Should college players be paid?

[el Tigre]

Watching College Football Live today and there was lots of discussion about paying college athletes. On one hand I think a full ride scholarship is plenty of compenation,but I can also see the merit of giving a stipend to student-athletes who help bring in millions of dollars. These kids aren't even allowed to have a summer job,maybe $1,000 a month wouldn't be a bad idea. But it also opens up a can of worms. Who would get the stipends? All athletes,or just ones in sports that bring in revenue? And how would it effect small programs? I don't know,I'm on the fence on this one. What do you guys think????

[KD in CA]

Participation in college athletics is a voluntary activity; there is no reason at all to pay any of them.

 

And many of them, including almost all college football players, are paid. The cost of attending a major university is generally between $25k - $50k (and up) per year. I'd say that is plenty of compensation for a 19 year old.

[bartshan-83]

Participation in college athletics is a voluntary activity; there is no reason at all to pay any of them.

 

And many of them, including almost all college football players, are paid. The cost of attending a major university is generally between $25k - $50k (and up) per year. I'd say that is plenty of compensation for a 19 year old.

Respectfully disagree.

 

College sports (especially men's basketball and football) are money-generating enterprises that rain cash down upon several parties. The schools, the conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, etc. Nothing about this resembles an amateur situation. These are high-profile minor leagues. And the shameless revenue-whoring and money-grabbing that all of these parties partake in is viewed with hardly a batted eye.

 

I don't agree with the "free education" argument because the behavior of the parties involved belies its equity. Every college football program in the country uses up their scholarship allotment because they know it's a steal on ROI. No college in the country is doing any star high school athlete a favor by offering him a scholarship. Quite the reverse. And scholarships have been the standard compensation for generations. Yet the amount of money generated by the sports has increased astronomically.

 

And the main point is that modest payment to players would do more to combat impropriety and this cesspool culture that pervades college athletics. I'd wager that the vast majority of misconduct (or temptation to engage in it) occurs with players who have nothing and want just a little. It's easy to cast them as spoiled and greedy with their free education, room and board and perks of being an athlete. But it sucks having no money in college (anytime actually). I knew guys at ND who were ballin on the field but didn't have 10 bucks to grab a pizza. They can't get jobs, FOOTBALL is their job and I guarantee it's like working 40 hours and going to school full-time. How tempting would it be to take $1500 from a booster when you're scoring TDs every week but can't afford to take your girl to dinner and a movie? I don't condone it, but I understand it.

 

Paying for condos and buying kids cars is not the reality of college cheating. It's the 1K payments, the plane tickets or the cushy no-show job. Let's say you work at the Gap in college 35-40 hrs/week...you might pull in $1000 a month. I bet if colleges paid players that amount there would be a huge drop in impropriety among NCAA athletes.

 

The only obstacle (and it's pretty major) is Title IX and how you would deal with only compensating athletes from revenue-generating sports. I'm not sure how to answer that. But the system we are in is broken...it survives only because people don't care enough to upset the status quo.

[Ramius]

Participation in college athletics is a voluntary activity; there is no reason at all to pay any of them.

 

And many of them, including almost all college football players, are paid. The cost of attending a major university is generally between $25k - $50k (and up) per year. I'd say that is plenty of compensation for a 19 year old.

 

I gotta agree with Bartshan, KD. The dollar value of a scholarship is minimal compared to the sickening amount of loot the universities rake in. They get paid for what is essentially slave labor. And the scholarships are a joke too. These players barely attend class, float their way through their classes, and most of them do not even graduate.

 

I feel the universities should be compelled to return a little bit of the monies back to the players. Giving a player a grand or 2 isn't going to break the bank of anyone. It will also help to keep the players on the up and up. As Bart said, it isn't the players getting half a million that are the problem. Its the average every players who take a couple hundred bucks here and there from a booster member so they can go buy a PS3 or an Xbox.

 

In regards to scholarships, i'd liek to see schools stop with the farce of making players "attend" classes. What the schools should do is have these players come in and agree to play football for the university, and in exchange, award scholarship "years" that can be redemmed down the road when the player actually needs a degree and might actually benefit. The great majority of these payers either never sniff the NFL, or wash out after a year or so. To top it off, they then have a worthless degree. Let these guys come back to school afterwards when they can actually attend class and get a useful degree so they have a fighting chance in the future when their dreamss don't pan out.

[KD in CA]

Respectfully disagree.

 

College sports (especially men's basketball and football) are money-generating enterprises that rain cash down upon several parties. The schools, the conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, etc. Nothing about this resembles an amateur situation. These are high-profile minor leagues. And the shameless revenue-whoring and money-grabbing that all of these parties partake in is viewed with hardly a batted eye.

 

I don't agree with the "free education" argument because the behavior of the parties involved belies its equity. Every college football program in the country uses up their scholarship allotment because they know it's a steal on ROI. No college in the country is doing any star high school athlete a favor by offering him a scholarship. Quite the reverse. And scholarships have been the standard compensation for generations. Yet the amount of money generated by the sports has increased astronomically.

 

But it's still a voluntary activity for students. I don't think an inequality in financial benefits necessarily makes it unfair. After all, no one is getting a dime to appear on American Idol. I think that's because the individuals are not the attraction for either source of entertainment -- there are plenty of other football players and crappy singers out there.

 

But aside from that, let's remember that all the cash being thrown off by football/basketball is funding all those Title IX programs that didn't exist 20 years ago. It's not just football players getting scholarships; it's kids in all those non-revenue generating sports that are being funded too.

 

As for the scholarship, it's value has also increased significantly over time; it is both a means of obtaining a degree and a required stepping stone to the NFL for that minority that will qualify. I get your point about it not doing a kid from the 'hood favors to stick him at Notre Dame, but even if he's way over his head academically, it's still a better opportunity that he's getting pumping gas. It's up to the kids to take advantage (and of course the school has some obligation to help them academically, which I'm sure is still a big problem).

 

And the main point is that modest payment to players would do more to combat impropriety and this cesspool culture that pervades college athletics. I'd wager that the vast majority of misconduct (or temptation to engage in it) occurs with players who have nothing and want just a little. It's easy to cast them as spoiled and greedy with their free education, room and board and perks of being an athlete. But it sucks having no money in college (anytime actually). I knew guys at ND who were ballin on the field but didn't have 10 bucks to grab a pizza. They can't get jobs, FOOTBALL is their job and I guarantee it's like working 40 hours and going to school full-time. How tempting would it be to take $1500 from a booster when you're scoring TDs every week but can't afford to take your girl to dinner and a movie? I don't condone it, but I understand it.

 

Paying for condos and buying kids cars is not the reality of college cheating. It's the 1K payments, the plane tickets or the cushy no-show job. Let's say you work at the Gap in college 35-40 hrs/week...you might pull in $1000 a month. I bet if colleges paid players that amount there would be a huge drop in impropriety among NCAA athletes.

This is where I agree with you. It's very hard to clean up corruption if you don't remove the incentives for it. You do need a carrot as well as a stick. I'd say the prohibition against working is silly but the reality is these kids can't possibly hold a job and play football and hope to graduate anyway. I don't know how you tackle this, but you're right that there's something wrong if the kid doesn't have $5 in his pocket. I could see it being reasonable to provide players with a few hundred bucks a month; I just think it gets way out of hand if people start thinking of them as minor league players who have contract rights, etc. The free education should still be the dominant form of compensation.

 

The only obstacle (and it's pretty major) is Title IX and how you would deal with only compensating athletes from revenue-generating sports. I'm not sure how to answer that. But the system we are in is broken...it survives only because people don't care enough to upset the status quo.

Yup, that is a biggie. The lawyers would rain down the discrimination suits and I'm guessing the politicians would never sign off on it anyway.

[el Tigre]

I don't know how the smaller programs could afford it. I heard Mack Brown say on CFL that only 19 programs made money last year. All the rest (around 90 programs) lost money on football. Unless there was some sort of revenue sharing I don't see how it could be done. And even if there was revenue sharing,is there really enough money to go around?

[bartshan-83]

But it's still a voluntary activity for students. I don't think an inequality in financial benefits necessarily makes it unfair. After all, no one is getting a dime to appear on American Idol. I think that's because the individuals are not the attraction for either source of entertainment -- there are plenty of other football players and crappy singers out there.

 

But aside from that, let's remember that all the cash being thrown off by football/basketball is funding all those Title IX programs that didn't exist 20 years ago. It's not just football players getting scholarships; it's kids in all those non-revenue generating sports that are being funded too.

 

As for the scholarship, it's value has also increased significantly over time; it is both a means of obtaining a degree and a required stepping stone to the NFL for that minority that will qualify. I get your point about it not doing a kid from the 'hood favors to stick him at Notre Dame, but even if he's way over his head academically, it's still a better opportunity that he's getting pumping gas. It's up to the kids to take advantage (and of course the school has some obligation to help them academically, which I'm sure is still a big problem).

 

 

This is where I agree with you. It's very hard to clean up corruption if you don't remove the incentives for it. You do need a carrot as well as a stick. I'd say the prohibition against working is silly but the reality is these kids can't possibly hold a job and play football and hope to graduate anyway. I don't know how you tackle this, but you're right that there's something wrong if the kid doesn't have $5 in his pocket. I could see it being reasonable to provide players with a few hundred bucks a month; I just think it gets way out of hand if people start thinking of them as minor league players who have contract rights, etc. The free education should still be the dominant form of compensation.

I don't really disagree with any of this actually. And the bolded part is where I think the crux of the matter lies. Whether or not people think of big money college sports as minor leagues, the fact remains that they are closer to that then they are to being representative of the school in general. So I think you have to make a choice:

 

1. Tear the entire system apart and make college athletics subservient to the academic requirements of the school. Meaning, students who choose to participate in their school's varsity teams would come from the pool of students who were accepted to the college. If you can run a 4.3 but got a 950 on your SAT, you aren't going to a school that requires a 1150. College athletics would be about students competing against other students. Setup true minor leagues where 18 year old athletes could pursue their profession the way anyone else does and get paid the way anyone else does. I thought it was so great when Brandon Jennings went to Europe to play basketball 2 years ago (if you aren't familiar, Jennings was a top-10 recruit to initially verballed to Arizona. Then he decided he could make money and improve his game by signing with a European team. He did that for 1 year and then entered the NBA draft and was one of the best rookies last season).

 

2. Accept that college will always be the vehicle for big time athletes trying to make the jump to the pros. This is much more likely and I can't even say I don't want this. But something needs to be done to help fix this. There is no reason give guys enough money to buy and Audi in college, but pretending that you've done enough by offering a scholarship when obviously impropriety is rampant is ignorant and irresponsible. I liken it to people who don't believe in teaching their children about birth control and think abstinence is the only form of sex education a child should get. Of course no one wants their kids having lots of sex at a young age, but taking the hardline, all-or-nothing stance does far less to combat the problem then accepting that it's going to happen anyway and the best thing you can do is make sure they are fully informed of all the risks and know about using protection, etc.

 

Colleges pretending that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain by offering a scholarship and then washing their hands of any future consequences is irresponsible. They are silent collaborators in a broken system. I'm not trying to coerce them into bribing their athletes to stay away from "improper" money, nor am I absolving an athlete who takes something from a booster. I just think that there needs to be a little give here and that it would go a long way.

 

There would need to be a universal cap on the stipend that applied to all NCAA schools. Otherwise there would be bidding wars and the problem would just change forms. I am no expert whatsoever in Title IX, but I would think that the argument for a stipend would be it could only apply to athletes from sports that generate a net profit. If the football program is funding the rowing team, the swim team and the women's volleyball team, then it's logical where the compensation should be applied.

[bartshan-83]

I don't know how the smaller programs could afford it. I heard Mack Brown say on CFL that only 19 programs made money last year. All the rest (around 90 programs) lost money on football. Unless there was some sort of revenue sharing I don't see how it could be done. And even if there was revenue sharing,is there really enough money to go around?

I always hear different things about this. It seems people swear by both sides of the argument.

 

According to this article, 62 of the 66 BCS schools (+ Notre Dame) turned a net profit. And 17 of the 51 non-BCS schools did as well.

 

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/3...stead-of-trees/

 

Now I'm sure OVERALL, far fewer schools make money on their entire athletic program (how could they?) But the big dogs of the big sports are still turning in good numbers.

[bartshan-83]

Good ESPN article today briefly talking about the "tuition gap." Very similar to what I posited earlier in this thread.

 

I was talking more about 'walking around money' so the guys can grab a pizza, take their girl out to dinner, etc. But this is even more on point as it talks about more essential costs that aren't included in "full" scholarships.

 

Interesting, although not very in-depth.

 

Link