Should we pay NCAA players?

[charger77]

I also can guarantee that if you were able to live the 4 years of college twice... The first time graduating with $60,000 in loans, but having time AND money for a social life; The second having to pretty much restrict your life 6 days of the week going to film, classes, practice, studying for class, and then studying for football, with just about as close to NO social life as you can get.

Call me crazy, but I think that Miami and Ohio State have proven that you can have quite the social life while playing college football. Especially in Miami.

Hell, check out the social life at most mid-majors.

[infrared41]

I also can guarantee that if you were able to live the 4 years of college twice... The first time graduating with $60,000 in loans, but having time AND money for a social life; The second having to pretty much restrict your life 6 days of the week going to film, classes, practice, studying for class, and then studying for football, with just about as close to NO social life as you can get.

Call me crazy, but I think that Miami and Ohio State have proven that you can have quite the social life while playing college football. Especially in Miami.

Hell, check out the social life at most mid-majors.

It's probably safe to say that Terelle Pryor's rotating stable of cars were used for more than driving to practice and classes.

[BBTV]

See my post right above this one. It's pretty simple - FCS players get their fair cut of the revenue that their programs generate. I'm not sure how to figure it out at that level, but it certainly wouldn't be as much as a BCS program.

Would the students get a cut of the revenue generated or a cut of the profit?

I don't know - I ain't a lawyer! Seriously though, how do the CBAs for the NFL and NBA work? My guess is that it's revenue - the players are like an expense, just like any other employee. At the end of the day, with the number of players that we're talking about, it's not like we're going to be talking about college-aged kids making 6 figure salaries. Just chunk it up by conference, say that the players get 40% or whatever, and divy it out accordingly. I'd like to see seniors get a higher cut than juniors, and so on down the line, to encourage marginal kids to stay in school rather than risk going into the draft. Under my system, a crappy senior backup would get more than a star sophomore running back, but you can only make it so fair. I do not think that it should be done on an individual basis, as that would involve individual contracts which isn't really practical at all.

As for paying women or kids at smaller schools, I don't think it's an issue because for better or worse, they're looked at as expenses, not revenue generators (I'm assuming here - I don't know crap about any of this stuff really). It may not seem fair, but in the "real world", you get paid based on your contributions to the bottom line. It's a life lesson for them - be men, and be faster. I'm being facetious of course, but still - it's a simple matter of dollars and sense here, and I just don't see how it's a complicated issue at all.

As for the "power" conferences getting all the top players, well - yeah. That's kind of the point. All of these conferences are making plays to increase teams and market share in order to secure bigger deals which in my system would give them more to spend on players. There's a finite amount of revenue, and finite number of open player slots. The Big East certainly isn't going to have the same "budget" as the SEC, but there will still be plenty of players who will go there rather than to a MAC school. Just like now - what star player in their right mind would pick a MAC or Mtn West school over a SEC or Pac 10? It's not really going to be any different.

You may see more parity within conferences, as a star player may choose to go to a previously crappy SEC team rather than a good Big East team if the money is that much different (again, I don't think that the money would be so huge of a deal to make that much of an impact between major conferences) but that would only be a good thing IMO.

[Gothamite]

As for paying women or kids at smaller schools, I don't think it's an issue because for better or worse, they're looked at as expenses, not revenue generators (I'm assuming here - I don't know crap about any of this stuff really). It may not seem fair, but in the "real world", you get paid based on your contributions to the bottom line. It's a life lesson for them - be men, and be faster. I'm being facetious of course, but still - it's a simple matter of dollars and sense here, and I just don't see how it's a complicated issue at all.

You don't think Title IX would make that proposition just a little bit complicated?

[charger77]

See my post right above this one. It's pretty simple - FCS players get their fair cut of the revenue that their programs generate. I'm not sure how to figure it out at that level, but it certainly wouldn't be as much as a BCS program.

Would the students get a cut of the revenue generated or a cut of the profit?

I don't know - I ain't a lawyer! Seriously though, how do the CBAs for the NFL and NBA work? My guess is that it's revenue - the players are like an expense, just like any other employee.

My follow up questions to that would be: Would the free school = "their share" of the revenue? What if the price of their education = more than "their share" would they have to pay back? What if a team looses money one year would they have to pay back the school?

As for paying women or kids at smaller schools, I don't think it's an issue because for better or worse, they're looked at as expenses, not revenue generators (I'm assuming here - I don't know crap about any of this stuff really). It may not seem fair, but in the "real world", you get paid based on your contributions to the bottom line. It's a life lesson for them - be men, and be faster. I'm being facetious of course, but still - it's a simple matter of dollars and sense here, and I just don't see how it's a complicated issue at all.

You don't think Title IX would make that proposition just a little bit complicated?

Finally, somebody brings that up!

[BBTV]

See my post right above this one. It's pretty simple - FCS players get their fair cut of the revenue that their programs generate. I'm not sure how to figure it out at that level, but it certainly wouldn't be as much as a BCS program.

Would the students get a cut of the revenue generated or a cut of the profit?

I don't know - I ain't a lawyer! Seriously though, how do the CBAs for the NFL and NBA work? My guess is that it's revenue - the players are like an expense, just like any other employee.

My follow up questions to that would be: Would the free school = "their share" of the revenue? What if the price of their education = more than "their share" would they have to pay back? What if a team looses money one year would they have to pay back the school?

Would the free school = "their share" of the revenue?

-That's an excellent point. I don't know - I'm just posting opinions on a message board, not drawing up a CBA between the SECPA and the SEC. I could see the argument either way. Off the top of my head, you could:

1. since my labor deals are done on a per-conference basis, you calculate an average tuition cost for all of the schools in the conference and deduct that from whatever they'd get (that way a super expensive school doesn't have an advantage over a less expensive school)

2. or... just use that as justification for giving them 40% instead of 45% of revenue (whatever the numbers would be)

3. or... just throw the education in like it is now. I don't think that you can look at a 20k tuition as a "salary", because you still don't have any money and a football program's contribution is worth (IMO) far more to the school than the 20k tuition is worth to the player (in many cases - certainly not all.)\

4. just pay them and make them pay for their own tuition at the average rate just like any other kid holding a job. I'd have to believe that under this system, they'd still make some money over the tuition cost. If not, then the conference isn't generating a lot of revenue anyway and therefore isn't part of this discussion.

I really think that we're overvaluing the free education here. In many if not most cases, they're not getting the same quality of education as a true full-time student. We can sit and bitch about it all day, but at the end of the day, we just want to see them run fast. Putting as many study hours in as a typical student would probably lower the quality of football some. Sure, they can get a "degree" - but are they really getting an "education"? "well that's their fault". I don't know - it's tough to say how much you'd study if you were a great athlete with NFL dreams who could get pvssy all day long. I'd have to think that this is one of those cases where normal people can't really say how seriously they'd take class.

What if the price of their education = more than "their share" would they have to pay back?

Of course not. That would be worse for them than it is now.

What if a team looses money one year would they have to pay back the school?

That would never happen. With the TV contracts in place, the major conference schools effectively know at a minimum what they'll be getting. Plus, they split up their bowl money, and other revenue. If school is losing money, it probably isn't in a major revenue producing conference and isn't part of this discussion.

[charger77]

According to WSU's link, in 2010 Florida State's football team had an $807,000 profit. The team's website indicates that they have 113 players on their roster.

I think we would all agree that Florida State is a Major program.

$807,000 divided between 113 players works out to be $7,141 per player. That is assuming after all bills, coaching and staff salaries are paid.

Two questions here:

#1 Do all players get an equal share or do some get paid more than others?

#2 According to the FSU website The cost for one year of tuition, room and board + all extra fees at FSU is $20,060 (in state) $36,000 (out of state) a year. The difference between free school and a players share of $807,000 is $18,739.43 (in state) $28,859 (out of state). Keeping that in mind: Should football players at Florida State be paid as the cost of their schooling is more than their share of $807,000?

*I actually did that break down for a handful of schools on that list. Most students that played for a school in their state came out ahead, most students that played at a school out of their state came out way ahead when using the formula of (Tuition + Room & Board) - (Profit/# of players on the team)

[Epiphanic]

The question being asked is wrong. We shouldn't be asking if NCAA players be paid. We should be asking if NCAA players be paid more. Through scholarships and other stuff provided by the university, collegiate athletes are already being paid. Just through non-monetary means. High-profile collegians have celebrity status. Why should they not be allowed to cash in on their celebrity if people are willing to pay for it?

The institutions themselves don't need to provide any more compensation than they are already providing to their athletes. But if outside organizations (not affiliated with the institutions or the NCAA) wish to provide extra perks/compensation to athletes of their choosing, should they be barred from doing so? Should the athletes be barred from accepting extra perks/compensation? I have a hard time rationalizing why an Ohio State football player shouldn't be allowed to sign a football in exchange for a tattoo.

[BBTV]

According to WSU's link, in 2010 Florida State's football team had an $807,000 profit. The team's website indicates that they have 113 players on their roster.

I think we would all agree that Florida State is a Major program.

$807,000 divided between 113 players works out to be $7,141 per player. That is assuming after all bills, coaching and staff salaries are paid.

Two questions here:

#1 Do all players get an equal share or do some get paid more than others?

#2 According to the FSU website The cost for one year of tuition, room and board + all extra fees at FSU is $20,060 a year. The difference between free school and a players share of $807,000 is $18,739.43 Keeping that in mind. Should football players at Florida State be paid as the cost of their schooling is more than their share of $807,000?

I haven't read WSU's link, but that "profit" probably includes millions paid to coaches. In the brave new world, things would have to be a little more equitable. In the NFL, the stars make far more than the coaches. I'm not suggesting for a second that a guy who's going to play there for 2 or 3 years is as important as a coach who's a good recruiter and good runner of a program, but you wouldn't have Urban Meyers making >5M / year either.

Also, with all of the realignment talk, we keep hearing about how each school's cut of a major TV deal is in the Ms. There's far to much TV exposure, and bowl money for me to believe that a FSU is only making that much money. If teams can pay their coaches millions, that's got to be coming from somewhere.

I think the NFL players get a percentage of football-related revenue, not profits. So an athletic department's budget would have to factor that accordingly, and not pay someone who coaches teenagers 5M/year.

[charger77]

I think the NFL players get a percentage of football-related revenue, not profits. So an athletic department's budget would have to factor that accordingly, and not pay someone who coaches teenagers 5M/year.

The revenue generated provided $2,266,780 in scholarships to their 113 players which had an effect on the overall profit and made it seem lower that one might think.

[WSU151]

The question being asked is wrong. We shouldn't be asking if NCAA players be paid. We should be asking if NCAA players be paid more. Through scholarships and other stuff provided by the university, collegiate athletes are already being paid. Just through non-monetary means. High-profile collegians have celebrity status. Why should they not be allowed to cash in on their celebrity if people are willing to pay for it?

The institutions themselves don't need to provide any more compensation than they are already providing to their athletes. But if outside organizations (not affiliated with the institutions or the NCAA) wish to provide extra perks/compensation to athletes of their choosing, should they be barred from doing so? Should the athletes be barred from accepting extra perks/compensation? I have a hard time rationalizing why an Ohio State football player shouldn't be allowed to sign a football in exchange for a tattoo.

Where do you draw the line in terms of compensation and why? If there's no line, then it's just minor league football.

[McCall]

See my post right above this one. It's pretty simple - FCS players get their fair cut of the revenue that their programs generate. I'm not sure how to figure it out at that level, but it certainly wouldn't be as much as a BCS program.

Would the students get a cut of the revenue generated or a cut of the profit?

I don't know - I ain't a lawyer! Seriously though, how do the CBAs for the NFL and NBA work? My guess is that it's revenue - the players are like an expense, just like any other employee.

My follow up questions to that would be: Would the free school = "their share" of the revenue? What if the price of their education = more than "their share" would they have to pay back? What if a team looses money one year would they have to pay back the school?

As for paying women or kids at smaller schools, I don't think it's an issue because for better or worse, they're looked at as expenses, not revenue generators (I'm assuming here - I don't know crap about any of this stuff really). It may not seem fair, but in the "real world", you get paid based on your contributions to the bottom line. It's a life lesson for them - be men, and be faster. I'm being facetious of course, but still - it's a simple matter of dollars and sense here, and I just don't see how it's a complicated issue at all.

You don't think Title IX would make that proposition just a little bit complicated?

Finally, somebody brings that up!

Oh, no, I brought it up in the other thread, but admiral deemed it as me "cowardly avoiding taking a position".

[McCall]

The question being asked is wrong. We shouldn't be asking if NCAA players be paid. We should be asking if NCAA players be paid more. Through scholarships and other stuff provided by the university, collegiate athletes are already being paid. Just through non-monetary means. High-profile collegians have celebrity status. Why should they not be allowed to cash in on their celebrity if people are willing to pay for it?

The institutions themselves don't need to provide any more compensation than they are already providing to their athletes. But if outside organizations (not affiliated with the institutions or the NCAA) wish to provide extra perks/compensation to athletes of their choosing, should they be barred from doing so? Should the athletes be barred from accepting extra perks/compensation? I have a hard time rationalizing why an Ohio State football player shouldn't be allowed to sign a football in exchange for a tattoo.

Where do you draw the line in terms of compensation and why? If there's no line, then it's just minor league football.

Yeah, just create a minor league if you want to allow players to be paid and all before the NFL. Don't try to falsely claim that collegiate athletes, I'm sorry, collegiate football and men's basketball players only, are professionals because every advantage that they have over every other student and student-athlete is still not good enough for these golden gods.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Why are you taking this so personally? It's just sports talk.

[Brian in Boston]

The fact that the question which provides this thread with a title is even being asked is a clear sign that many colleges and universities nationwide have completely lost sight of their primary objective - namely, educating students. That a form of extracurricular activity - intercollegiate sports - has become the proverbial "cart driving the horse" on college campuses is an indictment of both the leadership at said institutions and our society as a whole. Our priorities are seriously out of whack when watching teenaged and young-adult athletes engage in competition is the basis for a multi-billion-dollar industry. Worse still, a multi-billion-dollar industry in which academic institutions are complicit in treating a specific category of students - so-called student-athletes - as a product.

[TheOldRoman]

I haven't read WSU's link, but that "profit" probably includes millions paid to coaches. In the brave new world, things would have to be a little more equitable. In the NFL, the stars make far more than the coaches. I'm not suggesting for a second that a guy who's going to play there for 2 or 3 years is as important as a coach who's a good recruiter and good runner of a program, but you wouldn't have Urban Meyers making >5M / year either.

Also, with all of the realignment talk, we keep hearing about how each school's cut of a major TV deal is in the Ms. There's far to much TV exposure, and bowl money for me to believe that a FSU is only making that much money. If teams can pay their coaches millions, that's got to be coming from somewhere.

I think the NFL players get a percentage of football-related revenue, not profits. So an athletic department's budget would have to factor that accordingly, and not pay someone who coaches teenagers 5M/year.

All other considerations aside, if players received a percentage of the football related revenue, that would completely kill all but 40 teams or so. People bitch now because of the BCS not being equitable, yet this would make things much worse. The powerhouses make far more money than other schools, therefore, no decent players would choose schools outside of the top teir of the BCS conference. Hell, it could kill off a large percentage of the BCS schools, too. Texas made $93 million in 2009 and the next closest school (Georgia) made $70 mil. My alma mater Illinois made about $44 mil, I believe. Kids going to Texas would make over twice as much as those going to Illinois. The Texases and Alabamas of the world can only have so many players, but if I was a decent athlete, I would choose to be a 6th stringer on Texas instead of starting at say, TCU or Virginia because I would make much more money that way. That doesn't make the game better for anyone.

[BBTV]

I haven't read WSU's link, but that "profit" probably includes millions paid to coaches. In the brave new world, things would have to be a little more equitable. In the NFL, the stars make far more than the coaches. I'm not suggesting for a second that a guy who's going to play there for 2 or 3 years is as important as a coach who's a good recruiter and good runner of a program, but you wouldn't have Urban Meyers making >5M / year either.

Also, with all of the realignment talk, we keep hearing about how each school's cut of a major TV deal is in the Ms. There's far to much TV exposure, and bowl money for me to believe that a FSU is only making that much money. If teams can pay their coaches millions, that's got to be coming from somewhere.

I think the NFL players get a percentage of football-related revenue, not profits. So an athletic department's budget would have to factor that accordingly, and not pay someone who coaches teenagers 5M/year.

All other considerations aside, if players received a percentage of the football related revenue, that would completely kill all but 40 teams or so. People bitch now because of the BCS not being equitable, yet this would make things much worse. The powerhouses make far more money than other schools, therefore, no decent players would choose schools outside of the top teir of the BCS conference. Hell, it could kill off a large percentage of the BCS schools, too. Texas made $93 million in 2009 and the next closest school (Georgia) made $70 mil. My alma mater Illinois made about $44 mil, I believe. Kids going to Texas would make over twice as much as those going to Illinois. The Texases and Alabamas of the world can only have so many players, but if I was a decent athlete, I would choose to be a 6th stringer on Texas instead of starting at say, TCU or Virginia because I would make much more money that way. That doesn't make the game better for anyone.

There's only so many slots, so the second-tier schools would still get good players because taking less "salary" but having more of a chance to start and get drafted would win out for a lot of players.

Even still, so what? Before we go any further, if it's not known, it should be known that I couldn't care less about college sports and don't even watch, so I'm looking at this from a purely pragmatic perspective as opposed to from a "fan" perspective. I couldn't care less about competitive balance or anything like that, though I believe that under my system there would be more competitive balance, because revenues would be pulled and distributed on a conference level, so in theory, Iowa State (they're big 12, right?) is on the same level as Texas from a recruiting perspective. Of course I'm being idealistic and I know it's not as easy as instituting a simple revenue sharing system and so forth, but again, this is just message board fodder - though IMO I think it's good message board fodder. Schools like Texas are always going to bring in more revenue, and whatever system was devised would have to separate "Texas" revenue from "BIG 12 revenue" when it came to the distributions. Texas wouldn't be allowed to pay its players any more than any other Big 12 school.

So what if you have a system where the Big 12 is the "major" league, Pac 12 and SEC are AAA, and Big East is some lower "tier". This is about dollars and sense (intended), not about the sport. Of course, it's been that way for the last decade or so anyway, so I'm just proposing taking the next step.

As for Title IX, as long as schools still sponsor sports for girls, would there really be an issue? If the football and basketball players are "employees", would it even be a Title IX thing? That's the kind of stuff that would all have to get worked out. Again, I'm just a dude on a message board, not a lawyer drafting up a CBA. However, the second these kids do become "employees", they have to organize, or they'll get walked over.

[Epiphanic]

The question being asked is wrong. We shouldn't be asking if NCAA players be paid. We should be asking if NCAA players be paid more. Through scholarships and other stuff provided by the university, collegiate athletes are already being paid. Just through non-monetary means. High-profile collegians have celebrity status. Why should they not be allowed to cash in on their celebrity if people are willing to pay for it?

The institutions themselves don't need to provide any more compensation than they are already providing to their athletes. But if outside organizations (not affiliated with the institutions or the NCAA) wish to provide extra perks/compensation to athletes of their choosing, should they be barred from doing so? Should the athletes be barred from accepting extra perks/compensation? I have a hard time rationalizing why an Ohio State football player shouldn't be allowed to sign a football in exchange for a tattoo.

Where do you draw the line in terms of compensation and why? If there's no line, then it's just minor league football.

I'd be fine with drawing the line at scholarships from the institution. Basically what the system is now. Universities offer scholarships (both academic and athletic) because they feel that student will be an asset to the institution. What I'm asking is why should students be barred from accepting further compensation that comes from outside the institution? Essentially, why should things like "tattoogate" be a scandal?

There seems to be an assumption that any additional "wages" athletes would earn would come from the universities themselves. Why?

The fact that the question which provides this thread with a title is even being asked is a clear sign that many colleges and universities nationwide have completely lost sight of their primary objective - namely, educating students.

Educating students costs money. College athletics helps bring in money.

[McCall]

The question being asked is wrong. We shouldn't be asking if NCAA players be paid. We should be asking if NCAA players be paid more. Through scholarships and other stuff provided by the university, collegiate athletes are already being paid. Just through non-monetary means. High-profile collegians have celebrity status. Why should they not be allowed to cash in on their celebrity if people are willing to pay for it?

The institutions themselves don't need to provide any more compensation than they are already providing to their athletes. But if outside organizations (not affiliated with the institutions or the NCAA) wish to provide extra perks/compensation to athletes of their choosing, should they be barred from doing so? Should the athletes be barred from accepting extra perks/compensation? I have a hard time rationalizing why an Ohio State football player shouldn't be allowed to sign a football in exchange for a tattoo.

Where do you draw the line in terms of compensation and why? If there's no line, then it's just minor league football.

I'd be fine with drawing the line at scholarships from the institution. Basically what the system is now. Universities offer scholarships (both academic and athletic) because they feel that student will be an asset to the institution. What I'm asking is why should students be barred from accepting further compensation that comes from outside the institution? Essentially, why should things like "tattoogate" be a scandal?

There seems to be an assumption that any additional "wages" athletes would earn would come from the universities themselves. Why?

I have no problem with them being able to hold part-time jobs or sell their own personal property. Endorsements are a touchy subject, so I'm not really going to venture into that right now. Benefits such as gifts from boosters or agents should still be against the rules.

[BBTV]

Who are these "boosters" anyway, and what do they get from slipping some 18-year-old a briefcase full of money? That's one thing I've never understood - why does someone with no affiliation to the program care that damn much that they're lining up to do that? The whole "Blue Chips" movie scenario really doesn't make sense to me.