Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   College Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=45)
-   -   Should college athletes be paid? (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42027)

ramsrule 07-27-2010 06:36 PM

Should college athletes be paid?
 
I say no. Any thoughts?

CJSchneider 07-27-2010 06:40 PM

No, but there needs to be a better accountability system in place that monitors academics for student athletes.

iowatreat54 07-27-2010 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJSchneider (Post 2243035)
No, but there needs to be a better accountability system in place that monitors academics for student athletes.

There needs to be a better system in place that can look at you with a straight face and tell you that, for the most part, these kids are student-athletes.

But then, yes, I agree with your point. The main reason all this fuss about getting paid has come around is because these kids, and for the most part the schools, don't consider them student-athletes, but athletes that so happen to be enrolled in school. (calling them students is far too generous of a label than I'm willing to give.)

descendency 07-27-2010 07:24 PM

Title IX, no.

edit: In case you fail to understand how this is Pandora's Box waiting to be opened, just google "title 9" and think it through. The ONLY sports that make a dime are football and some basketball programs, both men's. You'll never be allowed to pay a man without a paying a woman equivalent value because of our federal code system (Title IX).

Women's sports already bleed enough money, so you can't afford to pay them. Since you can't pay women, you can't play men. It's that simple.

There are other good reasons too, but that's the nail in the coffin.

edit2: The worst part is that in the future football and some basketball teams may try to form minor league systems which will decimate college athletics and basically kill off all forms of it. We have to be very careful how we approach this.

Hurricanes25 07-27-2010 09:58 PM

No, they're going to school and getting a college degree for free. They don't need to be paid.

Brent 07-27-2010 10:17 PM

No. We have had this argument a thousand times. They are given a free education/meal plan/housing, which itself is worth a ridiculous sum of money.

Bengals78 07-27-2010 10:35 PM

They get paid like a **** ton in terms of free education/living/meals
If they cant sustain themselves after that, **** them. Get off your high horse.

P-L 07-27-2010 10:58 PM

You mean in addition to the tens of thousands of dollars in benefits they receive each year from their school? I say no.

frubulubu 07-27-2010 11:30 PM

ahh... NO!

Razor 07-28-2010 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowatreat54 (Post 2243078)
Quote:

Originally Posted by CJSchneider (Post 2243035)
No, but there needs to be a better accountability system in place that monitors academics for student athletes.

There needs to be a better system in place that can look at you with a straight face and tell you that, for the most part, these kids are student-athletes.

But then, yes, I agree with your point. The main reason all this fuss about getting paid has come around is because these kids, and for the most part the schools, don't consider them student-athletes, but athletes that so happen to be enrolled in school. (calling them students is far too generous of a label than I'm willing to give.)

I agree with this, but I'm not completely opposed to the idea of paying the athletes a small amount of money. The players might get a lot from the school (ie. schooling, housing, meals etc.) but a lot of these kids come from poor families and don't have a lot of money. I think it can be pretty hard for them around campus when they can't do certain things that others can because they don't have any money. This is probably also the reason why so many football players get arrested for burglary (not defending the idiots, just saying...). If you could work out a system where endorsment deals to the team gets distributed amongst the players so that the players will get a few hundred dollars a month I'd be alright with it. But it shouldn't be more than $2-300 imo. After all, these players are risking their well-being every time they get on the field just as the NFL players do.

But first and foremost I think they should live up to the title student/athlete.

wonderbredd24 07-28-2010 07:01 AM

I see this stuff and I have to wonder how Division III players feel... schools around here like Mount Union, Baldwin Wallace, and such are about $20-$30k per year, which these guys are paying outside of some grants and financial aid because there are no athletic scholarships... and then they play football.

tjsunstein 07-28-2010 08:26 AM

Definitely not.

sbh15 07-28-2010 08:50 AM

they're basically being paid through their scholarships which cover tuition, books, room and board, meal plans, etc.

Brent 07-28-2010 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 2243479)
I agree with this, but I'm not completely opposed to the idea of paying the athletes a small amount of money. The players might get a lot from the school (ie. schooling, housing, meals etc.) but a lot of these kids come from poor families and don't have a lot of money. I think it can be pretty hard for them around campus when they can't do certain things that others can because they don't have any money.

They don't have to live off campus, they choose to live off campus. If they don't want to live on campus, yes, the school will typically pay for it; however, that is their choice. If they lived on campus, they don't need to worry about transportation. Second, what are these "other things"? Getting food? Oh wait, they are given a free meal plan, they can get all the food they want from the various places that have food on campus. Maybe you were talking about textbooks, but those are also paid for by the school. They are provided everything they need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 2243479)
This is probably also the reason why so many football players get arrested for burglary (not defending the idiots, just saying...).

So, because they're stupid and commit crimes, we should pay them so they won't do it? I bet that someone willing to commit burglary is willing to do it whether or not the school gives them money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 2243479)
If you could work out a system where endorsment deals to the team gets distributed amongst the players so that the players will get a few hundred dollars a month I'd be alright with it. But it shouldn't be more than $2-300 imo. After all, these players are risking their well-being every time they get on the field just as the NFL players do.

They are choosing to be student-athletes. They made the choice, and with that choice comes certain risks (their health). More importantly, if they have a career-ending injury, they are still given their full scholarship. Also, with that choice for a free education (among other provisions), they accept the reality that, though they may come from a poor background, they have to cope with living in the situation they've chosen.

Also, there is no way a school could afford to pay their student-athletes. Typically, the revenues from football pay for most the other sports (along with other funding).

RealityCheck 07-28-2010 09:18 AM

This is just like the legalization of pot. It's impossible to determine whether it's right or not.

Bengals78 07-28-2010 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealityCheck (Post 2243555)
This is just like the legalization of pot. It's impossible to determine whether it's right or not.

In this case it is pretty clear.
They get paid with FREE tuition, meals and dorms during their stay.

Yeah DIII doesn't but that simply means they need athletic scholarships.

LizardState 07-28-2010 09:45 AM

Quote:

Yeah DIII doesn't but that simply means they need athletic scholarships.
All DIII players are walk ons (non-scholarship) by definition. But so are all Ivy League players, no scholarships means they don't have to reveal who they are per NCAA rules, makes scouting Ivy opponents really tricky. But the Ivies are very wealthy institutions & the exception, not the rule.

Yeah, pay them. The pendulum has swung too far the other way with the NCAA being too restrictive in what's disallowed, like the cutback to 2 meals per day per athlete. I know they did it to prevent abuses but it opened the door for all that $ & bribery under the table from boosters, agents, etc.

When the ESPN crew said a debit card per player was the way to go I agree, track their expenses so they can't blow it all at the local strip club. Keep the total low, <$500/mo. & link it to their grades, go on academic probation & you suspend your debit card, lose your scholarship & you lose your meal ticket literally.

CJSchneider 07-28-2010 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizardState (Post 2243574)

When the ESPN crew said a debit card per player was the way to go I agree, track their expenses so they can't blow it all at the local strip club. Keep the total low, <$500/mo. & link it to their grades, go on academic probation & you suspend your debit card, lose your scholarship & you lose your meal ticket literally.

Then there had better be a better system in place to ensure academic equity. I can't tell you how many times I have seen athletes get credit for assignments that took me several days to complete, just by giving an oral recap of the game. If you are in the class, you should be held to the same course-work as everyone else in that class. I have no problem giving these students reasonable extensions on some assignments, but to change the assignment to the point that it no longer resembles the original task needs to die.

NY+Giants=NYG 07-28-2010 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramsrule (Post 2243025)
I say no. Any thoughts?

NO! You go to school or college to get an education first and foremost. If they get paid for playing a sport. Then everyone should get paid for studying and attending class. The very least, then, allow all students to go to school for free. That's not ever going to happen. So neither should playing students to play a sport. If a person needs money then get a side job like everyone else during the summers.

murdamal86 07-28-2010 05:55 PM

Paid? Ehh prolly not because then ALL student athlete's will want to get paid and that will be overkill.

Now should they be allowed to accept money and benefits? Honestly...yes. I don't see how accepting money or gifts from a booster or agent will improve your ON FIELD performance.

CFN backs up my sentiments towards it:

Quote:

Coaches, if you really and truly have the best interests of your players at heart, and if you really and truly care about their well being, instead of trying to use a teaspoon and sponge to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, try to change the system to let the players have agents. Let the kid who wants to stay in school, but desperately needs the money, have someone to help the cause above board rather than how it's happening now at every top program. Remember, most of these players have jack squat, and just because they have on the shiny uniforms, and just because the media covers and scrutinizes them like pros, that doesnít mean they have any money. (And please don't try to throw out the idea that a scholarship begins to scratch the surface of what the top players bring in to the schools. It demeans us both.)

Let the players have agents. Let them be given money just because they're able. Let them allow for the free market, natural selection system work in their favor, just like the coaches are able to do. Itís time for the collegiate athletic world to finally wake up and realize that players getting money and benefits from boosters, agents, whomever, isnít a bad thing. If a coach can do endorsements, is allowed to take money in whatís supposed to be an amateur endeavor, all while getting all the perks that come with the position, then why canít the players? Iím not saying all the players should be paid (thatís logistically and legally impossible); Iím saying they should be allowed to take money, cars, whatever, from anyone who wants to give it to them.

If kids are supposed to go to college to grow into adults and learn how to get through life, then they should be allowed to make adult decisions and stop being treated like children. If it doesn't work out (like it doesn't work out for a lot of regular students), the world needs ditchdiggers, too.

wonderbredd24 07-28-2010 07:11 PM

The only way this is even a conversation is if the 4 power conferences are formed and they break away from the NCAA, thereby avoiding Title IX

Brent 07-28-2010 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murdamal86 (Post 2244011)
I don't see how accepting money or gifts from a booster or agent will improve your ON FIELD performance.

If I am a booster, I would rather someone sit on the bench of my alma mater than start for our rival.

Money and gifts have no place in college football.

descendency 07-29-2010 06:48 AM

My problem - and I do think this is a real issue and not paying players - is that EA can make a game like NCAA 11 and not pay for the likeness of players because their names are not used. We all know who those players are and know they aren't fictional players. I do think the NCAA should not be allowed to sell the rights to the use of players (fictional or not - because they never are) without compensating the teams and therefore the players for it.

If you were to give each scholarship player on any Division I NCAA player (85 per team, 120 teams = 10,200 players). 10,200 players making 500 a month for the year would be 61.2 million dollars.

Shane P. Hallam 07-29-2010 07:14 AM

College athletes do get spending money from the school. When I was an RA over the summer for some incoming freshmen, I asked them what they got. One guy told me they received $500 a quarter for books. The money was just put on their Buck ID to use at their will, so he bought a new pair of shoes with it. His books cost $150 that quarter. Things like that happen and are slight workarounds for this system.

Brent 07-29-2010 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency (Post 2244512)
My problem - and I do think this is a real issue and not paying players - is that EA can make a game like NCAA 11 and not pay for the likeness of players because their names are not used. We all know who those players are and know they aren't fictional players. I do think the NCAA should not be allowed to sell the rights to the use of players (fictional or not - because they never are) without compensating the teams and therefore the players for it.

If you were to give each scholarship player on any Division I NCAA player (85 per team, 120 teams = 10,200 players). 10,200 players making 500 a month for the year would be 61.2 million dollars.

EA would rather battle those assholes in court than ever consider giving those players a ******* dime.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.