Time To Pay College Athletes?

[WhiteTiger]

I just finished reading an article about "how it's about time we started paying college athletes." I read the whole article, and it really seemed to be to boil down to whining about how 'hard' male college football and basketball players have it. How, despite getting 'full ride' scholarships, they still have to find a way to earn a couple thousand a year to 'make sure ends meet'. The "full cost of attendance scholarships" that are being looked at to replace the "full ride" ones aren't enough, either. And of course, it is really just the men's football and basketball teams that need to start paying their players, because "they bring in the lion's share of the schools sports related revenue".

There was a lot more in the article that just felt so wrong it was making me shake my head as I read it. But it did get one thing right. "Paying players could make even more of a mockery of their education." It would basically turn them into employees (and open an interesting can of worms there, if the schools want a salary cap in what they'd pay their jocks...their jocks would need a union to speak for them...). I would look at that as actually removing the final layer of the laughable fiction that these players are there for the 'education first'.

Maybe it might not be a bad idea to start paying them and stop requiring them to actually GO to classes. Leave the learning to folks who are actually interested in learning and would benefit from it. The article postulates that "amateur" sports now stop at high school (possibly even as far back as middle school...) so maybe it's time for sports obsessed schools to ditch the fiction that the school part is important to them. Hell, look at the graduation rates of these "student-athletes"...it seems to be around 30-40%, since they are really just at the school to get noticed by a pro club, and then snapped up by said pro club when they are of the right age.

Maybe it is time to start paying them and start treating them like employees...and stop calling them students, while we're at it.

The original article I read was in the Sept 16, 2013 issue of time. U.S. cover story.

[Street Pharmacist]

The issue for me is about fair compensation. These universities make billions, yes billions off of these athletes who are paid in scholarships. That's brutal if you ask me

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The issue for me is about fair compensation. These universities make billions, yes billions off of these athletes who are paid in scholarships. That's brutal if you ask me

Yeah, that's tough for me, too. But, these guys basically get a free higher education, something no one else does. They take no advantage of what they are being paid, and want payment in another form. One could possibly claim that they are doing it to themselves, working for free since they choose 'basketweaving 101' to 'major' in. If they don't want payment in the form being offered...do they have a right to demand payment in another form (cold hard cash?) while giving up the benefits of the other method of payment? I'm tempted to say 'sure, here's payment in monetary terms, but you are not a student at [whatever school].

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, that's tough for me, too. But, these guys basically get a free higher education, something no one else does. They take no advantage of what they are being paid, and want payment in another form. One could possibly claim that they are doing it to themselves, working for free since they choose 'basketweaving 101' to 'major' in. If they don't want payment in the form being offered...do they have a right to demand payment in another form (cold hard cash?) while giving up the benefits of the other method of payment? I'm tempted to say 'sure, here's payment in monetary terms, but you are not a student at [whatever school].

I'd be fine with that.

How is tuition fair? If they got paid even a pittance of what was just they could afford a free education...

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'd be fine with that.

How is tuition fair? If they got paid even a pittance of what was just they could afford a free education...

Yeah, tuition isn't fair at all...but they don't even have to pay it, period. An education is also supposed to be worth more than what was paid for it, too. The article was talking about pay ranges based on the schools earnings, and figured that their 'minimum' salary would be $225,000/season and the "likely" cap would be around 1.5 million. That would buy a lot of school.

While I have big problems with how sports are idolized in the country in the first place, I really am thinking that it's time to separate competitive sports out of schools. Or maybe make them start pouring 1/2 to 3/4 of their profits back INTO the school. Wonder what they could do with tuition if you had a sports program pouring millions back into the school?

Ah, well...wandering off topic.

[Street Pharmacist]

Who gets the universities windfall?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Who gets the universities windfall?

Honestly, I don't know. This sort of quantity of money is way over my head. But given some of the profits I've seen (even in the article) that the sports programs turned, I can't help but wonder what sort of benefit would be derived from taking that and plowing it back against tuition costs? The article mentioned Georgia State making 75 million in profit for 2012. That...could probably cover every students tuition and books for the year, freeing the students from trying to come up with it on their own (via loans, etc).

Now I'm really wondering what sort of benefits could be derived from taking the sports programs profits and plowing them into tuition. Start to have a lot of folks graduating university or college either debt free, or pretty close, I'd think.

Could probably even pay those athletes earning those profits a decent living wage, too. Nothing too extravagant, but say...40,000/year. A good, solid wage, especially for someone of their age.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Who gets the universities windfall?

I believe a lot of it goes back into sports, so it's good for sports that don't have a big following, especially a lot of the female sports. But some does go to other programs in the university as well. And of course a large portion goes back into the football program (I'm obviously thinking football programs here, not other college sports, as football is by far the most profitable, even over basketball).

The big problem I have with it is the coaches and executives get paid ridiculous amounts of money and it leads to the kinda conduct you saw in the Penn State scandal. When you have as much money as is involved, people don't want to rock the boat often turning a blind eye to unethical and even illegal behaviour.

Now I'm not saying all the schools have pedophile coaches causing untold horrors, but you do hear of unethical and illegal behaviour far more often than you should in some of these programs. Perhaps a cap should be set on executive salaries. It might not only discourage bad behaviour, but create more of a level playing field for the schools.

The fact of the matter is that college sports, especially football, is very big business, and many people are in it for the money, not the love of the game. So, it's hard to ask players to live up to a certain standard, when a lot of the people around them are not. If the players are expected to work as hard as they do for their education and the love of the game, how is it fair that the coach, who supposedly is doing it to help these students, is making millions? Or an executive, who just happens to be able to put on a bowl game is running his business tax free?

Here's a list of the highest paid coaches:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ery-fbs-school

Also, a lot of the money also goes to NCAA executives and the bowl executives, that basically run the bowl games like non-profits.

'The reason bowl profits aren’t taxed “is because it’s supposed to be serving a public purpose,” Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, told the Arizona Republic. The bowls, Roberts said, are not supposed to “squander this money that is not taxed.” And yet, since the BCS began, average pay for the CEOs who run each bowl has more than doubled and now exceeds $500,000 a year, the Republic found. The Sugar Bowl, which has cash reserves in excess of $34 million and until recently benefited from tax subsidies from the Louisiana government, pays its CEO more than $593,000.'

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-taxes-part-1/

As has been talked about a lot recently, and even lampooned in shows like South Park, it seems to be a case where a lot of people are making boatloads of money off these students and it's getting to the point where it's just not right and is in fact causing problems. Don't get me wrong, I do think these people should get paid, just that all balance has become lost.

Is the answer spreading the wealth around a bit by giving the players some money? I'm not sure that's the answer, as I do think a free education and the chance to do what you love is a pretty good deal. But the system does seem to be broken, so if the league has no better ideas on how to fix the economics of the sport, then maybe it's a decent option.

Personally, like a lot of these corporation run amok stories that are so prevalent in the States right now, I think some part of the answer is to go back and rework the tax code and make sure these colleges which have become businesses, pay their fair share.

[nfotiu]

There are a lot of angles on this. I think less than a half dozen football teams actually turn a profit. So if this meant more money was being sucked out of the university to pay athletes then that is pretty chappy. Also of note is college football is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the cable sports bubble that will come crashing down one day and leave these football programs with even less money. Another thing to not lose sight of is so few of these players actually go on to pro football, so they should be taking advantage of the opportunity to go to college.

[Northendzone]

$593,000 per year for a company that runs one football game per year - man does that sound like a sweet gig....

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yeah, that's tough for me, too. But, these guys basically get a free higher education, something no one else does.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since basically every college in the US hands out free-rides to several students based on various factors (race, economic background, academic merit, etc).

The only real difference between an academic free-ride and an athletic free-ride is that the latter requires the recipient to perform physical exertion and keep a barely-passing GPA, while the former (typically) requires the recipient to keep a higher-than-average GPA.

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

One could possibly claim that they are doing it to themselves, working for free since they choose 'basketweaving 101' to 'major' in.

Few D-1 (now called FBS) schools truly desire their student-athletes to pick economically rewarding majors. Stanford, Vanderbilt, Rice, the service academies, and a few other schools do, but they are clearly the exceptions.

I tend to believe that the powerhouse football/basketball schools have such a grinding athletic schedule (both training and playing) that allowing the students time for academics is way down on their list of priorities. And the students know it.

Look at the list of students' majors on any given big-time football program; obviously, not all of them have what it takes mentally to be engineers or pre-med students (nor should it be expected that a majority of them even want to be an engineer or a doctor). But at the same time, why do you think so many of them are majoring in sociology, psychology, kinesiology, or other "soft" subjects?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I just finished reading an article about "how it's about time we started paying college athletes." I read the whole article, and it really seemed to be to boil down to whining about how 'hard' male college football and basketball players have it. How, despite getting 'full ride' scholarships, they still have to find a way to earn a couple thousand a year to 'make sure ends meet'. The "full cost of attendance scholarships" that are being looked at to replace the "full ride" ones aren't enough, either. And of course, it is really just the men's football and basketball teams that need to start paying their players, because "they bring in the lion's share of the schools sports related revenue".

Keep in mind that not all scholarships are fully pay for a student's tuition. Some are only partials, others just allow you to play on the team and pay for school yourself.

[SuperMatt18]

They don't need to get paid by the school IMO (maybe a slight payment to help with some costs) but they need to be able to make money off their own name and image.

Jadevon Clowney wants to sign a sponsorship contract with Under Armour he should be allowed to make money off his own name.

Andrew Wiggins wants to sign a contract with Nike and appear in a commercial he should be able to do that.

[Zarley]

Interesting priorities they have down there:



http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-y...a-co-489635228

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Honestly, I don't know. This sort of quantity of money is way over my head. But given some of the profits I've seen (even in the article) that the sports programs turned, I can't help but wonder what sort of benefit would be derived from taking that and plowing it back against tuition costs? The article mentioned Georgia State making 75 million in profit for 2012. That...could probably cover every students tuition and books for the year, freeing the students from trying to come up with it on their own (via loans, etc).

Now I'm really wondering what sort of benefits could be derived from taking the sports programs profits and plowing them into tuition. Start to have a lot of folks graduating university or college either debt free, or pretty close, I'd think.

Could probably even pay those athletes earning those profits a decent living wage, too. Nothing too extravagant, but say...40,000/year. A good, solid wage, especially for someone of their age.

Athletic programs, for the most part, don't make any money. In 2012, only 23 of the 228 ncaa div 1 athletic programs made a profit and of those 23, 16 received some kind of subsidy. So right now it's not feasible to pay athletes 40000/year. If you eliminated every sport except football and in some cases basketball then maybe this could work.

Btw Georgia (who I'm going to assume you were talking about since Georgia State is a super small school) had revenues of around 91 million, expenses of 88 million, and received a subsidy from the school of 3 million, so they're essentially just breaking even.

[CaptainCrunch]

They basically get a scholarship, free housing, a prepaid degree that they don't have to earn if they choose not to.

They probably get the majority of their food for free.

I would be fine with pay if there were academic requirements attached to that beyond athletic ones.

[You Need a Thneed]

It's a tough issue with many angles. Football and Basketball make tons of money for the schools and/or athletic programs. However, that helps pay for all of the other sports that aren't profitable at all.

What is really sad is the low graduation rates for many of the "top" schools. When students get their education paid ofr by playing of the team, and actually come out with a useful degree - Great! When athletes don't graduate though, or are allowed to take "phony" courses and majors, it's really of no benefit to them.

One solution that I've heard that would help solve the problem is to give students 2 years of scholarship for every year they play on a team. That would allow athletes who play 4 years go back another four years to earn a real degree.

Another part of the problem in NCAA football is that the biggest games of the year that pull in the biggest revenues, don't really have anything to do with the NCAA itself. The BCS, is not affiliated with the NCAA at all - and thus, there is no portion of the revenue that goes to the NCAA at all. Div 1 NCAA football, now "FBS", does not have any "NCAA champion." If you go to the NCAA head office, they have the current champions in all sports displayed on the walls - except for FBS football - because they don't have a champion.

[PsYcNeT]

This is where a "non-filming the TV" clip of the Crackbaby Basketball episode would go if Southpark Studios didn't hate YouTube.

[lazypucker]

I am all for paying amateur athletes, but only pay them the basic living expenses or minimum wage set by the goverment. I cannot grab the concept that how junior hockey teams can get around the law by only paying the players (essentially employees making money for the company) a stipend like $50 a week.

[GGG]

Football actually costs univerisities money in most schools. In almost all schools sports programs cost more than they make. The bowl games in US college steal millions of dollars from the schools using things like guarenteed ticket buys. It sucks huge amounts of alumni dollars. There are a lot of things wrong with how football is funded in the US and outside the top 40 teams money is not being made.

That being said if you are a T/A for a class while going to school, or marking papers for a professor you get paid for it. It is a nominal amount. So if a T/A gets paid why shouldn't a football player. Both are doing things for the school. Also it is not possible for a football player to have a part time job while going to college. So I would be in Favour of a Stipend for players so that all of their expenses would be covered plus giving them money to get too and from school on Holidays and for some walking around money.

If you look at NCAA violations they are usually for sub $10,000. This isn't people trying to get rich. It students looking for beer and gas money.