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

Discussion in 'Sports Debater's League' started by klunderbunker, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Jan 8, 2007
    Likes Received:
    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 Thriller. 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.

  2. Thriller Ant

    Thriller Ant Beep Bop Boop

    Jul 20, 2008
    Likes Received:
    No, college athletes should not be paid, at least not more than they already are. Allow me to explain.

    I attend Northern Illinois University, a Division 1A school and home to your 2010 Humanitarian Bowl winning Huskies. As an Illinois resident going to an Illinois public university, my tuition each semester is about $3,100. That doesn't include fees, housing, books or food. In addition, if I wasn't an Illinois resident, that tuition jumps to about $8,000 per semester, still minus those other costs. In short, college, even at my middle-of-the-road school, is extremely pricey.

    Most of the athletes that attend my school, however, don't have to worry about those costs as their tuition, fees, housing and sometimes even books are paid for by the scholarships they received to participate in varsity athletics here. Besides all that, they get a special building on campus with tutoring facilities, study rooms, and private workout rooms that you can only access if you are an athlete at NIU.

    I am going to have over $40,000 in student loan debt when I get done at NIU, as I had to pay for just about everything with loans. My colleagues that played sports here, even though about 99% of them won't go pro, will start off better in the "real world" because they had their tuition, fees, etc. paid for by their scholarship.

    People can call for college athletes to get paid as much as they want, but the fact of the matter is that these athletes are already getting upwards of $20,000 for their athletic talents. I'd say that's pretty sufficient.
    HBK-aholic and LSN80 like this.
  3. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Here's the problem in and of itself in your argument. While I understand that some will be better off in the real world when it's all said and done, most of them won't. So while they might be getting a free ride to college, which is nice, they will still have to put forth double the effort in college. While Im sure Andrew Luck has nothing to worry about come graduation time, I'd bet the backup running back does. And that's finding a job after graduation, same as the rest. The only difference is, he's pulling double duty as both a student and a full time athlete. That means two-a-days, 6am wake-ups, and late nights studying. So while the exceptional athletes make it, most of them don't, and they still have to put in the same effort.

    Another argument I would offer is that it would help clean up the image of collegiate sports. You can't turn on ESPN for a week and not hear about yet another school being in trouble because a student athlete was paid by a booster, or sold his possessions to make a buck. While many college students have the time outside of school to get a job, student athletes do not. It's school and sports, all year round essentially. Even when its not that particular sports season, they're practicing for the next. For those living in poverty, they often have to stoop to levels beneath them such as taking money from agents. And that's just to attempt to have a semblance of a life when time affords them.

    These athletes are also making their universities far more then their tuition costs them. Whether it comes to TV deals, some colleges make in excess of 15 million dollars a year. And that's only in TV revenue. There's also merchandise sales, where a recent study done by James Henitz and Robert Parry at Florida Golf Coast University showed that Division 1 Schools net, on average, $700,000 a month in merchandise sales. Division 2 Schools aren't far behind at $555,000. Those equal out to a whopping 8 million a year for Division 1 schools, and 6.6 million for Division 2 schools. I didn't even touch on ticket sales and university boosters, because I think my point is well made here.

    I understand your point, and your frustration regarding student loans. I started out my college career as a student athlete on a full basketball scholarship. Halfway through my feshman season, I tore up my knee so badly that I was told Id never play again. I didn't. I lost my scholarship following the tuition year, and all of the "amenities" that went with it. How did I injure my knee? At a 6 am practice after being up until 1am the night before cramming for exams. While being a student athlete has it's perks, for sure, it also has it's drawbacks. Those perks a student athlete gets are given due to the hours of hard work and performance they produce, as well as the merchandise, TV revenue, and ticket sales they help produce. In professional sports, if a player is injured in practice or during a game, the team is still on the hook to pat them for part of the duration of their contract. In college, scholarships can simply be "not renewed." I was told that if "I they can't compete, I'm not performing the function required of the scholarship." Paying the student athlete would help eliminate this problem as well, as the student put their health at risk in becoming a student athlete.

    While I could see those arguing that student athletes would have more of a reason to neglect the academic studies, there's a simple solution. To get paid, one should have to maintain a certain GPA. Failure to do so means you don't get paid. This would serve to benefit both those who will go on to have successful careers in sports, as well as those who won't, especially since it will ensure they truly live up to the title of being a "student/athlete".

    The fact of the matter is, student athletes are doing as much as, if not more then, their professional counterparts, and are being rewarded far less. They don't have time to get jobs, and their putting their bodies at risk. They're providing entertainment to the majority, sometimes moreso then professionals. Id rather watch a college basketball game then an NBA one any day of the week. They're providing astounding amounts of financial windfall to their schools in the form of ticket sales, TV deals, and merchandise revenue. Most will never see a dime based upon this following college, and will be further behind in finding a career due to lack of time allotted to begin the search for a career based upon their year round commitment to the sport. I think Ive covered all my bases here, and after doing so, would pose the following question. Why shouldn't student athletes get paid?
  4. Thriller Ant

    Thriller Ant Beep Bop Boop

    Jul 20, 2008
    Likes Received:
    The players who don't go pro do have worry about finding real jobs, that can't be argued. Once again, however, they don't have to worry as much about finding a job because they won't need a job that can cover their living expenses as well as loan payments.

    As far as the practices, that is part of their responsibility to earn the scholarship. Just like I have to work at my job to earn my pay, these athletes have to go to practice and play in games to earn their scholarship. They get reimbursed for their time in the sport with their free education, and anything besides that is slightly outrageous.

    Paying the athletes will not stop boosters from trying to influence them or stop guys from selling old jerseys to get a new tattoo. The athletes just have to be taught better that doing that is wrong and can be severely punished, and the boosters need to be further removed from the athletes. There are plenty of jobs on and off campuses for the athletes to work at during the offseason. You can talk about how they don't have time, but I know regular students who have school, clubs, work out, and still have time for a job as well. Most on-campus jobs work around a student's schedule to make sure they can work. The only way they can't get jobs is from lack of trying.

    Colleges don't make nearly as much as you seem to think they do.

    You can read the full article here. The schools really don't make that much from athletics, and since many states are cutting costs, the colleges are getting even less money. Paying the athletes on top of giving them scholarships will relegate the athletics program to another expense and could eventually lead to many sports being phased out.

    First of all, sorry about your injury. I understand what you're trying to say here, but paying the athletes would leave the same scenario. Paying the athletes would equate them to being employees, and if you can't do your job, you don't get paid. If you had been getting paid instead of the scholarship, you would have been in the same position, just with more debt.

    This should happen regardless of what the student athletes get. I'd love to see some rules about graduating as well.

    Saying that athletes don't have time to find a job is absolutely absurd. They have to go to the career services office at a time that fits their schedule, just like everyone else. They should go to career/internship fairs when they can, just like everyone else. Like I said earlier, these athletes are at an advantage since they don't have to worry about paying back loans and could put their time as a college athlete in a resume or bring it up in an interview. I agree that in-season athletes probably have less free time than the average student, but that just means they have to manage their time, just like the other thousands of students at their school.
  5. hatehabsforever

    hatehabsforever Moderator
    Staff Member Moderator

    Mar 5, 2007
    Likes Received:
    I would be totally opposed to the whole idea of paying collegiate/university athletes. To me, regardless of how much money any given university may be making from the proceeds of athletic endeavors, it still, when push comes to shove, is amateur sports. There should always be a distinction, in my opinion, between professional athletes (most of whom are compensated quite nicely between contracts, endorsements, etc.,) and amateur athletes. In my opinion, this line has been blurred, no actually, eliminated with the way some sports, such as hockey, in the Olympics, where we see professional athletes take a hiatus from their professional leagues to participate in the Olympic Games, which should be the showcase of the top amateur athletes in the world. However, this is drifting off topic, this is another discussion for another day.

    Sure, the college or university in question allegedly makes money from the sporting events in which it's athletes participate, most notably with something huge such as March Madness. I have no problem whatsoever with this. This money goes back into the university to a large degree, I would assume, and I'm certain the school has to account for the manner in which said proceeds from the sports are utilized. The monies made from the sports programs can be pumped back into the school, allowing it to continue to provide top notch education, facilities, etc., to the university as a whole, for the sports side of the university, but for non-sporting matters as well. A school such as UCLA, for example, may profit from their sports programs, and use these profits to finance education, music, upkeep of the campus, whatever. I don't think this money belongs in the pockets of the athletes, but rather, in the pockets of the schools that give these athletes the opportunity to showcase their talents in the first place.

    Some of the athletes participating in collegiate sports will make it to the professional ranks. I'm sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy for a person who comes out of college with student loans to repay,and then signs a contract in their respective professional leagues for multiple-million dollars over a period of several years. Let's face it, if a guy plays college basketball in the NCAA and eventually makes it to the NBA, he's debt free before the conclusion of his first season, and that's including the guys who are riding the benches early in their careers. The issue is even more ridiculous for the upper echelon players who are rich beyond their wildest dreams, complaining that they weren't getting paid in college.

    For those who don't make it to the big time, boo freaking' hoo. These guys will have to do what the rest of the world does. Go to college, pay their dues, financially and otherwise, get student loans, work a part time job, likely living a more meager lifestyle in the process, and when it's all said and done, get out there and try to make a living in the field of their choosing, and earn an honest living. College doesn't come with any guarantees for anyone. Lots of people go to university, incur a lot of financial hardship in the process, and after they graduate, struggle to make ends meet. Why should this be any different for the athletes as opposed to the rest of the world. At least these guys are attending top notch educational institutions and greatly increasing their ultimate employment opportunities in the process.

    I attended college for 8 years and obtained 2 degrees in the process. It would have been nice to have been paid for those years, to have lived a more posh lifestyle while there, and to have come out of there debt free. However I, like most, lived under pretty meager conditions, worked summer jobs, and got student loans along the way which took me years to pay off afterwards. And I did so knowing this and knowing that there was no potential for a multi-million dollar contract waiting for me in the end. I'd really don't see why it should have been any different for me, just because I could dunk a basketball, throw a perfect spiral, or throw a devastating curveball. Welcome to the real world guys. Enjoy your lucrative contract if you're lucky enough to get it, and if not, get your ass out there and earn an honest living, with your college degree in hand, like the rest of us.
  6. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    That's well and good, but a 2005 study done by Hartford Financial notes the following.
    The entire article is enclosed within.
    College Athletes Optimistic About Financial Future, but Survey Shows Unrealistic Expectations
    The Hartford and NCAA® present 'Playbook for Life' to coach student-athletes for financial success beyond the playing field
    HARTFORD, Conn., October 24, 2005 - Despite high debt, college student-athletes are bullish on their financial future. However, while more than half have begun planning for life after college, more than one-third lack the confidence to properly manage their finances. Across the board, their expectations about starting salaries and the amount of savings needed for retirement do not match reality, according to a new survey by The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: HIG).

    Expectations and Realities: A Rude Awakening for Graduates
    The Hartford survey reveals that the average student-athlete plans to graduate with approximately $14,200 in student loans and credit card debt, and expects to land a job paying at least $64,500. Student-athletes in the North Atlantic Region anticipate the most debt, about $16,000, while those in the South Central states expect the least - about $13,000. As for starting salaries, student-athletes in the West expect to earn the most when they graduate, $68,750, compared to the lowest expectations of $62,000 for those in the North Central states.

    The actual average starting income for a college graduate with a liberal arts or general studies degree in 2005 is approximately $32,000, according to a salary survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Graduates with a degree in marketing will likely earn about $37,000, those with a degree in business, about $40,000, and those with an accounting degree, about $43,000. Even the highest-paying entry-level jobs in chemical engineering and computer sciences pay $10,000 to $15,000 lower than student-athlete expectations for starting salaries.

    In terms of retirement, 71 percent of the student-athletes surveyed believe they will need less than $1 million to live comfortably when they stop working. Yet financial experts predict that when today's college student reaches age 65, the amount needed to retire could be much higher due to inflation, escalating health care costs, depleted social security and increased life expectancies.

    Help for Students: Developing a Game Plan
    Student-athletes nationwide now have the opportunity to develop a game plan for their financial future with the help of The Hartford's Playbook for Life. A national education program designed to help student-athletes gain a solid understanding of personal finance, Playbook for Life was created by The Hartford, working closely with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Included in the program are visits to college campuses by members of "Team Hartford" - a select group of former student-athletes who have succeeded in both sports and non-athletic careers, and are visiting college campuses to share their personal stories. A 25-page guidebook and Web site ( are also available to the student-athlete and non-athlete alike.

    "It's never too early to draw up a game plan for your financial future," said Team Hartford Captain Allen Pinkett, former University of Notre Dame All-American running back who played for the NFL's Houston Oilers and New Orleans Saints before joining The Hartford. "I wish I had access to some of this information when I was in college, so I could have avoided some of the costly financial mistakes I made later on," he noted.

    From understanding the risks of bad credit to budgeting for housing and living costs, The Hartford's Playbook for Life is designed to help student-athletes make smart decisions as they plan for their financial future. The materials provide fundamental and reader-friendly information, along with references to additional resources. Moreover, each Team Hartford member has a compelling personal story that resonates with student-athletes.

    "Playbook for Life is proving to be a terrific resource for student-athletes," said NCAA President Myles Brand. "Most recognize they stand to gain a great deal by learning to manage their money wisely. We are excited to be working with The Hartford to educate student-athletes nationwide about this essential life skill."

    More Student Statistics
    The majority of today's college graduates begin their careers with some level of debt. According to The Hartford survey, 79 percent of student-athletes nationwide anticipate beginning their post-college days owing money.

    •Nationally, the average debt burden is expected to be about $14,200, with nearly one-third (31 percent) of those polled saying they will have more than $20,000 to repay.
    •Student-athletes in the North-Atlantic region anticipate the highest debt load - $16,000 compared to $13,000 for those in the South Central states.

    Starting salary expectations among student-athletes are universally high.

    •Student-athletes in the West expect to earn the most when they graduate, $68,750, compared to the lowest expectations of $62,000 for those in the North Central states.
    •Nationwide, more than one-third (34 percent) of student-athletes surveyed expect to become a millionaire in their lifetime. Those in the South Central states (38 percent) are most optimistic about attaining millionaire status, compared to those in the North Central states (31 percent).

    While retirement planning is not top of mind for most college students, slightly more than half (52 percent) of the student-athletes surveyed plan to begin saving for retirement in their 20s. Another 38 percent say they will begin saving in their 30s. Only 29 percent of those questioned think they will need to save more than $1million to retire comfortably at age 65.

    •Student-athletes in the South Atlantic states (27 percent) are least likely, and those in the West (33 percent) are most likely to think they will need more than $1 million to retire.

    Overall, more than half of college athletes nationwide (55 percent) have begun planning for life after college; A total of 59 percent of those attending schools in the West are putting together a financial game plan, compared to only 49 percent of those going to school in the South Atlantic region.

    Student-athletes in the West are also the most confident (68 percent) that they have enough knowledge to properly manage their finances; those in the North Central states are the least confident (61 percent). The national average is 65 percent.
    Playbook for Life.

    The Playbook for Life has brought its financial planning message to student-athletes at Columbia, Duke, and Rice Universities, the University of Hartford and Saint Joseph's University. Based on the initial success of the program, additional campus events are being scheduled for this fall and spring 2006.

    In addition to Pinkett, other Team Hartford members include: Jennifer Rizzotti, former University of Connecticut and WNBA basketball player and University of Hartford women's basketball coach; Brian Davis, president of Brian Davis Enterprises and former basketball stand-out at Duke University; Bill Poutre, professor of entrepreneurship, men's golf coach and former golfer at the University of Hartford; Andre Mirkine, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner, co-founder of the Sports Financial Advisors Association, former professional freestyle skier, and Clark University and semi-professional soccer player; Javier Loya, president and CEO of Choice! Energy, minority owner of the Houston Texans and former Columbia University defensive end; Anucha Browne Sanders, senior vice president, Marketing and Business Operations, New York Knicks, and former basketball player at Northwestern University; Kerry Phelan, vice president, Worldwide Consumer Products, Pixar Animation Studios, and former University of Connecticut tennis player.

    The final statistics from our study are as follows.

    21% of Division I male athletes want to turn pro.

    1% of college athletes go on to play at the professional level.

    36% of college athletes expect to become a millionaire in their lifetime - not necessarily through athletics.

    72% of college athletes expect to owe student loan debt when they graduate.

    47% of athletes expect to carry credit-card debt upon graduation.

    60% of college athletes have begun planning their financial future.

    32% of volleyball players use a financial adviser.

    16% of football players use an adviser.

    The Hartford survey was conducted among 3,617 student-athletes in all NCAA divisions by Impulse Research Corporation in August 2005 with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

    So in essence, one of four college athletes won't have to worry loan payments. The other 3 will. So not only will these students have less time and energy to find jobs, they'll also be in the same predicament that non-athletes will. The title of this thread was "Should college/University athletes be paid?", not "Should Scholarship Student/Athletes be paid?" We're not just talking about the prominent sports here, we're discussing all sports. This research shows that the majority of student athletes are in the same predicament as non-student athletes are. They'll owe the same debt that I did and you will when leaving college.

    But what for those who aren't on scholarship, who also help produce revenue for their instituion? Aren't they doing their "job" for the university by going to practice, traveling, and playing in games? You can argue that they "chose" their job, but ultimately all of us do when in college, according to what's available to us. It just so happens that to some, participating in the college sport of their choice is their job. Playing professional sports in considered to be a "paying job." Why is the job of being a professional athlete different from that of being a college athlete?

    I agree that this will always be a problem, but my argument was that paying them will lessen it. Im sure the Terrell Pryors would like to still have the jerseys and trophy's as mementos while still being able to get a tattoo. Boosters will always try and influence students, and there will always be students without morals who will accept no matter what. But being afforded monetary gain will certainly lessen the influence of boosters, especially since the player can already pay for some of the very same things that the boosters are offerring, especially those in poverty.

    Not necessarily true. As someone who did play college sports as a freshman, I had absolutely no time for anything else. None whatsoever. Two-a-day practices along with training and mandatory workouts were just part of the drill. There was the traveling and playing in games as well. I spent my only free time studying, because there were rules in place in terms of academics and keeping scholarships at my college. I would have loved to have gotten a job to have spending money, but I would have had to have been awake 24/7 to do so. In my humble opinion, playing sports is a job, just a non-paying one at that. Those on the team who didn't have scholarships had the same responsibilities that those of us who had scholarships did. It's still the same way. How is that fair to them?

    I read the USA study that you cited, and what you failed to mention is that those schools are failing to make a profit could very well be due to several factors. One is the upgrading of facilities, both for working out and for playing on, the other being the rediculous amounts of money spent on hiring outside coachesfor their major sports. These are foolish expenditures that colleges spend on that could be used to reward these student athletes in the best possible way: A paycheck.

    Im not arguing that they should be paid outlandish amounts of money here, but would the strain of paying the kids minimum wage for a thirty hour work week(most put in more then that) be too much? I don't think so.

    Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that. But in a sense, Im thankful that I was injured. It was a blessing in disguise. Im thankful that it allowed me focus on getting my degree, an internship, and a job in my field, all while still in college. I was light years ahead of where I would have been had I played all four years. That opportunity wasn't there for my teammates who I came in with, as their academic programs intensified as they advanced from freshmen to seniors. The least they could have been afforded was compensation for their time and efforts for what was essentially their jobs. Cutting back wasteful spending and the $500,000 a year salary our coach was receiving would have allowed this.

    I agree here, and you'll get no argument from me. I was forced to maintain a 2.5 GPA just to remain on scholarship for the year I had one, even after my injury. This is an issue that certainly should be looked into and stricter standards enforced at all universities.

    Ill correct my statement and say that many of them dont have the time to find a job anywhere near as equivalent to the non-student athlete, nor earn similar compensation. I agree that they should be going to college and internship fairs, but most of those are for planning for life after college, not during it. And as I showed earlier, 79% of college athletes are in debt upon leaving college anyway, which nullifies any said advantage. If anything, it puts them at a disadvantage in that they can't work significant hours at a job while playing sports and maintaining a respectable academic resume as well. It also nullifies their ability to work at virtually any off-campus job due to the restrictions of their schedule, particularly internships and jobs within their field. Why? Because they're already performing a full-time job they're not getting paid for.

    I agree that in-season athletes probably have less free time than the average student, but that just means they have to manage their time, just like the other thousands of students at their school.[/QUOTE]

    One can manage their time all they want, but there are restrictions due to the demanding regiments of their sports. I already covered the long hours and expectations that most student athletes are required to participate in, both scholarship and non-scholarship alike. I was able to get a job working in the library for 7 hours a week manning the audio visual room where I made $6.50 an hour. That's 45.00 a week. My sophomore year, after losing my scholarship, I got a waitering job I worked 4 nights a week and never left with less then $60.00, a night. On average, I made about $300.00 a week.

    As I became a junior, I was able to earn an internship, while still waitering, which became paid after 3 months. By my senior year, it became a salaried position, where I made $24,000 for 20 hours work weekly. Not bad for a college senior. This springboarded me to a larger job out of college making double that. Ive been able to pay off almost all my college and graduate loans as a result.

    My point is, these are things I would have never been afforded had I continued playing sports, my "job" my freshman year in college.
    Im not arguing that schools pay their athletes $24,000 a year. What I will say is that I worked a hell of a lot longer and harder as an athlete during my freshman year then I did as a senior. Yet I made no money and could afford nothing. I had no time for a social life due to my courseload and spending 40 hours a week plus playing basketball.

    This is the situation for most college athletes who see it through. Most of them go without scholarships as well, and are stuck with the same student loans as everyone else. Again, this isn't a thread about scholarship athletes, it's about college athletes. These athletes bust their asses to entertain, sell tickets, and ultimately move merchandise.

    Your point of schools not turning a profit is well taken, but much of this is ultimately due to increased foolish spending. Whether it throwing large amounts of money at the "larger sport" coaches, or rediculous upgrades or replacements of fine facilities, the money could be better used elsewhere. And that's in paying college athletes reasonable amounts of money who put in similar time, effort, and energy as the professional athletes whom are paid outlandish amounts of money. I dont think that's too much to ask for.
  7. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    What is the distinction though? The argument could easily be made that college athletes, regardless of the sport, work harder then the professionals. Not only are they playing to win championships on the field, they're playing for something much larger. A chance at a big money contract at the next level. Unlike those in the defunct XFL on Arena Football League, they happen to be doing it at a university. Often, at times, at the expense of their own education as a result. As I pointed out in my other post, the reward factor isn't all it's cracked up to be either. 71% of college athletes aren't on scholarship. So they're not getting the "benefits" of going to college for free. They're also being denied a social life, time for a full time job, and the ability to fulfill their potential in their field. And how many student athletes go pro in their respective sports? One percent. That means that one percent will be rewarded monetarily for the thousands of hours of practice and hard work they put forth in order to entertain you and me. Something isn't right there.

    Not alledgedly. CBS alone paid the N.C.A.A. 6 billion dollars in 1992 to air the NCAA Tournament for 11 years. Let that sink in. A one month tournament for 13 years. Six billion dollars for 13 months of basketball. And the people providing the entertainment that generates that 6 billion dollars for the N.C.A.A. schools? The players. If colleges and universities can afford to pay celebrity coaches million-dollar salaries, there is no reason why the athletes whose labor supports non-revenue producing sports shouldn't get a small chunk. Not to mention the emotional attachment with universities for millions of Americans. The N.C.A.A.’s $6 billion deal with CBS should cover this cost. Let's not forget that during this time, those players are away from their universities the entire time, missing a large chunk of their educational advancement. But let's just screw the 99% of those that will never go pro.

    They do. Thriller provided an article from USA today noting the increase in spending amongst colleges. The biggest venture has been the hiring of these outside multi-million dollar coaches who are using the university for potentially the same the players are, which is advancement to the next level. The Mike Krzyzewski's of the world are few and far between. The other largest venture has been the revamping and upgrading of the facilities and playing surfaces that most players play on. If asked, Im sure a player would rather receive compensation for their hard work and dedication then a new facility. Winning and losing, along with loyalty, is whats going to draw people anyway, not a new stadium.

    Those people who make it to the big time are 1%, as Ive stated previously. Im sorry for continuing to bring this up, but its a valid point. The other 99% will not make it to the big time with the luxurious contracts and lavish lifestyles. 71% of them will have to pay back the loans that you and I have had to pay. The difference? They had two responsibilites to worry about, their education and their athletic endeavors. The rest had only one.

    They do go to college. The difference is, while non-student athletes can soend their non-class time working on pursuing their educational and eventual employment means, the student athlete is forced to spend that time in two a day practices, trainings, and mandatory workouts. And that's not including games and travel. It leaves them with exponentially less time not only to work on their degree, but to make money in the here and now because the time they could be pursuing a job is spent in athletic endeavors.

    Point taken, but what we're discussing is the here and now of college, not its aftermath. But to argue the point, the financial hardship is greater because the opportunity to work in one's field is stronger when they aren't spending 40 hours a week working at honing their craft, whether it be basketball or volleyball. Chances for internships and even part time jobs in one's field are negated during college because of this. Why shouldn't they receive compensation to help make up for this?

    Actually, for those who don't make it in the big time, it decreases their ability to gain better employment opportunities in the process. Not all scholarship athletes attend major schools, and not all athletes who attend major schools are on scholarship. Many are attempting to work towards honing their craft for future employment in the sport of their talent to ultimately have no employment opportunity to fall back on, and just a degree with no experience. Hardly seems fair.

    I give you incredible credit for this. This takes great resolve to do, and you should feel quite proud of yourself for sticking through to obtain 2 degrees. My hat's off to you.

    I started out as a student athlete on scholarship playing basketball, and blew my knee out at the end of my freshman year. The only money I was able to make my freshman year was working ten hours a week in the school library. I had no time for anything else other then school, studying, and basketball. After blowing out my knee, I lost my scholarship, which in hindsight was the best thing that could have happened to me. I was able to both go to school, work, and socialize. I earned an internship at the end of my junior year that turned into a salaried position my senior year making 24,000$ a year in my field. Why? Because the incredible demands of athletics were no longer there to prevent me from focusing on my education and my future employment. It also allowed me to pursue and obtain my Master's degree while obtaining a full time job and doubling my salary. I fully believe had I not blown out my knee, the internship, employment, and graduate school would not have been available to me. Why? Because of time.

    I can attest first-hand to the incredible demands of being a backup shooting guard that prevented me from doing so much else, all involving things that made me money. Surely, those who do make that sacrifice for all four years should be afforded compensation for their effort and lack of opportunities that may be afforded them as a result.

    But many student athletes expect that lucrative contract, hence all the hard work they put in to obtain it. Yet, as Ive pointed out, most of them fail. And while msot of us have college degree in hand as well as experience of some kind in our field, student athletes do not. The demands of their sport simply don't allow for it. Why? Because they're performing a job, one that brings ticket sales, merchandise sales, and TV revenue to the university. If a school can afford multi-million dollar contracts for coaches, they can afford a small stipend for those student athletes who in essence do a job for nothing.
  8. The Crock

    The Crock WOO!

    May 19, 2010
    Likes Received:
    No, I don't think that college athletes should be paid. For one, like has already mentioned, most college athletes are on FULL-RIDE scholarships, they don't have to pay for a thing, so the school would pretty much be paying them to play there and that would defeat the purpose of college sports. For many guys playing in college isn't something that they even want to be paid for, it's just their dream, maybe even their platform for the millions of dollars they might eventually earn. Another thing is that college athletes don't have to sign a contract and play, as far as I know they have some waivers to sign and such, but if they want to stop playing... they can.

    The main thing impacting my decision is the fact that instead of going to college, if they were good enough, why don't they go play in Turkey or something like that for a few years until they can go pro here? If they need money that bad, then they can bypass amateur play and go straight into the profession. It's not as if the opportunities aren't there for them to do so, most just want to experience everything that playing in college has to offer, even though their not being paid.

    Finally, what good would this do? Paying young collegiate athletes would literally eliminate a huge part of athletics. There would be no point. The school would be losing money and it would become a sports league as well, and that's clearly not the goal of the NCAA. So no, college athletes should not be paid, not a chance.
  9. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Mar 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    There's no reason why college athletes should be paid. The education they receive over 4 years, which is worth over 6 figures at some universities, is more than enough compensation. Someone who is going to school for free, gets to play the sport they love, and gets treated with multiple perks throughout the collegiate experience does not deserve to have an extra salary on top of all that. That's just silly.

    I understand the main argument for it; college athletes have to spend time at practice as well as in the classroom, but it simply is not a legitimate one. What about the non-athletes who have to work 5 or 6 days a week to pay off their college tuition which the athletes are getting for see? Obviously college athletes shouldn't be paid, it wouldn't make any sesne. They're amatuers, mate.
  10. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    With all due respect, I think you failed to read the article or the stastics that I provided before. According to a study conducted by The Hartford Financial in 2005, 71% of student athletes will have debt when leaving college. That means that 3 out of 4 DO NOT have full-ride scholarships. That means that they're playing their sport and busting their ass to entertain you and me, while not being compensated for it as you think. You can read the article above.

    What is the purpose of college sports, exactly? Id argue that the first and foremost purpose is to provide revenue for the colleges and universities, be it through TV deals, merchandise sales, and ticket sales. To put money back into the universities pocket. Since it's been established that most of them DON'T get full rides, why shouldn't they get a peice of what they help to produce for their universities?

    But how many of them actually achieve that dream? Referencing that study, it's ONE PERCENT. One percent of all student athletes will go pro and get paid in the future.

    You're basically narrowing this down to a few sports with this statement. This isn't just about basketball, its about all sports. Most athletes coming out of high school can't just go to Turkey, because their sport of choice isnt necessarily available there. Their best opportunity to get any semblance of chance of getting paid, if thhey're good enough, is going to college. Why do you think we see so many athletes leaving school early? The opportunity to get paid. Id venture that many more students would stay in school and finish their education, making them more well-rounded individuals, if they were getting paid something. They'ld have something to fall back upon too once their playing days are over as well.

    Really? Paying a student athlete $10.00 an hour for a 30 hour work week would really put such a dent in the university's finances? It wouldn't. If it did, this problem could be eliminated easily refusing to pay celebrity coaches millions of dollars to come and coach for a few seasons, using their university as a stepping stone. If you want to talk about losing money, overpaid coaches and outlandish expenditures on athletic facilities are the problem. That money could easily be used otherwise to pay the individuals who give of their time, social life, and overall health to entertain the large and small.

    College sports is a league, in essence. That's why we have conferences, Bowl Games, and TV deals for said conferences, and sometimes Universities in and of themselves. Notre Dame comes to mind. How does that differentiate them from professional sports, exactly? CBS dished out 6 billion dollars to the NCAA just for the rights to March Madness for 11 years. Why would they do that if college sports aren't a sports league? How does that differ from the TV deals professional sports teams recieve?

    College athletes do everything professional athletes do, if not more. They practice almost year round, with two a days during the season, not to mention mandatory workouts. They sell merchandise, garner huge television deals, and compete for championships, all while having to get an education at the same time.

    Because of their hard work, they pump money back into the place they're playing at because of this. The only difference is that while professional athletes are getting compensated for the money they pump back in to their employers, student athletes are not. 71% of them aren't even getting compensated by way of that full ride you noted. They should be in some other form for doing their job, and that's financially.
  11. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Mar 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Actually, I'm sure it would. Take that money you're proposing (8,000 a year per student, approximately) and multiply that by every single student athlete and you are in the millions of dollars range. That surely is a significant figure.

    The bold part is what I realy question. They have to get an education? How bout they are privleged to be getting an education, an education they may not have the oppurtunity at unless it was for the fact that they were blessed with great athletic genes. Your thought process is quite contorted here.

    Here is where your argument gets a little shaky. You're assuming that all student athlete pump money back into the schools, which is false. At most schools, basketball and football are the only profitable sports. All of the other ones cost the university money to run, for the most part. And virtually all football and basketball players, at least the ones that are pumping money into the university, as you would say, are on full ride athletic scholarships, which we all can agree is enough of an education.

    Instead of basing everything you say off some sketchy study from 5+ years ago, you should really just be using some common sense when looking at the situation. It's quite a simple argument, really.
  12. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Im not proposing that they get paid year round. Only during the actual season. I made that point in my earlier post, you're picking and choosing what parts of my argument you want to single out and distort to make your point.

    Because their time and energy is spent in athletics and academics, they don't have time to work during the season. Their sport is their job. Like regular students, they can get jobs during the off-season. the title of the thread was "Should College athletes be paid for their time on the court?", not "Should they be paid all year round?" Paying them for 4 months would be quite less of a financial burden on the College or University then you proposed. Students who work other on-campus jobs get paid similarly, how is there a difference for those who work as athletes? There isn't.

    Noted. The flaw here in your logic is that while all students are priviledged to get an education, student athletes are required to get one. NCAA regulation's mandate that student athletes maintain a GPA of 2.0 in order to continue to play, scholarship athlete or not. I was a scholarship basketball player for one year where I was forced to maintain a 2.5 in order to stay on the team. So yes, in order to compete at a collegiate level, an education is a must.Anyone who gets an education is fortunate and blessed, student athlete or not.

    And many of the student athletes whose sports dont pump money back into their university are forced to pay for their own equipment, and have fundraisers in order to get uniforms. Yet they're working just as hard as their counterparts that are making money for their schools. Im not arguing that all sports make money for their schools, Im arguing that the sum of all sports revenue could bring much more money into the schools then the cost. The person who mans the desk at the library doesn't bring money into the university either, but they're still compensated for it. From the football player to the the women's tennis player, they're putting far more time and energy into their job then someone who checks out books. As such, they should get paid for it. If you have the breakdown of what sports are most profitable, and who are on scholarship, Id love to see it. Because right now, all you're giving is your opinion.

    Shaky? There was a 3 percent margain of error, if you read the entire thing. That's the farthest thing from shaky. I also used Thriller's USA Today study, which I mentioned, statistics from the NCAA's own website, and my own experience as a former student athlete. Not to mention the points I made about increasing graduation rates, decreasing the influence of boosters and agents, and several others. Im also basing what Im saying on the idea that the dedication, hard work, time, and health student athletes put into their sports goes largely unrewarded for most. Common sense would dictate that they should be compensated in some way.

    The simple argument is this. Schools overpay for things such as coaches and facilities at the expense of both scholarships and funds for their students. While these students bring money into the school, they arent rewarded in turn. They should be. That's my simple argument, you can read my longer one above.

    Im checking out for the night, but Ill be back tomorrow to debate this further if needed.
  13. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Apr 24, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I'm going to say that no, college athletes shouldn't get paid. I believe that college athletics is nothing more then a hobby, and for most sports, there's only a small percentage of kids that will make it in the pros. So, if they're lacking in money, they should either stop playing their sport and get a job, or try and get their funds up during their offseason. While that seems harsh in words, it's a tough reality. These kids are student athletes, and as such, should focus on their studies first, not their athletics. If the workload combined between the two is too much, they should give up their sport, even if they've been playing it since they were young, and focus on their education.

    Because let's face it, are you going to pay the golfer as much as you would the football player? No. Football brings in cash, golf doesn't. But if you pay the football player something you have to pay the golf player something as well, in the interest of fairness.

    And let's be honest, their 'pay' should be an education. They don't need sports, and life will go on with or without them in it. However, if they want to make it in life, they will need an education, which is what it should be all about.
  14. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Mar 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    But according to your plan why shouldn't they get paid year round when they put just as much time in? And do student athletes from different sports get paid different amounts? What if they make it farther in the postseason, do they get paid more? What happens in case of an injury on the "job"? Do they get benefits? Are their salaries negotioble? How do they vary from school to school? These are all questions you need to ask yourself and complications with the whole paying students system. It's simply too difficult.

    But student athletes are already getting paid in the form of scholarships which other students are not receiving and are receiving other extra benefits because of their athletic gifts. Regardless of your study, which is outdated anyway, athletes are already receiving more benefits than average students.

    Don't see your point here. If you told me I could go to college for free if I maintained a C average I'd be estatic. Am I supposed to feel pity for athletes who need to keep their grades above D's so that they get a free education?

    And many of the student athletes whose sports dont pump money back into their university are forced to pay for their own equipment, and have fundraisers in order to get uniforms. Yet they're working just as hard as their counterparts that are making money for their schools. Im not arguing that all sports make money for their schools, Im arguing that the sum of all sports revenue could bring much more money into the schools then the cost. The person who mans the desk at the library doesn't bring money into the university either, but they're still compensated for it. From the football player to the the women's tennis player, they're putting far more time and energy into their job then someone who checks out books. As such, they should get paid for it. If you have the breakdown of what sports are most profitable, and who are on scholarship, Id love to see it. Because right now, all you're giving is your opinion.

    Here you go. Student athletes are not actually brining money in after all. Like I said, football and men's basketball are the only sports brining in any money, and even so only about half of them are profitable. 1/4 of the universities revenue from athletics is going directly back to the athletes in the form of grants or scholarships. Universities are already paying nearly $80,000 a year per student athlete, they certainly can't afford to pay them any more. That'd just drive up tuition for everyone else to even more ridiculous numbers than it already is.
    College Athletics By The Numbers: A Deeper Look at Profitability

    A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.

    12% of college athletic programs are profitable.

    Which college athletic sports are profitable?

    According to the NCAA study, only two sports were reported by any university as being profitable:

    ■Men’s Basketball
    Let’s take a closer look…

    ■There is a lot of discussion about football keeping athletic departments alive. Yes, football is one of only two sports (men’s basketball being the other) that ANY university reported as being profitable. At the same time, however, only 57% of football programs reported being profitable. Thus the other 43% of football programs are still part of the problem.
    ■Men’s Basketball
    ■As the only other profitable sport that any university reported, men’s basketball is also considered an important aspect of keeping college athletics alive. Once again, however, keep in mind that roughly 57% of men’s basketball programs reported being profitable, so there is a large percentage of men’s basketball programs losing money.
    How do college athletic departments MAKE money?

    Three items account for over 50% of revenues:

    ■Ticket Sales (17%)
    ■Alumni/booster donations (27%)
    ■NCAA/conference distribution (14%)
    How do college athletic departments SPEND money?

    Two items account for over 50% of expenses:

    ■Salaries and benefits (32%)
    ■Scholarships (Grants In Aid) (25%)
    In case you are curious, here are a few other items as a percentage of total expenses:

    ■Facilities maintenance and rental (13%)
    ■Team travel (7%)
    ■Recruiting (2%)
    ■Equipment/uniforms/supplies (3%)
    ■Game expenses (4%)
    The median expense per student athlete in 2009 was $76,000.

    How much does a college athletic program cost each university?

    Average assistance that each university gave to the athletic department was $10.2 million.

    How do we improve college athletics moving forward?

    There isn’t an easy answer although simple math tells us that a start would be to reduce costs and increase revenue. As witnessed yesterday by Cal’s decision to cut five sports, universities are less willing to keep athletic programs alive so it’s time for college athletic programs to be self sustaining.

    Decrease Spending

    While salaries and scholarships aren’t necessarily easy to reduce as they are driven by outside factors (salaries of competing positions, tuition rises, etc), the data indicates its the first place to look in terms of reducing costs. This could come in the form of fewer staff members per department/team, lower salaries for staff members within college athletics, or cutting athletic programs. As someone who has worked in sports business, I recognize sports already has low salaries (particularly lower level positions) but I recognize that in order for college athletics as we know it to continue changes need to be made. In my experience, there are opportunities for college athletics to become more efficient. What if conferences became responsible for marketing individual teams instead of the universities athletic departments? Or media rights were handled at the conference or NCAA level instead of the individual institution? I recognize a large percentage of expenses for salaries are on the field in the form of coaches so perhaps there need to be guidelines for coaching salaries in college athletics? Is it time to re-evaluate the scholarship model? Reduce scholarships? Offer various levels of scholarship based on academic standing, performance on team, etc? . Cutting expenses is always a tough task full of difficult decisions (see Cal), so I welcome any ideas in the comments.

    Increase Revenue

    The report doesn’t explicitly state what “NCAA and conference distributions” are but presumably its an athletic programs cut of any revenues generated by the NCAA or conference on their behalf (TV, radio, etc). What are some other ways to increase revenue? There is talk that a football playoff would generate significantly more revenue but is that the answer? What about individual conferences forming their own network (similar to Big 10 network)? Will that generate enough revenue for athletic departments? Can other sports generate significant fan interest? I think the15,896 people who showed up to UC Santa Barbara to watch a college soccer game say yes.

    What do you think? I’ve really enjoyed reading the debate the last few days on Twitter regarding college athletics and cutting sports programs so I welcome any ideas, or comments you have. What are some solutions for college athletics? Is there even a problem?

    I see what you're going for know. Just because you had a bad experience as a student athlete it doesn't mean you're automatically right and we should all be feeling sympathy for you. I call this the Stormtrooper Concussion Corralary.

    Anyway, here's the main point I've been trying to make. Student athletes already simply get compensated more than other students because they are more physically gifted than them. There is no reason they should get even more benefits. Sure, college make suck financially for some student athletes, but it sucks for basically every student. Athletes don't need any more perks than they already have.

    Being as they don't actually bring money into the school, for the most part, this is invalid, my friend.
  15. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I never said they put in as much time during the offseason. They put in time, but not as much during the regular season. But I digress.

    I agree. The questions you asked are ones that need to be asked and answered along the lines of paying the student. The idea that they can't be answered them is ludicrous. If you work overtime in your profession(postseason), you get paid more. Different jobs, varying on level of importance(basketball vs. volleyball), are paid accordingly. I work in the mental health field. One company paid me $3.00 more an hour then the other(varying within schools). Its called designing a business structure, by the school, and sticking to it. When you're injured on your job in life, you get paid workmans compansation benefits(injured playing a sport). Does the regular college student who works an hourly on-campus job receive benefits?(correlation to athletes) Come on man, this is easy here. If i can answer your questions, with no business acumen whatsoever, the NCAA, or its solo colleges and universities, certainly can.

    Some are. Actually few are. You don't like my "outdated study", which is hardly the case being that its five years old. Would you argue that things have changed so much in five years that the 71% number of students who DONT receive full scholarships and benefits isn't close to being accurate?

    Just because some are receiving more benefits then others, that has nothing to do with them being compensated. They're sacrificing alot to receive said benefits, and depending on their family's income level, many are almost forced to stoop to dubious means to just have spending money. Paying them would eliminate much of this. There will always be agents and boosters and students will always be greedy, but paying the student will curtail this highly.

    WHo said anything about you feeling pity for them? This is about paying them, correct? Its difficult to maintain a full academic workload while playing a sport, full time. My point is that they can't simply play sports, they have to get an education. You said they simply should feel priviledged. When you're forced to do something, that's not a priviledge. I understand its a requirement that comes with a scholarship, and acknowlegded ahead of time. But its a requirement, nonetheless.

    Sure they can. It's called a restructuring of the current business model under which they operate. The results of the study you posted noted that the Number 1 expense for college athletics was coaches. Not student-athletes, coaches. If universities were to stop throwing multi-million dollar contracts at these celebrity coaches and reduce unneeded staff, the money would be there to compensate the athlete. Its not the idea of compensating the athlete that is wrong, it's the current business structure universities operate under that is the real problem. Your article argued as much.

    This is hilarious. If you had bothered to read my opening post, you would have noticed that my knee injury and losing my scholarship was the BEST thing that's ever happened to me. It allowed me to focus on my education and get a job within my career field while STILL in college making 24 grand my senior year. The only job I could get while as a student was, at most, 10 hours a week making $6.50 an hour. Call it whatever you want, but your wrong. ;)

    And the points Im trying to make a three-fold. The benefits that the student athletes are receving are hardly compensary to ther amount of sacrifice and labor they put in to their university, which then puts money back into the universities pockets. How the university chooses to use that money shouldn't be at the expense at the student/athlete. Often is. Most of them will still leave college with debt. Most. Call a five year study outdated all you like, but its quite the leap to make to think that those statistics have changed drastically within the last five years.

    Second, these students are often doing their "jobs' at the expense of their education, and further employment advancement. 1% of student athletes are able to go pro. That means 99% will have to find something else to do to make money. The problem is, while the non-student athlete is able to use their time not in class earning money and furthering their employment pursuits while still in college, the student athlete often cannot. Because athletics are becoming more year round now then ever, it becomes increasingly difficult on said athlete. The least that can be done to reward them for their hard work is a small paycheck.

    Finally, when's the last time you've gone a week turning on ESPN daily and HAVEN'T heard of some sort of financial inpropriety by a student athlete? Cam Newton is just the last big name example. Im not saying that paying the student athlete will complete eliminate the problem, but it will certainly serve as a reasonable way to help curtail it. This benefits both the university and the student when less inpropriety occurs.
  16. newc868

    newc868 Pre-Show Stalwart

    May 25, 2010
    Likes Received:
    They shouldn't be paid at all because as it's already been mentioned - they get a full scholarship pro bono.

    If you begin to pay them as well, I think it's just ludicrous. I don't care if you're the star Running Back or potential All-Star guard, you're there doing a course, mostly so that in case you suffer a career-ending injury or you just don't do as well as predicted - you have a back up.

    I mean you only have to take a look at someone like Ryan Leaf who did a Bill Lesnar and believed his own hype around himself and although he ultimately failed in the NFL, he had nothing else to fall back and now he's in jail. This type of thing can be avoided by simply letting them have that back up option, whether it's a communications degree or a business degree - they have a degree. End. Of.

    The film Coach Carter, which is based on real life events, best sums up what I'm trying to say. Despite his player being gifted, they needed to know that sport isn't the be all and end all. When you finish up playing - which is say around 35 - then you've still got another half of a life ahead of you.

    Paying the players before they've earned the right to call themselves professionals is ridiculous and shouldn't be done at any rate.
  17. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Mar 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Paying different amounts for different sports, especially men and women's sports, can get real hairy, real fast. Also, if the amount varies by school, that could be a huge problem. Let's say the University of Alabama can pay their football players tens of thousands of dollars more than any other football program. You don't think that'd be a problem?

    It may be close, it may not be. I haven't seen a definitive, updated study on the matter.

    Paying players surely will not curtail things such as boosters. It will only worsen the problem. If some booster wanted his school to win so badly that he was willing to pay the nation's top recruit, say, a million dollars a year, wouldn't that be a huge issue. According to your system this would be perfectly legal, I suppose.

    I think we're straying a little from the argument with this point, I admit. Still, they should have to maintain a decent GPA is they want to stay on scholarship, which once again is a privlege, like I said before. Anyway, we're still not on point here it seems. Disregard this garbage.

    Yes, college coaches are paid ridiculous salaries, but this really doesn't have as much to do with athletes as you say. Even if they did reduce coaches salaries it isn't like most colleges would suddenly have the money to pay all of their athletes significant amounts since they're already operating in the red. Reducing spending on coaches would simply get them a little closer to breaking even.

    My bad, I suppose. This in fact is not the Stormtrooper Corallary. Also, you're

    But it doesn't but money back into the universities pockets, I already said that. The study shows most schools are losing money.

    Most of them may leave college with some debt. But a) it isn't the athletes that are actually brining in any significant money. And b) it isn't really a significant figure, compared to normal student. The average came out to something like $4,000 a year in student loans, which is paltry compared to what most normal students have to pay.

    The normal students may have more time to work, but where is that money going, for the most part? To their schooling, which a lot of athletes don't have to worry about at all. They don't need any more money on top of that.

    I still don't see how allowing student athletes to be compensated will solve the problems of agents and whatnot. If you start paying athletes, you're simply opening up a whole new Pandora's Box of issues.
  18. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    No, because of scholarship limits that are placed on programs by the NCAA to begin with. With most schools being in the red, as you claim, where would the money come for such a ludicrous sum of money to be paid? Certainly not from the school, right? Even if they were to get money to pay out to one student, the parity would still be there for other universities to be able to recruit players. It wouldn't cause as big a problem as you propose, because of the scholarship limits that are placed on schools, as well as the financial burden that would be gross negligence in spending by the University.

    Athletic academics getting paid would help to curtail the improprities in college sports. Knowing that they had money coming in would give students less of a reason to risk their future with the university and the dents to both the image of themselves and the University. Nothing is foolproof, and there will always be the greedy few. But the knowledge of a paycheck is motivation to anybody. By paying students, you're putting a serious dent in those issues that already exist. If I can convince you of one thing in that, its that they would be putting a serious dent in the inpropriety, because those students would already be making money.

    And my system was that students are paid $10.00 an hour for a 30 hour work week. And for there to be set boundaries put in place by the University across the board for programs. They couldn't pay one football player more then the other, or one basketball player more then the other. So said booster would have to pay the kicker as much as pays the starting QB. I don't see that happening.

    Athletic academics getting paid would help to curtail the improprities in college sports. Knowing that they had money coming in would give students less of a reason to risk their future with the university and the dents to both the image of themselves and the University. Nothing is foolproof, and there will always be the greedy few. But the knowledge of a paycheck is motivation to anybody.

    Duly noted, and Ive yet to object to this.

    Why wouldn't it? According to the study you provided, the number one reason for spending within college sports is on coaches. Not on the scholarship money to all of the players, its to the coaches. Facilities was the number 3 reason. This has been one of my my arguments. By reducing large expenditures on facilities and coaches, the money would be there for the players. The money is there to pay the coaches somehow, right? With that logic, the money would certainly be there to pay the players by reducing wasteful spending.

    The average actually came about to be approximately quite more then this. Around $14,500, to be exact, amongst all student athletes, according to the study done by the Fourtune 100 Company The Hartford Financial. As for the argument regarding universities not making money, there's this:

    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

    This study shows the profits of the top College Football teams in 2009/10. Just the College Football teams. They're making a hefty sum of money here. I wasn't arguing this to be an issue of fairness, one that students be paid to play. Texas came out on top at $69 million dollars a year. Surely, they can afford to pay their players something out of that, as this is a figure based on profit, not on revenue. So the universities just referenced, on average, are making approximately $500,000 a piece(rounding) off of the 85 scholarships they are giving out to their players. That's alot of money that those players are generating back to the school. Im not arguing that there isn't cost, Im arguing that the players are bringing in substancial amounts of money to their schools, and should be paid in kind. I argued that student athletes should be paid compensatory to their value to the Institution. But for those making the sacrifice, some sort of payment should be afforded.

    This is based on speculation, nothing more. And for the 99% of student athletes who aren't getting paid, they're having to worry about paying back that same schooling that those who are able to work are. The difference is, they don't have the time the others do. They're already dropped further behind in the overall timeline of being able to make money then the other students do. Rewarding them financially is the least the college or University can do to the masses, as most student-athletes are having to pay back financial loans, and large ones at that.
    Ultra Awesome likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"