Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

They should get paid, but also be required to do so many hours of volunteer work every semester.    They're getting a free education, but they're also making money for the school.   Give them a piece of that pie, but also require them to give back to the community or they forfeit their pay.

Posted (edited)

I think it's absurd that there are so many division 1 teams. The company line from THE NCAA is that only a small percentage of teams make a profit from sports. Cool, take the top 40 revenue generating schools and put them in their own division. Pay the athletes and open all revenue streams to them. Fully fund the programs through self generated revenues and booster donations, no tax money. It's time to end the days of the basketball coach being the highest paid state employee. The players can be students or, if they choose, or just employees. Justify all the changes by positioning athletic programs as marketing and advertising ventures for the schools, instead of hiding behind the sham of the student athlete.

 

For the schools outside the top 40, let them continue to develop as student athlete programs. Maybe give the players access to work study programs. Turn the NIT into their championship tournament. The focus of this league would be to create the best student athlete experience for all involved.

Edited by jad1
Posted

A couple of years ago, it seemed as though the house of cards (and hipocrisy) that is the NCAA was about to collapse. Things seem to have quieted down in that regard as of late.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what was said upthread: The big-time revenue-producing sports should be spun off into businesses. Perhaps still affiliated with the schools, but not of the schools. It's absurd that your average power conference star player doesn't get paid for the incredible revenues he helps produce.

Posted

Any SEC football players reading this thread are giggling like a little kid whose dad just farted in church.

 

Athletes at the top programs are paid.  It happens in both basketball and football, and is far more common than most folks realize.  There is a system of shadow boosters that has been in place for decades at many (though not all) power conference schools... and yes, the SEC is the king in this regard.  Not sure about non-revenue sports, but for football and basketball there is a reason certain schools e.g., Alabama and Kentucky, are perennial powers who recruits the 5* kids year after year.  And, it isn't that every kid just wants to live in Tuscaloosa or Lexington for 4 years of their life.

Posted (edited)

No.  It's enough that my tax dollars are paying for educations for people just because they're good at swimming or gymnastics or lacrosse or football.

 

What about private schools? Should they be able to pay their athletes?v

Edited by Vodka Bottle of Emotion
Posted (edited)

 

What about private schools? Should they be able to pay their athletes?v

 

I mostly don't really care what they do, but it will create a non-level playing field with respect to public schools.

 

Much of this is solved if we let athletes make money off of their own abilities.  If a scholarship musician can play gigs and earn money (often union scale), I don't see why a scholarship basketball player can't put on an exhibition for money.  And I definitely don't see why they can't sell merchandise, etc.

Edited by Eleven
Posted (edited)

So, if we decide to pay student athletes, how much do they get paid?  Does a football player at Michigan get paid more than one at Boise State? or San Jose State?  Do star players get paid more than bench warmers?  Do men's basketball players get more than women's teams?  If various schools do have different pay scales, do we allow athletes to be "free agents" at some point in their college careers and market their skills to the college that pays the most?  Paying college athletes would open up a huge can of worms.  The NCAA has enough trouble trying to enforce the rules they have in place now. 

 

That being said, I do think that college athletes should have control over their own names and likenesses.  The original law suit that brought this whole question on was filed by a former college hoops player who saw his likeness being used in an NCAA video game. He never gave his consent and was not getting a dime from the video game company OR his university.  That is flat-out wrong.  There is no reason why the NCAA can't come up with a list of allowable instances where compensation can be offered to athletes if their name, likeness, etc. is used in a profit-making deal.  Maybe that sounds contradictory to my other point, but I kind of see them as separate, but related, issues. 

Edited by Sabre Dance
Posted

Does a football player at Michigan get paid more than one at Boise State? or San Jose State?  Do star players get paid more than bench warmers?  Do men's basketball players get more than women's teams?  If various schools do have different pay scales, do we allow athletes to be "free agents" at some point in their college careers and market their skills to the college that pays the most?  Paying college athletes would open up a huge can of worms.  The NCAA has enough trouble trying to enforce the rules they have in place now. 

 

My high-level take: Only revenue sport athletes would be eligible to be compensated because only revenue sport programs would be spun off from their respective universities. There would be, as you note, a whole slew of issues to be worked out. But working through those issues is do-able, and solutions to those issues are preferable to the current structure.

Posted

My high-level take: Only revenue sport athletes would be eligible to be compensated because only revenue sport programs would be spun off from their respective universities. There would be, as you note, a whole slew of issues to be worked out. But working through those issues is do-able, and solutions to those issues are preferable to the current structure.

 

 

Title IX says hello.

Posted

I mostly don't really care what they do, but it will create a non-level playing field with respect to public schools.

 

Much of this is solved if we let athletes make money off of their own abilities.  If a scholarship musician can play gigs and earn money (often union scale), I don't see why a scholarship basketball player can't put on an exhibition for money.  And I definitely don't see why they can't sell merchandise, etc.

 

The current lawsuit in front of the Fed Circuit Panel (O'Bannon vs. NCAA) is specifically regarding merchandising. It sounds, essentially, like your position is that athletes receiving payment as a result of their work as athletes is OK as long as that payment is not coming from the general fund (specifically including tax dollars). I think that is where I'm at as well. Even at public schools, if athletes were to get a cut of the gate and TV revenue, I wouldn't care.

 

What, ND wasn't expensive enough for you? :P

 

ND and UB had the same price tag for me. It wasn't a hard decision.  :P

Posted

The current lawsuit in front of the Fed Circuit Panel (O'Bannon vs. NCAA) is specifically regarding merchandising. It sounds, essentially, like your position is that athletes receiving payment as a result of their work as athletes is OK as long as that payment is not coming from the general fund (specifically including tax dollars). I think that is where I'm at as well. Even at public schools, if athletes were to get a cut of the gate and TV revenue, I wouldn't care.

 

 

ND and UB had the same price tag for me. It wasn't a hard decision.  :P

I am against Athletes getting a cut of the gate money.  Simply because I love being able to go to a game for 20$ or less.  

 

I think though they should be able to have control over their likeness.

Posted

I am against Athletes getting a cut of the gate money.  Simply because I love being able to go to a game for 20$ or less.  

 

I think though they should be able to have control over their likeness.

 

Don't get me wrong, I prefer my goods and services to be provided by slave labor (and at slave labor prices) as well, I'm just saying I can empathize with the other side of the argument.

Posted

A little Hyberbole, college athletes are miss treated but hardly slave labor.  

 

It's damn close. Sure they get compensation, but they are required to spend nearly 100% of that compensation at the "company store".

Posted

It's damn close. Sure they get compensation, but they are required to spend nearly 100% of that compensation at the "company store".

you forget other fringe benefits,  :flirt:

Posted (edited)

you forget other fringe benefits,  :flirt:

 

Right, sometimes a "trainer" who's a sophomore Physical Therapy student checks on their concussion, that has to have some monetary value, right? 

 

[i'll stop with the hyperbole now :) ]

Edited by Vodka Bottle of Emotion
Posted

Right, sometimes a "trainer" who's a sophomore Physical Therapy student checks on their concussion, that has to have some monetary value, right? 

 

[i'll stop with the hyperbole now :) ]

If I were any sort of college athlete I could walk into a half dozen bars and just mention it... then I could have some drinks and some company.  

Posted

If I were any sort of college athlete I could walk into a half dozen bars and just mention it... then I could have some drinks and some company.  

 

In that case, you would be in clear violation of the NCAA rules.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...