To pay or not to pay...

[soonernija]

College athletes.

This guy makes a great point in favor of payments and I agree.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=gilmore_rod&id=2733624

[csbst2]

It will end college football as we know it. School pride will mean nothing. Players will just go to schools who can give them the most money. It will be impossible to monitor payments. Its just not a good direction for any college sport to go. Yes the schools are making alot of money, but they for the most part re-invest in in the school. To take a kid that is 18 and pay him to play a sport, it will just bring on more problems. Look at Rhett, that will be how all players act, and I for one have no intention for pulling for a team that gets paid to play in school. Keep the game special, play to play the game. AD would play football no matter what. He played because he loved to play, not because he will get paid. Look at the difference between college hoops and the NBA. The NBA is terrible to watch, its all one on one, but in college you see kids play their tails off every night. Keep the game the way it is.

[SleestakSooner]

It is hard to find much flaw in that thinking, but implementing and regulating it would be a nightmare. Each school would have to hire a whole new staff just to run the student athlete pay program. And where do we draw the line? Wouldn't the track and field athletes deserve just as much as the football players?

[Snrfn4ever08]

He makes a great point. As much money as these kids rake in for the universities, they should get at least some part of it. Otherwise, all that's happening is the universities are using their athletes to get rich and that's not fair to the athletes.

[jacru]

A complete college education, room and board for free? is that not being paid?
it's called a scholarship.
If you take money from a university in one area, they'll get it back from the students in another area.

[mxATVracer10]

I like this guy's idea of putting it in a trust for after graduation, it seems like it would be feasible.
My idea was to give each player a weekly payment much like what you would receive at a typical high school or college job. Since athletes usually have no opportunity to work due to all the time that practices and stuff take up now, they could pay the participants like $300 or so a week or whatever just like they were working. If the NCAA made a standard amount that every athlete would receive during the "season" of their respected sports, that would help prevent people like the idiot doing what he did.
I'm sure there are problems with this theory, so if you think of some let me know what they are...

[leavingthezoo]

here's an idea. why don't we end college sports all together? that way the people who go for an education still get an education, and the people who go to play ball aren't hassled with the whole "education is power" theory.

lame argument huh? so is paying students to play ball.

[OklahomaTuba]

This would kill the small schools that make no money on football I think. Once you start paying the football players, then you have to start paying everyone else.

It will kill college athletics IMO.

[Scott D]

He makes a great point. As much money as these kids rake in for the universities, they should get at least some part of it. Otherwise, all that's happening is the universities are using their athletes to get rich and that's not fair to the athletes.

I don't seem to remember your average student getting a scholarship that pays full tuition and books along with housing (which turns into a monthly housing allowance when they are allowed to move 'off campus')

[Rook65]

A free ride at a major university is plenty of compensation.

[TexasLidig8r]

Sports writers should stick to Xs and Os.

The holes in his plan are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them and have room for an Abrams tank following.

First.. has he heard of Title IX? If not, he should review it and understand it first.

The money paid by each D-1 school would have to be equal.. it cannot be based on wins, losses, championships because such a system would be inherently unequal and as a result, unconstitutional. The Non-BCS conferences would have to be included as well. The private schools playing D1 ball would need to be included as well.

Under Title IX, financial assistance must be awarded based on the number of male and female athletes. The test is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes. Further, under Title IX, all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to be equivalent, but not necessarily identical.

The Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act further dictate that "payment of athletes" would have to be equivalent and across the board, regardless of sex and/or sport.

That's right, your lady's lacrosse team would have to be paid in an amount approximately equal to the football players. You may argue, "well Lid, that's not fair.. the lady's lacrosse team doesn't generate any revenue and is in fact, a cash drain on the athletic department.!" Good point.. and completely irrelevant. Under Title IX, the focus is on the necessity for women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.

For some basic info on Title IX.. go here...

http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm

So, if the NCAA isn't likely to be forthcoming with money for athletes where would the money come from? Each states' legislatures would have to find a way to dole money to each university, including private universities, to assure equality. Each state would have to pay the same amount so there is no inequality. The legislatures would only be able to find such money through.. an increase in taxes.

Ok.. so if not the state, the feds could become involved... Congress could enact a new commission to oversee the payment of funds to every student athlete playing Division 1 sports.. but.. again, where does the money come from? Again.. an increase in taxes. And is it really the job of Congress to oversee collegiate athletics? I don't think the framers of our Constitution quite had this in mind!

In short, .. it's not going to happen. You get tuition, room and boad, books and the opportunity to better your life. Take Stanford for example. Tuition, room and board, are going to run you approximately $50,000 a year. The athletes have a tremendous opportunity to better their lifea t little or NO expense to themselves.. and most are NOT going to play pro sports.

Ok.. but you may ask, "Well Lid, what of the coaches being paid millions of dollars and schools bringing in millions of dollars as a result of these student-athletes... is that fair?" Well.. LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Deal with it. As for the coaches.. this is their profession. The ones being paid big bucks are the cream of the crop..they have worked their way up to where they are.. most all have paid their dues and through their excellence and history of work, they have reached the pinnacle. As for the universities.. the money also goes to constructing academic buildings, missions, acquiring reknowned professors, research, development.

Homeslice needs to do his research before spewing forth uninformed tripe. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

The easiest thing to do is to treat the players like adults and let them have the same rights as any other student. Gifts, jobs, etc should all be allowed. Giving a kid some jack to but a car or airplane ticket isn't the end of the world. Gotta put some trust in these players for once. Just because they are on a scholly doesn't mean they are subhuman or anything.

[apusooner]

maybe the star player could send a bill to the university after he left.

[101sooner]

A free ride at a major university is plenty of compensation.


Spot on.

[BajaOklahoma]

Seems like Switzer talked about the players should get some money to pay for laundry, gas, a movie or two and a meal out each week. Very few liked the idea. Another issue is that the moeny goes further in Oklahoma than it does in LA. How do you deal with that fairly?

[landrun]

These guys are getting paid. They don't see the cash but if they stay in school they get a degree without paying for it. I'll take that deal in a heartbeat. So would most anyone else.

[BermudaSooner]

First.. has he heard of Title IX? If not, he should review it and understand it first.

Who says Title IX is constitutional. Title IX is completely ridiculous. Saying something can't be done because of a bad rule doesn't make sense.



The money paid by each D-1 school would have to be equal.. it cannot be based on wins, losses, championships because such a system would be inherently unequal and as a result, unconstitutional. The Non-BCS conferences would have to be included as well. The private schools playing D1 ball would need to be included as well.

Why? Do you get paid the same as all lawyers? (Clearly not as much as Lawyers that went to OU) ;) If I want to give money to OU to pay its players, why can't I? Doesn't that seem unAmerican? I earned my money, why can't I spend it how I want? What is all this equality crap--is this 5 year old t-ball where we don't keep score?



Under Title IX, financial assistance must be awarded based on the number of male and female athletes. The test is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes. Further, under Title IX, all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to be equivalent, but not necessarily identical.

Again, ridiculous rule. I agree it would need to be changed to pay athletes, but that shouldn't hinder the concept. It is a bad rule.



The Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act further dictate that "payment of athletes" would have to be equivalent and across the board, regardless of sex and/or sport.

I disagree. If that were true, why doesn't A-Rod get paid the same as Nomar? A kid going to Stanford (as you point out below) gets a much higher valued scholarship than a kid going to OU or UT. Shouldn't your equality police be after that one too, Lid?



That's right, your lady's lacrosse team would have to be paid in an amount approximately equal to the football players. You may argue, "well Lid, that's not fair.. the lady's lacrosse team doesn't generate any revenue and is in fact, a cash drain on the athletic department.!" Good point.. and completely irrelevant. Under Title IX, the focus is on the necessity for women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.

Bad rule.




So, if the NCAA isn't likely to be forthcoming with money for athletes where would the money come from? Each states' legislatures would have to find a way to dole money to each university, including private universities, to assure equality. Each state would have to pay the same amount so there is no inequality. The legislatures would only be able to find such money through.. an increase in taxes.

How about from fans? What if a state legislature decides it is best for the state to allocate some funds to pay athletes? What is all this no inequality crap? The facilities at OU are not the same as at OSU. Isn't that an inequality?



Ok.. so if not the state, the feds could become involved... Congress could enact a new commission to oversee the payment of funds to every student athlete playing Division 1 sports.. but.. again, where does the money come from? Again.. an increase in taxes. And is it really the job of Congress to oversee collegiate athletics? I don't think the framers of our Constitution quite had this in mind!

I agree that Congress likes to get their claws into things that don't concern them, but I don't seeing it going this far. Further, I'm not advocating that the government pay the players, just allow the schools to do it. Where the funds come from is the school's concern.



In short, .. it's not going to happen.

I don't disagree with that.



You get tuition, room and boad, books and the opportunity to better your life. Take Stanford for example. Tuition, room and board, are going to run you approximately $50,000 a year. The athletes have a tremendous opportunity to better their lifea t little or NO expense to themselves.. and most are NOT going to play pro sports.

Every athlete doesn't need to be paid--your initial Title IX logic is flawed. Initially I'd think only the top players would get anything--maybe all the starters on the top tier schools. But kids at Stanford, unless the alumni kicked in the coin, likely wouldn't get paid.



Ok.. but you may ask, "Well Lid, what of the coaches being paid millions of dollars and schools bringing in millions of dollars as a result of these student-athletes... is that fair?" Well.. LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Deal with it. As for the coaches.. this is their profession. The ones being paid big bucks are the cream of the crop..they have worked their way up to where they are.. most all have paid their dues and through their excellence and history of work, they have reached the pinnacle. As for the universities.. the money also goes to constructing academic buildings, missions, acquiring reknowned professors, research, development.

A strong football team can bring more students which means more revenue, which means more money for these things you list. Why not let the school decide for themselves how they want to spend their cash?

This is still America. We are still a red state, right? This equality, non-payment for talent is unAmerican and socialistic. Take off your "Hillary for President" buttons and think about this for a second.

[sooneron]

I was under the impression that these kids got a small stipend for laundry, dates, etc.

[TexasLidig8r]

Who says Title IX is constitutional. Title IX is completely ridiculous. Saying something can't be done because of a bad rule doesn't make sense.

How about every federal district court and court of appeals who has considered the constitutionality of Title IX and had found it passes constitutional muster? One of the most recent cases is Communities for Equity vs. Michigan H.S.A.A., 459 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 2006)



Why? Do you get paid the same as all lawyers? (Clearly not as much as Lawyers that went to OU) ;) If I want to give money to OU to pay its players, why can't I? Doesn't that seem unAmerican? I earned my money, why can't I spend it how I want? What is all this equality crap--is this 5 year old t-ball where we don't keep score?

There is a huge difference between private enterprise (what the market will bear).. and state and federally funded universities which are subject to many more constitutional and legislatively mandated rules and laws.

As for paying players to play at OU... see Big Red. The "equality crap" has only been guaranteed as one of the fundamental tenets of this country for over 200 years. You are obviously mistaking "equal opportunity" with "equal results."

Also, you earned your money, why can't you spend it like you want? How about spending it on prostitutes? or drugs?



Again, ridiculous rule. I agree it would need to be changed to pay athletes, but that shouldn't hinder the concept. It is a bad rule.

If the legislation is bad and brings about inequitable results, organize, lobby and have the legislature amended.


I disagree. If that were true, why doesn't A-Rod get paid the same as Nomar? A kid going to Stanford (as you point out below) gets a much higher valued scholarship than a kid going to OU or UT. Shouldn't your equality police be after that one too, Lid?

The A-Rod situation is not analogous. Private enterprise vs. state and federally supported institutions which must comply with federal and state civil rights and constitutional guidelines.

And, no, the equality police is not after Stanford. Again, equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Stanford, UT, OU, even aggy offer tuition, room and board, books. What you do with the opportunity is your own concern.



How about from fans? What if a state legislature decides it is best for the state to allocate some funds to pay athletes? What is all this no inequality crap? The facilities at OU are not the same as at OSU. Isn't that an inequality?

If a state legislature is short sighted enough to allocate funds to pay athletes, in all reasonable probability, the law would never be enforced. It would meet and fail constitutional challenges made by the NCAA, athletes in other sports at that university, athletes attending other universities located in that state. That university would become a pariah... would be banned from bowls, offering scholarships.

As for the facilities.. again, see the discussion about what universities choose to spend their dollars on and what programs they support with their dollars. The money for building programs is going for enrichment of the universities, their research and development, academic programs as well as athletic budgets.


Every athlete doesn't need to be paid--your initial Title IX logic is flawed. Initially I'd think only the top players would get anything--maybe all the starters on the top tier schools. But kids at Stanford, unless the alumni kicked in the coin, likely wouldn't get paid.

Did you even read the short site on Title IX? Have you read any caselaw interpreting Title IX? I have. If you had, you would see that your statement and proposal would be laughed out of court and would result in a school being put on probation.. or, the death penalty.


A strong football team can bring more students which means more revenue, which means more money for these things you list. Why not let the school decide for themselves how they want to spend their cash?

Is that the case at North Carolina? Duke? Indiana? UConn? Villanova? The schools do decided how they want to spend the funds they receive from state and federal sources and from private donors. Nonetheless, since they DO receive state and federal funds, they are required to comply with constitutional and legislatively mandated laws.

This is still America. We are still a red state, right? This equality, non-payment for talent is unAmerican and socialistic. Take off your "Hillary for President" buttons and think about this for a second.

As for "Hillary for President".. I'm so conservative that I probably make you look like a New Dealer. Again, one of the basic tenets upon which our country was founded was equal opportunity. Do these words mean anything to you .... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our student athletes are being paid... tuition, room, board, books.. and are given an opportunity to better their life!

Not one of you better, thought out posts Bermuda.

[swardboy]

Welcome to the off-season...

[FourKings]

Scholarships are enough, thats a lot of money they are getting already for getting to do something they love to do. You cant honestly say they arent getting paid to play, be real about it, whats a scholly worth now? 100 plus easy....thats a LOT of freakin money.

[BermudaSooner]

Lid, you are the one capping out what a person can earn--because they play ball. There is nothing conservative about that at all. Said another way, but for the fact these kids do play ball, they could get any amount of money from 3rd persons (boosters for example) or work any job for a wage that was agreed by them and their employer. Because they play ball, they can't.

You seem to support Title IX because it has been through judicial challenges. As a lawyer, you should realize that just because a law or rule is on the books, doesn't make it just. Title IX is the typical example of liberal college presidents banning together and enacting unAmerican rules. I think Boz said it right--National Communists Against Athletes.

Where is John Galt when needed?

You realize that you are on the side of everyone above who said "they get tuition, room and board, and in my estimation that is enough." Well, they don't get to decide how much you earn, how much I earn, and they shouldn't get to decide how much a talented kid who plays ball earns.

I completely understand the argument to level the playing field for colleges to improve the competitiveness of football. But the world is not level--nor should it be.

[BermudaSooner]

Scholarships are enough, thats a lot of money they are getting already for getting to do something they love to do. You cant honestly say they arent getting paid to play, be real about it, whats a scholly worth now? 100 plus easy....thats a LOT of freakin money.


How about we limit your income to $100,000 a year. That is a LOT of freakin money. What could you possibly do with more?

[OUFan22]

Sports writers should stick to Xs and Os.

The holes in his plan are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them and have room for an Abrams tank following.

First.. has he heard of Title IX? If not, he should review it and understand it first.

The money paid by each D-1 school would have to be equal.. it cannot be based on wins, losses, championships because such a system would be inherently unequal and as a result, unconstitutional. The Non-BCS conferences would have to be included as well. The private schools playing D1 ball would need to be included as well.

Under Title IX, financial assistance must be awarded based on the number of male and female athletes. The test is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes. Further, under Title IX, all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to be equivalent, but not necessarily identical.

The Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act further dictate that "payment of athletes" would have to be equivalent and across the board, regardless of sex and/or sport.

That's right, your lady's lacrosse team would have to be paid in an amount approximately equal to the football players. You may argue, "well Lid, that's not fair.. the lady's lacrosse team doesn't generate any revenue and is in fact, a cash drain on the athletic department.!" Good point.. and completely irrelevant. Under Title IX, the focus is on the necessity for women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.

For some basic info on Title IX.. go here...

http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm

So, if the NCAA isn't likely to be forthcoming with money for athletes where would the money come from? Each states' legislatures would have to find a way to dole money to each university, including private universities, to assure equality. Each state would have to pay the same amount so there is no inequality. The legislatures would only be able to find such money through.. an increase in taxes.

Ok.. so if not the state, the feds could become involved... Congress could enact a new commission to oversee the payment of funds to every student athlete playing Division 1 sports.. but.. again, where does the money come from? Again.. an increase in taxes. And is it really the job of Congress to oversee collegiate athletics? I don't think the framers of our Constitution quite had this in mind!

In short, .. it's not going to happen. You get tuition, room and boad, books and the opportunity to better your life. Take Stanford for example. Tuition, room and board, are going to run you approximately $50,000 a year. The athletes have a tremendous opportunity to better their lifea t little or NO expense to themselves.. and most are NOT going to play pro sports.

Ok.. but you may ask, "Well Lid, what of the coaches being paid millions of dollars and schools bringing in millions of dollars as a result of these student-athletes... is that fair?" Well.. LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Deal with it. As for the coaches.. this is their profession. The ones being paid big bucks are the cream of the crop..they have worked their way up to where they are.. most all have paid their dues and through their excellence and history of work, they have reached the pinnacle. As for the universities.. the money also goes to constructing academic buildings, missions, acquiring reknowned professors, research, development.

Homeslice needs to do his research before spewing forth uninformed tripe. :rolleyes:
Agreed!!!! The athletes get their college paid for (at least partially) and all of the regular students and/or parents are mostly paying their own way and in many cases going into heavy debt just to get a degree so they can better themselves after college. The proposal of paying athletes is a bunch of B.S.

[TexasLidig8r]

Lid, you are the one capping out what a person can earn--because they play ball. There is nothing conservative about that at all. Said another way, but for the fact these kids do play ball, they could get any amount of money from 3rd persons (boosters for example) or work any job for a wage that was agreed by them and their employer. Because they play ball, they can't.

No, I don't believe a person should be capped out as to what they earn. But, I do see a very large difference between persons working on their careers and their jobs, and student athletes. They are apples and turnips. Being a student/athlete is different than being a student. Athletics, as a privilege, and not a right, can be regulated while still being subjected to constitutional guidelines.

You seem to support Title IX because it has been through judicial challenges. As a lawyer, you should realize that just because a law or rule is on the books, doesn't make it just. Title IX is the typical example of liberal college presidents banning together and enacting unAmerican rules. I think Boz said it right--National Communists Against Athletes.

I wholeheartedly agree that the application of Title IX can be grossly unfair .. primarily to male athletes. There are other examples where it has been used for other issues as well.. for example, there is a case on the books where a male student attempted to get into the nursing program at Miss. State. He was denied admission because it was then, an all female program. Courts utilized Title IX to open the doors to that student.

As a conservative, there are ways to change, or amend the laws. If they are being applied in a grossly unfair way, then, constitutional challenges can be made in the courts or lobbying can be done to enact changes.

oh.. the law was signed and made the law of the land by..... Richard Milhouse Nixon.. not exactly a beacon of liberalism.

As for Boz... he is hardly a harbinger of anything intelligent.

You realize that you are on the side of everyone above who said "they get tuition, room and board, and in my estimation that is enough." Well, they don't get to decide how much you earn, how much I earn, and they shouldn't get to decide how much a talented kid who plays ball earns.

I completely understand the argument to level the playing field for colleges to improve the competitiveness of football. But the world is not level--nor should it be.

Again, there is a big difference between the free marketplace.. and an academic setting. A talented kid, if he utilizes his scholarship and athletic opportunity to its fullest level, has the potential to earn much more than you, or I or anyone else on this board. The market will decide. For that matter, taking your argument to the next level, why should pro teams have salary caps.. or rookie caps.. or mandatory three year contracts for rookie players.. or finacial "slots" for drafted rookies? Yet, all of these are in place.

Finally, as for universities paying football players.. you realize there are maybe only 15 - 20 schools who operate their football programs in the black? If more financial burden is placed on all universities to pay all of their athletes, how many other sports or program will go down because of this?

By the way.. much better, more reasoned post this time Bermuda.

[BermudaSooner]

Again, there is a big difference between the free marketplace.. and an academic setting.

Why? Isn't it the university's goal to train the students for life?



A talented kid, if he utilizes his scholarship and athletic opportunity to its fullest level, has the potential to earn much more than you, or I or anyone else on this board. The market will decide.

Agreed, but why can he not do that while at school playing ball? This argument that he has the potential later is immaterial. He has a potential now to earn money.


For that matter, taking your argument to the next level, why should pro teams have salary caps.. or rookie caps.. or mandatory three year contracts for rookie players.. or finacial "slots" for drafted rookies? Yet, all of these are in place.

I've never been for salary caps. They are morally wrong.


Finally, as for universities paying football players.. you realize there are maybe only 15 - 20 schools who operate their football programs in the black? If more financial burden is placed on all universities to pay all of their athletes, how many other sports or program will go down because of this?

I'm not requiring the schools to do anything. They don't have to pay their players. If they deem it worthwhile and a good investment, they will. If not, they won't. I believe that the majority of Div 1a schools likely wouldn't pay their players. This is about lifting a restriction that says they can't pay their players--or receive alumni donations that allow them to pay their players.



By the way.. much better, more reasoned post this time Bermuda.

Thanks for the condescending compliment.

[TexasLidig8r]

Why? Isn't it the university's goal to train the students for life?

That is one of a university's goals. How is paying some athletes, i.e., starters or the ones who perform, training the students for life? Be really really good and you may receive dollars?



Agreed, but why can he not do that while at school playing ball? This argument that he has the potential later is immaterial. He has a potential now to earn money.

Because the system would collapse if some athletes were paid and others were not. And student athletes are receiving benefits.. the tax laws look upon benefits and the value of said benefits the same as salary and income. The universities are in essence handing each student athlete a check equivalent to the amount of tuition, room and board and books. The student athlete only has the potential to obtain an education.

I've never been for salary caps. They are morally wrong.

You are completely a free market person?

I'm not requiring the schools to do anything. They don't have to pay their players. If they deem it worthwhile and a good investment, they will. If not, they won't. I believe that the majority of Div 1a schools likely wouldn't pay their players. This is about lifting a restriction that says they can't pay their players--or receive alumni donations that allow them to pay their players.

Let's see if you can see the other side of the coin... why not set forth the potential for abuse and corruption which would result if there were no restrictions whatsoever on paying athletes?

You know of course as well, you are advocating the abolishment of amateur athletics across the board? There would no longer be the "student athlete" or amateur athlete. High school students would go to the highest bidder. As a Texas alum, theoretically, I wouldn't have much problem with that since UT is one of the wealthiest universities in the country and has a lot of well healed alums. Practically, logically and yes, morally, I have huge issues with it.


Thanks for the condescending compliment.

Oh. and was not meant to be condescending at all. Your first post lacked cohesiveness or any sort of logic or apparent understanding of Title IX. Your second post showed more logic.

Not being condescending at all. In fact, it's refreshing to have a debate on here without it degenerating into the usual banalities and name calling.

[BeetDigger]

Oh. and was not meant to be condescending at all. Your first post lacked cohesiveness or any sort of logic or apparent understanding of Title IX. Your second post showed more logic.

Not being condescending at all. In fact, it's refreshing to have a debate on here without it degenerating into the usual banalities and name calling.



**** off, dip ****!




:texan:

[Boffingham]

A complete college education, room and board for free? is that not being paid?
it's called a scholarship.
If you take money from a university in one area, they'll get it back from the students in another area.


FREE EDUCATION? Are they aware of how much school is starting to cost these days.

FREE GYM MEMBERSHIP? I paid $50/month in NC for my gym membership...that I never used

FREE RENT? And pretty nice from what I hear

FREE VEHICLES? Only if you are Rhett Bomar

[MI Sooner]

Do the Red Hawks rake in the money? Do you guys keep up with college hockey or the juniors? How's the CBA doing these days?

The reason I ask these questions is because I afraid that paying college players (or paying based on merit) would just turn college athletics into minor league sports. I'm not so sure that the players rake in the money for the schools. I think you could make just as strong an argument that the schools rake in money for the players in the form of scholarships and publicity(especially considering many football and basketball programs lose money).

I may be wrong. Maybe no one will care if we only get recruits because we paid the most. Many already select a school because it is most likely to help them financially (nothing wrong with that).

That said, I'm not opposed to a uniform stipend for players that would allow them a standard of living at the 90th percentile of college students.

[OK2LA]

You take a girl out to dinner - $50-$150.00

You take a girl out to the movies - $20.00 - $40.00

Total - $70.00 - $190.00

AND, you are not GUARANTEED to get any.

The other hand:

Pay $150.00 - $300.00 - and you ARE going to get some.

Pay or not to pay?!?

My question to you is this - You're PAYING either way - What is the difference?

[MI Sooner]

The players are free to start their own college, refuse to have it join the NCAA, and start a competitive college athletic system. Maybe they could just acquire the NAIA. While I don't like the NCAA, I'm not sure there's anything that's not "free-market" about it, especially when you're only looking at the private schools. You could argue that the schools are colluding, and the government needs to intervene, but that doesn't seem like a very free market solution to a salary cap to me.

Also, I'd like to point out that I don't like the idea of salary caps either, but for whatever reason, they were bargained for by the representative of both sides of a free negotiation.

[william_brasky]

I'm not even going to read the article. Horrible idea.

[BermudaSooner]

Be really really good and you may receive dollars?

Yes, just like when I make money for my company, I get a bonus. This year I'm hoping for a big ole fat one as I made a lot of money for the company last year. Paying for performance is why America is a great country.



Because the system would collapse if some athletes were paid and others were not.

I don't see why that would happen. There would possibly be less parity, but why collapse? The lower tier schools would still need to get paid their fees for playing the big games. The lower tier schools; however, would now have a chance to compete. Currently they compete for players by showing their non-existent history. With a change you may even see a rich alum buy a team at traditional non-power and make Colgate, for example, into the national champions.



And student athletes are receiving benefits.. the tax laws look upon benefits and the value of said benefits the same as salary and income. The universities are in essence handing each student athlete a check equivalent to the amount of tuition, room and board and books. The student athlete only has the potential to obtain an education.

I'm not saying the kids wouldn't have to pay taxes on their earnings--they would. And the kids are receiving benefits, but you are telling them they can't receive anymore. How would you like it if the Bar Association said you couldn't receive anymore than what it deems fair?




You are completely a free market person?

Yes. I live and work in one of the most free market places in the world. No income tax, light government regulation. The results? #1 in per capita income in the world at just under $76,000 per person.




Let's see if you can see the other side of the coin... why not set forth the potential for abuse and corruption which would result if there were no restrictions whatsoever on paying athletes?

If paying players is now acceptable, why does this lead to abuse and corruption? If anything, there are less sneaky deals for Reggie Bush's parents, QBs who get paid for no work, and UT's running backs won't have to steal TVs.



You know of course as well, you are advocating the abolishment of amateur athletics across the board? There would no longer be the "student athlete" or amateur athlete. High school students would go to the highest bidder. As a Texas alum, theoretically, I wouldn't have much problem with that since UT is one of the wealthiest universities in the country and has a lot of well healed alums. Practically, logically and yes, morally, I have huge issues with it.

The vast majority of sports would still be amateur--I'm not advocating the abolishment of anything other than socialistic rules.

We could broaden the scope to more than just college football, but let's stay on topic. I'm not saying the kids don't still have to go to school--they would still be students. Are you telling me that high school students don't go to the highest bidder today? The bidding may be done differently--the promise of playing time, winning championships, and I'm sure on occasion the under the table payment. I'd rather it all be above the table. Further, you now give the 2nd tier schools the chance to get on top. How much money would Boone Pickens pay to make OSU a great team? I believe it is unAmerican to tell him he can't.

[landrun]

If these kids are going to get paid to play, then they should revoke all scholarships and make them pay their own way through college. Tuition, room & board, books... the whole thing just like every body else. To get a scholarship AND get paid is CRAZY.:mad:

[RedstickSooner]

Dude, why even get into Title IX, and all that stuff?

The dude is flat wrong on his basic, fundamental supposition -- that college football is a huge money maker for the schools. Most of the millions he's talking about that the programs "generate" is money coming from private DONATIONS.

That's not profit, or "earnings" -- it's money which alumni pay specifically to improve the PROGRAM. The basic idea behind dipshiite's plan is to establish a trust fund so that players who *don't* make it to the NFL can cash in on some of those "earnings" the team made.

Earnings which don't exist. Because whatever Jim Booster may desire, it sure as hell ain't to pay for Bill Second String's post-collegiate windfall.

Programs easily spend all the "official" earnings the programs make each season, with only a small fraction of major programs turning an official profit. Meaning, only a few programs break even and turn a profit from their licensing fees, ticket sales, and TV payments.

Sure, some of those programs make a real mint. But it isn't enough, isn't anywhere *near* enough, to pay for the sorts of $100 million renovation programs athletic departments are undertaking. Those are all being funded by athletic foundations. Which, come to think of it, probably exist in large part to get around Title IX, don't they? Meaning - by having those foundations do all the heavy lifting when it comes to spending on football, doesn't that help justify the fact that schools aren't spending even a fraction as much on chick sports?

Anyhow, while I always have low expectations when it comes to the nonsense sports "journalists" will spout, this particular plan seems particularly poorly thought out -- even by sports journalism standards.

[RedstickSooner]

I wouldn't have much problem with that since UT is one of the wealthiest universities in the country and has a lot of well healed alums.

Oh, sure. Rub our noses in your superior medical care.

:D

[Frozen Sooner]

Bowned-tie!

Nice job, Lid.

You dirty goddamn 'horn.

[BermudaSooner]

Let's tackle this from a different angle, as many of you seem to be concerned with who is paying the student-athlete.

Why shouldn't a student-athlete be able to capitalize on his fame/talents why in school?

Why did Jeremy Bloom have to go through all that nonsense with the NCAA regarding his professional skiing career?

Anybody, please explain why you or I, as non student-athletes, can get paid what the market will bear, but yet a student-athlete, because he/she is a student-athlete, can't.

If a student-athlete is a good singer and won American Idol, for example, he probably couldn't accept the recording contract. That is ridiculous.

If I own a car dealership (maybe bad example), I can't pay a student-athlete to come sign autographs to bring customers to my dealership. That is ridiculous.

Why are these kids denied the same rights as the rest of us for the time that they are in school?

[Mongo]

Anyone that says "free ride" and actually believes it is free, does not know anything about a full athletic scholarship.

in the words of ScottD, "this thread amuses me".

[starrca23]

Carl Marx had some ideas, they were summed up neatly in an idea call Communism, just like pay for play, it sounded good on paper, but is impossible to implement because of the human element.

[starclassic tama]

no way should college football players be paid.... these kids get their school 100% paid for, room and board + food 100% paid for. i'm a struggling college kid and after seeing jermaine gresham's "dorm room" on facebook, they are so well off it's not even funny.

[SoonerGM]

Anyone that says "free ride" and actually believes it is free, does not know anything about a full athletic scholarship.

in the words of ScottD, "this thread amuses me".

its got to be better than working full time and getting loans so you can go to school full time, therefore going in to debt for the next 20+ years of your life.

and lets not joke ourselves, some of these guys are getting paid anyway. i mean how is a student athlete from a broke family in the ghetto able to purchase insurance policies on body parts, incase they get hurt before going to the nfl?

[Frozen Sooner]

GM-

I wondered the same thing. The premium on the insurance policy is deferred for a set period of time. If the policy pays out, the premium is deducted from the benefit. If the policy expires, then presumably the player has plenty of money to pay the premium from their signing bonus. The NCAA makes an exception to their rule against obtaining favorable loan terms for this specific case.

[stoopified]

Sports writers should stick to Xs and Os.

The holes in his plan are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them and have room for an Abrams tank following.

First.. has he heard of Title IX? If not, he should review it and understand it first.

The money paid by each D-1 school would have to be equal.. it cannot be based on wins, losses, championships because such a system would be inherently unequal and as a result, unconstitutional. The Non-BCS conferences would have to be included as well. The private schools playing D1 ball would need to be included as well.

Under Title IX, financial assistance must be awarded based on the number of male and female athletes. The test is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes. Further, under Title IX, all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to be equivalent, but not necessarily identical.

The Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act further dictate that "payment of athletes" would have to be equivalent and across the board, regardless of sex and/or sport.

That's right, your lady's lacrosse team would have to be paid in an amount approximately equal to the football players. You may argue, "well Lid, that's not fair.. the lady's lacrosse team doesn't generate any revenue and is in fact, a cash drain on the athletic department.!" Good point.. and completely irrelevant. Under Title IX, the focus is on the necessity for women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.

For some basic info on Title IX.. go here...

http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm

So, if the NCAA isn't likely to be forthcoming with money for athletes where would the money come from? Each states' legislatures would have to find a way to dole money to each university, including private universities, to assure equality. Each state would have to pay the same amount so there is no inequality. The legislatures would only be able to find such money through.. an increase in taxes.

Ok.. so if not the state, the feds could become involved... Congress could enact a new commission to oversee the payment of funds to every student athlete playing Division 1 sports.. but.. again, where does the money come from? Again.. an increase in taxes. And is it really the job of Congress to oversee collegiate athletics? I don't think the framers of our Constitution quite had this in mind!

In short, .. it's not going to happen. You get tuition, room and boad, books and the opportunity to better your life. Take Stanford for example. Tuition, room and board, are going to run you approximately $50,000 a year. The athletes have a tremendous opportunity to better their lifea t little or NO expense to themselves.. and most are NOT going to play pro sports.

Ok.. but you may ask, "Well Lid, what of the coaches being paid millions of dollars and schools bringing in millions of dollars as a result of these student-athletes... is that fair?" Well.. LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Deal with it. As for the coaches.. this is their profession. The ones being paid big bucks are the cream of the crop..they have worked their way up to where they are.. most all have paid their dues and through their excellence and history of work, they have reached the pinnacle. As for the universities.. the money also goes to constructing academic buildings, missions, acquiring reknowned professors, research, development.

Homeslice needs to do his research before spewing forth uninformed tripe. :rolleyes:Yeah,what TexLid said.Can't believe I am agreeing but Lid is right on.

[soonernija]

Imagine how "better off" JW will be now if he had been paid for his heroics in OUr crimson and cream.