Should college athletes be paid?
 

I say no. Any thoughts?

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

ahh... NO!

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.

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.

Definitely not.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

and for the fourteenth time in the last month...

the answer is very clearly no. there are, quite literally, no arguments for paying them that stand up to the common sense test, let alone the feel good test. it's an idiotic idea pushed by people who don't want players to be true amateurs.

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

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.

except that that would have nothing to do with title ix.

so if they want government dollars (and no, none of these schools could function without them), they abide by title ix. nothing to do with conference or the ncaa.

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.