Should Colleges Pay Players?

[methomps]

The question isn't should they be paid. It is should they be paid more. In addition to free tuition, free books, free healthcare, free meals, and free spending money when they travel, the housing stipend is pretty nice. If you live in university housing, it is free. If not, you get a stipend. USC players get $900 a month. Whatever they don't spend on housing...they get to keep.

And for teams that go bowling? Ipods, giftcards, and other goodies.

But let's entertain this prospect of paying athletes more. Now, do we pay everyone or just football players (and maybe bball players)? Everyone would be 360,000, so we'll just laugh that idea away.

Just football players? 56,500 of those. Maybe want to limit it to D1? Somewhere around 37,500 of those. 27,500 if you only do scholarship athletes (how you justify that is up to you). Just D1-a? About 13,500 total and 10k on scholarship.

So, who is getting paid (more)? What is the justification for doing just football or just football and basketball? If it is based on the fact that they generate revenue, shouldn't we take the next logical step and vary the pay based on how much an athlete brings in? I mean, the Heisman QB generates more revenue than the 3rd-string redshirt.

How much do you pay them?

 

[Steve19]

The question isn't should they be paid. It is should they be paid more. In addition to free tuition, free books, free healthcare, free meals, and free spending money when they travel, the housing stipend is pretty nice. If you live in university housing, it is free. If not, you get a stipend. USC players get $900 a month. Whatever they don't spend on housing...they get to keep.

And for teams that go bowling? Ipods, giftcards, and other goodies.

But let's entertain this prospect of paying athletes more. Now, do we pay everyone or just football players (and maybe bball players)? Everyone would be 360,000, so we'll just laugh that idea away.

Just football players? 56,500 of those. Maybe want to limit it to D1? Somewhere around 37,500 of those. 27,500 if you only do scholarship athletes (how you justify that is up to you). Just D1-a? About 13,500 total and 10k on scholarship.

So, who is getting paid (more)? What is the justification for doing just football or just football and basketball? If it is based on the fact that they generate revenue, shouldn't we take the next logical step and vary the pay based on how much an athlete brings in? I mean, the Heisman QB generates more revenue than the 3rd-string redshirt.

How much do you pay them?

And, given what it takes to keep that stadium, conditioning facilities, and support structure in place, how much money is available to make these payments? If you think its a lot, take out the top ten programs and consider how much is left.

 

[kn1f3party]

There aren't any arguments for paying collegiate athletes that stand up to the arguments against it. Where would the money come from? We would see commercialization on unprecedented levels if we paid these athletes more. They make enough as it is.

 

[martinss01]

the arguement i think players have is legit. im busting my butt for people not me who are making millions and if i get hurt... im the one that looses. im the one making all the physical sacrifices AND taking all the physical risk. and everyone NOT me is reaping the reward for that.

well, as others have noted. straight paying players is a slippery slope that would be unattainable for most colleges and sports and would lead to a lot of nastyness. but, how many juniors have gotten injured in bowl games who were on the fence as far as leaving early and decided to bolt because of the fear of loosing out on nfl money?

personally i think they should be given career ending injury funds. alot of these kids don't have parents such as matt leinhart's who have the equity to take out a couple mill insurance policy on their child. id like to see that handled by the schools. it wouldn't be a form of payment persay. if you don't get injured in a fashion that would prevent you from playing professionally, you don't get the money. its rolled back into the fund. whether or not you had a legit shot at going pro is irrelivant. but it would give the players peace of mind and a good reason to stay in college long enough to graduate.

 

[methomps]

the arguement i think players have is legit. im busting my butt for people not me who are making millions and if i get hurt... im the one that looses. im the one making all the physical sacrifices AND taking all the physical risk. and everyone NOT me is reaping the reward for that.

well, as others have noted. straight paying players is a slippery slope that would be unattainable for most colleges and sports and would lead to a lot of nastyness. but, how many juniors have gotten injured in bowl games who were on the fence as far as leaving early and decided to bolt because of the fear of loosing out on nfl money?

personally i think they should be given career ending injury funds. alot of these kids don't have parents such as matt leinhart's who have the equity to take out a couple mill insurance policy on their child. id like to see that handled by the schools. it wouldn't be a form of payment persay. if you don't get injured in a fashion that would prevent you from playing professionally, you don't get the money. its rolled back into the fund. whether or not you had a legit shot at going pro is irrelivant. but it would give the players peace of mind and a good reason to stay in college long enough to graduate.

Top players can already get insurance like this that they do not have to make any payments for until they sign a pro contract or a year after college.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

the arguement i think players have is legit. im busting my butt for people not me who are making millions and if i get hurt... im the one that looses. im the one making all the physical sacrifices AND taking all the physical risk. and everyone NOT me is reaping the reward for that.

You make it sound like thousands and thousands of people at each school are making millions off of you, when in reality only a couple of people--head coach, athletic director) at only the top programs are making seven figures. As a player, especially at a top program, the total "benefit package" (tuition, books, fees, room, board, stipends, medical, travel, bowl goodies) you get, for playing the game you love, could run well into six figures over your four to five years there. How many other scholarship students are even near that? And there are other perks by being on the football team: recognition, post-graduate employment, etc.

 

[Cornerback6]

This thread was definitely worth starting, but only to say Hell No (IMO). The politicking would be OFF THE CHARTS. If players got paid, it would get ugly, very very fast.

 

[OCBucksFan]

Board is food. (Hence the term "room and board" - shelter and meals.) Athletes basically eat for free as long as they eat at the dining hall, and a lot of times they have to eat team meals anyway.

Mili hasn't even covered the whole thing yet, though. Athletes (well, the football players at least) are also covered with free health care. Of course they are - the school needs them in top shape. One of my roommates was a football player at UVA. Tore up his knee skiing, a completely football-unrelated injury, and was well taken care of by team doctors and the university hospital, all free of charge. Had access to all the medicines and whatnot he needed: painkillers, laxatives, you name it, if he wanted it and the team doctors had it, they gave it to him. And it's astonishing the number of different groceries he could get out of the team supplies. If it's healthful, like milk or eggs or bread, the football team stocked it and he could get it no problems. And don't forget the schwag bag from the bowls. My roommate had a drawer full of electronics. A player on a bowl-bound team doesn't need to go out and buy digital cameras or iPods.

Football players are generally well taken care of. Start allowing them to get paid, beyond the very strict NCAA guidelines regarding taking care of their well-being, and you turn recruiting into a free agent system. Deepest pockets win. Rich schools get richer. I don't buy the argument that football players should get a slice of the huge amount of money that is generated by athletics, because they already do. Free college education, if they choose to take advantage of it. The rest of us schlubs have to deal with student loans or ROTC requirements or pay $20,000 a year out of our own pocket or scrape financial aid and aid scholarships here and there. Football players get two things that are extremely valuable: a shot at the tremendous money the NFL has to offer, and a diploma at no cost. Plus all the above bennies. A monthly stipend and the benefits are perfectly reasonable - going beyond that is going into dangerous territory.

GREAT POST!@

This pretty much sums it up, if you like College football then paying the players is a bad idea. Paying players would completely remove any amateur to the sport. Small schools like Boise State would not be able to compete at all.

Suddenly recruits start weighing out how much they can make in school and going there. Now you have the NFL-Junior with probably 6-7 major programs and everyone else.

Now, I realize that in a lot of ways it's currently a few major programs and everyone else, but there's a chance, the opportunity for the little guy. I see paying players as removing that.

One more thing, these kids get a free education, I am 34 now and I JUST finished paying off student loans. Took me over 10 years. Granted I am not star athelete but I would have loved to have someone pay for school :) H2M said it best, they play for the CHANCE to be drafted into the NFL. That chance is a LOT more than most of us get.

 

[23Skidoo]

I think we can all agree that the idea of cutting Saban's salary and splitting the leftovers amongst the football team is ridiculous.
I don't agree, however, that things like health insurance and room and board are real "perks". That's doing the responsible thing. I also don't agree that, given the millions of dollars some people are making, that education alone compensates these players properly. I know I pay about 8 grand a year to go full time, but I also know that includes the profit margin. Saying these kids are getting a $50,000 education for free is kind of like giving a McDonalds employee a free lunch, and claiming you gave them $6 of benefits. In reality, that education didn't cost the University anywhere near 50k, just like that happy meal didn't cost McDonalds anywhere near 6 bucks. Some people won't get or agree to this analogy, but I like it.

All that to say, I think they should get some extra compensation -- but in a responsible way.
Anyway, just to stir the pot, here's a couple of ideas.

-All DIA football/basketball players get a couple hundred dollars (no more than 500) a month that goes into a "trust fund". This amount would be the same for everyone, regardless of school, class, whatever. For every month of school you're enrolled under scholarship and the unofficial property of the athletic department, you get the credit. However, you never see the money until you finish your degree. Dropout, leave early, whatever -- you don't get the money. If you don't finish your degree, there could be a 5 year period wherein, if you do finish an accredited degree (at the original institution or not), you can reclaim the money earned previously.

-This idea could be run in conjunction with the above, or as an alternative. If it's an alternative, I think this could be done for a lot more athletes than just DIA football/basketball. For low-income families, there could be a program where they volunteer their financial information to the NCAA (similar to a FAFSA) and the NCAA could provide some money upfront (2400/yr max for combined family income under 125% of the government's poverty guidelines. If they're only 500 short of the 125% poverty guidelines, they get 500. Strictly to subsidize family income a little.) That kind of undermines the idea of not seeing any cash until you graduate, but it could be worth it.

 

[strohs]

It's enough to buy pizza and some clothes, but nothing really great.

Thats all I could ever afford in college

If you start paying athletes then you better start paying all the other students whose academic merit allows the university to win big grants for research and other funding

 

[23Skidoo]

Thats all I could ever afford in college

If you start paying athletes then you better start paying all the other students whose academic merit allows the university to win big grants for research and other funding

My University basically sucks, and all the research students get paid by the hour -- especially when there is big grant involved.
But I do agree. If you're working 10+ hours a week on any project that brings a large sum of cash into the University, they should be compensated. And, in my experience so far, they are being compensated.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Thats all I could ever afford in college

If you start paying athletes then you better start paying all the other students whose academic merit allows the university to win big grants for research and other funding

The University doesn't require the non athlete students to practice for several hours on top of school. They have more available time to get a job.

 

[LightningRod]

The majority of schools will not be able to afford to pay players. Myles Brand touched on fiscal responsibility in his latest State of the Association speech two weeks ago.

Turning his attention to fiscal responsibility in college sports, Brand reported that over the last decade only six institutions consistently had athletics revenue surpluses at the end of the fiscal year. Another six to eight programs received university subsidies of 5 percent or less, but the great majority has annual deficits in excess of 5 percent.


?In fact, 52 percent of all Division I-A programs require subsidies greater than 5
percent every year,? he said. ?For these institutions, keeping up with the pace means ever-increasing subsidies as well as institutional investments for facilities that could have long-term financial impact.?


Repeating a theme articulated in the report of the NCAA Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics released in late October, Brand noted that while there is no crisis in college sports with regard to budgets, the level of stress is mounting throughout Division I.


Discussing the half-dozen institutions that have sufficient revenues to cover costs, Brand said they are not facing stress. ?They are setting the pace. They make most of the news about the money in college sports. But they are not wondering how they will make budget,? he said.


But he noted that the debt-service for facilities and the other costs of trying to keep up exacerbate the problem. ?For the programs at greatest risk,? he said. ?these new investments outrun any increases in revenue in the short term and leave heavy mortgages for facilities in the long term.?


Brand told the delegates that the need for increasing subsidization comes at a time when campuses, most especially public universities, are being asked to do more with less funding. With greater emphasis on improved access to higher education for low-income students, the competition within state funding from health care, criminal justice, K-12 education and other expectations universities will find increasing the subsidies for athletics difficult.


Reiterating the conclusions of the Presidential Task Force report, Brand said that
the issues around fiscal concerns must be addressed at the campus level and presidents and chancellors, working with athletics directors, the faculty and governing boards, have the responsibility for providing appropriate leadership.

 

[methomps]

I also don't agree that, given the millions of dollars some people are making, that education alone compensates these players properly. I know I pay about 8 grand a year to go full time, but I also know that includes the profit margin. Saying these kids are getting a $50,000 education for free is kind of like giving a McDonalds employee a free lunch, and claiming you gave them $6 of benefits. In reality, that education didn't cost the University anywhere near 50k, just like that happy meal didn't cost McDonalds anywhere near 6 bucks. Some people won't get or agree to this analogy, but I like it.

Actually, the opposite is true. Tuition does not cover the full cost of educating students. There is no profit from tuition. Even if you are paying full tuition, the cost of educating you is subsidized by some of the university's other income sources (research, donors, etc). So for something that actually costs the university $79.99, tuition represents the special introductory rate of $45.00 and athletes are charged zero (these figures aren't even an attempt to be proportional, just an illustration).

 

[23Skidoo]

Actually, the opposite is true. Tuition does not cover the full cost of educating students. There is no profit from tuition. Even if you are paying full tuition, the cost of educating you is subsidized by some of the university's other income sources (research, donors, etc). So for something that actually costs the university $79.99, tuition represents the special introductory rate of $45.00 and athletes are charged zero (these figures aren't even an attempt to be proportional, just an illustration).

That's a popular opinion and argument. But unfortunately the numbers don't add up. ($8000 * 20 students/class)/(15 hours/wk * 15 weeks) = $711/hour of actual classtime provided. That's in-state tuition, btw, so you can bet that number probably goes up to about $750. If we're really paying a bunch of master-degree liberal-arts hack "lecturers" and grad students (almost all the science classes are taught by grad students with a doctor "supervising" 5 classes or more.) then some people are getting overpaid. More likely that money is profit.
Don't tell me most of that money goes to facilities, or any other side projects either because I, and all 25,000 students, also pay general fees, technology fees, and fees for anything else imaginable (including using the Clinic). The University also has all sorts of little scams, like charging gullible students $200/yr to park and selling at least twice as many passes than there are parking spots. Or the textbook scam, which I won't even get into -- but is brilliant in its simplicity and elegance. They'll even charge you a surcharge to get your own government loans, because the loan is deposited in your student account, and if you have any leftover -- they take 5% off the top and send you a check. If you actually think it costs $100 (most kids will have at least $2000 leftover) to wire the money to a bank, I have some ocean-front property in Colorado for you. Or the scams they'll pull to keep you there for more than 4 years. ("Ohh, we updated the degree program -- you'll need to take these extra courses that have nothing to do with your degree before you can graduate." And then if you don't have proof of your original agreement, you're screwed.) Trust me, the Universities are making tons of money.
Allow me to be the first to break the news to you: almost all US Universities are not centered around providing an education -- but around making money. There are a few out there that aren't, but the large majority -- especially your average public institution, they're just in it for the money.