The CheckerBoard

At most an amount equivalent to what an average student could make working during the academic year.

they are payed free education jmo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.