Yea, that's what I'm going to do. The reason players aren't paid is because there isn't enough money in college atheltics to cover the costs. Go ahead beleiving that. I've never heard a single credible sports person use that as an argument against it. There is more than enough money there. Our universities shouldn't be used as the minor leagues for the professional sports leagues. Kids who have no desire for an education are being forced into college. - - - Updated - - - Yea, that's what I'm going to do. The reason players aren't paid is because there isn't enough money in college atheltics to cover the costs. Go ahead beleiving that. I've never heard a single credible sports person use that as an argument against it. There is more than enough money there. Our universities shouldn't be used as the minor leagues for the professional sports leagues. Kids who have no desire for an education are being forced into college.
There is more than enough money there if you want to cut funds from others parts of the athletic programs. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Compare the revenue vs. expenses and get back with me. http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/type/expenses/page/1 And again, no one is forcing anyone in to college. The notion is so retarded Im sick of entertaining it.
The only athletes that I would have get paid are in sports whose professional league requires athletes to attend colleges. In this case that means only football and basketball. I don't think money would be an issue as football and basketball programs are almost always the only money making programs at major universities. I'm also not suggesting that they be paid an NFL salary. Its illogical to assume a university could ever afford to pay athletes millions of dollars a year, but Its not a huge leap to assume they could, based on need and future earning potential, come up with a payment that would ensure the athletes could afford some luxuries while remaining in school.
There is not a professional sport in American that requires athletes to attend college. NBA players must be removed one year from high school, NFL players must be 3 years removed from high school. Furthermore, there are several professional football and basketball leagues outside of the NFL and NBA where there is no age reuqirement. And those programs pay for every other sport at a University. There is not some gigantic coffer of cash that a major football program has. That money goes back into the athletic department.
Yes, as I said in earlier post, its not required but its necessary if they want to play at a level that is comparable to a professional league and that will allow them to eventually move onto such a league. The alternate leagues (CFL and Euro league) simply do not provide a solid path to the pros (NFL and NBA). And yes you have a valid point in your second argument as well. But I think the point you make is part of the problem. Treating the sports equally is unfair to athletes in football and basketball. Saying that we can't cover their cost of attendance because that would mean we'd have to cover the cost of attendance for the women's cross country ski team or the mens golf team is illogical. So yes, any decision to institute pay-for-play or cost of attendance scholarships would require drastic changes to universities athletic programs but that doesn't mean the decision shouldn't be made.
so now you want to move the goal posts and only discuss sports which have huge attendance and revenue You also made a false statement about all other sports lose money. I presently have 3 attending universities and pay an athletic fee for each child which goes toward those schools programs. I have been involved in a small college where one sport was fully self funded including grants from private citizens but all of that is noise and avoids the real topic what you have are students who are representing the school in athletics. A gymnast trains and practices a lot but does not see squat for scholarship money yet they do it and maintain their academics. A soccer player trains a lot and does 2 and 3 a day pre-season, hits the weight room, must run and travels to away games for many times zero scholarship dollars or $1,000. More examples can be provided. What it seems this topic has swerved to is Div 1 college football. Is the proposal to treat those players even more differently than all the other athletes who also represent their schools? - - - Updated - - - so now you want to move the goal posts and only discuss sports which have huge attendance and revenue You also made a false statement about all other sports lose money. I presently have 3 attending universities and pay an athletic fee for each child which goes toward those schools programs. I have been involved in a small college where one sport was fully self funded including grants from private citizens but all of that is noise and avoids the real topic what you have are students who are representing the school in athletics. A gymnast trains and practices a lot but does not see squat for scholarship money yet they do it and maintain their academics. A soccer player trains a lot and does 2 and 3 a day pre-season, hits the weight room, must run and travels to away games for many times zero scholarship dollars or $1,000. More examples can be provided. What it seems this topic has swerved to is Div 1 college football. Is the proposal to treat those players even more differently than all the other athletes who also represent their schools?
Yes thats exactly what the proposal should be. The scholarship is more valuable to the soccer player and the gymnast than it is to the football and basketball player. Both the soccer player and the gymnast will gain more (financially) from the education they receive as a result of the scholarship than they would forgoing college and trying to become professionals. If they were talented enough to make money professionally in their sport, there would pursue it instead of school. NFL and NBA caliber football and basketball players, contrarily, gain nothing (financially) from the education they receive from the scholarship. They are losing money by attending college. They are talented enough to make money professionally, but they are forced (and i don't mean gun to their head forced. I mean they don't have any other viable option if they want to be professionals) to attend universities by the leagues. They are not the same as the gymnasts and soccer players and should not be treated as such
You never set up any 'goal posts'. I'm explaining to you why scholarships for less profitable sports are limited. Thank Title IX. I love it when I can own you with a single link. Why do you bother commenting on something before you've even tried to googled the subject? Here is the NCAA revenue/expense report. Review it, understand how silly your comment is, and apologize to the forum for your ignorance in a timely manner. http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_2010.pdf http://seattletimes.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html OK....What's your point? If you are asking me directly, I'm not proposing paying any player. But if you're sour about lesser sports recieving less scholorships, again, refer to Title IX.
this has nothing to do with title ix. It has to do with paying student athletes and it seems only football and basketball athletes would be the ones to be paid
You were the one complaining about athletes of other sports not recieving the same in scholarships funds, hence why Title IX was brought into the discussion. Secondly, we already went over how other sports don't make money for the University. You disputed that claim initially, and after I provided you several links confirming this fact, you've remaind silent and have chosen to post a two sentence response, one that would indicate that none of this has sunk into your head.
good lord do you and a brick have things in common who would dispute the money brought in by football or b'ball in div 1 schools? I simply stated that some schools are self funded with other sports. do you simply need to argue? the topic is student athletes being paid
No one cares about a North Chattanooga State Technical College and their ability to self fund a golf club, no one is considering giving those types of kids a dime to begin with. We are talking about D1 schools, who's sports outside of football and basketball bring in zero revenue. You clearly claimed a made false statement, to which I did not. If someone implies I'm lying, which you clearly did, are you suprised when they argue their point and provide links to accompany them? So in conclusion, if you're under some convoluted impression that kids who play in a sport that either cost a University money or is 'self funded' should or will be payed actual cash, you're living with your head in the clouds.
nobody called you a liar but simply stated you went off topic which is student athletes being paid. You have a hair across your behind for some reason and you may wish to remove it. I do not support paying students. I have no clue what was the intent or purpose of your diatribe.
To me the face of big time college sports is Mike Rice and Jerry Sandusky. Yesterday, the video of Mike Rice abusing his players both physically and verbally circulated, this morning he was fired from Rutgers. The AD and the President of Rutgers saw the video back in December and slap his wrist and hushed up the reason why. Now we know. The same thing with Sandusky, the AD and the President learned about Sandusky raping little boys in the Penn State showers and did nothing until it finally saw the light of day. Why ? Because colleges have a huge vested interest in not upsetting the apple cart of NCAA basketball and football. There are millions upon millions of dollars that are being made by the coaches and athletic staff largely because they get the players to play for free. ADs are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars that are earned by athletes that are entirely professional except for the fact that they don't get a dime. UCLA fired it's basketball coach for winning the Pac 12 this year. His buyout was 10 million dollars. 10 million bucks to be paid to get a guy to leave. His players get a scholarship worth maybe 25k a year. With this kind of money at stake, it's no wonder that Penn State and Rutgers chose to hide the truth and keep the dollars flowing in. It's likely fair to say that similar bad behavior at other institutions is common place as big time college athletic coaching and administration is probably more secretive and corrupt than hedge fund management. Pay the players, most of the big time players are not at school to get an education, they are there to play sports. Professional sports are more open an honest than the NCAA largely because there isn't a corrupt inner circle that is making all the money on the backs of free labor.
How much? Does the fifth string cornerback who will rarely if ever get in a game deserve the same pay as the starting QB? What about walk ons who have no scholarship? do they get paid? Do D3 players get the same pay as D1? I'm inclined to say yes but i don't want to create a system that destroys the little balance we now have.
People keep talking about the non-revenue sports,how do you pay football and basketball players and not the other sports ? Well I say they're on scholarship,so put something in the bank for them too.Maybe not the same amount the revenue sports get's paid. They do represent the NCAA programs, under the same banner school names and NCAA'S.My 2cent....
And therein lies the rub. Basketball and football ALREADY PAY for the other sports as it is. You can't keep piling on football and basketball to pay for more than you already are. I say, if the other teams really want to make the difference up, then they should have to go raise the money over and above what football and bball are already paying for. Football and bball can't help it that people want to go see their games and want to be a part of that experience. It is what it is.
I see your point,I also see that the only one's who is getting over is the NCAA & Universitys.Money wise,the word amateur sports is a thing of the past in college football and basketball. Call it what it is in the NCAA," big business. " And the only one's making the money is people wearing the "Suit's and Ties not the Uniforms."Are should I say getting paid ? That what I have a problem with,and we don't even have to talk about the student athlete getting an education,most of them don't.Their scholarships aunt even guarantees year to year.
First of all, a scholarship awarded to an athlete can not be revoked based on talent. In other words, a coach can't sign a kid and then find out he/she is a bust and then take it from them per NCAA rules. However, a player can lose their scholarship if they have failed drug tests, caused harm to student population, acts of being insubordinate, or fails out of school. That's practically it, but can not lose a scholly just because a coach doesn't like the kid. yes, people employed by the university do get paid and most of the time they do wear suits. The players get paid quite a bit of money as far as a scholarship goes. Say what you want, but as an example, if a kid goes to a private school like Baylor, it costs in the range of 40-50 thousand dollars a year to to go to that school. TCU, SMU are even more. The state supported schools like Alabama, Texas, LSU, etc., are cheaper but do provide a much higher level of exposure for the kid to get seen by say, the NFL, MLB, NBA...Wouldn't you say that is worth something? Point is, players, in my opinion, should get a level of some kind of stipend to help with some costs, but paying them would end all collegiate sports as we know it. Tell me, for the smaller schools that don't make much money, (and there are a lot of them that don't) how will they pay all their kids? who will fund them? DId you know that a lot of football programs and most basketball programs do not make money? Many actually lose money when it's all said and done, so again, who will pay for these schools? As simple of an answer you might think it is, it's really much more difficult than you think..
Well here in Kentucky,i've read where UK, number one's out of high school didn't pan out so there were hints for them to leave so a new group could come in.And guess what, they're leaving the school ? Oh and i'm talking about the ones who was getting big time minutes on the court .It was made clear to those players it may be better if they went else where to get the playing time they were getting at UK.It called more ways to skin a cat,if you get my meaning." Bench or Scholarship!"
That's a complete different topic and different issue. Kids get beat out of playing time all the time and yeah, if the kid goes in to talk with the coach about why his playing time has diminished, the coach has the right to play who he feels is best suited to create plays and wins. And, that upsets some kids and then they look to transfer. Every time a coach goes on the recruiting trail, he's always looking to out recruit the current talent he has on his roster. He's always trying to find those impact players who will beat the other kids out. If he's not doing that, then he's not doing his job. If you were recruiting, would you wan the same talent you already have. or would you want better? Of course you would want better, otherwise, why recruit? All of this being said, Playing time (PT) has nothing to do with a kids scholarship. There are a bunch of kids on full scholarship who ride the pine. Latly, this has nothing to do with the topic of original discussion, which was about kids getting paid or not.
That's why they should get paid,they're only good till the next best player comes alone.Coaches makes Millions off the kids sweat,coach thinks the kids cant help his check book,kick him to the curb.You may not agree but that's all they're good for to the schools and coaches.Everybody is getting paid ,not the salves.
So they should get paid because they get beat out? How much do you propose they should get paid? Which schools should pay? If your school is losing money with football, how can they pay? Does a scholarship not equal money? If not, then who pays for the kids college? Is that for the university to absorb? A coach who gets paid has worked his entire life to GET to the point where he can finally make some money. Most coaches played college ball and NEVER got paid. What they did, is got a degree and then went out and got a darn job. Most coaches who earn a lot of money, have also raised a lot of money for the institution from who they are employed. I know Mack Brown helped rais over $50 million dollars for stadium improvements at UT. I know Bob Stoops helped raise over $35 million for new facilities at OU. Lastly, slaves? really? you mean there are slaves playing college football? A lot of blood was spilled during the civil war for that NOT to be true...stupid comment You complain, but have no answers. Think before you type.. Seriously, it really makes you look silly..
Yes slaves,the only people that never SEE the slaves is the masters,just like those masters during the civil war. Who thought human beings was less than them.Damn right their are slaves in football.But you have to open your eyes to see it like the stupid and silly people that brought it up.If you don't like my complaining don't respond to it superior.
Ok, so back on topic...Please explain? 1) How do you propose to pay the athletes and from where will the money come? 2) How do the schools that DON'T make any money with football, pay their players? 3) Does a scholarship = money and if so, how much? 4) If Ohio State can pay more than Tulsa, is that fair? What if Tulsa can't pay? What happens to them? 5) If a University is barely making any money and they start paying the players which then makes it unprofitable to the university, what happens then? 6) what about all the rest of the sports that DO NOT make any money? Are they required to pay? If so, how? 7) If football is the only profitable sport on a campus, and they already fund all the other sports as it is, what happens to the other sports if football becomes unprofitable? Do they all go away, vanish?
