should student athletes be paid?

[OU_Sooners75]

I know this subject has been brought up numerous times before, but I don't care...lol

Lets look at some things before we get into the debate.

First the question. Should all student athletes be paid while in college?

Yes, a football player helps being in millions, and the football program brings in a lot of money.

Yes a basketball player helps being in some money.

But how many schools are not running in the red? How many actually operate with a surplus?

How much does that education cost the school/taxpayer? Student athletes that are on full ride scholarships have an advantage over an ordinary student. That advantage is they are not thousands of dollars in debt. While the student athlete is using a large amount of time for their sport and academics, the average cost of higher education for a student in America is $125,000. That cost includes all fees, tuition, books, meals, room and board, supplies, etc.

The question at hand should be asked for all sports to begin with. Then at all divisions. From D1 to JUCO.

All that said. IMO no. Student athletes should not be paid. They have access to the best tutors. They have access to the best resources. And they are debt free when coming out of college.

IMO $125,000 in 4 years would be a good amount of money. That's an average of over $31K per year.

There are a ton of people in this nation (even with college degrees) that wish they made the much money per year!

IMO student athletes have a pampered life and cushy experience. If they want money, get a damn job!

[ouflak]

Yes they should be paid out of the general revenues of schools that are being generated directly by the sport they are participating in. So if football bring in $50,000,000, those athletes get a cut of $50,000,000. If softball brings in $500,000, those players get a cut of that $500,000. If the reverse occurs (i.e softball brings in millions and football only thousands), then the pay is adjusted for those competing athletes. This way it's all fair and satisfies Title IX. If there needs to be a stipulation of profitability, and/or minimum revenues, so be it.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes they should be paid out of the general revenues of schools that are being generated directly by the sport they are participating in. So if football bring in $50,000,000, they get a cut of $50,000,000. If softball brings in $500,000, those players get a cut of that $500,000. If there needs to be a stipulation of profitability, and/or minimum revenues, so be it.

So a free education isn't good enough?

Being debt free coming out of school isn't good enough?

If I was a school or conference we would pay you. But you don't get a free education either. You got to pay your own way.

Why should a athlete get paid to go to school on top of getting a free education?

And finally, if you pay one student athlete then all should be paid no matter how much money their sport generates.

Athletes already get pampered more than any other "occupational" types on this nation.

I don't care how much money they generate. There is a league they can be paid to play....more than one actually. If your good enough then go get paid after school. If you're not, then at least you got your degree.

[sooner_born_1960]

And if golf operates in the red, the golfers owe the college some money.

[sooner_born_1960]

Of course, the real answer is NO.

[badger]

Yes they should be paid out of the general revenues of schools that are being generated directly by the sport they are participating in.

Heh... my English vBookie chum is more naive than little blond chick me, it seems :)

I think that schools could easily make their football revenues "zero" every year. Oh, you say that our donors paid an extra $5 million to receive premium tickets? Those were academic enhancement fees unrelated to football. :P

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This is University dang it! They should not be paid. The priviledge of a free education is pay enough! If you want to pay them, then we need to move them into a NFL minor league and screw the education part...

[Soonerjeepman]

no

[ouflak]

So a free education isn't good enough?

Being debt free coming out of school isn't good enough?

Fine. There should be an employment contract, all labors laws should be enforced, and the stipulation that the 'pay' is in the form of a scholarship and meets all monetary compensation requirements of the state and federal regulations is clearly stated and enforced by the appropriate governing bodies. Further, players should be able negotiate their pay and compensation just like any other employee in a free market society.


If I was a school or conference we would pay you. But you don't get a free education either. You got to pay your own way. Sounds good to me. Ofcourse, like any other employee is a free society, this can be negotiated....


Why should a athlete get paid to go to school on top of getting a free education? *shrug* If it's part of their employment contract, why not? Heck, when I was a merit scholar, I was paid to go to school.



And finally, if you pay one student athlete then all should be paid no matter how much money their sport generates. Title IX laws should still apply.



Athletes already get pampered more than any other "occupational" types on this nation. Let the free market have its say in the matter. If they are overpaid, then it should be very difficult for them to negotiate higher pay, or switch employers seeking higher pay. If they are underpaid, then it should be easy. Fair enough.


I don't care how much money they generate. There is a league they can be paid to play....more than one actually. If your good enough then go get paid after school. If you're not, then at least you got your degree.
Just because there is one league where athletes can be paid, doesn't mean there can't be two or more such leagues. There have been other leagues of professional football in the past. There are currently several basketball, baseball, and hockey leagues. This doesn't seem to create any major problems.

And let's face the truth, many athletes, just like any other students, don't get a degree.

[virginiasooner]

Free housing, free food, free books, and free tutoring isn't enough?

However, in some ways, student athletes are employees of the state (if they go to a public university). If they need some walk-around money, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them around $500 a month. Better they have than say, having some no-work job at a car dealership which makes the whole program look bad.

[OU_Sooners75]

Free housing, free food, free books, and free tutoring isn't enough?

However, in some ways, student athletes are employees of the state (if they go to a public university). If they need some walk-around money, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them around $500 a month. Better they have than say, having some no-work job at a car dealership which makes the whole program look bad.

If a student is eligible for financial aid, they can already do a work study where they do work for the school and get paid.

If they need walk around money, find a job!

[FirstandGoal]

I have a hard time with the notion that student athletes need "walking around money"

Last time I checked, there was no policy in place to prevent them from working other times of the year whenever they're not at practice or have games. These guys (and gals) are perfectly welcome to get a job and save like the rest of us did and then have that money to spend during the school year whenever they need it.
The last time I checked a student on an academic scholarship didn't get a monthly stipend to spend on clothes and beer and ****.

[OU_Sooners75]

OUFlak,

The thing is they are already getting compensated. They don't need cash to be compensated.

They sign a scholarship offer, that is a contract stating they will so as expected and in return they will receive financial assistant for school. Not sure what else they need? They get a free education from the school of their choice. And they get treated like royalty.

Best tutors, free books, free laptop, free room. Free meals. Free tuition. Free shorts and shirts and even socks from the sport they play. Great living environment.

Free mentoring, free everything.
The student athletes have it made.

But you want to give them speeding money?

Ok...I'll agree to that. $1200 per semester given to them after the withdrawal date is set.

If a student athlete withdrawals and/or isn't going to class they must repay the spending money if they wish to attend classes the next semester.

[ouflak]

If a student is eligible for financial aid, they can already do a work study where they do work for the school and get paid.

If they need walk around money, find a job!
The NCAA has very strict regulations against that sort of thing.



Last time I checked, there was no policy in place to prevent them from working other times of the year whenever they're not at practice or have games. Check again. The rules are quite well laid out against student athletes being able to find work like the rest of the student body. The NCAA expects that these students are only committed to the university and the massive amounts of money they help generate.


These guys (and gals) are perfectly welcome to get a job and save like the rest of us did and then have that money to spend during the school year whenever they need it.

You would think that wouldn't you? I certainly had no such restrictions when I was receiving academic scholarships. I could work anywhere I wanted, as much as I wanted, for any amount anybody was willing to pay me.

[ouflak]

.... Blah, blah, blah, they are being overpaid as it is...

Fine! Really, I mean it. If how you feel is indeed reality, it should be no problem for the free market to settle the matter once and for all. Let them negotiate their benefits and pay just like I can negotiate mine now.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

No they should not. However some of the restrictions on employment probably need some work.

[8timechamps]

Yes they should be paid out of the general revenues of schools that are being generated directly by the sport they are participating in. So if football bring in $50,000,000, those athletes get a cut of $50,000,000. If softball brings in $500,000, those players get a cut of that $500,000. If the reverse occurs (i.e softball brings in millions and football only thousands), then the pay is adjusted for those competing athletes. This way it's all fair and satisfies Title X. If there needs to be a stipulation of profitability, and/or minimum revenues, so be it.

There's a big problem with that though, first, it's not a level playing field. Even though most schools are in the black for the football programs, the difference between the top tier schools (Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama) and the lower tier schools (Troy, Middle Tennessee, etc.) is huge. While the big programs would never have a problem paying the players, many of the smaller schools would.

Then there's the whole issue of equality. As soon as a rule is passed allowing football programs to pay players, the lawsuit filed by the basketball players, baseball players, rowing team is soon to follow. Not to mention the women's sports.

The problem ends up being that some schools could pay, while most would struggle. Then how long would it be before schools start finding ways to offer player X more than the other schools? Recruiting is hard enough to police now, if a pay-or-play system were implemented, it would be out of control quickly.

However, I think there is something the NCAA can do to address this issue.

1. Increase the the current funding. Players already recieve a small amount of money, but in most cases it isn't enough to live on, and either loans, family help or working is required to make ends meet. Even an increase of $200-$300/mo would go a long way in helping.

2. Graduation bonus. I have yet to hear an idea like this discussed, but if there is going to be some kind of payment to the athlete, then it should require a degree. If the player is good enough to go pro and leave early, then they don't need the bonus. Otherwise, athletes get a bonus upon graduation.

[FirstandGoal]

The NCAA has very strict regulations against that sort of thing.

Check again. The rules are quite well laid out against student athletes being able to find work like the rest of the student body. The NCAA expects that these students are only committed to the university and the massive amounts of money they help generate.



If this truly is the case (and I'm not saying I'm doubting your facts) then how was the whole Bomar fiasco allowed to happen?

I guess I was under the impression that football players could work during summers. :sour:

[Breadburner]

**** No....!!!

[Scott D]

You would think that wouldn't you? I certainly had no such restrictions when I was receiving academic scholarships. I could work anywhere I wanted, as much as I wanted, for any amount anybody was willing to pay me.

My friend, your academic scholarship isn't quite the same as an athletic scholarship. All you had to do was maintain a certain GPA, and credit gained level to maintain your scholarship. Studying was on you, etc...the school paid for your tuition/books/room & board. So you had the option to have a job during the school year.

On an athletic scholarship, it also pays for tuition/books/room & board. However, they have to maintain grades/attendance and participate in a sport/practices on a regular basis. It could be argued that their scholarship obligations give them less free time than your average academic scholarship student.

That being said, the revenue that most football programs take in, is usually eaten up supporting the entire athletic department at most schools. there are also other ways those revenues are used in regards to staff/buildings on a university campus. Too much is made out of how much money football makes in general, and is rarely ever compared with the costs of a university or athletic department.

[ouflak]

There's a big problem with that though, first, it's not a level playing field. Even though most schools are in the black for the football programs, the difference between the top tier schools (Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama) and the lower tier schools (Troy, Middle Tennessee, etc.) is huge. While the big programs would never have a problem paying the players, many of the smaller schools would.

Why do you think they are talking about a D4 split right now with just the Big 5 conferences? Everybody already knows things aren't equal, and frankly have never been equal. There's no reason at all that small schools with minimal budgets should be dictating in any way how big schools with big budgets operate their finances.


Then there's the whole issue of equality. As soon as a rule is passed allowing football programs to pay players, the lawsuit filed by the basketball players, baseball players, rowing team is soon to follow. Not to mention the women's sports.Title IX would still exist and I see no reason that it couldn't still apply. Keep in mind that all Title IX says is that there is equal opportunity for sport for women. If baseball as Mississippi State brings in the big bucks, then those baseball players should be able to get a piece of the action. If its football, then the football players. Women's volleyball bringing in the big bucks? No problem. Cut them a check. If those sports don't make money, well then the athletes just get the 'minimum' pay (scholarships, tutors, free books, minimal stipend, etc...). As long as the opportunity for all athletes to get a share in whatever revenue generating sport they are playing in exists equally across all sports, it meets Title IX requirements. Requirements, I might add, have been tested in a court of law on several occasions with substantial precedent.



The problem ends up being that some schools could pay, while most would struggle. Then how long would it be before schools start finding ways to offer player X more than the other schools? This 'problem' is known as free market economics.



Recruiting is hard enough to police now, if a pay-or-play system were implemented, it would be out of control quickly.

It will go exactly as far as the market will allow it, and no further. There would still be limits on number of scholarship players and walk-ons and total team numbers.

[sooner_born_1960]

I believe you mean Title IX.

[sooner_born_1960]

And, that mistake alone invalidates your entire argument.

[sooner_born_1960]

Ok...I'll agree to that. $1200 per semester given to them after the withdrawal date is set.


And 75, stop caving in to his silliness. The answer is still NO.

[ouflak]

And, that mistake alone invalidates your entire argument.It's not an argument though is it? It's just the way things work in a normal free market. Title IX is well established. If you think the arguments that have been fought on that legal battle ground are invalid, you're welcome to find your own lawyers bring you own lawsuit with your own interpretation.

[sooner_born_1960]

I was referring to your argument that student-athletes should be paid.

[ouflak]

That being said, the revenue that most football programs take in, is usually eaten up supporting the entire athletic department at most schools. there are also other ways those revenues are used in regards to staff/buildings on a university campus. Too much is made out of how much money football makes in general, and is rarely ever compared with the costs of a university or athletic department.I sure all of the AD's, university presidents, and head coaches living in their multi-million dollar mansions would agree. Far too much is made out of how much money really is generated by football and the other sports.

Anyway, what happens to a business in the real world that can't afford to make salary? Is there any reason that these things couldn't happen to a university as well? They receive considerable subsidy. I doubt they will be allowed to fail completely. They just won't be able to pay as much, and therefore won't be able to compete. Let's remember: The job of a university isn't to play football, it's to educate the people and to conduct research for our society.

[olevetonahill]

Lets just settle this right Now, The only College Football players to be paid will Be SOONERS all other schools will be forbidden to offer scholarships and their Players must Pay 10% more in Tuition and fees than the general student body.

There its settled.

[SoonerorLater]

How are they to be paid? Will they be University Employees? If so then wouldn't all applicable employment payroll regulations apply, SS, Medicare, Workers Comp, Unemployment? If not considered an employee then what? Independent Contractor file a 1090. If so do they fit the legal definition of an Independent Contractor? Could they form labor unions? Would Right to Work state laws be in affect for some schools and not others?

[olevetonahill]

How are they to be paid? Will they be University Employees? If so then wouldn't all applicable employment payroll regulations apply, SS, Medicare, Workers Comp, Unemployment? If not considered an employee then what? Independent Contractor file a 1090. If so do they fit the legal definition of an Independent Contractor? Could they form labor unions? Would Right to Work state laws be in affect for some schools and not others?

Read my post above yours. This is SETTLED :cocksure:

[Soonerfan88]

Since ouflak likes the free market argument, lets look at that. There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from creating a developmental football league and paying the players and no classes to attend. University teams would remain amateurs and play for the love of the game and a free education. Of course, that means there will be no built in fan base or funding source. And my money will continue to go to the team wearing the Oklahoma jersey, not some guys from a random city who will have little emotional connection with it once they make it to the NFL in three years.

As for the walking around money argument, there is this thing called the Pell Grant. Everyone uses these kids poor family backgrounds as a basis for paying them which means they are guaranteed to get grant money. That amount is currently $5500 per school year or $550/month from Aug-May. They can get a job the other two months or make it stretch. When you consider their room and board is entirely free and could conceivably live in the gear they get from the school and NIKE, $550 is quite a bit of cash for fun on the weekends.

[8timechamps]

Why do you think they are talking about a D4 split right now with just the Big 5 conferences? Everybody already knows things aren't equal, and frankly have never been equal. There's no reason at all that small schools with minimal budgets should be dictating in any way how big schools with big budgets operate their finances.

I'm not just talking about the mid majors. There is no way teams like Kansas, Utah, South Florida, etc. can keep up with the big boys, even in a Div. 4 type setup. I think it's all talk anyway, a shot across the bow from the big conference letting the NCAA know they need to heed to the big conference's policy/decision making.



Title IX would still exist and I see no reason that it couldn't still apply. Keep in mind that all Title IX says is that there is equal opportunity for sport for women. If baseball as Mississippi State brings in the big bucks, then those baseball players should be able to get a piece of the action. If its football, then the football players. Women's volleyball bringing in the big bucks? No problem. Cut them a check. If those sports don't make money, well then the athletes just get the 'minimum' pay (scholarships, tutors, free books, minimal stipend, etc...). As long as the opportunity for all athletes to get a share in whatever revenue generating sport they are playing in exists equally across all sports, it meets Title IX requirements. Requirements, I might add, have been tested in a court of law on several occasions with substantial precedent.

True, under your plan, it wouldn't violate Title iX. However, you have to foresee how this would spill-over to every other sport. That's more of what I meant.




This 'problem' is known as free market economics.



It will go exactly as far as the market will allow it, and no further. There would still be limits on number of scholarship players and walk-ons and total team numbers.

We already have that system, it's called the NFL.

I realize college sports (namely football) isn't "amateur", or at least not like it used to be, but I am a strong believer that the athletes that participate are being compensated. I do think there needs to be some changes made in employment area's and even in how much scholarship athletes receive monthly, but I am against a flat out pay-for-play system.

As much of a Sooner homer as I am, I still enjoy watching teams come out of nowhere every year to get their time in the national spotlight (Louisville, UConn, etc). That's something that happens in college football that adds to the feel, and makes college football so special. A pay-for-play system takes that out of the equation. It then becomes about who can "buy the best team", and like I said, we already have that.

[MichiganSooner]

College players paid? Whatever Coach Stoops says!! NO!

[OU_Sooners75]

Ok...I'll agree to that. $1200 per semester given to them after the withdrawal date is set.


And 75, stop caving in to his silliness. The answer is still NO.

Not caving. I know how it dies affect student athletes.

They either need to rework the employment rules or they need to give them a minimum amount of money so they can have something.

$1200 per semester is roughly $300 per month while in school.

Idk. They shouldn't be paid as how many think they should. The education alone should be looked at as an invaluable compensation.

[Soonerfan88]

75, please note my post 31 above. If their parents are too poor to provide them money, they will qualify for a Pell Grant.

Also, you can't ignore the benefit of coaching and training they get which increases their worth to the NFL. Also add in the medical care and rehab if they get hurt.

[ouflak]

Since ouflak likes the free market argument, lets look at that. There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from creating a developmental football league and paying the players and no classes to attend.

Yup. Such leagues have come and gone.



University teams would remain amateurs and play for the love of the game and a free education. Of course, that means there will be no built in fan base or funding source.

I'm cool with this as long as all of the coaches, athletic department employees (including the AD) and all NCAA employees likewise work as amateurs on a voluntary, part-time, basis. This would truly then be sports in the complete spirit of competition for competition's sake.

The fact is that universities receive large state and federal subsidies either directly or indirectly, as well as a nice source of revenue from tuition and donations. They've leveraged this advantage into a big money making sports machine, that no developmental league will ever be able to match.


As for the walking around money argument, there is this thing called the Pell Grant. Everyone uses these kids poor family backgrounds as a basis for paying them which means they are guaranteed to get grant money. That amount is currently $5500 per school year or $550/month from Aug-May. Yeah but this really does only apply to very low-income students. Most of the athletes coming into the system are from the broad spectrum of the middle class. Sure they prop up a poster child athlete for their 'pay me' camp. But keep in mind that this is all about money. There's massive amounts of it and everybody wants their share.


They can get a job the other two months or make it stretch.
The NCAA might not agree with you on this point.

[ouflak]

...the athletes that participate are being compensated (enough)...

That's fine. Would there be a problem then if they were all given employment contracts, with the details of their contracts essentially identical to what all they are receiving, every single benefit spelled out? If they are being compensated enough currently, perhaps even more than enough, I can't imagine anybody here would really have a problem with this.

Ofcourse, as employees, they would be allowed to negotiate their contracts as every other free working person in this society is able to do....


How are they to be paid?*shrug* Maybe they are being compensated enough now.


Will they be University Employees?
Yeah ok, sounds good.


If so then wouldn't all applicable employment payroll regulations apply, SS, Medicare, Workers Comp, Unemployment?
Yes.


If not considered an employee then what? Independent Contractor file a 1090. If so do they fit the legal definition of an Independent Contractor?
Interesting idea. I hadn't considered that.


Could they form labor unions?
In fact there already exists the National College Players Association. (http://www.ncpanow.org/)


Would Right to Work state laws be in affect for some schools and not others?
Yes, all applicable state and federal regulations should and would apply.

[OU_Sooners75]

75, please note my post 31 above. If their parents are too poor to provide them money, they will qualify for a Pell Grant.

Also, you can't ignore the benefit of coaching and training they get which increases their worth to the NFL. Also add in the medical care and rehab if they get hurt.

Yes I already know that. I think I've stated something similar previously.

[stoopified]

they are already paid. To pay football players a stipend would require a huge outlay of additional money and that is only the tip of the iceberg.If football players get paid thenit would lead to all other athletes getting paid. if you think Title IX would not force equal payment to female athletes, you are mistaken.Once that occurs all non revenue men sports participants eill need to be paid and rightfully so.

if fullride athletes need to get paid,how much more deserving are are partial scholly recepients? They aren't just worried about spending money but paying for necessities. If they can manage lesser money,why can't the full-ride athletes?

[Mac94]

Yes, all applicable state and federal regulations should and would apply.

Doesn't the state of Oklahoma have a state income tax? I can envision this type of stuff in the recruting wars ... why go up there and have the state tax your money when you can stay in Texas and not pay any state income tax? In Alabama the state lege would probably pass tax breaks and incentives in their tax laws to benefit student athletes, lol.

I understand the arguement of paying players in football given the extrordinary amount of money being made on the backs of the kids ... at the same time ... the kids are getting ALOT out of the system and they do get paid already in the form of the free education and all the amenities they currently get. Paying players will open up a pandora's box that will change the game we know and love forever ... and probably not for the better.

It seems that the money has grown to such a level that everyone is trying to get their hands on the golden goose. TV pays billions to televise the games, Universities charge the fans thousands to tens of thousands to see ol state U a few Saturdays each fall ... and given the drive to maximize the number of home games and produce wins almost half those games will be against very inferior competition. Now the players are trying to get their hands into the mix from multiple angles ... from the lawsuits over likenesses, to head injury lawsuits, to paying of players. At a time when the sport is at its zenith the seeds of it's own potential demise are coming to the forefront.

[badger]

There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from creating a developmental football league and paying the players and no classes to attend.

Tee hee... sure there is a reason: It's not profitable. They've tried the XFL, they've tried the USFL, they've tried having an NFL Europe. Fold, fold, fold.

Even Arena ball has had to go through changes to get profitable to the point that they had to take a season off and reform (mostly involving players getting paid significantly less).

I really don't see an endgame where college football ends up paying players like they're employees. Perhaps a stipend of sorts, perhaps we'll see a reigning in of coaching salaries, but I don't see a full fleged minor league system.

[ouflak]

they are already paid.
So an employment contract shouldn't be a problem?


To pay football players a stipend would require a huge outlay of additional money and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Well anything is negotiable. If an individual player asks for his employment contract to be modified with higher pay, or he bolts for another employer, the current employer has got to decide if it is worth it for them to find the money or benefits to afford the request or not. It is a free country afterall.


If football players get paid then it would lead to all other athletes getting paid. if you think Title IX would not force equal payment to female athletes, you are mistaken. Once that occurs all non revenue men sports participants will need to be paid and rightfully so.

No problem. Just make sure that any athlete participating in any revenue generating sports gets the same kind of opportunity to benefit from their respective sport, and you satisfy Title IX.


if fullride athletes need to get paid,how much more deserving are are partial scholly recipients? They aren't just worried about spending money but paying for necessities. If they can manage lesser money,why can't the full-ride athletes?
As far as I'm aware, partial scholarships for football and basketball (and maybe any sport) are not allowed, but your point still applies to walk-ons. It's really not a matter of if athletes can scrape by on less and less, since others can. It's a question of whether they have the right to partake in this business as other employees who are enjoying the benefits of working in the college sports industry partake. If the answer is that they do have this fundamental right, then they should be able to negotiate their 'pay', whether that be a full-ride scholarship with loads of student benefits, and/or a stipend, or whatever etc....


Doesn't the state of Oklahoma have a state income tax? I can envision this type of stuff in the recruiting wars ... why go up there and have the state tax your money when you can stay in Texas and not pay any state income tax? In Alabama the state legislature would probably pass tax breaks and incentives in their tax laws to benefit student athletes, lol. As far as I'm aware, student athletes have to pay taxes just like everybody else. If a state wishes to change its own internal tax policy because they feel it would be good for business in the state (i.e. college athletics), for example allowing students tax exemptions, then that is their right.


The kids are getting ALOT out of the system and they do get paid already in the form of the free education and all the amenities...
You say this and then somewhat contradict yourself by saying this....

Paying players will open up a pandora's box that will change the game we know and love forever
If they are already being paid, then how will paying them change anything?

[Mac94]

ouflak -

being compensated in the form of a scholarship and tutoring, free room and board, etc. is different than a negotiated salary and you know it. Once pay in the form of cash enters the equation the dynamics will change drastically. Are you ready for A.D.s negotiating with agents over player contacts? Agents hanging around High School sophomores and juniors? Once this box gets opened it can't be shut again and the law of unintended consequences can be a real you know what.

[ouflak]

ouflak -
being compensated in the form of a scholarship and tutoring, free room and board, etc. is different than a negotiated salary and you know it.

Sure benefits and cash are different. This doesn't mean that both can't be negotiable, and fairly so. And eventually, it all counts toward the bottom line for whoever is doing the paying.


Are you ready for A.D.s negotiating with agents over player contacts?
I could care less. A better question is are the AD's ready for this?


Agents hanging around High School sophomores and juniors?

This is already happening for baseball and basketball seniors. Sure, football ratchets things up an order of magnitude or two, but we're not exactly talking virgin ground being covered here. How many times are we already reading about high-school underclassmen, and even junior high school kids, begin offered football scholarships to major universities? Whether they be agents or recruiters, the process is already alive and well. This thread is more about the end result of that process, not the beginning.


Once this box gets opened it can't be shut again and the law of unintended consequences can be a real you know what.
Are you saying that once they start cutting the athletes in on a share of the proceeds, that they can't stop doing this later on? Hmmmm.... Why not?

[OU_Sooners75]

Flak,

I respect your opinion on this. I really do. But IMO you are looking at this inappropriately.

From what I'm taking it, you think these kids are being exploited and not being compensated at all for their play.

That couldn't be further from reality.

The student athletes, especially full ride ones, have it made.

They have no bills whatsoever ever outside of their own luxury they think they need, like a car, cell phones, etc.

[SoonerorLater]

Sure benefits and cash are different. This doesn't mean that both can't be negotiable, and fairly so. And eventually, it all counts toward the bottom line for whoever is doing the paying.


I could care less. A better question is are the AD's ready for this?



This is already happening for baseball and basketball seniors. Sure, football ratchets things up an order of magnitude or two, but we're not exactly talking virgin ground being covered here. How many times are we already reading about high-school underclassmen, and even junior high school kids, begin offered football scholarships to major universities? Whether they be agents or recruiters, the process is already alive and well. This thread is more about the end result of that process, not the beginning.


Are you saying that once they start cutting the athletes in on a share of the proceeds, that they can't stop doing this later on? Hmmmm.... Why not?

Why would we as fans want to see schools go down this road? It just opens a can of worms that doesn't have to be opened. If the athletes feel that it's unfair or not in their best interest then by all means pursue other options. Most of us are fans of college sports for a lot of the reasons that would be negated by paying student athletes as evidenced by the responses here.

[badger]

then by all means pursue other options

I don't disagree with you, but let's be honest: There are no other options in the game of football from college at a pre-NFL level.

It's why you can't tell a bum to "get a job" anymore: There's no jobs out there :(

[SoonerNomad]

I don't get this. These conversations almost always focus on the small percentage of players that are talented enough to play in the NFL and make money. The vast majority are not. They are coming to college to continue playing football at a high level and maybe get better, but if they don't they will have had an opportunity to get a college education, live a dream life (albeit with hard work included) for five years and avoid having to jump into the job market and real life.

Playing college football at OU or other similar places is a lifelong dream that is a step on the way to achieving other goals. The ones that get offered the scholarship have already won. They are paid. They are compensated. They have food and board and medical care and tutoring and eventually an education that they wouldn't automatically get otherwise and what they would almost certainly not get without having to pay for it.

It seems to me that we always focus on the superstars and forget that most of the players are not headed to the next level. They are at their peak and they are benefitting from it beyond belief.

[8timechamps]

That's fine. Would there be a problem then if they were all given employment contracts, with the details of their contracts essentially identical to what all they are receiving, every single benefit spelled out? If they are being compensated enough currently, perhaps even more than enough, I can't imagine anybody here would really have a problem with this.

Ofcourse, as employees, they would be allowed to negotiate their contracts as every other free working person in this society is able to do....



Interesting. You do hit on something I think needs major change. The entire situation with student athletes being bound to a school, and under the current setup, the schools have a lot more power than the athlete. That needs to be changed.

As far as a "contract", I'd be fine with that. And suppose the players wanted to negotiate with the schools for "higher pay", if all the schools say "no", or they all agree on amounts much lower than the athletes want, what benefit is there to the athlete? That would leave them in the exact same situation they are in now, either play under the structure the schools provide or what? Not many other options there now.

[ouflak]

From what I'm taking it, you think these kids are being exploited and not being compensated at all for their play.
Far from it. I'm perfectly willing to contend that these athletes are well compensated for their hard work and dedication. Maybe even over-compensated. If we can both agree on this, would you be willing to agree that the athletes should have all of these benefits drawn up in an employment contract? Further, that these athletes should be able have all of the same freedoms as any other employee in this country? No actual money involved. The employment contract would clearly state all of these benefits in exchange for their services. Fair enough?


The student athletes, especially full ride ones, have it made. They have no bills whatsoever ....Let the market decide their value. If they are valuable employees, maybe they can strike a better deal. If the money isn't there support whatever extra benefits a particular player is wanting to have, then that is simply off the negotiating table or that player moves along to find someone who has a position open and is willing to pay for the extra benefits. There doesn't have to be any money involved. But the players and their employers have complete freedom to negotiate there own deals as every other free working person in this country does. Would this be palatable?


Playing college football at OU or other similar places is a lifelong dreamI am in a job that I love to do. I've been doing this kind of stuff (programming) since I was thirteen, working in the industry for coming on 15 years, and I'm still amazed that people actually pay me to have so much fun doing what I'm doing. I know I'm lucky. However I just a few months ago I negotiated a raise well above what the company offered and gave the vast majority of the employees in my company. Just because you are living a dream, doesn't mean you shouldn't get paid.


They are paid. They are compensated. ...food and board ... medical care ... tutoring ... an education
Then there should be no problem if all of this is put into a fair employment contract signed by both involved parties. Agree?


Most of us are fans of college sports for a lot of the reasons that would be negated by paying student athletes as evidenced by the responses here.
Actually, from what I gather on this thread so far, it seems most think that the athletes are already being well paid and compensated. Yet we are all still fans....

[SoonerKnight]

My brother had a full academic scolorship. This came with about a $500 stipend a month I believe maybe less. The point is the players could have a non-athletic scholarship and get money why can't they when they playing sports????

[SoonerorLater]

My brother had a full academic scolorship. This came with about a $500 stipend a month I believe maybe less. The point is the players could have a non-athletic scholarship and get money why can't they when they playing sports????

Looking at it from the University perspective why would a school want to pay athletes if they don't have to?

[Curly Bill]

Looking at it from the University perspective why would a school want to pay athletes if they don't have to?

Yeah, it's the boosters job to do that! ;)

[Piware]

Has Johnny Manzel made this a moot point?

[jkjsooner]

Here's my opinion. First some ground rules that I believe are inescapable.

1. All stipends would have to be uniform throughout the sports. Or, at the minimum an equal number of women would have to get the same monetary stipend as men. Otherwise I don't think this would pass a Title IX challenge. I don't think proportioning it out based on revenue would pass scrutiny from the courts.

2. Every school in FBS would have to offer the same stipend. If this can't be done then we will have eroded any semblance of parity in college sports. I know true parity doesn't exist and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing but I don't think anyone wants to go into a situation where some schools can pay players and others can't.

3. Obviously the athletic departments will have to be able to afford this. This would probably require some sort of pooling and sharing of financial resources. On the other hand this could finally put some downward pressure on coach's salaries which I don't think is a bad thing at all.

4. I don't know employment law but I've heard some say that this could open up a can of worms dealing with employment.


Other alternative is to allow players more freedom to sell themselves - their images, autographs, etc. Since this wouldn't be done directly by the schools, it would probably alleviate Title IX issues. I still think there would need to be some ground rules to maintain a workable system.

1. All services would have to be limited to the fair market value. There could be no T Boone Pickens paying each incoming recruit $50k for an autograph with the hope that that catches the eye of future recruits.

2. I'm not even sure if fair market value is workable. Not only would it be impossible to enforce, fair market value is not only a function of the player but is also a function of the name that is on his jersey. A four star player who plays for Alabama is going to have a higher fair market value than an equivalent player who plays for UAB. This would again erode any semblance of parity and destroy college football as we know it.

3. If you wanted to go this route, you might have to severely limit the dollar amount a player can raise by cashing in on his notoriety. That would probably be the only way such a system could work.



As one last point, the UAB / Alabama scenario posited above can be used to emphasize something that I think the "pay the players" folks overlook. The marketability of most players (save the Adrian Petersons and Jadavian Clowneys) is highly influenced by that name on their jerseys. They didn't achieve their notoriety by themselves. The fact that they're playing for a name brand university with a century of football tradition is the primary reason for their fame.

If we created a minor league football league tomorrow, many guys would probably choose to go that route. I think they would quickly find that their fame was not all their doing. Until they step on an NFL field they would be virtually unknown by most of America. With a few exceptions, their marketability playing for the Ft. Worth Tornadoes would definitely be worth less than the scholarship they turned down at a major university.

Meanwhile we'd still be idolizing players with "Sooners" on their jerseys even if the talent is slightly watered down.

When people bitch and complain about administrators and coaches making all this money off the backs of student athletes, they underestimate the role the tradition and brand of college football plays in the grand scheme of things.


So, by all means, create your precious minor league of football. Let players struggle through it and find out it wasn't the utopia they envisioned. I'll enjoy college football just as my dad and grandpa did back in days when guys were just happy to take the field for their universities.

[jkjsooner]

Tee hee... sure there is a reason: It's not profitable. They've tried the XFL, they've tried the USFL, they've tried having an NFL Europe. Fold, fold, fold.

And yet the average talent level of those players was greater than what we see in college football.

See where I'm going here? It really isn't so much the players that make college football. If it were all about the players we would have been fighting to get tickets to USFL and XFL football games.

It's the names on the jerseys - the names of the schools that we've been fans of for decades and in many cases attended.

I love the hard working players who played for OU over the years. But the ones who cry and think they are the reason that OU or Texas or Alabama or Florida or USC brought in millions of dollars are deluding themselves.

[jkjsooner]

Sure benefits and cash are different. This doesn't mean that both can't be negotiable, and fairly so. And eventually, it all counts toward the bottom line for whoever is doing the paying.

Are you ready give away all the top talent to T Boone Pickens and Phil Knight?

And why should the colleges bend over backwards to pay players? It's the universities that invested decades into their name and building their fan base. It's only fair they reap the rewards.


I'll use basketball as an example to emphasize this. Before the NBA instituted the one year out of high school rule, none of the top players were going into college ball. We didn't see Kobe or Lebron play in college.

Did it matter? Yeah, a tiny bit but really not much. A Kentucky fan didn't really care whether his team could beat the early '80s Houston Cougars or UNC Tar Heels. (They couldn't as the talent was nowhere near what it was in the '80s because guys like Hakeem, Drexler, Jordan, and Worthy were staying in college for several years.) All the Kentucky fan cared is whether he won the SEC and the national championship.

See, it's about the schools much more than the players. Get rid of the top 10% and it doesn't really matter so long as we beat Texas and UNC beats Duke.

Schools know this and I think they're right to act accordingly.


If these players don't like it then start their own league - but of course they'll find out the hard way it wasn't really about them.

[8timechamps]

Here's my opinion. First some ground rules that I believe are inescapable.

1. All stipends would have to be uniform throughout the sports. Or, at the minimum an equal number of women would have to get the same monetary stipend as men. Otherwise I don't think this would pass a Title IX challenge. I don't think proportioning it out based on revenue would pass scrutiny from the courts.

2. Every school in FBS would have to offer the same stipend. If this can't be done then we will have eroded any semblance of parity in college sports. I know true parity doesn't exist and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing but I don't think anyone wants to go into a situation where some schools can pay players and others can't.

3. Obviously the athletic departments will have to be able to afford this. This would probably require some sort of pooling and sharing of financial resources. On the other hand this could finally put some downward pressure on coach's salaries which I don't think is a bad thing at all.

4. I don't know employment law but I've heard some say that this could open up a can of worms dealing with employment.


Other alternative is to allow players more freedom to sell themselves - their images, autographs, etc. Since this wouldn't be done directly by the schools, it would probably alleviate Title IX issues. I still think there would need to be some ground rules to maintain a workable system.

1. All services would have to be limited to the fair market value. There could be no T Boone Pickens paying each incoming recruit $50k for an autograph with the hope that that catches the eye of future recruits.

2. I'm not even sure if fair market value is workable. Not only would it be impossible to enforce, fair market value is not only a function of the player but is also a function of the name that is on his jersey. A four star player who plays for Alabama is going to have a higher fair market value than an equivalent player who plays for UAB. This would again erode any semblance of parity and destroy college football as we know it.

3. If you wanted to go this route, you might have to severely limit the dollar amount a player can raise by cashing in on his notoriety. That would probably be the only way such a system could work.



As one last point, the UAB / Alabama scenario posited above can be used to emphasize something that I think the "pay the players" folks overlook. The marketability of most players (save the Adrian Petersons and Jadavian Clowneys) is highly influenced by that name on their jerseys. They didn't achieve their notoriety by themselves. The fact that they're playing for a name brand university with a century of football tradition is the primary reason for their fame.

If we created a minor league football league tomorrow, many guys would probably choose to go that route. I think they would quickly find that their fame was not all their doing. Until they step on an NFL field they would be virtually unknown by most of America. With a few exceptions, their marketability playing for the Ft. Worth Tornadoes would definitely be worth less than the scholarship they turned down at a major university.

Meanwhile we'd still be idolizing players with "Sooners" on their jerseys even if the talent is slightly watered down.

When people bitch and complain about administrators and coaches making all this money off the backs of student athletes, they underestimate the role the tradition and brand of college football plays in the grand scheme of things.


So, by all means, create your precious minor league of football. Let players struggle through it and find out it wasn't the utopia they envisioned. I'll enjoy college football just as my dad and grandpa did back in days when guys were just happy to take the field for their universities.

Great post jk, and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

The biggest problem I see with a system like that is how many opportunities there would be for violations to occur. The way the current system is structured, there are already a ton of openings (as we see every year), once the floodgates are opened; hang on.

I guess that's reason #1 why I don't want a pay-for-play system. However, the way you outlined this plan, I think it could be workable...but whatever plan you put in place will attract the back-door, behind the scenes autograph/merchandise brokers.

[jkjsooner]

Great post jk, and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

The biggest problem I see with a system like that is how many opportunities there would be for violations to occur. The way the current system is structured, there are already a ton of openings (as we see every year), once the floodgates are opened; hang on.

Thanks.

And the biggest problem I see is that so many fans just don't get it. They think the NCAA creates the rules to be vindictive. They don't understand that the NCAA is trying to enforce a system that isn't corrupted by boosters and you can't do that without exercising a great deal of control.

Sometimes I not only wonder about their intellect (since they can't see past the immediate issue to see the bigger picture) but I also wonder why they call themselves college sports fans.