Should college athletes be paid?

[Shane P. Hallam]

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]

Originally Posted by descendency

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.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by descendency

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.

right, EA worked out a deal with the governing body (the NCAA, or, iirc, each conference specifically) to allow them to reproduce the likeness of each team. each team signed up for that conference and chooses to play NCAA football (rather than, say, NAIA), and has thus agreed, in contract, to abide by those terms. there is NO fairness issue whatsoever.

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.

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?

[NY+Giants=NYG]

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.

[descendency]

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.

[iowatreat54]

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.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

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.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by descendency

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.

and you've just completely misunderstood title ix. if the university allowed it's football players to be paid BY ANYONE, they would have to ensure that there was equality for it's female athletes, as well as for the remainder of its athletes.

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.

which is irrelevant, but hooray.

Originally Posted by descendency

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.

which is irrelevant, but hooray.

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.

abuse players? roflcopter. that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard anyone suggest with even the slightest shred of seriousness in any "pay college players!!!!" argument. that's laughably bad. yes, they're being abused by getting a free education, and 3-4 years of FREE job interviews. they're, literally, just like slaves, right? but yeah, we should coddle these 19-20 year olds, and keep them safe from those agents. i mean, the kids don't know any better! especially after spending relatively substantial amounts of time having the eligibility rules pounded into their heads.

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.

what does that have to do with anything? it's completely non-sequitur. they're not using jake locker's likeness to sell the game, they're using the fact that they're the only company who can actually include all of the university names and logos. UW's qb could be #458, 5'2" and 430 lbs in the game, and most people would still associate him with locker. you're basically saying: some company can sell games wherein UW has a QB, therefore, all current and future UW QBs are entitled to money for it.

once again, spending roughly 12 seconds thinking about this would've led you to two separate, but related conclusions:

1) i'm simply wrong about title ix.
2) my argument utterly lacks any real world coherence, and actually borders on absurdity.

then, in second 13, you could've simply not hit submit.

anyone else want to rehash old, bad arguments for this, or can we finally pull the plug on this horse?

on edit: i mean, with the title ix crap, you've basically just argued that boosters/agents should be able to give any player as much money as they want, since neither is federally funded. obviously this is incorrect.

[Complex]

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

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Complex

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

no, they're not forced to go through college. they're forced to wait until they've been out of high school for $years.

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by njx9

no, they're not forced to go through college. they're forced to wait until they've been out of high school for $years.

Clearly they are being forced to get educated, live in a nice place and eat for free for 3 years.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Bengals78

Clearly they are being forced to get educated, live in a nice place and eat for free for 3 years.

NNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by njx9

NNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

It's terrible.
Why has this injustice been allowed to go on!

[iowatreat54]

Originally Posted by njx9

no, they're not forced to go through college. they're forced to wait until they've been out of high school for $years.

Not to mention that's the NFL's rule, not NCAA or schools. So it is incredibly illogical to say that since one business won't hire me, another has to pay me.

Jesus, the lack of any common sense or reason in these arguments gets better and better with time.