Topic #2, Group #1: Should College/University Athletes Be Paid

[klunderbunker]

This thread is to be used by those in Group #1 (see the stickied thread for rosters if you're unsure of where you are). Any other posts in here will be flagged for spam and deleted. You have four days from the time this is posted to post (as in the time this is posted on Tuesday, which is approximately when the new topic will go up. Note that I mean 96 hours after MY initial post, not the lead off debater.) your arguments, rebuttals and anything else you want. Best overall debater in that time period receives 10 points, second receives 9, third receives 8, all others receive 7.

Hitting Lead-Off in this debate is Blue Cardinal. He has 24 hours to reply and if he doesn't then it's open season.

Again: 4 days, best overall poster gets first place points.

Topic: Should College/University Athletes Be Paid For Their Time on the Field/Court?

Scores will be posted as soon as the three judges give their scores.

Go.

 

[CH David]

It appears Blue is MIA.

Hmm…definitely an interesting topic. I’m going with a no though. Simply put, you should be getting paid as a professional athlete, not an amateur. If colleges were going to pay every student athlete for each game or for each week they “work”, then the students wouldn’t make that much anyway. Football, baseball, hockey, and basketball are just a few of the many sports that are likely offered to play in. Baseball and hockey don’t generate as much revenue as football or basketball, so that wouldn’t be fair, and I believe would be a violation of Title IX. So we start a base salary at $20 a game or week? Well football would be screwed from the get go since they play 11-13 games a season.

I actually think that athletes are getting paid (sorta) by continuing their education at established schools such as USC, Michigan State, Florida, among the thousands of schools in the US and around the world. Some are getting full ride scholarships to high class universities just to play a sport, and have the added bonus of attending classes that they want to go to. What most people don’t realize or don’t get is that these student-athletes aren’t just athletes. They are students first and need to be going to class and getting an education (which they need to pass their classes to play). That’s payment enough in my eyes.

 

[I Suck Ass]

I'm definitely going to agree with you David. College athletes should not be paid. Most of them get into college for free on scholarships, and if they are good enough, they will get a professional job, and get paid then. What's the point in paying them now? Their free tuition is more than enough payment. Getting a football or basketball scholarship to some Ivy Tech school such as Yale means you get into Yale, a top school for the smartest people, for free. Yale costs $40,000-$45,000 a year. That means that they get $170000 worth of free tuition. That seems like more than enough payment to me.

 

[The People's Peep]

Simply, Yes. This is something I have thought for a long time.

First of all, as a college student, you need money. Lets say a student has 15 hours of class a week. Thats 3 hours a day on average. So maybe they have class from 9am-12pm. Then its time for practice. Lets just say practice starts at 1pm. NCAA laws rule that athletic activity is allowed for 5 days a week for four hours a day. That means that practice runs from 1pm-5pm. On top of that, a student should have maybe 1-3 hours to do some school work. Now its already the evening. But one thing is missing: work.

Its nearly impossible to get a job with a schedule like that. If you're a student living away from home, you need to worry about buying books, food, clothes, and maybe paying tuition/housing if you dont have a full scholarship. These players have no way to get the money they need. On top of that, look at all the money that the NCAA and the college make because of these players. Their outstanding athletic ability bring in sponsorships such as the bowl games and TV deals with major networks. Just this year, ESPN gained the right for all the BCS games. You know the NCAA is getting good money from them. I think its only fair that the driving force behind these deals gets a cut of the money. I'm not saying to give them deals like playing in the pros, but at least compensate them for their possible unemployment.

 

[CH David]

First of all, as a college student, you need money. Lets say a student has 15 hours of class a week. Thats 3 hours a day on average. So maybe they have class from 9am-12pm. Then its time for practice. Lets just say practice starts at 1pm. NCAA laws rule that athletic activity is allowed for 5 days a week for four hours a day. That means that practice runs from 1pm-5pm. On top of that, a student should have maybe 1-3 hours to do some school work. Now its already the evening. But one thing is missing: work.

They can get jobs in the summer and possibly the offseason that are approved by the NCAA. Like I said above, how are you going to make sure that all of the student athletes get equal pay? You can't can you? I see no way for it. If you can't keep pay all student athletes equally, it is a violation of Title IX since there wouldn't be equality for all athletes.

Its nearly impossible to get a job with a schedule like that. If you're a student living away from home, you need to worry about buying books, food, clothes, and maybe paying tuition/housing if you dont have a full scholarship. These players have no way to get the money they need. On top of that, look at all the money that the NCAA and the college make because of these players. Their outstanding athletic ability bring in sponsorships such as the bowl games and TV deals with major networks. Just this year, ESPN gained the right for all the BCS games. You know the NCAA is getting good money from them. I think its only fair that the driving force behind these deals gets a cut of the money. I'm not saying to give them deals like playing in the pros, but at least compensate them for their possible unemployment.

A lot of players are playing on scholarships though. That means they are getting their tuition paid for, room and board, food, books and classes (full ride scholarship for all, partial scholarships i think get distributed however they decide it should). That's a hell of a deal right there, and if I went to a 4 year school I would definitely want that. Walk-ons may be a bigger percentage than I'm giving credit for, but you don't hear about them that often. They'll single out a few players during a broadcast and talk about how they walked on and are playing, and if they play well they can be offered a scholarship (I think Jeff Jordan had that with Illinois). Here is a scenario for you.

A guy who wants to go to school to learn, having to get a job from the university just to get by, and has to pay his own way via loans, has to look at a classmate on the football team getting paid on top of being on a free ride. What is that shit? Where would it end, since not all universities or colleges can pay their athletes? Just give the big schools the monopoly in sports since kids that can go there and be paid is better than going elsewhere and having the same experience minus getting paid.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Within this post, I shall focus on American collegiate football to support my argument.

A University's First And Foremost Job Is To Provide Its Students With An Education: People usually use this premise to support the argument that student athletes shouldn't be paid, but I'm going to go in a (not-so-wholly) new direction. As People's Peep already said, student athletes in the most prestigious of American football programs are given little compensation beyond a fully-paid four- to five-year education (this includes tuition, books, room, and board). What such scholarships don't take into account are the incidental costs of attending university. Although NCAA rules currently allow student athletes to have part-time jobs, where exactly would they find the time to hold down such a job? They already have classes, studying, practice, and play to worry about on a daily basis (yes, there are work-study jobs available, but the $2,000-$3,000 they pay per semester is an absolute joke).

Since universities should WANT their student-athletes to graduate with a four-year degree, they SHOULD give them some form of monetary compensation. Not doing so gives student athletes very perverse incentives to declare eligibility for a professional sport without a degree from the university they were showcased at (think about it: if you're working hard and living near the poverty line, would you opt to stay in school or would you declare eligibility for sport that guarantees you millions even if you don't play one snap?). Paying athletes gives them the relative luxury that they're entitled to and would go a long way in convincing them to stay at university to finish out their education. Even if this weren't compelling enough, however, there's still a moral reason why student athletes should be paid.

Top Collegiate American Football Programs Are Akin To Modern-Day Slave Plantations: Yes, you heard me right. A year's worth of education at America's top universities costs around $50,000 a year. Now, let's look at the profits the top collegiate American football programs made for the 2009-2010 season:

Source:Huffington Post
1. University of Texas At Austin: $68,830,484
2. University of Georgia: $52,529,885
3. Pennsylvania State University: $50,427,645
4. University of Michigan: $44,861,184
5. University of Florida: $44,258,193
6. Louisiana State University: $43,253,286
7. University of Alabama At Tuscaloosa: $40,766,391
8. University of Tennessee: $39,236,601
9. Auburn University: $38,251,007
10. University of Oklahoma: $38,145,119
11. University of South Carolina: $35,471,948
12. University of Notre Dame: $34,672,275

Per this somewhat dated source, NCAA Division IA football programs (all of the schools I listed are Division IA programs) are allowed to give out 85 scholarships a year. Since these are profit, rather than revenue, numbers, they show that these schools make anywhere from $443,000 to $809,000 per football student athlete that they give a "full ride" (i.e., a year's worth of tuition, books, room, and board) to.

Personally, I can't think of a more exploitative situation. At the very least, student athletes that are given scholarships make these schools approximately nine times what they receive per year (when what they receive is monetized). Ultimately, though, they don't see a dime of this money. Given the windfall profits these schools make off of their student athlete's labor, I think I am right in saying that these programs are akin to modern-day slave plantations.

Conclusion: Given their objectives and the money they make off of student athletes, colleges should give their students some form of monetary compensation. While up-front payments might be deemed by some universities to be too risky, no one can put forth a tractable argument for student athletes not being able to share in their program's financial success. With this in mind, I'd recommend a compensation scheme whereby student athletes are given a percentage of their program's profits should they meet certain performance criteria (e.g., maintaining the grade-point-average mandated by the NCAA while making it to an all-conference team or breaking school records). Since the NFL's new collective bargaining agreement will more than likely place caps on rookie salaries, compensation for American football student athletes will now go further than ever in making sure that they finish their education.

 

[The People's Peep]

They can get jobs in the summer and possibly the offseason that are approved by the NCAA. Like I said above, how are you going to make sure that all of the student athletes get equal pay? You can't can you? I see no way for it. If you can't keep pay all student athletes equally, it is a violation of Title IX since there wouldn't be equality for all athletes.

Sure, they can get jobs in the summer and offseason, but that settles money needs during the summer and offseason. They may have some saved up, but its a long season and I doubt that will last them. Like I said before, I'm not saying to pay them a lot. Just give them, something like an allowance. Maybe something like $100 dollars a week. With all the money these D1 schools bring in, they certainly can cover that.

A lot of players are playing on scholarships though. That means they are getting their tuition paid for, room and board, food, books and classes (full ride scholarship for all, partial scholarships i think get distributed however they decide it should). That's a hell of a deal right there, and if I went to a 4 year school I would definitely want that. Walk-ons may be a bigger percentage than I'm giving credit for, but you don't hear about them that often. They'll single out a few players during a broadcast and talk about how they walked on and are playing, and if they play well they can be offered a scholarship (I think Jeff Jordan had that with Illinois).

Some players on a team get full scholarships. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure most players dont get full rides. That leaves some expenses unpaid for. Lets say a player has a car. He or she has to pay for insurance and gas. Even with a full ride, there are expenses that a person needs money for.

A guy who wants to go to school to learn, having to get a job from the university just to get by, and has to pay his own way via loans, has to look at a classmate on the football team getting paid on top of being on a free ride. What is that shit?

I'm not saying there wouldnt be any problems. There are bound to be some difficulties such as that scenario in perfecting a system where the athletes get paid. Plus, when you look outside the scholarships in that scenario, the guy is getting paid for doing something with the university where as the athlete is not.

Where would it end, since not all universities or colleges can pay their athletes? Just give the big schools the monopoly in sports since kids that can go there and be paid is better than going elsewhere and having the same experience minus getting paid.

Like I just said, there will be some kinks to work out. But there has to be a way. These athletes make the NCAA and the universities so much money and get none of it back, they are practically being exploited. Something has to be done.

 

[Big Sexy]

Open​

As much as I'd like to say yes to certain situations there is just no fair way to do it so I'm going with no, college athletes should not be paid. First off the only two college sports that are really profitable for some schools are football and basketball and even with those sports not every school makes a profit from them. There are only certain schools and certain sports that could afford to do this.

With all of the rules and regulations the NCAA has I just don't see a way where only certain sports with certain schools can pay their athletes. Not only that but if the big time football programs were able to pay there students then those schools would have a leg up in recruitment. If you're coming out of a high school and have a choice between a very profitable football program, like USC, or one that is still good but doesn't make as much money, like Clemson, then you're going to go to the school that offers you the chance to make more money.

Collegiate Athletics isn't Profitable for the Most Part​

I'd also like to elaborate on a point I made earlier. The majority of collegiate athletic programs LOSE money on a yearly basis. Only a handful of big time schools like Michigan, USC, Alabama, etc., make a profit every year. Even with college football probably only around half of those schools are profitable with their programs at the end of the year. So basically only half of these athletic programs in only 1 or 2 sports can afford to compensate their athletes.

Some Compensation is Already Given​

Finally, although it may not seem like a lot, these athletes do get paid. They often have full ride scholarships that pay for all of their schooling, books, where they live, and food. Plus with these scholarships there is often a small amount of money left over that can be spent in any other way that is needed. So even though it isn't a lot, these athletes are actually getting paid a small amount to play their particular sport.

Conclusion​

In conclusion even though I'd love to say "pay certain athletes in the profitable programs because they deserve it," there is just no real fair way to do it without messing up things like recruiting and the parity in college football or basketball. There is also no way to make it fair for all schools because for the most part collegiate athletics are not profitable on the whole.

 

[CH David]

Sure, they can get jobs in the summer and offseason, but that settles money needs during the summer and offseason. They may have some saved up, but its a long season and I doubt that will last them. Like I said before, I'm not saying to pay them a lot. Just give them, something like an allowance. Maybe something like $100 dollars a week. With all the money these D1 schools bring in, they certainly can cover that.

Those are just the big universities, and mainly for football and basketball. Baseball, hockey, tennis and the many other sports offered in colleges and universities don't make as much money as they do. How would you make it so that every student athlete would get money every week? Cut shares from each sports individual profit? Wouldn't be equal for the other sports that don't make as much money.

Some players on a team get full scholarships. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure most players dont get full rides. That leaves some expenses unpaid for. Lets say a player has a car. He or she has to pay for insurance and gas. Even with a full ride, there are expenses that a person needs money for.

That's if they have a car. I know people that went off to college and didn't take their cars. Not saying people don't, but how many people really do? Now even if a student gets a partial scholarship, they can distribute and take out loans for the rest of their expenses. Plus that's still better than Joe Blow who couldn't get an academic scholarship and has to pay his whole way, via loans most likely. What other expenses would a full ride athlete (without car) have other than maybe new clothes?

I'm not saying there wouldnt be any problems. There are bound to be some difficulties such as that scenario in perfecting a system where the athletes get paid. Plus, when you look outside the scholarships in that scenario, the guy is getting paid for doing something with the university where as the athlete is not.

Because he has to to pay for everything. He is making between possibly 8.50 (I think that's minimum wage) and maybe $10 an hour so he can get his education.

Like I just said, there will be some kinks to work out. But there has to be a way. These athletes make the NCAA and the universities so much money and get none of it back, they are practically being exploited. Something has to be done.

Some kinks? You have to make sure there are none if you are to go forward with this. That simply won't happen because of all of the schools and all of the athletic programs at each school. Each athlete needs to be paid equally, and when you have hundreds if not thousands of athletes, that is a lot of money to be giving out.

As far as exploitation goes, some colleges actually have their student athletes sign forms for full imagery benefits. The forms are so the students can't sue the university. They could always, you know, not sign the forms. But then they don't play. They agree to it for their future to possibly play in the pros, not for the now of getting paid on top of a full ride scholarship.

 

[Big Sexy]

Sure, they can get jobs in the summer and offseason, but that settles money needs during the summer and offseason. They may have some saved up, but its a long season and I doubt that will last them. Like I said before, I'm not saying to pay them a lot. Just give them, something like an allowance. Maybe something like $100 dollars a week. With all the money these D1 schools bring in, they certainly can cover that.

Barely any D1 schools' athletic departments have a positive profit at the end of the year. Even football, the biggest money making sport for most schools, doesn't bring in profits for all schools. It's only around half of the schools maybe a few more that turn a positive profit. What do all the other programs do?

Some players on a team get full scholarships. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure most players dont get full rides. That leaves some expenses unpaid for. Lets say a player has a car. He or she has to pay for insurance and gas. Even with a full ride, there are expenses that a person needs money for.

Any player that's worthy of getting paid has a full ride scholarship. Some walk on back up safety isn't the reason a program is making money. Also with full ride scholarships not every cent goes to room/board, books, and classes. There's also some extra spending money on top of it. Nothing major but it's something.

 

[Big Sexy]

If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Within this post, I shall focus on American collegiate football to support my argument.

There's one major flaw with this statement and your post as a whole. You are saying that individual sport's programs, like football, should pay their athletes if the program is profitable. However, every individual program is part of the athletic department's program as a whole. Every single athletic program at a University has their revenue and expenses given and taken away from the athletic department. Obviously the most profitable sports like football will be given the most money to help improve the program but that doesn't mean they can afford to pay their players.

Only 14 of the 120 athletic programs that are included in the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) from 2004-2009 made money. That is just 12% of schools. Here is my source below.

http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/

That means there are only 14 athletic departments that MAY be able to afford paying their football athletes. It would be nice if college football was its own separate entity from the rest of the athletic programs within a Universities athletic department but it isn't. Paying the profitable college football schools' athletes just wouldn't work because in most cases it would just cause athletic departments to lose even more money then they already are.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

There's one major flaw with this statement and your post as a whole. You are saying that individual sport's programs, like football, should pay their athletes if the program is profitable.

Precisely.

However, every individual program is part of the athletic department's program as a whole. Every single athletic program at a University has their revenue and expenses given and taken away from the athletic department. Obviously the most profitable sports like football will be given the most money to help improve the program but that doesn't mean they can afford to pay their players.

I don't see how equity with different programs within a school should be a concern here. Save for basketball and football, hardly any other program make money. Furthermore, besides football and basketball, I can't think of any other collegiate sports program that serves as the main source of future talent for their relevant professional sports league.

This problem is easily remedied: make sports programs that don't earn money into club-/intramural-level programs. If these programs can't make money, then it's obvious that there's not enough interest in them and/or the program costs way too much considering the revenue it brings in to the school.

Only 14 of the 120 athletic programs that are included in the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) from 2004-2009 made money. That is just 12% of schools. Here is my source below.

http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/

That means there are only 14 athletic departments that MAY be able to afford paying their football athletes.

An overwhelming majority of the football programs within the FBS made money. They're entitled to it; the athletes that don't make a dime for their school are not entitled to it.

Your contention that there's a flaw in my argument is based on one or both of two assumptions:

1) University sports programs can't be structurally changed. That is to say, there's no way that a football program's profits can't be kept for itself and must instead be shared with all of the sports programs within its host university. This is easily changed through the rewriting of NCAA and university bylaws/regulations. This is not a situation that's set in stone.

2) There's something morally wrong with not sharing your profits with fellow university athletes. I don't see anything morally objectionable to it at all, and you've given no argument to suggest otherwise.

It would be nice if college football was its own separate entity from the rest of the athletic programs within a Universities athletic department but it isn't. Paying the profitable college football schools' athletes just wouldn't work because in most cases it would just cause athletic departments to lose even more money then they already are.

And, as I already said, this is easily remedied by making those programs that don't make money into club-/intramural-level sports.

The only argument that could potentially be raised against my own is that unprofitable collegiate sports programs are necessary to the success of their relevant professional sports. In reality, though, this is not the case at all (maybe a little bit for hockey, but that's about it).

 

[Big Sexy]

I don't see how equity with different programs within a school should be a concern here. Save for basketball and football, hardly any other program make money. Furthermore, besides football and basketball, I can't think of any other collegiate sports program that serves as the main source of future talent for their relevant professional sports league.

This problem is easily remedied: make sports programs that don't earn money into club-/intramural-level programs. If these programs can't make money, then it's obvious that there's not enough interest in them and/or the program costs way too much considering the revenue it brings in to the school.

So you're basically trying to tell me that every NCAA sport save for basketball and football just needs to be turned into a club sport? It may sound good in theory and help your argument but it's just something that isn't realistic. One big problem with it is Title IX. No matter what you have to keep a certain number of women's sports compared to men's and I guarantee the women's sports are not going to make a profit.

An overwhelming majority of the football programs within the FBS made money. They're entitled to it; the athletes that don't make a dime for their school are not entitled to it.

That is still just one sport and again not all FBS college football programs make money. Some are losing money and even some that do make a profit are not making enough where they can really afford to pay their players all that much. The more money a school makes the more money they can give out to players and that in turn will affect recruiting and the parity in college football.

1) University sports programs can't be structurally changed. That is to say, there's no way that a football program's profits can't be kept for itself and must instead be shared with all of the sports programs within its host university. This is easily changed through the rewriting of NCAA and university bylaws/regulations. This is not a situation that's set in stone.

This isn't just some easy change that can be made overnight. It would take years for something like this to be put through and again there is no guarantee that the NCAA would ever allow something like this to happen, especially with the affect it would have on recruiting that I stated earlier.

2) There's something morally wrong with not sharing your profits with fellow university athletes. I don't see anything morally objectionable to it at all, and you've given no argument to suggest otherwise.

I personally don't find anything morally wrong with it at all. However, I don't see any fair way it can be done without negatively affecting college football and the college athletics in general.

And, as I already said, this is easily remedied by making those programs that don't make money into club-/intramural-level sports.

And as I said already this can't happen in the current NCAA. I talked about Title IX earlier but also Division 1-A football playing schools must sponsor a minimum of 16 sports. that includes a minimum of 6 all male or mixed-gender teams and a minimum of at least 8 all female teams. That comes straight from the NCAA requirements.

This is the best source I could find for that information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ti...ber of ncaa sports allowed per school&f=false

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

It appears Blue is MIA.

Hmm…definitely an interesting topic. I’m going with a no though. Simply put, you should be getting paid as a professional athlete, not an amateur. If colleges were going to pay every student athlete for each game or for each week they “work”, then the students wouldn’t make that much anyway. Football, baseball, hockey, and basketball are just a few of the many sports that are likely offered to play in. Baseball and hockey don’t generate as much revenue as football or basketball, so that wouldn’t be fair, and I believe would be a violation of Title IX. So we start a base salary at $20 a game or week? Well football would be screwed from the get go since they play 11-13 games a season.

You'll have to explain how paying players part of the profits they earn would be a violation of Title IX. I could understand if certain athletes were "denied the benefits of" a sports program that they were a part of, but profits shouldn't be considered a benefit of sports programs that makes no money.

Also, I'd consider college athletes in football and basketball amateurs in name only. Their main purpose is to make money for the college that they play for. They're only amateurs because they don't get to see the fruits of their labor in the form of greenbacks.

I actually think that athletes are getting paid (sorta) by continuing their education at established schools such as USC, Michigan State, Florida, among the thousands of schools in the US and around the world. Some are getting full ride scholarships to high class universities just to play a sport, and have the added bonus of attending classes that they want to go to. What most people don’t realize or don’t get is that these student-athletes aren’t just athletes. They are students first and need to be going to class and getting an education (which they need to pass their classes to play). That’s payment enough in my eyes.

Economically speaking, this doesn't make sense. By going to college, a basketball or football player potentially forgoes four years of money that he could earn as a professional. As a rookie, he'd come out of the NFL after four years having earned $1,875,000 or out of the NBA after four years having earned a little over $3,000,000. At most, a student athlete gets $50,000 in-kind every year in the form of a scholarship and maybe $5,000 spending money ($2,500 per semester); that's $220,000 when all is said and done.

If it weren't for age restrictions in the NFL, I'm sure many athletes would forgo college and opt to go pro immediately (this is also the reason why college basketball stars rarely stay to finish their education). You can always go back and finish your education with the ability to live comfortably while doing so. The same can't be said for your earnings potential as professional athlete.

I'm definitely going to agree with you David. College athletes should not be paid. Most of them get into college for free on scholarships, and if they are good enough, they will get a professional job, and get paid then. What's the point in paying them now? Their free tuition is more than enough payment. Getting a football or basketball scholarship to some Ivy Tech school such as Yale means you get into Yale, a top school for the smartest people, for free. Yale costs $40,000-$45,000 a year. That means that they get $170000 worth of free tuition. That seems like more than enough payment to me.

Ivy League schools don't give out sports scholarships, Noah.

Open​

As much as I'd like to say yes to certain situations there is just no fair way to do it so I'm going with no, college athletes should not be paid. First off the only two college sports that are really profitable for some schools are football and basketball and even with those sports not every school makes a profit from them. There are only certain schools and certain sports that could afford to do this.

And they should be able to do so.

With all of the rules and regulations the NCAA has I just don't see a way where only certain sports with certain schools can pay their athletes. Not only that but if the big time football programs were able to pay there students then those schools would have a leg up in recruitment. If you're coming out of a high school and have a choice between a very profitable football program, like USC, or one that is still good but doesn't make as much money, like Clemson, then you're going to go to the school that offers you the chance to make more money.

Firstly, NCAA regulations, as I said in my response to your rebuttal, aren't set in stone. This is a theoretical debate, not a practical one, so this is not a very compelling reason.

Secondly, there's a huge supply of high school talent in America when it comes to football. Prospects might initially be drawn to very profitable programs like USC or Texas, but they only have a limited number of spots on their rosters. Talent would still be drawn to less profitable programs by necessity. Paying your players would not harm competition in any way, shape, or form.

Collegiate Athletics isn't Profitable for the Most Part​

I'd also like to elaborate on a point I made earlier. The majority of collegiate athletic programs LOSE money on a yearly basis. Only a handful of big time schools like Michigan, USC, Alabama, etc., make a profit every year. Even with college football probably only around half of those schools are profitable with their programs at the end of the year. So basically only half of these athletic programs in only 1 or 2 sports can afford to compensate their athletes.

This is easily remedied by cutting those varsity programs (by program, I mean an individual sport, not the athletic program as a whole) that don't make money. If students really want to play a sport not offered on a varsity level, then can join/start one on a club/intramural-level.

If by program you mean an individual, varsity sport, I'd agree with you; if your sport doesn't make money, you aren't entitled to any.

Some Compensation is Already Given​

Finally, although it may not seem like a lot, these athletes do get paid. They often have full ride scholarships that pay for all of their schooling, books, where they live, and food. Plus with these scholarships there is often a small amount of money left over that can be spent in any other way that is needed. So even though it isn't a lot, these athletes are actually getting paid a small amount to play their particular sport.

It's not a lot, and it's absolutely unfair to football and basketball athletes considering the amount they'd make as a professional. It's offensive that student athletes in these sports are being given only a fraction of their true market worth. Universities should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their labor to line their own pockets and pay for other varsity programs that no one gives a shit about.

Conclusion​

In conclusion even though I'd love to say "pay certain athletes in the profitable programs because they deserve it," there is just no real fair way to do it without messing up things like recruiting and the parity in college football or basketball. There is also no way to make it fair for all schools because for the most part collegiate athletics are not profitable on the whole.

Paying athletes would do nothing to recruitment and parity; basketball and football athletes would initially seek out those schools that pay the most, but the roster limitations these schools have would still force these players to seek opportunities to play elsewhere. This argument only works if there's not enough talent to go around to all of the major basketball and football programs in America; there's more than enough.

Theoretically speaking, fairness should play absolutely no role in the discussion here. Some athletes lose money for their schools, other do not. Since universities are, first and foremost, institutions of learning, extracurricular activities like sports should only be evaluated based on the amount of money they make. If they don't make money, they should be cut. Problem solved, entire college programs are saved, and athletes in profitable varsity sports are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

 

[Big Sexy]

Secondly, there's a huge supply of high school talent in America when it comes to football. Prospects might initially be drawn to very profitable programs like USC or Texas, but they only have a limited number of spots on their rosters. Talent would still be drawn to less profitable programs by necessity. Paying your players would not harm competition in any way, shape, or form.

Yes there is a lot of talent but you're a fool if you don't think the opportunity to make more money would weigh heavily on some of these recruits. The best of the best talent wise is more then likely going to want top go to one of the 10-20 schools that can afford to pay them a decent amount. It would certainly affect recruiting especially when a lot of the top players are guys that are coming from families that are strapped for cash.

This is easily remedied by cutting those varsity programs (by program, I mean an individual sport, not the athletic program as a whole) that don't make money. If students really want to play a sport not offered on a varsity level, then can join/start one on a club/intramural-level.

I already explained why this can't happen because of NCAA regulations and because of Title IX. Dropping sports just isn't an option.

It's not a lot, and it's absolutely unfair to football and basketball athletes considering the amount they'd make as a professional. It's offensive that student athletes in these sports are being given only a fraction of their true market worth. Universities should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their labor to line their own pockets and pay for other varsity programs that no one gives a shit about.

With basketball you only have to stay one year or you could go the Brandon Jennings route and make great money overseas for a year before entering the NBA. In the NFL you do have to be out of high school for three years and I can agree somewhat that these athletes are being exploited by the amount of money they are making for their schools, but again there just isn't a fair way to fix the situation without harming the game of college football. I already talked about recruiting and I also would like to bring up the question of how much does each player get? Do they all get the same amount? Do the star players get more? How is all of that decided? Auburn is going to be very profitable this year in football and the main reason for that is Cam Newton. It wouldn't be fair for him and some back up running back to make the same amount.

Paying athletes would do nothing to recruitment and parity; basketball and football athletes would initially seek out those schools that pay the most, but the roster limitations these schools have would still force these players to seek opportunities to play elsewhere. This argument only works if there's not enough talent to go around to all of the major basketball and football programs in America; there's more than enough.

College football schools can give out around 25 scholarships per school. If around 20 schools are very profitable and can give out the most money then that could potentially be 500 of the top players gone. Obviously not every player will go for the big bucks but you'd be lying if you tried to tell me that a large amount of them wouldn't want to. These are 17 and 18 year old kids we are talking about after all.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So you're basically trying to tell me that every NCAA sport save for basketball and football just needs to be turned into a club sport? It may sound good in theory and help your argument but it's just something that isn't realistic. One big problem with it is Title IX. No matter what you have to keep a certain number of women's sports compared to men's and I guarantee the women's sports are not going to make a profit.

So you keep two women's sports besides men's football and basketball. That still substantially cuts down on an entire program's expenditures and would still make an overwhelming majority of the programs profitable (there's absolutely nothing in Title IX that would imply that the women would have equal access to the profits). The deadweight comes from such programs as baseball, lacrosse, and soccer (double those for Title IX, cut them and you double the amount you cut because of Title IX).

That is still just one sport and again not all FBS college football programs make money. Some are losing money and even some that do make a profit are not making enough where they can really afford to pay their players all that much. The more money a school makes the more money they can give out to players and that in turn will affect recruiting and the parity in college football.

There are 10 out of 119 FBS schools that lost money in their football programs for the 2009-2010 season. As I said before, an overwhelming majority make a profit. Also, there are 85 scholarships that an FBS football program can give out. The incentive program that I concluded with in my first post would work fine for this purpose.

I've already told you why parity wouldn't be ruined by a pay-for-play system, so I won't belabor the point here.

This isn't just some easy change that can be made overnight. It would take years for something like this to be put through and again there is no guarantee that the NCAA would ever allow something like this to happen, especially with the affect it would have on recruiting that I stated earlier.

Again, it would have little to no effect on recruiting. Schools would still get quality players.

As I said in one of my rebuttals, this is more of a theoretical debate than a practical one.

And as I said already this can't happen in the current NCAA. I talked about Title IX earlier but also Division 1-A football playing schools must sponsor a minimum of 16 sports. that includes a minimum of 6 all male or mixed-gender teams and a minimum of at least 8 all female teams. That comes straight from the NCAA requirements.

This is the best source I could find for that information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ti...ber of ncaa sports allowed per school&f=false

Schools could still be profitable with Title IX if they limit their male sports to profitable ones. The stipulation you listed makes paying student athletes infeasible, but this debate is about, "Should College/University Be Paid?," not, "Under Current NCAA Rules, Can University Athletes Be Paid?" Of course they can't. If it was found that they deserved to be paid (I've already made a very compelling argument for this) then NCAA rules would be changed accordingly.

You've only given two arguments against why athletes shouldn't be paid: they are already paid in-kind with scholarships and paying athletes would ruin program parity. I've already overcome both of these objections in previous posts.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yes there is a lot of talent but you're a fool if you don't think the opportunity to make more money would weigh heavily on some of these recruits. The best of the best talent wise is more then likely going to want top go to one of the 10-20 schools that can afford to pay them a decent amount. It would certainly affect recruiting especially when a lot of the top players are guys that are coming from families that are strapped for cash

I never said that it would. The talent pool for college football recruits is huge, a point that you agree with. Not all of them can play for 10-20 schools. There's more than enough quality talent every year to be recruited by 80-90 schools. Do you think the ones that don't make the cut at a USC or Auburn are just going to throw up their hands and say that they won't play, period, because they won't be getting paid the most? This is absurd. They'll go to the next best paying school.

already explained why this can't happen because of NCAA regulations and because of Title IX. Dropping sports just isn't an option.

And I've already explained to you that this is normative, not a positive, debate.

With basketball you only have to stay one year or you could go the Brandon Jennings route and make great money overseas for a year before entering the NBA.

Still a better option than college because they don't get paid.

In the NFL you do have to be out of high school for three years and I can agree somewhat that these athletes are being exploited by the amount of money they are making for their schools, but again there just isn't a fair way to fix the situation without harming the game of college football. I already talked about recruiting and I also would like to bring up the question of how much does each player get? Do they all get the same amount? Do the star players get more? How is all of that decided? Auburn is going to be very profitable this year in football and the main reason for that is Cam Newton. It wouldn't be fair for him and some back up running back to make the same amount.

I already went over the basics of how the paying schedule would work in my first post.

College football schools can give out around 25 scholarships per school. If around 20 schools are very profitable and can give out the most money then that could potentially be 500 of the top players gone. Obviously not every player will go for the big bucks but you'd be lying if you tried to tell me that a large amount of them wouldn't want to. These are 17 and 18 year old kids we are talking about after all.

Even if they went for the big bucks, it wouldn't do anything to hurt the recruitment process. Even without money, perennial powerhouses in college football recruit the overwhelming majority of premier all-Americans every year (there is a strong home state bias, however). Nothing would change in a pay-for-play system because of the roster limitations each school has. You can't stuff 100 players that want to go to USC into the 25 roster spots they have available. 75 of these players will seek out opportunities elsewhere.

 

[Big Sexy]

So you keep two women's sports besides men's football and basketball. That still substantially cuts down on an entire program's expenditures and would still make an overwhelming majority of the programs profitable (there's absolutely nothing in Title IX that would imply that the women would have equal access to the profits). The deadweight comes from such programs as baseball, lacrosse, and soccer (double those for Title IX, cut them and you double the amount you cut because of Title IX).

That's a lot easier said then done. I realize this could be seen as more of a theoretical debate but I still believe that some practicality has to be used. The topic is also clearly "Should College Athletes be Paid?" If the topic was "Should college athletes from profitable teams in a profitable sport be paid?" then I may be more inclined to agree with you.

There are 10 out of 119 FBS schools that lost money in their football programs for the 2009-2010 season. As I said before, an overwhelming majority make a profit. Also, there are 85 scholarships that an FBS football program can give out. The incentive program that I concluded with in my first post would work fine for this purpose.

I'd like to see a source because I believe there are more then 10 schools that did not make a profit. Even so how many of those profitable schools had a large enough profit to be able to afford paying the players on their team? I highly doubt Universities are going to give up most of their profits just to pay players.

Again, it would have little to no effect on recruiting. Schools would still get quality players.

You saying it doesn't make it true.

Schools could still be profitable with Title IX if they limit their male sports to profitable ones. The stipulation you listed makes paying student athletes infeasible, but this debate is about, "Should College/University Be Paid?," not, "Under Current NCAA Rules, Can University Athletes Be Paid?" Of course they can't. If it was found that they deserved to be paid (I've already made a very compelling argument for this) then NCAA rules would be changed accordingly.

And you're just focusing on one sport involving college athletes. The question isn't "Should College Football Players be Paid?" The same way I'm using current NCAA regulations to help support my argument you are using a hypothetical set of regulations to support yours.

You've only given two arguments against why athletes shouldn't be paid: they are already paid in-kind with scholarships and paying athletes would ruin program parity. I've already overcome both of these objections in previous posts.

You haven't done anything to refute the parity argument other then saying "high school recruits may take the money at first but then would probably go to other programs." You have no evidence at all to back up any of those claims. Common sense at least agrees with me that these 17-18 year old athletes would rather go to schools that pay them more.

 

[Big Sexy]

I never said that it would. The talent pool for college football recruits is huge, a point that you agree with. Not all of them can play for 10-20 schools. There's more than enough quality talent every year to be recruited by 80-90 schools. Do you think the ones that don't make the cut at a USC or Auburn are just going to throw up their hands and say that they won't play, period, because they won't be getting paid the most? This is absurd. They'll go to the next best paying school.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the top recruits are going to be going to the schools that can pay more. Other schools will still get talent but it won't as good of talent thus the parity won't be at the same level it is now.

Even if they went for the big bucks, it wouldn't do anything to hurt the recruitment process. Even without money, perennial powerhouses in college football recruit the overwhelming majority of premier all-Americans every year (there is a strong home state bias, however). Nothing would change in a pay-for-play system because of the roster limitations each school has. You can't stuff 100 players that want to go to USC into the 25 roster spots they have available. 75 of these players will seek out opportunities elsewhere.

There are tons of kids who choose home town schools so they can be closer to home, often times because they have families that are strapped for cash. If monetary compensation was a factor then these kids would be more likely to go after the money. Like you said powerhouse Universities already get better recruits so why give them even more of an advantage? If a kid has a choice between U of M and Michigan State right now it may be a tough choice for him. If he sees that he can make twice as much money at Michigan then the choice is a lot easier.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

That's a lot easier said then done. I realize this could be seen as more of a theoretical debate but I still believe that some practicality has to be used. The topic is also clearly "Should College Athletes be Paid?" If the topic was "Should college athletes from profitable teams in a profitable sport be paid?" then I may be more inclined to agree with you.

You're using current NCAA guidelines and you act as if they can't be changed; they can be changed, they aren't set in stone. I understand why you stick to the practical side of things, though; you've said nothing convincing so far as to why athletes shouldn't be paid if they make money for their school.

I'd like to see a source because I believe there are more then 10 schools that did not make a profit. Even so how many of those profitable schools had a large enough profit to be able to afford paying the players on their team? I highly doubt Universities are going to give up most of their profits just to pay players.

Lulz, the king of unverified claims asking for a source. Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/the-most-profitable-colle_n_802810.html#s217317&title=undefined

I downloaded the Department of Education's Equity In Athletics/EADA Report 2009 - 2010. If a school was a Division IA program, I included their profits in my tally. I calculated profits by subtracting expenditures from revenues.

You saying it doesn't make it true.

Your saying the opposite doesn't make it false. The difference between my analysis and yours is that mine is much thorough and doesn't unjustifiably simplify things like yours does.

And you're just focusing on one sport involving college athletes. The question isn't "Should College Football Players be Paid?" The same way I'm using current NCAA regulations to help support my argument you are using a hypothetical set of regulations to support yours.

I qualified my argument in my opening post and have used football as my main source of support. I'll repeat what I said in my opening post here: If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Don't equivocate here and try to argue that sports programs aren't profitable because it's clear from my posts that I mean one varsity sport when I say program, not a college's whole athletic program.

And, yes, I am using a hypothetical set of regulations because NCAA regulations would obviously have to change if athletes were to be paid.

You haven't done anything to refute the parity argument other then saying "high school recruits may take the money at first but then would probably go to other programs." You have no evidence at all to back up any of those claims. Common sense at least agrees with me that these 17-18 year old athletes would rather go to schools that pay them more.

Firstly, I never said this. I said that they would seek out those schools that would be able to pay them the most but that they'd then seek out a school that pays the second-best should they not be recruited by the first school. You seem to think I'm saying that a 17 and 18 year old wouldn't take money when that is precisely what I'm saying.

Secondly, what do you not understand about the fact that universities have a limited number of roster spots? If a university uses redshirting and they split football scholarships across years evenly, then that means that have a total of 17 scholarships to give out a year. Multiply that by 119 (the number of FBS teams there are) and you get 2023 football scholarships given out a year. The recruitment pool each year VASTLY outnumbers these scholarships. Even without a pay-for-play system, the recruitment pool's cream of the crop already commits to the most prestigious football programs (which, not coincidentally, happen to be the most profitable programs).

The pay-for-play system would DO NOTHING to change the status quo. The limitations on the numbers of scholarships that can be awarded by each school ensures this. USC can't take every single one of this year's top 50 defensive end prospects in the nation; they would necessarily be allocated to different programs around the nation (and they might even be equally allocated to 50 different programs if coaches took a balanced approach in their recruitment strategy).

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the top recruits are going to be going to the schools that can pay more. Other schools will still get talent but it won't as good of talent thus the parity won't be at the same level it is now.

I know exactly what you're saying, but you're still not getting the point. Scholarship limitations ensure that all recruits won't go to one school. I don't think this point can be made any clearer or simpler.

There are tons of kids who choose home town schools so they can be closer to home, often times because they have families that are strapped for cash. If monetary compensation was a factor then these kids would be more likely to go after the money. Like you said powerhouse Universities already get better recruits so why give them even more of an advantage? If a kid has a choice between U of M and Michigan State right now it may be a tough choice for him. If he sees that he can make twice as much money at Michigan then the choice is a lot easier.

What do you mean why give them more of an advantage? A pay-for-play system wouldn't give them an advantage. Maybe it'd give the football players more incentive to play harder because of how much cash was at stake, but then you have to take into account the professional prospects that all college players have as an incentive.

The real point of contention here is that you think that a small number of recruits are much, much better than all of the other recruits in a given talent pool and that, given monetary incentives, they'd all matriculate to only a handful of schools. This is a flawed argument for two reasons (these are reasons that I keep on driving home, hopefully this is the last time I'll have to do so). One, there's much more parity in the talent pool than you seem to think there is. I can't even count the number of All-American lists that are created each year for high school players. Two, colleges have a limited number of scholarships and roster spots to give out. All the talent in a recruitment pool can't matriculate to one school or even a handful of them. It's just no possible.

 

[The People's Peep]

Barely any D1 schools' athletic departments have a positive profit at the end of the year. Even football, the biggest money making sport for most schools, doesn't bring in profits for all schools. It's only around half of the schools maybe a few more that turn a positive profit. What do all the other programs do?

Those are just the big universities, and mainly for football and basketball. Baseball, hockey, tennis and the many other sports offered in colleges and universities don't make as much money as they do. How would you make it so that every student athlete would get money every week? Cut shares from each sports individual profit? Wouldn't be equal for the other sports that don't make as much money.

Get some help from the conferences and NCAA. I'm not as concerned with the money the university makes as much as the NCAA and the conferences. Most of the revenue goes to them.

That's if they have a car. I know people that went off to college and didn't take their cars. Not saying people don't, but how many people really do? Now even if a student gets a partial scholarship, they can distribute and take out loans for the rest of their expenses. Plus that's still better than Joe Blow who couldn't get an academic scholarship and has to pay his whole way, via loans most likely. What other expenses would a full ride athlete (without car) have other than maybe new clothes?

I dont know about other college students, but I sure as hell dont spend all my time on campus. Anything you do off campus is going to require personal money.

Some kinks? You have to make sure there are none if you are to go forward with this. That simply won't happen because of all of the schools and all of the athletic programs at each school. Each athlete needs to be paid equally, and when you have hundreds if not thousands of athletes, that is a lot of money to be giving out.

You're right. There would have to be a way to make it equal for all sports and athletes and I certainly dont know how to do it. But I just dont think its fair that the athletes dont get a cut of the money made. Finding a way to make it fair could take a long time, but there has to be a way.

As far as exploitation goes, some colleges actually have their student athletes sign forms for full imagery benefits. The forms are so the students can't sue the university. They could always, you know, not sign the forms. But then they don't play. They agree to it for their future to possibly play in the pros, not for the now of getting paid on top of a full ride scholarship.

Yeah, the contracts that allow the NCAA to team with EA and make video games with their likeness. Just some more revenue for them.

 

[Big Sexy]

You're using current NCAA guidelines and you act as if they can't be changed; they can be changed, they aren't set in stone. I understand why you stick to the practical side of things, though; you've said nothing convincing so far as to why athletes shouldn't be paid if they make money for their school.

Yes, they can be changed but you act like changing them is some easy task and it isn't. The chances of these drastic changes happening that you are suggesting are slim to none. I stick to the practical side because that is the side that is most relevant.

Lulz, the king of unverified claims asking for a source. Here you go:

I always back up my sources when asked.

I downloaded the Department of Education's Equity In Athletics/EADA Report 2009 - 2010. If a school was a Division IA program, I included their profits in my tally. I calculated profits by subtracting expenditures from revenues.

Maybe that was true for one year. But this study http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/ from 2004-2009 shows only 57% of FBS programs were profitable.

This article: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...y-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/ shows that only 78 FBS schools had a positive net revenue and the article is from June 2009.

Your saying the opposite doesn't make it false. The difference between my analysis and yours is that mine is much thorough and doesn't unjustifiably simplify things like yours does.

That's very debatable.

I qualified my argument in my opening post and have used football as my main source of support. I'll repeat what I said in my opening post here: If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Don't equivocate here and try to argue that sports programs aren't profitable because it's clear from my posts that I mean one varsity sport when I say program, not a college's whole athletic program.

I know exactly what you did with your argument but I'm saying that there are way too many holes for your argument to realistically work. Paying the football players would cause athletic programs to lose even more money then they already are, sacrificing every other team. And yes I know in your hypothetical plan you are going to get rid of all the other teams save for a couple women's teams to comply with Title IX. However, I'd rather argue something that is actually realistic then some hypothetical plan that has virtually no chance of happening. You have chosen to argue theoretically and I have chosen to argue more practically. By reading the thread question there is no way to 100% say which way of arguing is better but I'll take realism over a fantasy world. The question says should they pay college players and I say no because it negatively affects college athletics in the current NCAA world. The NCAA world that is very unlikely to see drastic changes anytime soon.

Firstly, I never said this. I said that they would seek out those schools that would be able to pay them the most but that they'd then seek out a school that pays the second-best should they not be recruited by the first school. You seem to think I'm saying that a 17 and 18 year old wouldn't take money when that is precisely what I'm saying.

That's all well and good but the best schools are going to recruit the best players.

Secondly, what do you not understand about the fact that universities have a limited number of roster spots? If a university uses redshirting and they split football scholarships across years evenly, then that means that have a total of 17 scholarships to give out a year. Multiply that by 119 (the number of FBS teams there are) and you get 2023 football scholarships given out a year. The recruitment pool each year VASTLY outnumbers these scholarships. Even without a pay-for-play system, the recruitment pool's cream of the crop already commit to the most prestigious football programs (which, not coincidentally, happen to be the most profitable programs).

I understand it completely. What do you not understand about their being more then 1 or two big time profitable schools? If there are 20 schools that are very profitable and they each have 25 scholarships, then that is 500 top players potentially gone. Schools that are in the same state as one of the more profitable schools would certainly have their recruiting suffer.

The pay-for-play system would DO NOTHING to change the status quo. The limitations on the numbers of scholarships that can be awarded by each school ensure this. USC can't take every single one of this year's top 50 defensive end prospects in the nation; they would necessarily be allocated to different programs around the nation (and they might even be equally allocated to 50 different programs if coaches took a balanced approach in their recruitment strategy).

Once again I'm not saying one school will take all of the top players but there are many profitable schools all with 25 scholarships that will affect the recruiting process negatively. Players with a choice between Michigan and Michigan State, USC and UCLA, Texas and Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, will be much more likely to go to the more profitable in home state.

 

[Big Sexy]

I know exactly what you're saying, but you're still not getting the point. Scholarship limitations ensure that all recruits won't go to one school. I don't think this point can be made any clearer or simpler.

ONCE AGAIN I'm not saying they will be going to one school, I'm saying decisions whether to go to a more profitable school or a less profitable one will be easier.

What do you mean why give them more of an advantage? A pay-for-play system wouldn't give them an advantage. Maybe it'd give the football players more incentive to play harder because of how much cash was at stake, but then you have to take into account the professional prospects that all college players have as an incentive.

If a kid has a tough choice between two schools and one could pay more then the other because of profits who do you he's going to choose?

The real point of contention here is that you think that a small number of recruits are much, much better than all of the other recruits in a given talent pool and that, given monetary incentives, they'd all matriculate to only a handful of schools. This is a flawed argument for two reasons (these are reasons that I keep on driving home, hopefully this is the last time I'll have to do so). One, there's much more parity in the talent pool than you seem to think there is. I can't even count the number of All-American lists that are created each year for high school players. Two, colleges have a limited number of scholarships and roster spots to give out. All the talent in a recruitment pool can't matriculate to one school or even a handful of them. It's just no possible.

I'm not saying they are a shit ton better but in many cases they are better players and when you are able to get more of these players then usual, the talent adds up therefore widening the gap between certain schools. There is a lot of parity with high school talent but once you get past the first few hundred players it gets less and less. Like I pointed out multiple times 20 high profit schools times 25 scholarships = 500 players. Not all 500 will go for the money but a large amount of them will.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yes, they can be changed but you act like changing them is some easy task and it isn't. The chances of these drastic changes happening that you are suggesting are slim to none. I stick to the practical side because that is the side that is most relevant.

So, essentially what you're saying here is that college athletes from profitable varsity sports shouldn't be paid because it'd be too much of a bitch to change the rules? This is probably one of the biggest cop-outs to a compelling argument that I've ever seen.

If football players deserve to be see more of the profit they create, then the current rules should be the least of anyone's concern.

Again, you refuse to argue the question at hand: Should college athletes be paid? You keep on arguing the following question: Can college athletes be paid under current NCAA guidelines?

I always back up my sources when asked.

Back up all of your sources for all the factual statements you've claimed to have made in this debate, especially the one concerning what would happen should players be allowed to play. You said I hadn't refuted it (I definitely refuted your argument for parity not being a consequence of a pay-for-play system), so I assume you have a source to back this claim.

Maybe that was true for one year. But this study http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/ from 2004-2009 shows only 57% of FBS programs were profitable.

This article: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...y-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/ shows that only 78 FBS schools had a positive net revenue and the article is from June 2009.

We're arguing college football now, not athletic programs as a whole, so the first article is totally irrelevant to the debate at hand.

As to the second article: that's still a total profit of $1,026,810,000. Who's to say that that profit can't be shared between all Division IA schools? As a matter of fact, this is what's happening as we speak: a lot of bowl-eligible teams are emigrating to one of the six conferences with automatic BCS bids. Even if profit stayed the same over the next few years (it did grow by 7% for the 2009-2010 season, by the way), the percentage of profitable football programs would rise due to this aforementioned emigration.

All of this is to say the following: profitability has been on an upward trend for college football programs. The only relevant season to look at would be last year's season (until the statistics for this year come out, of course).

That's very debatable.

It is debatable since all we can do is theorize about it. I've given sound reasoning for my position and there's nothing that's been said in this thread that brings it into question.

I know exactly what you did with your argument but I'm saying that there are way too many holes for your argument to realistically work. Paying the football players would cause athletic programs to lose even more money then they already are, sacrificing every other team. And yes I know in your hypothetical plan you are going to get rid of all the other teams save for a couple women's teams to comply with Title IX. However, I'd rather argue something that is actually realistic then some hypothetical plan that has virtually no chance of happening. You have chosen to argue theoretically and I have chosen to argue more practically. By reading the thread question there is no way to 100% say which way of arguing is better but I'll take realism over a fantasy world. The question says should they pay college players and I say no because it negatively affects college athletics in the current NCAA world. The NCAA world that is very unlikely to see drastic changes anytime soon.

Read what I wrote to your first passage. Also, if arguing about this is such a moot point, then why was it chosen as a debate topic? Furthermore, why has it sparked so much academic debate?

That's all well and good but the best schools are going to recruit the best players.

So, you're essentially agreeing with me here that the best schools already get the best players? Why would paying them make a difference then? They're just going to get a bunch of people they don't want knocking at their door.

I understand it completely. What do you not understand about their being more then 1 or two big time profitable schools?

I don't understand this because it's completely false.

If there are 20 schools that are very profitable and they each have 25 scholarships, then that is 500 top players potentially gone. Schools that are in the same state as one of the more profitable schools would certainly have their recruiting suffer.

For the millionth time, there are more than 500 players available each year, and you already agreed with me that they are already recruited by the most profitable schools. How would paying them be any different?

Furthermore, the only programs that would potentially suffer are non-FBS football programs that probably lose money every year. How insignificant these programs are to the NFL is show by the fact that, over the past ten years, there have only been two players drafted in the first round that didn't come from a Division IA school.

Once again I'm not saying one school will take all of the top players but there are many profitable schools all with 25 scholarships that will affect the recruiting process negatively. Players with a choice between Michigan and Michigan State, USC and UCLA, Texas and Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, will be much more likely to go to the more profitable in home state.

Erm, you might to think of better example; all eight of these schools finished in the top 50 for profits in the 2009-2010 season. They won't have any problem whatsoever recruiting players in a pay-for-play system.

ONCE AGAIN I'm not saying they will be going to one school, I'm saying decisions whether to go to a more profitable school or a less profitable one will be easier.

Tell me how this is relevant to the debate. This is a forgone conclusion, man; of course they're going to go to the school with the most profit. Does their going to the school with the most profit automatically mean that the school(s) they rejected won't be able to get an equally talented player? We've already agreed that the recruitment pool every year is deep; I fail to see how someone can be so much more significantly talented than another player that they'll create a huge disparity between teams. For every USC middle linebacker recruit, there are a 100 more out there waiting to be picked up by a school.

A pay-for-play scheme would do nothing to create disparity between FBS football programs. Recruitment pools are too deep and almost all of these schools would be able to offer their players some form of monetary compensation (they'd all be able to offer monetary compensation should they join a conference with an automatic BCS bid).

If a kid has a tough choice between two schools and one could pay more then the other because of profits who do you he's going to choose?

The one that offers the most money. Of course, salaries could always be capped to create parity. But, I'm not going to argue this point as I'm tired of you retreating to how much more practical your argument is.

I'm not saying they are a shit ton better but in many cases they are better players and when you are able to get more of these players then usual, the talent adds up therefore widening the gap between certain schools. There is a lot of parity with high school talent but once you get past the first few hundred players it gets less and less. Like I pointed out multiple times 20 high profit schools times 25 scholarships = 500 players. Not all 500 will go for the money but a large amount of them will.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I've already overcome this objection at least 5 times. You can go ahead and rebut this post if you like. I'll be making my closing argument either late tonight or tomorrow afternoon.