Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should college athletes be paid?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by RealityCheck View Post
    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.

    bonekrusher
    The Twitters
    themaninblack

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LizardState View Post

        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.
        Last edited by CJSchneider; 07-28-2010, 10:09 AM.




        2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ramsrule View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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:

            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by murdamal86 View Post
                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.

                Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  **** her in da *****!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.


                    Follow Me on Twitter!
                    https://twitter.com/ShanePHallam

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by descendency View Post
                      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.

                      Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        At the end of the day their parents or the student don't have to pay for college. They get to play the game they love and they get an education for free. Paying them on top is just plain stupid. If they need the money so bad, then quit playing football, and get a job or two like everyone else in college.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by njx9
                          what? so once you're giving football players $500 a month, then you start giving the softball players $500 a month, then you have to give the underwater hockey team (if it's varsity) $500 a month, then you have to give the cross country team $500 a month. have you read anything in this thread yet, or did you somehow think you'd hit on an argument that hasn't already been ****-canned multiple times and doesn't come remotely close to standing up to common sense?
                          I'm not talking about the university doing it. I'm talking about them getting a share of the sales from merchandise the NCAA sells because they play football. I'm not advocating that schools pay these guys.

                          The sports you mentioned don't profit and therefore wouldn't get money. I'm just saying the NCAA should protect their athletes from more than just agents and stop using their profit as an excuse to abuse players.

                          edit: The NCAA can sell licenses to their sport where people who are not anyone (but oddly enough feel and look like the same player at the same university wearing that same number). I mean, we all know the QB at Washington is Jake Locker in spite of him being "QB 10" in the game.
                          Last edited by descendency; 07-29-2010, 04:13 PM.
                          **** her in da *****!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The NCAA can't pay football players and not pay other athletes. Doesn't matter if their sports aren't profitable if the NCAA overall is.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by iowatreat54 View Post
                              The NCAA can't pay football players and not pay other athletes. Doesn't matter if their sports aren't profitable if the NCAA overall is.
                              The university can't do it because of Title IX. The NCAA isn't a federally funded organization and therefore does not have to abide by that kind of regulation.

                              Arguably, the recent Supreme Court case (American Needle vs the NFL) could allow institutions (which are clearly 120 competing institutions) to pursue contracts of their own. However, I doubt they do this.
                              **** her in da *****!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Yes because they are force to go to college for 3 years (NFL) or 1 year (NBA).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information