Should College Athletes Be Paid?

[Eielson]

I personally think it's ridiculous that they don't get anything. The University of Texas football team brought in over 120 million dollars during the 2007-2008 season. That's all made possible by the players, and they aren't getting a dime of it. At least they're not, by rule, supposed to. If the Texas players had gotten just 1% of that money they brought in, they, spread equally among 85 players, would've each received $14,151.57. Only giving 1% would still be robbery, but at least the kids would get something.

[Leroy Lizard]

We've been through this a jillion times.

If the players don't think the free education and opportunity to play in the pros is worth it, they are free to try other endeavors.

BTW, to use your logic:


In 2008, Syracuse reported a $834,377 loss in football operating expense.

Okay, so if we take 1% of that figure, $8,344 and spread it among 85 players, each player would be expected to pay the school roughly $100. And they would have to pay their own tuition, room, and board, since those would have to come out of the total revenue.

Now Syracuse is doing better this year. But if its players paid money to play in 2008, they wouldn't even have a team this year.

[OU Engineer]

They get a free education that I paid for.

And they get a stipend for small expenses as well as every meal paid for.

I think they get "paid" well enough already, not to mention theres no way to make it fair for UT players to get paid 14k a year if players at East Handkerchief State only get paid 500 bucks.

[StoopTroup]

If you are going to spread out the money...you need to give it to every student athlete male and female in every NCAA Sport at every NCAA School and it should probably be an equal amount to each player whether they start or sit, whether they walk on or receive a scholarship.

Or you could leave it this way and allow the Universities to build Stadiums and give out Scholarships to every kid who deserves it for even not playing a sport. Our Universities are very complex places anymore...I think by the time they figure out how to divy up the money they will have spent half of it just trying to figure out who to give it to. At this point they should just lower the cost of going to school maybe?

You're asking a bunch of PHDs and researchers to maybe watch some kid on the football team get handed some cash? Their heads would explode the first week anyone took this serious.

[TXBOOMER]

I agree with Lizard breath. If they don't think the free education and shot at the pros is worth it, they should try their luck elsewhere. I'm not sure how many athletic programs are profitable. I would guess very few. Take all OU sports add up all the skollies, all the expenses (travel, coaches salaries etc.) where would the money come from? OU makes a bunch in football but loses in all other sports. Just think about NCAA schools as a whole.

[Soonerfan88]

They get a free education that I paid for.

And they get a stipend for small expenses as well as every meal paid for.

I think they get "paid" well enough already, not to mention theres no way to make it fair for UT players to get paid 14k a year if players at East Handkerchief State only get paid 500 bucks.

That free education also includes books and supplies. If they choose not to live on campus, they get a housing allowance big enough to usually leave a little left over if they share expenses.

Plus they are eligible to apply for financial aid. So if their folks don't make enough to give them an allowance, they can get it from Uncle Sam. The max Pell Grant is $5500 a year or they can take out loans like most every other kid in college.

[AlboSooner]

Tuition, books, food, clothes, tutoring, tickets to other events, and health care are not cheap, especially if you are an out of state student.

[Midtowner]

They should receive a stipend.

[Leroy Lizard]

Per the NCAA:


Men’s sports have realized net losses in teams in nine of the last 22 years. That trend is worse when focused solely on Division I (16 of 22 years). In that span, there has been a net change in sports sponsorship of 300 fewer men’s teams and 720 more women’s teams in Division I.

How does one propose to pay these student-athletes?

[Okie35]

They get a free education that I paid for.

And they get a stipend for small expenses as well as every meal paid for.

I think they get "paid" well enough already, not to mention theres no way to make it fair for UT players to get paid 14k a year if players at East Handkerchief State only get paid 500 bucks.

This and they get WAY more perks than regular students get.

[Soonerus]

Yes, they should be paid...

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree with Lizard breath. If they don't think the free education and shot at the pros is worth it, they should try their luck elsewhere. I'm not sure how many athletic programs are profitable. I would guess very few. Take all OU sports add up all the skollies, all the expenses (travel, coaches salaries etc.) where would the money come from? OU makes a bunch in football but loses in all other sports. Just think about NCAA schools as a whole.

I agree with everything you said! (Well, except that Lizard Breath part.)

[Eielson]

BTW, to use your logic:

Okay, so if we take 1% of that figure, $8,344 and spread it among 85 players, each player would be expected to pay the school roughly $100. And they would have to pay their own tuition, room, and board, since those would have to come out of the total revenue.

Now Syracuse is doing better this year. But if its players paid money to play in 2008, they wouldn't even have a team this year.

I never said that each school should be paying their players 1% of what they brought in for the university. I was using the 1% to show just how little they would have to pay the players to give them a decent amount. There would be a set amount that each school can give...similar to the regulations put on scholarships.

[Eielson]

They get a free education that I paid for.

But can you entertain an audience of thousands of people every Saturday?

[Okie35]

But can you entertain an audience of thousands of people every Saturday?

I can and did. Student athletes still get way more perks.

[Eielson]

If you are going to spread out the money...you need to give it to every student athlete male and female in every NCAA Sport at every NCAA School and it should probably be an equal amount to each player whether they start or sit, whether they walk on or receive a scholarship.

Or you could leave it this way and allow the Universities to build Stadiums and give out Scholarships to every kid who deserves it for even not playing a sport. Our Universities are very complex places anymore...I think by the time they figure out how to divy up the money they will have spent half of it just trying to figure out who to give it to. At this point they should just lower the cost of going to school maybe?

You're asking a bunch of PHDs and researchers to maybe watch some kid on the football team get handed some cash? Their heads would explode the first week anyone took this serious.

Communist. :P

[Eielson]

I can and did. Student athletes still get way more perks.

May I ask how?

[Leroy Lizard]

Communist. :P

Actually, StoopTroup is just stating the law, which you can call Communist if you wish.

If teams are required to pay football players and not other athletes because football is profitable, then athletic departments are no longer operating like non-profit organizations. Maintaining consistent perks for all student athletes keeps the IRS very happy. The NCAA also wants their playing time to be considered an avocation, not a job. If you pay them, it's a job.

The psychology is also bad, because right now we can discuss their worth in terms of intangibles, like free education. As soon as you put a price tag on it, their worth becomes measured in dollars. "Is that all I'm worth to the university? One hundred dollars a month?!?!" So once you begin paying athletes, the real complaints begin because the money will never be enough. If you give them $100/month, they will demand $200/month.

[StoopTroup]

Should College Athletes Be Laid? in 3, 2, 1........

[Leroy Lizard]

I never said that each school should be paying their players 1% of what they brought in for the university. I was using the 1% to show just how little they would have to pay the players to give them a decent amount. There would be a set amount that each school can give...similar to the regulations put on scholarships.

Yeah, but you used the wealthiest athletic department to serve as an example, creating an unrealistic best-case scenario. It's like saying that maids are underpaid because "if Bill Gates paid his maid only .01% of his net worth he wouldn't even miss the money."

Use a typical athletic department (which probably loses money) and try the same logic.

[StoopTroup]

Also.....my first response to this thread was only one of many scenarios I could propose. I personally think Parent's should be able to auction off their kids and hide the money through a Church.

[GKeeper316]

the overwhelming majority of college athletics departments lose money.

the oklahomas, floridas, ohio states, etc. are the exception, not the rule.

hell the only sport that makes any money at OU is the football team. everything else loses money. the players get paid by a free education (which ain't ****in cheap, these days) that will hopefully serve them beyond their playing days.

[Eielson]

It seems that there are two main thoughts on why athletes shouldn't be paid:

1. Students are "paid" by not having to pay tuition or room & board.

In a sense, yes they are being compensated. How effective is it, though? I'm not going to do heavy research into this topic at around midnight, but I don't think that these students benefit much from their college education. With how much time football takes up, I doubt that they have near enough time to study for a meaningful major. I also have my doubts that many of them even graduate at all. If they do, I doubt that they do it while on athletic scholarship.

Here's an article I found real quick about the majors that athletes pick:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-11-18-atheletes-majors_x.htm

This quote from the article pretty well sums it up. The education they receive isn't near the quality that student are paying for.

"Many student-athletes will choose the path of least resistance — less competitive majors — so they can maintain their eligibility."

Here's one of the first things I found for graduation rates. OU is graduating less than half of their football players, and that's even with their "path of least resistance" majors.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-10-27-ncaa-graduation-rates-study_N.htm#charts

2. Football is how other sports are paid for.

Texas could pay their players $15,000 a year for about 1% of the money they brought in. If Texas can't pay for their other sports with 118.8 milllion dollars, they can't get it done with 120 million dollars, either.

2a. Texas can pay for it, but what about schools like Wake Forest and Louisiana Tech?

When I say 1% of the money Texas' football team brought in, I'm basically saying 1.2 million dollars. You can go all the way down to #60, Wake Forest, and that 1.2 million dollars only amounts to 3% of the money their football team brought in. It's still not a big deal. You can even take this all the way down to #115, Louisiana Tech, and it only amounts to 10%.

These numbers are from here:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

[Leroy Lizard]

It seems that there are two main thoughts on why athletes shouldn't be paid:

1. Students are "paid" by not having to pay tuition or room & board.

In a sense, yes they are being compensated. How effective is it, though? I'm not going to do heavy research into this topic at around midnight, but I don't think that these students benefit much from their college education. With how much time football takes up, I doubt that they have near enough time to study for a meaningful major. I also have my doubts that many of them even graduate at all. If they do, I doubt that they do it while on athletic scholarship.

Here's an article I found real quick about the majors that athletes pick:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-11-18-atheletes-majors_x.htm

This quote from the article pretty well sums it up. The education they receive isn't near the quality that student are paying for.

"Many student-athletes will choose the path of least resistance — less competitive majors — so they can maintain their eligibility."

Here's one of the first things I found for graduation rates. OU is graduating less than half of their football players, and that's even with their "path of least resistance" majors.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-10-27-ncaa-graduation-rates-study_N.htm#charts

That's on them. They choose the major. They choose the amount of dedication to their major.

Yes, some coaches in the past have pushed their players into worthless degree programs. (Robert Smith at tOSU is one example.) But for the most part, if a player wants to get a degree in business administration, he can do so.


2. Football is how other sports are paid for.

Texas could pay their players $15,000 a year for about 1% of the money they brought in. If Texas can't pay for their other sports with 118.8 milllion dollars, they can't get it done with 120 million dollars, either.

2a. Texas can pay for it, but what about schools like Wake Forest and Louisiana Tech?

When I say 1% of the money Texas' football team brought in, I'm basically saying 1.2 million dollars. You can go all the way down to #60, Wake Forest, and that 1.2 million dollars only amounts to 3% of the money their football team brought in. It's still not a big deal. You can even take this all the way down to #115, Louisiana Tech, and it only amounts to 10%.

These numbers are from here:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

If the athletic department loses money every year, it loses money. There is no way to dance around that fact. To say that one department makes money, so therefore the entire organization should be able to afford it, isn't very sound. The more money taken from football to pay players leaves just that much less to spread around to the rest of the athletic department, sinking it deeper in a hole.

The money simply isn't there.

[Eielson]

Actually, StoopTroup is just stating the law, which you can call Communist if you wish.

If teams are required to pay football players and not other athletes because football is profitable, then athletic departments are no longer operating like non-profit organizations. Maintaining consistent perks for all student athletes keeps the IRS very happy. The NCAA also wants their playing time to be considered an avocation, not a job. If you pay them, it's a job.

I'm not going to argue the law on this, because I don't know it, and whether I learn it or not, the NCAA isn't going to change how they do things just because of me. Not all sports are treated the same, though. The football team is granted far more scholarships than other sports like basketball and baseball, and some sports teams aren't allowed scholarships at all. As for NCAA football being an avocation...what a joke.

[Eielson]

Yeah, but you used the wealthiest athletic department to serve as an example, creating an unrealistic best-case scenario. It's like saying that maids are underpaid because "if Bill Gates paid his maid only .01% of his net worth he wouldn't even miss the money."

Use a typical athletic department (which probably loses money) and try the same logic.

Wake Forest's football program was rated #60, which is slightly below the middle of the 117 teams. It would only take 3% for them to pay the 1.2 million.

[Eielson]

That's on them. They choose the major. They choose the amount of dedication to their major.

It's like the teacher who gives a test that over half the class flunks and then blames it on the students.


If the athletic department loses money every year, it loses money.

Do you seriously think there would be so many athletic programs if all it did was lose money for the schools. Many students let their college decision be influenced by a school's athletic program. When I say that Texas' football program brought in 120 million dollars, that's not including the millions of dollars that were brought in by students who enrolled there because of the athletic program.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not going to argue the law on this, because I don't know it, and whether I learn it or not, the NCAA isn't going to change how they do things just because of me. Not all sports are treated the same, though. The football team is granted far more scholarships than other sports like basketball and baseball, and some sports teams aren't allowed scholarships at all.

The number of scholarships given out isn't an issue. A certain wing of a non-profit is allowed to have more employees than another wing.


As for NCAA football being an avocation...what a joke.

Tell that to players like Jimmy Stevens, who probably has very few NFL ambitions. You think every player on the team is there to get a spot on an NFL team? What do the players on Prairie View A&M want out of their football commitment? They're not getting paid and they're not going to get paid.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wake Forest's football program was rated #60, which is slightly below the middle of the 117 teams. It would only take 3% for them to pay the 1.2 million.

3% is not a small cut to a program that lives on the edge financially. Their profit margin may be within that 3%. Hell, we complain when the sales tax goes up 1% -- we would scream if it went up 3%.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's like the teacher who gives a test that over half the class flunks and then blames it on the students.

Huh? Only if the students got to choose the test and voluntarily chose the tough one.


Do you seriously think there would be so many athletic programs if all it did was lose money for the schools. Many students let their college decision be influenced by a school's athletic program. When I say that Texas' football program brought in 120 million dollars, that's not including the millions of dollars that were brought in by students who enrolled there because of the athletic program.

First of all, you are again fond of citing examples of the most successful schools. You think students chose to go to Vandy because of its football team? The University of Chicago dropped its football team and its enrollments have not declined since.

Second, the University of Texas does not bring in additional revenue from increased enrollments, because it always has more applicants than positions. If its football team sucked, it would simply turn away fewer applicants.

[bigfatjerk]

The only way you could do it is if you say only programs that make money can pay players. Which would basically give a huge advantage to the top football programs, and top basketball programs in both mens and women. Those are the only sports that really make money. And to top that off you would have Title Nine end all of that because few women would be paid compared to men.

And it really doesn't solve the agent problem because there would still be more money to pay players.

Paying players in the end solves very little and would run into too many road blocks.

[Eielson]

Tell that to players like Jimmy Stevens, who probably has very few NFL ambitions. You think every player on the team is there to get a spot on an NFL team? What do the players on Prairie View A&M want out of their football commitment? They're not getting paid and they're not going to get paid.

I was laughing at the idea of college football being a hobby based on a conversation with a former Penn State football player. Somebody made a comment about him getting a free education, and he responded that with the time that he spent playing football he was working hard for every penny he got.

Prairie View A&M doesn't have an FBS team.

[Eielson]

For the sake of keeping this thread from being me vs. Leroy, I'm going to stop responding to him (for the most part). I want to know what others think.

[Leroy Lizard]

I was laughing at the idea of college football being a hobby based on a conversation with a former Penn State football player. Somebody made a comment about him getting a free education, and he responded that with the time that he spent playing football he was working hard for every penny he got.

Then why did he do it?


Prairie View A&M doesn't have an FBS team.

The point remains: Why are those players taking the field if football is not an avocation?

[sperry]

No, they should not be paid.

They are already getting something extremely valuable. They get free college tuition, plus free room and board, plus a stipend. The value of this is about $40,000 a year. They also get the additional value of access to premium facilities and instruction from some of the finest coaches in the game.

If college athletics didn't exist, players would go straight to some sort of minor league system. All but the Adrian Petersons of the world would be starting out making quite a bit less than $40,000 a year. A random 10th round MLB draft choice is making like $19k a year or something like that.

So, it's a great deal, even for 95% of the players at a place like OU.