[SI] "I Will Never Forget The First Time I Paid A Player"

Do you think the university really cares if this kids graduate or not?

 

500 isnt going to stop it. agents are giving players thousands of dollars. my guess is if they gave students a stipend, agents would just increase their price. theres no way for the NCAA to stop this and the NFL isnt going to get involved to punish players either. the best thing the NCAA can do is probably hire a position at each school to oversee this and do their best to help catch it early and stop it. it will never completely go away.

 

Why should every player on the football team be getting hundreds of dollars per month from the university in stipend money? There are a lot of undergraduate students who do work for free or for scholarships that bring the university money and attention, should they all be paid, too?

 

Sadly, the universities probably don't care whether or not the students graduate, but what does that have to do with his post? These kids are still being given the opportunity to get a free education, free room and board, and free training for years. If they don't take full advantage of that, it is at least partly their own fault. Comparing the situation to slavery is ridiculous.

 

I think the NCAA and the whole amateur thing is stupid and misguided. Who cares if players get paid. Everyone else gets money, why shouldn't the players.

 

Concur. End the charade and stop pretending the athletes are "students". Certainly, some may still want to get their undergraduate degree and that should be encouraged/supported, but don't mandate it or try to hamfistedly maintain some sort of "integrity" in the situation.

It is what it is: College football is basically the NFL minor league. Let them get paid, and quit pretending they're students in the traditional sense.

 

If they're not even pretending to be students, why would the players even be affiliated with the university at all?

I can't say that I agree with the sentiment that because everyone breaks the rules, we should just throw out the rules.

 

Agreed

 

I don't know if this is true for all schools but students working as TA's and RA's are often paid. This was the case with Cal and the U of MN. In most cases though the work being done does remotely come close to what the football program is bringing in.

Good article and judging from the player's comments I'm inclined to believe what Luch said was true. I am glad to see even though he was West Coast agent no Cal players were involved.

 

As much as I love college football I agree that the current system just breeds corruption. The NFL should just establish a true minor league like MLB and NHL where players can openly earn money while playing and NCAA takes the players who actually are interested in going to school in addition to playing a game.

The same thing with college basketball.

 

That's not even the worse. In the early 90's Billy Jo Hobert, who was Mark Brunnell's back up at U of Washington, was $50K in debt while in school that it was revealed was paid off by an agent. From what I remember he had spent all that money on guns and cars.

 

Given that there are only about 7 or 8 athletic departments in the entire country that are profitable, it's not really that easy. Especially for the smaller schools.

Besides which, they already get paid way more than that in tuition/fees/room/board/food/etc. Once everyone is paid $500/month, the scandals will simply be with people paid $1000/month.

 

What is the relevance of this? If I work for Walmart, they don't really care how I spend my income either. The kid gets a choice: play football and we'll pay for your education. At private schools, that could be worth $20k+ per year. If the kid doesn't feel its fair, they can choose another option.

 

Maybe those kids should take responsibility for themselves?

Maybe?

DD

 

For all the talk about the money involved in college football, very few athletic departments make any money. Now, there are some real problems like coaching salaries, which I think are absurd (Mack Brown and Rick Barnes are the state's two highest paid employees). But much of it goes to subsidize other sports, most of which are huge money losers. So if people want players to be sharing in the money beyond the money they get in education, expect to pare down or eliminate the vast majority of other sports in exchange.

 

I'll try to adress a couple of posts at once.

From my understanding, most of those students are paid. Additionally, those students are generally assisting someone (like a professor) and not doing the primary work. For example, folks were buying USC tickets to come see Bush and Leinart. They were the main show. Schools don't get research money based on the schools students, at least that's not the primary reason.

It's not "free". See what happens if you don't show up to practice, to film study, to workout sessions or on gameday. That's "work". Yes, it is their fault if they don't take full advantage of the benefit they do get, which is the chance to obtain an education. The only way that the situation is comparable to slavery is that just like slaves, the players receive "something", but it doesn't put a dent into what's made off of their labor. That's the only comparable.

You are usually on top of the numbers game and I'm not in this instance, and I'm assuming when you say "athletic departments" you are referring to all of the sports at the school? If so, then yes, not that many departments make money. However, I highly doubt the majority of D1 football and basketball programs (male teams) aren't making money, and tons of it. It's not a football players fault that no one will pay to watch some other kid come play rugby or swim. They play a revenue generating sport. Those other athletes don't. Football abd basketball players/programs shouldn't have to carry the burden of supporting the entire athletic department. How is that fair?

It's the schools responsibility to make sure other kids can participate in other sports. Their current solution is to take advantage oof one set of kids in order to benefit the others, and other parts of the school.

Yes they get something. It just doesn't add up to what's made off of them. I do agree that even if you gave them a stipend some players would still take money. People are just greedy like that. But at least then you wouldn't have folks like me saying the kids are being taken advantage of.

That's actually the problem (the bolded part). The kid's don't have another option if they want to go pro (football or basketball). If a high school kid comes out he can't go straight to the pros in either of those sports, or to the minors. Well, a kid can go to the pros in basketball but not within the United States. NCAA athletics, the NFL and the NBA are the definition of monopolies. And I don't think it's a coincidence that kids have the option to go straight to the pros in the sports that the NCAA can't make revenue from, but not in football and basketball. Baseball's minor league system works perfectly. The kids that want to be in school go to school. The ones that have the ability to get paid for their ability get to cash in. That's fair.

 

If you're going to pay them 'what they're worth' then dismantle the college program. Set a draft, a 'salary cap' a rookie scale. Why affiliate with the University at all.

That's why I like a flat modest stipend, whether it's $500 or $1000 or $2000 because it gives them spending money. TA's get paid. The executives at student unions often get paid (I think at my school -- 20 yrs ago, the student union president got about $20K). Compensation for their time. If they can afford seven figure salaries for the coach -- they can afford a payment for the players in sports that make money.

The 'stars' will cash in when they go pro. The others are not the ones attracting the money or selling jerseys.

But be wary of minor leagues. In hockey, a player has to decide at age 15 if he'll give up his college eligibility. They're drafted at 14, and the pressure to decide starts then. Play one game in Junior, and you're out. I had a the son of a friend go through this decision last year. (he chose to give up his college eligibility).

 

Philosophical questions:

Do players in other sports (hockey, swimming, softball, volleyball) get paid too even though their sport may not generate a profit for the university?

What about those football programs (52 out of the 120 FBS schools) which do not generate a profit? Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

 

No, and why should they? The school isn't making $$ off of them.

These are just rough answers but I'm pretty sure the powers that be could devise a system if they wanted to. But I know the current system isn't fair to the players playing the revenue generating sports, that just so happen to not have the option to go pro immediately. And no, I'm not saying an education at school USC is worthless. I'm saying paying paying Bush's college expenses is a drop in the bucket to the $$ that USC made off of his jersey sales, or from all the exposure they got that year, etc. If someone told you "work for me and I'll give you a room (which costs $100) or I'll give you $500", then which would you choose?

And it's not Reggie Bush's burden to ensure that USC has a water polo team. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have a team, but it's not the responsibility of football and basketball players to ensure that one is funded. The school should be able to allocate funds for those things just like any other expenditure.

 

How do you decide then which football players get paid? Clearly people were paying to come see Reggie Bush, but were they filling the stands to watch USC's starting middle linebacker?