In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1725
Online now 1330 Record: 6475 (12/7/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I was planning to write a paper on the subject and I'm just curious to hear everyone's opinion.
At most an amount equivalent to what an average student could make working during the academic year.
"When we step on that football field, everyone flips a switch. And it's on..." - Butch Jones
I think college football players should be paid a reasonable stipend. They should have some spending money considering how much money they earn for their universities.
they are payed free education jmo
I'm all for it. Some of these kids come from low income families and should have a little spending money. This could level the playing field in recruiting if it cut out under the table money.
A subject that I could go either yes or no. I do lean a little to no. These kids get repaid in a free education at that school. When school and sports are over, they either have a chance on the NFL or use there education for seeking a job, with no loan debit. Now if someone else was to attend that school, they would end there school with thousands of dollars in loan debit.
They are already paid a stipend. Plus, If they are low income students they ARE eligible to apply for pell grants. Unlike student loans, pell grants do not have to be repaid. Jim Grobe the HC at Wake Forest is totally against paying the players because as noted above they get a stipend and in many cases pell grants.
This post was edited by BrisVol 14 months ago
I absolutely think they should. I attended undergrad on an Army ROTC scholarship. I had my full tuition room and board paid, and I received a stipend every month that increased every year. The reason is due to the amount of time and the commitment that is required of cadets. From what I can tell, that commitment is much more from student-athletes.
Also, as mentioned before, the amount of money that everyone else makes from the back of the athletes is just too great for them not to be compensated in some amount.
2013. Team 117. Beginning of the new Era.
I agree, a free education is alot of money . Does anyone know how much money this is including food, board, ins, and academics. This will be more for out of state students would be interesting to know.
I would be fine with it as long as its limited to the money making sports, which in most cases is just football and some basketball teams. Title IX is a fine rule but it does cost universities money and I believe that it would extend into any types of stipends that would be handed out and I believe most womens programs lose money. I could be wrong about that. I'm fine with them existing and I'm fine with the rule just not sure about the logistics of it.
There's just too much unknown about the paying of student athletes that would need to be ironed out for me to have an opinion that I am very confident in. UTAD is already having some problems money wise. Not sure if it could handle having to pay players whose sports don't make money for the universities.
It varies from school to school. Below is an interesting link. It's Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe discussing the matter on the Jack Arute show on Sirius XM Radio. I was listening that day and he made a very strong case as to why they shouldn't be paid.
Pete Roussel is a valuable resource for coaches, athletic directors, NFL front-office personnel, and college football enthusiasts. A former college football coach, Roussel shares insight on coaches 365 days a year and is recognized as the most trusted expert on coaching transactions.
A 4 year degree with room and board and the chance to do something thousands of kids dream if doing. That sounds like enough for kid to receive for playing football. I went to UT had classes with athletes and those guys are having a freakin blast. They get the best meal plan, free tutoring, and free school gear. That is the official list of PERKS they get. Unofficialy they are rockstars who get invited to all the best parties, girls throw themselves at them, and they get to live at the TREC (gym) and train all the time to play a GAME!!
It is a game I love but I went to school and I worked a full time job and had a little fun in college. These kids get an opportunity to live it up for free, get an education for free, and have the best intro for an interview in the state they played in for free!!
Take it from a guy who works with student loans and does the occasional interview for applicants when I say these guys don't need anything else for what they do.
In theory, sure, in practice, not workable. Who do you pay? Just football players? basketball? What about the schools that dont generate as much revenue as others? Do you pay all the players the same? The third string kicker gets the same as the starting qb? How much do you pay? These are thorny questions that im not sure could be worked out in application of such a scheme.
The problem with paying players is that universities would have to pay taxes on all the money they earn from college athletics. That's a LOT of taxes...they aren't going to give that up.
I respect everyone's opinion, but here's mine. If we have to start paying athletes to come play for universities, what do you think that will do to tuitions for those who actually have to pay to get their education. I guess I'm just old school and feel kids need to work hard for what they get and getting a free education and getting paid for it as well just doesn't make sense to me.
You had a job while you were in college to make the money to have that good time. They don't have time to have a job. Their job is playing football.
My standpoint on the subject is sort of bifurcated into two semi- conflicting positions
As stated above, a free education is worth a lot of coin. IMO the intrinsic value of a full ride is plenty of compensation.
On the flip side, the hours and dedication required to be a D1 athlete is substantial. It really doesn't allow these kids to get a job like a normal college student.
My idea is to allow for a stipend that reflects the hours an athlete spends on football (limited to 20 per week) and pay them some dollar figure per hour spent on the sport. The NCAA would have to cap it at a reasonable amount (say $9-10 an hour) which would allow a ceiling to be in place, but also allow smaller programs to offer a stipend to students even if said stipend was below the cap.
Just my two cents.
If they feel like they are in an unfair situation they have the option to quit playing games
They don't need a job. The scholarship money and living money that the athletes receive is much more than what any other academic scholarship student receives for that reason. When I was at UT the athletes lived in the nicest apartments and had the nicest toys. Cars, tats, jewelry, girls, etc. They do not need any more cash. I was at UT for seven years and I was in a major that a large number of football players were in. I never once heard them complain about money or their lack of money. They were for the most part in nicer vehicles and clothes than anybody on the campus.
Lot's of great opinions in this thread. There are strong arguments both for and against paying players. I can see the logic in paying the athletes that bring in so much money for the university as well as the NCAA. I can also see the logic in that a student athlete is receiving a free college education with all the trimmings.
Here's what I don't believe.
1. I don't believe that paying players more money will stop the under the table stuff. There will always be those types out there that are trying to get a leg up on everyone else.
2. I don't believe that the student athlete's life is so outrageously difficult that they can't get by with what they already get. I am not comparing the student athlete to other college students that can get part time jobs to earn a little extra coin. I'm comparing them to the 18 & 19 year olds that didn't have the money to go to college and are working full time (maybe).
3. Lastly, I don't believe it's good for college football or any college sport.
Here's what I do believe.
1. The NCAA and Universities are raking in millions/billions off these kids. TV contracts, ticket sales, merchandise. It is incredible the amount of money being made. I have no idea where the money is going. Universities are investing in bigger and better facilities. What does the NCAA do with it's cut? Anyone know?
2. If Universities can start paying players, then the next step will be for some colleges being allowed to pay more than others by way of cost of living. It will be the only "fair" thing to do. That could be the start of something very bad.
3. Lastly, if colleges are paying athletes, why not high schools? It will happen.
Honestly guys, I do see both sides of the argument. I can see how the NCAA exploits these kids. But I also see how these kids exploit the Universities. It's not a perfect system but I'll need a little more convincing in order to support paying student athletes money. I think it starts by looking in to simplifying the NCAA rulebook.
A free education use to be enough payment. My best friend was an RA at Gibbs when we were at UT. Free education, top-notch meals everyday, free clothes, and others have stated a stipend. I worked two jobs and went to school full-time and had school loans once I graduated. Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for them. I'm not saying they have it easy, but they don't have it bad either. Hard work and a few struggles makes you more likely to appreciate your accomplishments.
I don't know if a lot of people even know what hard work is anymore. They think it should be handed to them. I am stepping off my soap-box now.
This post was edited by UTBULL 14 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports