In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1351
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.
The underlying fallacy, though, is that schools are getting rich off the backs of athletes. In truth, about half of FBS football programs do NOT turn a profit. And that's only isolating the football programs. If you then widen out to Athletic departments as a whole, only about 20 are profitable. The football programs and basketball programs that do make money, help fund the other athletic programs. So it's not like the schools are getting rich off the athletes as so many perceive.
And this is just regarding FBS schools. FCS schools it's even more difficult to make money. And paying players would then add to that economic burden. It's a bad idea whose time should never come. As i said above, theoretically, it might seem equitable, but when you analyze the numbers and financial impact, it seems less compelling.
This post was edited by frostyvol 14 months ago
I sense a theme that is common in America. A great opportunity is enough, but everybody wants more.
Technically you are right, but I think there are a few things to consider:
- some football programs are not profitable because money is going to the wrong places. If they had to pay 10 dollars an hour to 85 students, maybe the WR coach makes 120k instead of 240k.
- I don't think the schools are getting rich as much as the NCAA, administrators, etc.
I'm torn on the subject. The opportunity for a free education is incredibly valuable. That said, I have a problem with EA Sports making millions a year off players and not paying then, especially when players dont have an opportunity to opt out, you could never do that to an adult. The hidden factor might be the concussion stuff happening in the NFL.
I think they will end up getting paid, cost of living adjustments will mirror what the loans for normal students do, and in ten years it will be crazy that they were not paid.
Good call, I just don't think people are valuing the "opportunity" In America as much as they once did and prefer to be paid what their production is worth.
This is a great discussion on a very polarizing topic. Good insight from many of you.
But here's the rub..if you dont pay your coaches a competitive salary, they will leave for some place that will..so paying less for coaches, will likely mean less than top tier coaches, meaning less than top tier results, which in turn means less dollars. So you save money on one end and lose on the other. And remember, you are only talking about a very small percentage of division 1 athletes, and only a slightly greater percentage of div. 1 football players. Most Div 1 players, including FCS schools, dont play in front of hundreds of thousands, and EA isnt making money off them.
Good post by you, very polarizing topic. Most won't touch this, including our moderators. I was waiting on somebody to post what you said there. Plus 1
Trample the Weak-Hurdle the Dead
I agree. And this from a former scholie athlete, and the wife was too and agrees, use the chance for a completely free education wisely, and it will pay off plenty. Unfortunately, most on full rides are not capable of comprehending this.
A slippery slope no.
The "Payments" would have to be structured VERY carefully.....If the payments in any way resemble salary or wages I think that the college atheltes would then have the option to form a union..... I don't think that would be a good thing at all.
I think maybe something like a minimal stipend or allowance coupled with some form of deferred compensation (payment after graduation) might be a workable solution....then there is still the issue of payments for the lady sports.....
.....if sponsors (Nike, Adidas, UA,...etc) could pay athletes (carefully regulated) for endorsment of their apparel/equipment....could be part of the deal with the schools that so much would be alotted for player endorsements and be fairly distributed in order for the sponsor to get the schools business.....then I don't think they could unionize against the universities....
But ....then again....I'm not an attorney.... so what do I know...
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by GoneCoastalVol 14 months ago
Doyel makes the argument better than I can. Besides, he's done some reporting on the topic.
Most CFB players end up owing the university money. How fair is that?
College football and basketball players generate millions, yet they actually owe their schools money? Gregg Doyel used to oppose paying players, but the greed of administrators has changed his thinking.
This post was edited by RockytopATL 14 months ago
I am 100% against it. You mean to tell me it's unfair that these kids go to great universities, practically for free, and want to get paid on top of it? I went to college and had nobody to help me pay for it. You know what i did? I took out federal student loans. You know what i did to pay them back? Joined the army and they paid them for me.
These kids may have to pay a little bit out of pocket, but if they want a little extra cash, take out a small student loan. They shouldn't need much and they'd graduate with far less debt than the average student does now (which i think is up to 20-25k). If they're complaining about not being able to get pizza after class or some crap like that...big deal. I worked a part time job and went to school full time and wasn't living the good life. it's college.
These kids are getting a free education at an American university all for playing a game. They do not need anything more nor do they deserve it. The university isn't getting rich off of Tom Smith, but he'd be paid just like Tiny Richardson. Or would Tiny make more as a LT? you can't go down this road for many many reasons, but for me it starts with the fact that they're already being paid with one of the most valuable things there is (education). If they choose not to take advantage of what is offered how is that anybody's fault but their own?
They get a very expensive education. Free place to live and even get fed. These kids today are no different from kids 10,20,30 or 40 years ago. Don't need to be paid, just want to be paid. So a BIG NO.
Schools are not getting rich on any atheletes back. That is an absurd comment. This young men get a free education along with free food, clothes, tutoring. The NCAA will not have football if Obanon wins that law suit. There are only a handful of schools in the country who could pay even a stipend and keep the financial boat afloat. These young men especially in the SEC are well compensated for their efforts. It is amusing how people conclude that schools are getting rich from the efforts of these players.No one is getting rich. Sure schools in the SEC have 80-100 million in reserve. None of that comes from what the schools sell that money is part of the yearly budget/ These reserves come from donors who send money to the school. Paying the student atheletes would ruin college football and develop two leagues for the haves and the have nots. Won't happen!!!!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports