PDA

View Full Version : Paying College Athletes


sweetness34
05-10-2007, 03:00 PM
Yea I know we've had this before but it's been a while. I recently did a research paper on this for my Comp II Class. My stance is that I'm opposed to paying collegiate athletes and here are my reasons:

1) College Athletes get a free education that costs the average student thousands of dollars per year (depending on where you go to school, tuitions vary). That IMO is their pay for play.

2) Trickle down effect. If you start paying College Athletes when does the argument start about High School Athletes being paid? Because High School Athletes generate money for their sports programs too.

3) You will professionalize college sports if you start paying them. These kids are amateur athletes, not professionals.

4) If you start paying the athletes, you need to start paying the drama members, the band members, and other clubs who generate money for the university. As much as people go to see a football game for the football, there are a bunch of people who go to see the band members perform. And how about concerts on campus that people have to pay to get in (at ISU and IWU where I live they do this).

5) You will corrupt a great tradition of Collegiate Athletics. They play for the love of the game and for their University (well ok, a majority of them do because there are some crooked programs in the country).

6) Student-Athlete. The student part comes first and last I checked, students don't get paid (I'm talking just the student part).

Those are some of my points for the anti-side of paying College Athletes. I have a couple more but those are just 6 that I argue. Feel free to post your opinion but I don't want just one word answers or a sentence. I'd like to hear your reasoning and your points.

bored of education
05-10-2007, 03:01 PM
would the pay decrease their will to produce on the field and in the classroom? thats always a big thing for me

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:02 PM
No. It just creates too many problems when these kids are looking from school to school seeing who is offering the most money. They should play in the NCAA to get their education and improve as athletes, and THEN they can start thinking about becoming professionals.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:07 PM
I'm not really in favor of paying athletes directly, but I would be in favor of a school putting a somewhat trivial amount of money away (above and beyond stipends and scholarships) for each season a student athlete plays for the school. Something like $3-5k per athlete per year. If you are always academically eligible and get your degree, you get the money in a lump sum payment. For the 98% of student-athletes that don't go pro in their sports, that can be a nice little "bonus" for their time in school. It's a bit of a safety cushion for those that don't make it. It's also a bit of a deterrent for players leaving early with little shot of making it as a pro.

757Dawg
05-10-2007, 03:08 PM
Absolutely no, for a plethora of reasons.

My main stance is that these athletes get scholarships which lets them attend college for free.

Meanwhile, myself and the vast majority of college students have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars just to attend school. We'll be paying off student loans for years to come.

Bottom line, these athletes' college education is payed for them. That's their payment for being a collegiate athlete.

757Dawg
05-10-2007, 03:11 PM
For the 98% of student-athletes that don't go pro in their sports, that can be a nice little "bonus" for their time in school.
But they're still receiving a free college education. That's their bonus.

With a college degree, the doors are wide open for these kids to land lucrative careers. (unless they're a Liberal Arts major, in which case there's no shortage of McJobs)

Because they were such talented athletes, their college educations were paid for. That's all the bonus they should receive.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:12 PM
I know they already get their bonus, but I was just saying this is the only way I would support pay for athletes.

jayceheathman
05-10-2007, 03:18 PM
I am still split in the middle. It just doesnt seem right when the NCAA is a multi-million dollar company when the players are the ones generating the money. They do get scholorships but then again some of them dont and they still go through the same conditioning in practice as the members that do. They may not play as much but they still show up every day and work for their school. Although, having an extra curricular sport on your resume can help show that you can juggle your school work and still be able to play so it could help out in future jobs if the athlete doesnt go on to play professionally. The trickle down effect is the main reason why I am stuck in the middle because I could definitely see that happening if they do start paying the athletes.

dabears10
05-10-2007, 03:27 PM
The only way anyone should get paid is after they graduate they get a bonus for graduating and performing at a high level.

Then I believe that it would make ALOT more athletes want to study and do well in school since they dont tend to think the education means something. This is just based off of graduation rates.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:30 PM
I really don't think the amount of money will be significant enough to keep major sport college athletes in the classroom. My idea is that they would forfeit the money if they declared early or didn't keep grades above a certain point. The allure and money of the NFL/NBA isn't going to keep a kid in school for a measley $20,000. I think it was more a reward for overall performance of the kids who stay in school and perform well in all facets of college life.

Sportsfan486
05-10-2007, 03:31 PM
Man, they're already getting a free ride.

And the good ones DO get paid.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:33 PM
I really don't think the amount of money will be significant enough to keep major sport college athletes in the classroom. My idea is that they would forfeit the money if they declared early or didn't keep grades above a certain point. The allure and money of the NFL/NBA isn't going to keep a kid in school for a measley $20,000. I think it was more a reward for overall performance of the kids who stay in school and perform well in all facets of college life.

The rewards for performing well in college are already there with or without an extra $20,000 or whatever. If you get good grades, you get better employment opportunities. If you perform well in sports, you get a free ride and could even make millions as a professional after college.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:33 PM
The talented ones get paid, but their pay is based on potential, not their performance in the classroom. Many players in major programs do just enough to get by in class to make it to the pros.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:35 PM
The rewards for performing well in college are already there with or without an extra $20,000 or whatever. If you get good grades, you get better employment opportunities. If you perform well in sports, you get a free ride and could even make millions as a professional after college.

Arguably, that is true, but the NCAA is making millions off of these kids. The CBS contract for the NCAA Tournament almost $1bb a year through 2012 (I'm pretty sure that's how long it goes). Does the NCAA give money to basketball programs? How much goes to charity? Inner city community programs? Back to the schools? We don't know this. All I'm saying is that if they're going to pay athletes, this is how it should be done.

Moses
05-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Arguably, that is true, but the NCAA is making millions off of these kids. The CBS contract for the NCAA Tournament almost $1bb a year through 2012 (I'm pretty sure that's how long it goes). Does the NCAA give money to basketball programs? How much goes to charity? Inner city community programs? Back to the schools? We don't know this. All I'm saying is that if they're going to pay athletes, this is how it should be done.

I'm not overly familiar with the education system in America. I know that in Canada it would be fine if these universities were raking in all this cash because they aren't for-profit organizations. The schools would just dump that money back into the school and it would improve them greatly.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 03:45 PM
Well, the schools negotiate their own advertising, ticket sales, etc. I know conferences do TV deals and share the revenues. Other than that, I'm not familiar with the amount that the NCAA pays schools for their broadcast appearances, etc. I know that football programs that make bowl games get paid up the wazoo. NCAA/NIT appearances make schools money, but it is dependent upon performance. NCAA itself is a nonprofit organization. Ideally, they would be funneling the money from the major men's sports to fund lesser-known sports and women's athletics.

ny10804
05-10-2007, 03:47 PM
I made a thread about this a year ago, and I'll repost my research paper:


Should College Athletes Be Paid?

The Unresolved Issue that Remains Disputed


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Professional athletes’ jobs are to entertain the viewing public. For this entertainment that they provide, they are paid adequately, and often, handsomely. The sports that these athletes play have been made into industries, the main of which are the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League. These leagues/associations harness the athletic ability of their respective players, enhance the competitive level of the sport they play, and in doing so, turn a profit. Like all corporations, these players, employees if you will, are paid. Given this, it would seem obvious that all athletes would be properly reimbursed by the association that they work and make money for. Not so in our world. Collegiate athletes serve as sources of income for the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Just as the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NBA Championship, and World Series showcase the highest talent level of athletes in the world, the multiple NCAA Tournaments and the many football bowls (i.e. Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl) do the same. All the while, both industries, Professional and Collegiate, use these special events as well as regular season games to make money. What separates the two is the matter of payment of their employees. This begs the question: should college athletes be paid? The answer proves to be in effect a weak yet definitive yes.

First off, let us review the professional sports industry. The league/association with the highest revenue among the professional sports industry is the National Football League (NFL), bringing in $4,960,000,000 in the year 2003 (Ozanian 1). In descending order, the next highest in revenue during the same period were: Major League Baseball (MLB) at $4,128,000,000 (“MLB Valuations” 2), the National Basketball Association (NBA) at $2,726,000,000 (“2004 Team Valuations” 2), and lastly the National Hockey League (NHL) at $2,100,000,000 (“Game Misconduct” 3). The collective sum of the four main sections of the professional sports industry totaled $13,914,000,000 in 2003. This number represents the amount of money made by ticket sales, television contracts, and the purchase of video game rights by companies such as Electronic Arts (EA) and the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN). The revenue is the distributed to each of the teams in each league/association. Higher markets such as New York or Los Angeles often experience the greatest amount of revenue. As a whole, the professional sports industry is quite formidable as a business.


Next, let us review the collegiate sports industry. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as whole gained $438,000,000 in revenue in the year of 2003. The main sources for this figure were television and media rights, 85%, and ticket sales, 5% (Dent 1). Like the professional industry distributing the revenue among the teams, this collegiate revenue is distributed among the many colleges throughout the country. Like the higher market teams who receive more money, more competitive sections of the NCAA receive more money. The most competitive, Division One is rightfully so the biggest gainer during the distribution of revenue. This fact will have much weight in determining how much college athletes should be paid, providing basis that athletes from more competitive divisions will be paid more. Overall, the collegiate industry is relatively small, and is roughly one-thirtieth of the professional industry.


Having covered the two industries, we now must look at how much professional athletes are paid, and how payment of college athletes is disguised. The highest average salary of a professional athlete in the year 2003 is that of a member of the NBA, making roughly $3,700,000 per year (Dixon 1). In descending order, the next highest average salaries were: $2,372,189 in the MLB (MSNBC 1), $1,790,209 in the NHL (“Q. What’s the average NHL salary?” 1), and $1,169,470 in the NFL (Weisman 1). All together, the average salary of a professional athlete, regardless of sport, is $2,257,967. This figure says a lot about American values, as it amounts to more than that of the salaries of teachers, lawyers, doctors, and all government officials. One year’s average salary in professional sports is equal to serving six years as president of the United States. It also reflects how much of a force the professional sports industry is in our country. Regardless, professional athletes reap the great rewards for the entertainment they provide.


Student-athletes and all students alike have many fees when attending college. In 2003, the average cost of tuition, fees, room, and board was $26,854 at private institutions and $10,636 at public institutions (CollegeBoard 1). Most student-athletes are on scholarship while in college, and all their fees are covered. This is the first and obvious answer to the posed question: yes, they are paid, by means of a free education. Comparing the needs of professional athletes to those of college athletes would reveal the extent to which college athletes need to be paid.
As was mentioned in paragraph three, collegiate revenue is 1/30 to that of professional revenue. However, private institution costs are 1/84 of a professional athlete’s salary, and public institutions are 1/212. Taking into account that there are much more collegiate athletes than professional athletes, these ratios do not have to match perfectly. Also, the fact that professional athletes have families, houses, and many other expenses that college athletes do not will affect how much college students get paid. Simple enough, professional athletes’ job for anywhere from eight to fifteen years is to play sports. After they retire, they will then live off the money they made or find a new job. As it stands, professional athletes are working adults like millions others and are paid for their work, which cannot be debated.


Collegiate athletes do not, for the most part, have to raise a family, pay mortgages, and provide the necessary supplies/education for children that professional athletes do. Along with the provided education and housing, their only real expenses are transportation, food, clothing, and school supplies which are not provided. These, however, can be very expensive. Due to the large amount of time that collegiate athletes spend on practicing, training, working out, and playing their sport, getting a job is often out of the equation. Depending on how much they spend on travel, clothing, food, and supplies, expenses can be anywhere from three to five thousand. According to the NCAA, students can receive $500 per year to cover these expenses (Whiteside 1). This for the majority is not enough. To solve this issue and the posed question: student-athletes should be paid a monthly stipend of $300-500, depending on the college and division the athlete attends. This will eliminate complaints of not getting paid and at the same time keep colleges free from having to devote too much money to their sports program.

Without argument, a college athlete who devotes so much time to his or her school deserves to be properly reimbursed. Under current circumstances, this is not so. Hopefully colleges will admit the least bit of exploitation they have over their athletes, and begin to make sure that the hard work that student-athletes commit for their school be recognized. College athletes should not, however, become younger versions of professional sports. Many believe that college sports are more pure than that of professional sports. This is so because student-athletes play for the love of the game, whereas professionals have been accused of playing for the money. Salary, clothing/shoe-contracts, and worldwide recognition are not issues in collegiate sports. To preserve this pureness, a low but sufficient stipend should be distributed. This will bring an end to many complaints and at the same time keep collegiate sports from becoming outrageous or even corrupt industries that many think the professional sports industry has become. If this will catch on, everyone will benefit and fairness and justice will prevail.


Works Cited



About. “Q. What’s the average NHL salary?”. -no date-.
<http://proicehockey.about.com/od/collectivebargainingfaq/f/nhl_salaries.htm>
College Board. “Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published
Rates.”21 October 2003
<http://www.collegeboard.com/press/article/0,3183,29541,00.html>
Dent, Gale. NCAA Revenue Distribution Media Conference Call Transcript. 11 March 2004
<http://www.ncaa.org/releases/monthlyTeleconferences/2004/200403RevenueDistrTrans.hml>
Dixon, Oscar. “NBA’s ‘Best Buys’: Low-pay, Big-play Guys.” USAToday.com. 16 December
2003. 10 March 2006
<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-12-16-salary-package_x.htm>
Forbes. “2004 Team Valuations.” 16 February 2004
<http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/064tab.html>
- - -. “Game Misconduct.” 8 December 2003
<http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/094tab.html>
- - -. “MLB Valuations.” 26 April 2004
<http://www.forbes.com/archive/forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html>
MSNBC. “Average MLB Salary Rise smallest since ’96.” 23 December 2003
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3796566/>
Ozanian, Michael K. “Football Fiefdoms.” 3 September 2004. Forbes
<http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/09/02/cz_kb_0902nflintro.html>
Weisman, Larry. “Average salary tops $1M again.” 8 March 2001. USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/salaries/average.htm>
Whiteside, Kelly. “College athletes want cut of action.” 31 August 2004. USA Today
< http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-08-31-top-ten-number-7_x.htm>

yourfavestoner
05-10-2007, 03:49 PM
I actually just wrote a paper for this topic this week. My sentiments echo those of ny10804.

awfullyquiet
05-10-2007, 04:03 PM
i'm constantly frustrated by the idea of the NCAA.

GiantRutgersFan
05-10-2007, 04:11 PM
i dont think paying athletes is a good idea. However, I think giving them like $150-200 a week during the season would be a decent idea. I mean playing a sport in college pretty much means that you cant have a job.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 04:15 PM
I'm pretty sure that major sport athletes get a small stipend like that (maybe more) to cover certain personal expenses. When not in season, these players are also allowed to hold jobs.

High Roller
05-10-2007, 04:16 PM
Hell no. They're not professionals. It would become more about money than the sport. Horrible idea in every sense.

sweetness34
05-10-2007, 04:33 PM
i dont think paying athletes is a good idea. However, I think giving them like $150-200 a week during the season would be a decent idea. I mean playing a sport in college pretty much means that you cant have a job.

I will be playing collegiate sports next year and I will still be working during the season. Granted it's only spot hours but I'll still be working during the season (on weekends when I don't have games and such). And I"ll also be working in the offseason as well.

Granted it'll probably be only a couple hours during the week, it's still some nice dolla to have in your pocket for groceries and stuff like that.

I would submit to a check each week though for food and stuff like that, but that would qualify as living expenses. Paying them to play is out of the question for me though, no way. But helping them get by with rent, food, clothes, supplies, and things like that would be ok by me.

sweetness34
05-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Also, for the pro side of this argument. If they want to start paying college athletes, then enough with this "general studies" and "sports management" garbage. Take real classes and get a real degree that'll help you if sports don't work out. Because I'm about sick and tired of seeing these kids taking cake classes.

terribletowel39
05-10-2007, 04:40 PM
i voted yes with the thought that they already basically get paid to play. most of them get scholarships which is money that they don't have to spend. and i don't know what they have in other states but in louisiana they have Topps which pays for your tuition no matter what scholarship you get, so if you get a scholarship and Topps, you get money in hand. i know it is like that with other scholarships but i've never asked anyone that rcv'd topps and a sport scholarship.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
05-10-2007, 04:48 PM
During a season as rigorous as football, they really do have no time during the season to get a job. I remember reading SI a few years ago where Matt Leinart was talking about some sort of Stipend, so I guess they do get those. So, since all their basic needs are met with the stipend, they shouldn't be further paid. If there was no stipend, I'd be in favour of one, because they need to eat.

sweetness34
05-10-2007, 04:54 PM
I see 5 guys voted yes, where the hell are you guys at?

terribletowel39
05-10-2007, 05:00 PM
i responded to why i voted yes, but it was the last post of the first page. :(

yourfavestoner
05-10-2007, 09:24 PM
I see 5 guys voted yes, where the hell are you guys at?

I'm one of them, and I already said why. Go read ny10804's post.

A lot of you guys have a misconception about this. Nobody is talking about professionalizing college football, or making it all about the money. We're talking about a small amount of money for simple personal expenses.

nobodyinparticular
05-10-2007, 09:30 PM
Yea I know we've had this before but it's been a while. I recently did a research paper on this for my Comp II Class. My stance is that I'm opposed to paying collegiate athletes and here are my reasons:

1) College Athletes get a free education that costs the average student thousands of dollars per year (depending on where you go to school, tuitions vary). That IMO is their pay for play.

2) Trickle down effect. If you start paying College Athletes when does the argument start about High School Athletes being paid? Because High School Athletes generate money for their sports programs too.

3) You will professionalize college sports if you start paying them. These kids are amateur athletes, not professionals.

4) If you start paying the athletes, you need to start paying the drama members, the band members, and other clubs who generate money for the university. As much as people go to see a football game for the football, there are a bunch of people who go to see the band members perform. And how about concerts on campus that people have to pay to get in (at ISU and IWU where I live they do this).

5) You will corrupt a great tradition of Collegiate Athletics. They play for the love of the game and for their University (well ok, a majority of them do because there are some crooked programs in the country).

6) Student-Athlete. The student part comes first and last I checked, students don't get paid (I'm talking just the student part).

Those are some of my points for the anti-side of paying College Athletes. I have a couple more but those are just 6 that I argue. Feel free to post your opinion but I don't want just one word answers or a sentence. I'd like to hear your reasoning and your points.

Awesome argument. Very good points and I agree whole-heartedly.

Tubby
05-11-2007, 09:23 AM
Because of Richard Nixon and the laws he passed during his presidency, if we pay one college athlete, we need to pay them all. For example, if you want to pay Joakim Noah and Tim Tebow money, you have to pay the alternate to the womens diving team the same amount of money. It would never work.

portermvp84
05-11-2007, 09:32 AM
They already get a free ride as it is. Why pay them?

Xiomera
05-11-2007, 09:35 AM
They already are paid. In the form of huge Scholarships that send people to college based off their athletic ability rather than their academic ability.

You people are out of your mind to think they deserve to be paid anything further.

portermvp84
05-11-2007, 09:40 AM
They don't deserve to get paid at all. I think getting a free education is the pay check thier getting. I wish I could get a whole ride too some big school.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
05-11-2007, 10:36 AM
Because of Richard Nixon and the laws he passed during his presidency, if we pay one college athlete, we need to pay them all. For example, if you want to pay Joakim Noah and Tim Tebow money, you have to pay the alternate to the womens diving team the same amount of money. It would never work.



I think they would probably get paid in proportion to what their team brings into the school. So Men's football+b-ball=good money, womens synchronized diving, 5 bucks.

Moses
05-11-2007, 10:43 AM
I'm one of them, and I already said why. Go read ny10804's post.

A lot of you guys have a misconception about this. Nobody is talking about professionalizing college football, or making it all about the money. We're talking about a small amount of money for simple personal expenses.

They already get money for personal expenses I think?

dabears10
05-11-2007, 11:56 AM
I really don't think the amount of money will be significant enough to keep major sport college athletes in the classroom. My idea is that they would forfeit the money if they declared early or didn't keep grades above a certain point. The allure and money of the NFL/NBA isn't going to keep a kid in school for a measley $20,000. I think it was more a reward for overall performance of the kids who stay in school and perform well in all facets of college life.

You act like the only kids who don't graduate are the ones who leave early for the pro's. I believe basketball has like 40% graduation rate in college. So that extra money would probably keep the guys who don't have a chance at the pros in school to graduate.

There are alot of guys who stop going to school once their sport is over. That is a horrible waste of the chance they have and obviously need a little help to get them to finish what they worked so hard for.

someone447
05-11-2007, 01:17 PM
Absolutely no, for a plethora of reasons.

My main stance is that these athletes get scholarships which lets them attend college for free.

Meanwhile, myself and the vast majority of college students have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars just to attend school. We'll be paying off student loans for years to come.

Bottom line, these athletes' college education is payed for them. That's their payment for being a collegiate athlete.

And how many hours a day do you spend doing things that directly profit the school you are going to? College athletes, especially D1 athletes spend an incredible amount of time, it is almost impossible for them to get a job. Should they be payed a lot? No, just increase their stipend. Make it a flat rate for all athletes, according to the level. That way the recruiting isn't affected. Do a study on what the average college student who works part time make, and give them that.

They already get money for personal expenses I think?
Yes, but it is a very small amount. Increase it by 100 bucks a week or so and make it equivalent to having a part time job.

someone447
05-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Because of Richard Nixon and the laws he passed during his presidency, if we pay one college athlete, we need to pay them all. For example, if you want to pay Joakim Noah and Tim Tebow money, you have to pay the alternate to the womens diving team the same amount of money. It would never work.

And they should be payed also.

During a season as rigorous as football, they really do have no time during the season to get a job. I remember reading SI a few years ago where Matt Leinart was talking about some sort of Stipend, so I guess they do get those. So, since all their basic needs are met with the stipend, they shouldn't be further paid. If there was no stipend, I'd be in favour of one, because they need to eat.

They get a stipend, but it isn't enough. Sure, it is enough to make sure you can eat, but not enough for recreational activities.

someone447
05-11-2007, 01:21 PM
Also, for the pro side of this argument. If they want to start paying college athletes, then enough with this "general studies" and "sports management" garbage. Take real classes and get a real degree that'll help you if sports don't work out. Because I'm about sick and tired of seeing these kids taking cake classes.

I have something to say about this too. People were making a huge deal about the classes Greg Oden was taking, saying he wasn't a true student, etc. THEY ARE ALL REQUIREMENTS!!!! History of Rock and Roll? Fills the fine arts requirement at most classes. College athletes are no different than just about any other liberal arts major, LOTS OF PEOPLE TAKE CAKE CLASSES!!!

Phrost
05-11-2007, 03:54 PM
How is this even a question?

They are only kids, they couldn't handle such things.

Imagine pacman with no limitations and getting paid in college. He'd be makin it rain alot more back then.

sik wit it
05-11-2007, 03:57 PM
Yea I know we've had this before but it's been a while. I recently did a research paper on this for my Comp II Class. My stance is that I'm opposed to paying collegiate athletes and here are my reasons:

1) College Athletes get a free education that costs the average student thousands of dollars per year (depending on where you go to school, tuitions vary). That IMO is their pay for play.

2) Trickle down effect. If you start paying College Athletes when does the argument start about High School Athletes being paid? Because High School Athletes generate money for their sports programs too.

3) You will professionalize college sports if you start paying them. These kids are amateur athletes, not professionals.

4) If you start paying the athletes, you need to start paying the drama members, the band members, and other clubs who generate money for the university. As much as people go to see a football game for the football, there are a bunch of people who go to see the band members perform. And how about concerts on campus that people have to pay to get in (at ISU and IWU where I live they do this).

5) You will corrupt a great tradition of Collegiate Athletics. They play for the love of the game and for their University (well ok, a majority of them do because there are some crooked programs in the country).

6) Student-Athlete. The student part comes first and last I checked, students don't get paid (I'm talking just the student part).

Those are some of my points for the anti-side of paying College Athletes. I have a couple more but those are just 6 that I argue. Feel free to post your opinion but I don't want just one word answers or a sentence. I'd like to hear your reasoning and your points.
agreed, scholarships are enough and less than three percent turn pro anyway so they should be focusing on school.

sweetness34
05-11-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm one of them, and I already said why. Go read ny10804's post.

A lot of you guys have a misconception about this. Nobody is talking about professionalizing college football, or making it all about the money. We're talking about a small amount of money for simple personal expenses.

Yes, some people are. They aren't talking about just "monthly expenses," they want the athletes to get a fair share of the profit, which means paying them a salary.

And someone, if you pay athletes you have to pay the drama club members, chess club members, color guard, band members, and everyone else who filters in money for the university. And you realize that greed will start coming into play as well don't you. The star football players are going to wonder why the girls gold team is getting the same amount of money as they are.

I am a college athlete and I have a part time job along with working on my game and taking classes. I'm not talking about a job that they have to go to every single day, but I believe they work a few days out of the week and earn extra cash. I go to class, then go to work, and then go and work out. It is a lot of time to put in but I have no problems keeping my grades up while keeping in shape and earning money.

sweetness34
05-11-2007, 04:37 PM
I have something to say about this too. People were making a huge deal about the classes Greg Oden was taking, saying he wasn't a true student, etc. THEY ARE ALL REQUIREMENTS!!!! History of Rock and Roll? Fills the fine arts requirement at most classes. College athletes are no different than just about any other liberal arts major, LOTS OF PEOPLE TAKE CAKE CLASSES!!!

I'm talking about their degree. General studies, recreational studies, sports management. What the hell is that going to do for you if you don't make it in professional sports? I've taken cake classes (Art Appreciation and Music Appreciation) but I am also taking hard classes (Calculus, Physics, Astronomy, Sociology, Composition).

I want to see these kids make an effort to get a degree in something that'll actually help them down the road. Hell take journalism or work to become a commentator. Look at the amount of ex-athletes who are on ESPN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NFL Network, etc that are making a living doing television.

Addict
05-11-2007, 04:44 PM
I said no, they get a free education (which even without getting to the NFL puts them in a great position to make money) and the really good ones get paid... as soon as they go pro.
Hell it's called 'going pro' for a reason...

someone447
05-11-2007, 04:46 PM
Yes, some people are. They aren't talking about just "monthly expenses," they want the athletes to get a fair share of the profit, which means paying them a salary.

And someone, if you pay athletes you have to pay the drama club members, chess club members, color guard, band members, and everyone else who filters in money for the university. And you realize that greed will start coming into play as well don't you. The star football players are going to wonder why the girls gold team is getting the same amount of money as they are.

I am a college athlete and I have a part time job along with working on my game and taking classes. I'm not talking about a job that they have to go to every single day, but I believe they work a few days out of the week and earn extra cash. I go to class, then go to work, and then go and work out. It is a lot of time to put in but I have no problems keeping my grades up while keeping in shape and earning money.

How many hours a week do you have to practice and go to meetings and film? I know that my roommates could not get a job during the football season, unless they want absolutely no time to study.

I agree on not giving them a salary, but an increase to the stipend needs to happen. They just don't get enough for how much they put in. How about add on a clause regarding GPA. As an athlete, a 2.5 gets an extra 50 bucks a week, a 3.0 an extra 100, 3.5 and extra 150, and a 4.0 an extra 200. That way they benefit from keeping their grades up along with their contribution to the school by way of playing sports.

sweetness34
05-11-2007, 04:56 PM
I workout 2 hours a day, work for an average of 4 hours, and go to school eh for an average of 3 hours a day.

And I've already said I'm ok with monthly expense payments if there is no way they can get a job. As I really don't see that as "paying" them, more like supporting them financially to get by. And I like the idea of enticing them by giving bonuses for better grades, although that really shouldn't matter, they should be focused on school and not have to be enticed to get better grades by bonuses.

bearsfan_51
05-11-2007, 05:19 PM
No but they need to restrict more what is expected of these young athletes. It's really pathetic the way programs exploit all of their time, the free education gip is a joke cause they're never in the classroom anyway.

someone447
05-11-2007, 06:20 PM
I workout 2 hours a day, work for an average of 4 hours, and go to school eh for an average of 3 hours a day.

And I've already said I'm ok with monthly expense payments if there is no way they can get a job. As I really don't see that as "paying" them, more like supporting them financially to get by. And I like the idea of enticing them by giving bonuses for better grades, although that really shouldn't matter, they should be focused on school and not have to be enticed to get better grades by bonuses.

See, that is where you are different than a D1 football player. My roommates go to school from 9-12(or so) Then either have weights from 6-8 or 1-3(approximately) Then meetings for a couple hours, then they have practice, then occasionally meetings again. In addition to any extra film work or anything else they want to put in. That is a full time job. The bonuses based on grades isn't to motivate them, rather to appease the opponents of giving athletes any extra money to do with what they want.

sik wit it
05-11-2007, 06:21 PM
unless you go to college knowing you'll turn pro i see college athletics as a waste of time.

someone447
05-11-2007, 06:31 PM
unless you go to college knowing you'll turn pro i see college athletics as a waste of time.

An extra 5 years of doing something you love is hardly a waste of time. By that logic, unless you plan on turning pro, playing high school sports is a waste of time, or little league. Hell, the 1 person who may grow pro in each little league are the only ones that should ever play. It's completely pointless. Playing music is a waste of time too, because most people who do that won't make it a career.

Yep, huge waste of time.

Addict
05-11-2007, 06:33 PM
An extra 5 years of doing something you love is hardly a waste of time. By that logic, unless you plan on turning pro, playing high school sports is a waste of time, or little league. Hell, the 1 person who may grow pro in each little league are the only ones that should ever play. It's completely pointless. Playing music is a waste of time too, because most people who do that won't make it a career.

Yep, huge waste of time.

And free education and college degree is SOOOO overrated.

sik wit it
05-11-2007, 08:18 PM
And free education and college degree is SOOOO overrated.

didn't know my opinion would get all you up in a tizzy. From what I've seen and talked to, college athletics takes away the experience.

Staubach12
05-11-2007, 08:39 PM
The pay is a darn good education free. College students should not be paid for playing. It's a dumb idea. They're still not pros on that level.

jballa838
05-11-2007, 08:58 PM
An extra 5 years of doing something you love is hardly a waste of time. By that logic, unless you plan on turning pro, playing high school sports is a waste of time, or little league. Hell, the 1 person who may grow pro in each little league are the only ones that should ever play. It's completely pointless. Playing music is a waste of time too, because most people who do that won't make it a career.

Yep, huge waste of time.

plus it develops character and builds relationships that will last a long time. my dad still sees people he played college football with. Plus its something they can be proud about wheither its University of Southern California or University of Southern Idaho or something. Plus, it gives you something to feel like a part of weither you win a championship or lose every game. Or even if you didn't play much, you still played collegiate football and not a lot of people can say that.

bantx
05-11-2007, 11:01 PM
no way, but on the other hand they do as much work as the pros,

Caddy
05-11-2007, 11:10 PM
I am opposed to them being paid from the University/School they are attending. However, I do think a player should be able to receive endorsements from sponsors and the like.

someone447
05-12-2007, 02:35 PM
I am opposed to them being paid from the University/School they are attending. However, I do think a player should be able to receive endorsements from sponsors and the like.

That would end very, very bad.

Tobzilla
05-12-2007, 02:38 PM
There is nothing really to discuss here IMO. A college education is more than enough payment for college athletes.