If so how much? I'm in the NO crowd. . but I want to see what you think Rocket River ------------------
They already are being paid. You only hear about it when the schools are caught red-handed. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
They shouldn't be paid by the school because no other type of student gets paid. But on the other hand, students should be allowed to supplement their income with part time jobs or whatever. It was completely lame how the NCAA came down on that kid who sold his own paintings FOR CHARITY. ------------------ [This message has been edited by SpaceCity (edited March 15, 2001).]
How many other students are exploited so the NCAA and their schools can make money hand over fist? ------------------ The Rockets will be the NBA champions. Believe.
Of course, if you pay players from revenue generating sports, you also have to pay players from non-revenue generating sports. So, if you pay the star running back, you also have to pay the field hockey captain. Personally, I think scholarships are enough from the school itself. I would like to see the NCAA ease up on sanctions regarding working, etc. for student athletes. I know the rules are there because these outside jobs were abused in the past, but I still think the NCAA comes down too hard. Of course, if it were up to me, I'd let players use their image to make money. If Chris Simms can make money selling his image on a T-Shirt, he should be able to. If Gatorade wants to sign Rob Peters to an endorsement deal, they should be able to. The reason we have rules preventing boosters, etc. from giving money or favors to players is so that poorer schools can compete for the best talent. But that doesn't happen under our current system. The best players go to the highest profile schools because they want to maximize their future opportunities (or they simply know that school because of that school's past glory). A school like North Texas State isn't ever going to get the cream of the crop of recruits. If they could get boosters to pony up for the players, perhaps NTSU could get some decent players and take their team to a higher level (of course, if Florida State could also offer booster money, they'd probably still get the best recruits). In the end, I don't think the rules make that much difference to where kids go to school. At most, they simply harm the athlete himself. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt
I agreee with Space- they shouldn't be paid, but what harm is there if they want to get jobs so they can go out to eat or buy a gift for a friend? How lame of the NCAA and the schools to make all this money off of the student athletes, but not allow them to even make a little money for themselves. Poopy on them. ------------------ Poopy!
Part of the reason I'm not too interested in NCAA basketball is because it is horribly exploitative. In big sports schools, the athletics department is the most profitable part of the entire school. They make millions on TV rights, tickets sales and merchandise. And the players don't see a cent of it? Well, they see some of it, in the form of athletic scholarships. But, the moment they can't play in the games, that money is gone. It doesn't seem to me that competitive sports is necessarily unacademic. However, the way the NCAA runs the show, any connection between college athletics and the rest of the university is lost. It is like Coca-Cola providing high-speed internet service: plenty profitable, perhaps, but not very close to the core industry of the organization. So, since NCAA sports is not about education, but about money and entertainment, they should pay their workers the market rate. And considering what the NBA will pay, it's probably pretty good money. Unfortunately, the college system has a very good racket going. They can hide behind the guise of an educational institution (and they can, after all, offer those scholarships) and tell their athletes and the world that they need to finish college first. And they have rules -- like the no-agent rule -- to make sure their athletes keep their blinders on. So the NCAA doesn't seem to be in any danger at all of losing their staff to professional leagues, even though their pay and benefits compare very poorly. College sports are not a thing innately evil. Ideally, I'd like to see them continue the programs and tournaments, but not charge any admission to the games and broadcast those games on PBS. This is a thing they should not be in for the money. Of course, the NCAA won't try to stop making money. And they won't start paying their players either. So, I advocate the third best solution: I say players should skip college if they can and enter the NBA, or the IBL or the European Leagues or whatever else they can do to get the same training and be paid for it at the same time. If this caught on, it would undermine the talent base of the NCAA and it would collapse of its own. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
What about science, math, and medicine? If a student makes a discovery while doing research, isn't it the school that gets the credit for it? Intellectual property or something like that. (I'm just guessing, I don't really know for sure.) ------------------
I'm not a big college guy, so I'm not sure about many of the details here. But don't a lot of these schools use that money to pay for thier staff, buildings, stadiums, scholarships, advertising and all that? And how does all that money break down? Do the most popular schools get the most money or is it divided fairly between all colleges? ------------------
In many schools, the football team or basketball team revenues pay for the entire athletic department so the schools can have volleyball and softball and baseball and wrestling and other non-revenue sports. If a school was forced to plow most of the money it receives from revenue sports such as football and basketball back into the football and basketball programs, the schools would likely have to shut down most of their athletic department (possibly all of it, as there has to be gender equity. A school can't just have football, for example.) ------------------ Houston Sports Board Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt
mrpaige, Rob Peters? He's the most underrated QB in Big XII history!! That's just because I grew up with him! Yes, they should get paid. What did CBS just pay the NCAA for tourney rights, 60 billion, or was it just million? Either way, who's making that money for the schools? I'm pretty sure it's the players. They should be able to get a little bit of the huge pot. But, if you're against them getting paid, that's fine, I understand. Just please don't b**** about them leaving early for the NBA. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
I don't think that they should get paid because if they do . . . Why even bother to have the PreTense of having having it school related . . .just make a CBA and let them go there? Why aren't more Athletes in the CBA? [or were] Like someone said if you pay them SHOULD U PAY THE BANDs? Swim Team? Baseball Team? Squash team? How much? 30k a year? 10K? this will stop them from going to the nba which they make MINIMUM 250k? Honestly, without the 'top talent' in the NCAAs . . .the tourney would lose *some* interest but not all. I think March Madness would go on . . . . Too many people with Alma maters out there that route for there team no matter way [See Texas A&M] Rocket River ------------------
Nope don't pay them. I played fottball at a small DIII school so I know the time commitments involved. However it would be nice to allow them to have part-time jobs (problem is during the season they don't have alot of time), problem is there are too many boosters who would pay these guys for nothing. I think a better solution is a work-study like program where they can work flexible hours making very little money (like tutoring, pick up garbage, land scaping, laundry, etc), only trick is they would have to be supervised by someone not in the athletic department, to ensure they are actually working. On the plus side these guys get tons of benefits. Besides their free ride, they get free tutors and at bigger school they have much better food at the training table.
I'm all for easing the restrictions on allowing the players to get jobs, but I am against paying them for playing their sport. Four year scholarships (including books, room and board)at many universities are worth a lot of money (easily $25,000/year). Most of the stars in revenue producing sports end up getting their just due when they turn professional. The colleges give them a chance to showcase their talent. ------------------
Good argument, but you must find a new word! ------------------ Never Underestimate the Heart of a Champion
Who would do the actual paying? When? Where? What? How? and Why? ------------------ Sometimes you gotta do the next best thing!
These guys are getting a free college education. At a school like Notre Dame, I'd bet thats like $30,000 a year. At a state school, it may only be like $15,000 a year. Its seems to me they are getting something in return for their services on the football field. When this argument is made, I often hear the response that some of the kids playing college football are only there because of football and would not be at college otherwise. Thats lame. If the kids don't feel they are being fairly compensated, then they can opt not to play. I receive a full scholarship at my university and have to maintain a 3.25 GPA. Personally, I don't find this requirement unreasonable. It is easily attainable. The athletes have to maintain a much lower GPA and play the sport for which they receive the scholarship. Getting a C in a class is not hard, especially with tutors who know exactly what will be on the tests. ------------------ - Beck Dream...bring back the goggles
JuanValdez: Excellent argument. But where do you think the money is going? It goes back to benefit the school, which the players are attending. At some schools, the cynics are probably right, and the players aren't interested in an education. But, at a school like BC, where the academics are quite good, if you track the athlete alumni they almost always end up using their education. Sure, there are always going to be a few cases of someone merely playing to improve their games for the NFL or NBA, but those are the minority. Besides, an education is still a safety net. I'd wager that's true at the majority of schools. Without the revenue of big-time athletics, it would be harder for our school to support many of its worthwhile programs, and it would be harder to attract well-rounded student body. Even more, at many private schools (like BC or ND), *all* students are required to fulfill an extensive and rigorous humanities education, regardless of specific discipline. I know very few people who haven't been affected, at least a little, by those courses in philosophy, theology, and literature. Student athletes learn more than a trade. You also mention a "disconnect" between a school and its athletes. While that may be true in some very large schools, that's not the case at many smaller private ones. I've had class with most of the people I see on TV, and been to study groups, etc. It's not like athletics is some sort of exclusive click. They're people you know and see around campus. If our Dean were making millions a year on the blood and sweat of our athletes, I'd be upset... but that's just not the case. He's a Jesuit priest that doesn't *have* a salary. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
I just want to reiterate my feeling that it's fine if you believe that a college education is compensation enough, I respect that opinion. However, with that position, you can't b**** about players leaving early or opting not to go to college in the first place and going straight to the bucks. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
As people above have said, college athletes already get paid in the form of scholarships. If we choose to add pay, how do you regulate it? Does each school set it's own "salary"? Basically, do the rich get all the good players (like major league baseball)? Should we extend this to high school football? Schools benefit from ticket sales there too... shouldn't those kids get the benefit of it? Or, wait a minute, aren't these kids supposed to play because they love the game? That's what makes college athletics so cool -- add pay and you're going to have players playing just for a paycheck. You might as well just have the XFL. Besides, why not just eliminate the academic requirements -- if you're going to act like that they are revenue-generating employees of the university, treat them like it. Don't go through the facade of "getting an education" -- just employ them and be done with it. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
