. Just remember there's not that many roster spots in the D League and you sign one contract you can kiss a free education goodbye. So come to college and have some fun while getting yourself promoted probably beyond your capabilities or prove yourself somewhere else by going straight to work. What about football players? Who cares.
 
 Jumbo - The news article by Mark Emmert which all star poster JerseyShoreJonny posted to start this thread spoke of "pay for play" and abuse by boosters in college athletics. The discussion became skewed when a poster posted statistics citing racial which include D3 and D2 numbers which has little or no relationship with the abuses Mr.Emmert spoke.

D3 is made up of schools which offeriabsolutely no athletic scholarships opportunities to poor kids of any race and Few D3 school offer any sugnificant boot in the admissions office (i.e. NESCAC, Liberty League, Eastern 8, teams will not accept an athlete substantially below its regular admissions criteria) as a D1 team will do for a revenue sport. D3 athletics are heavily- heavily dominated (in numbers) by non color athletes who largely self finance their education by their own assets or loans. Likewise the poster that posted statistics includes D2 schools which offers far fewer scholarship opportunities to athletes.

The inclusion of stats for D3 & D2 have no relevance to Emmert's article which referenced issues are more relevant to D1 revenue sports - football and basketball.

I would like someone to explain to me why a kid (of any race) that is recruited to play at a D1 school and works 30 to 40 hours per week perfecting the activity the school brought him to do, and is put by the school at an academic disadvantage to other students at the college [ for example: (i) has had his academic schedule managed by the schools academic advisor, (ii) had his cpourse schedule and courses taken created toaccommodate practice schedule, (iii) has taken a reduced credit load to ensure continued NCAA eligibility preventing graduation until after NCAA eligibility is exhausted] - should not get a lousy $175+/- weekly stipend as WAM to assist with purchases of calculators, soda, snacks, ball point pens, note books and other items which any college kid needs but the college cannot pay for on his behalf and the athlete has difficulty.

Thoughts?
 
the relaity is that most high D1 athletes coming from the poorest areas are black.
Click to expand...

No. It's not close to "relaity": it's something you made up because you obviously have peculiar views regarding race. Most college athletes are white. There are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks. More white children live in poverty than black childen. The vast majority of the poor come from rural communities, not the inner city. Most poor blacks live in the south, in rural communities. And in urban areas, in the projects you're bleating about, the majority of the poor are hispanic, not black. Those are the facts. Feel free to choke on them.

I'd love to see study of where these kids are after there playing days are over. A while back, Curtis Redding was a security guard in a dept store. In today's dollars a kid who leads a team to the Final four, as Redding did, would have made a ton of money for his school - he got nothing but a chance at an education.
Click to expand...
 

Curtis Redding led his team to the final four? In what sport?
 
Nothing should change. No one's putting a gun to these kids heads and saying go to college. You think you don't need an education pull a Brandon Jennings/Jeremy Tyler and go to Europe. Maybe they should let underage players from HS straight into the NBDL.
Click to expand...
 

Perhaps some things should change. Why is a college athlete prohibited from making money doing (in many cases) the one thing at which he excels? No one tells a student with a music scholarship that if they play in a band on the weekends they forfeit their scholarship and are ineligible to attend another music school. No one tells a scholarship student in the sciences that they can't get paid to do research or to publish or that they have to move to Serbia to do so. In fact, in all other discipines such extra curricular activities are lauded and encouraged. Whereas college atheletes are denied what is arguably our most important liberty: freedom to contract. If the NBA doesn't want players going from HS to the pros then there's a simple solution that doesn't involve government coercion: the NBA shouldn't draft high school players. Instead the government puts its boot in Derrick Rose's face to protect Donald Sterling from being stupid enough to draft Luther Wright.
 
Nothing should change. No one's putting a gun to these kids heads and saying go to college. You think you don't need an education pull a Brandon Jennings/Jeremy Tyler and go to Europe. Maybe they should let underage players from HS straight into the NBDL.
Click to expand...
 

Perhaps some things should change. Why is a college athlete prohibited from making money doing (in many cases) the one thing at which he excels? No one tells a student with a music scholarship that if they play in a band on the weekends they forfeit their scholarship and are ineligible to attend another music school. No one tells a scholarship student in the sciences that they can't get paid to do research or to publish or that they have to move to Serbia to do so. In fact, in all other discipines such extra curricular activities are lauded and encouraged. Whereas college atheletes are denied what is arguably our most important liberty: freedom to contract. If the NBA doesn't want players going from HS to the pros then there's a simple solution that doesn't involve government coercion: the NBA shouldn't draft high school players. Instead the government puts its boot in Derrick Rose's face to protect Donald Sterling from being stupid enough to draft Luther Wright.
Click to expand...
 

Well the NBA is doing some of that on their own. They have a minimum age which is agreed upon and probably put forth by the players union. So it's not the government's hand. I don't think it should change that much. I agree with Otis' stipend. No problem with having kids having some money to get by. Opening up other avenues of payment in college opens a door for tons of abuses. I have no problem with the NBDL nor NBA setting their own policies. They are private organizations and can do as they please. I also have no problem with the NBA requiring that players have to be a certain age or have a degree if they want. They can set their bar however they choose to.

College is also setting these kids up with lots of advantages. Providing free education both in the academic side, and top notch basketball education and exposure. Nothing unfair about it. If a good baller isn't interested in college, he can choose other options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top