Should we pay NCAA players?

[BBTV]

And what choice do they have besides signing the waiver? And if the education was that valuable, then wouldn't the most expensive schools be the ones getting the best players, because it'd be like playing for 60k/year as opposed to playing for 20k or even less at some schools? I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school. Sports really shouldn't be as big of a business as it is, and if it wasn't, we wouldn't even be having these discussions. But it is, and we are - and we have to.

[dfwabel]

These players also have the option of passing on the sports and free schooling and paying for college like everybody else does.

Right, because when being presented with an athletic scholarship, we'd all think "gee, I do have the option of blowing off 4 years of continuing to play a sport I like to play and I am good at while getting a free college education and all the ancillary benefits that come with it, just so I can continue to be just like everyone else."

C'mon -Dan.

Which was my point: That free school and all the benefits that go with being a college athlete are worth it and do not require a salary.

Oh, well then it's just that simple. These are 18-20 year-old students with parents who aren't struggling with bills and teach their children to get that free education and not take the $500 check that arrived in their mailbox in a blank envelope because the education is more important than the money and anyone who would value the money over the education is just being greedy.

I'm sure that describes every single college athlete.

In the interest of not going this route, I'm going to back up and not be sarcastic in my response.

To restate, I don't think the solution is as simple as saying, "the education is worth it" and closing the book on the issue. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It's been said over and over again already, but right now, college sport is no longer about world class students who are also athletes. Do they need a salary like they're professionals? I don't think so, but if they are restricted from making money on their own and we want to cut down on some of the corruption that is the worst kept secret in sports, then something has to give. The way I see it: either start to pay them outright, continue to pay them under the table, or let them find a source of income on their own.

I say, if we're worried about outside elements giving kids too much money for not enough work, have them work through the school. A lot of work done in bursars offices is pretty light during non-enrollment months, isn't it? The dining halls are always looking for student labor, right? Let them do that kind of stuff. It's an income source and it's not one that could overpay without anyone noticing.

Another thing, are athletes required to live on-campus if they're on scholarship? I'm asking because I don't know. I'd say make that a requirement as well if it isn't already. Kids don't have to pay rent, then they have no need for money for rent.

Again though, should they be compensated for the use of their likeness in video games and/or for the sale of their replica jerseys...I say they should. Don't know how you'd do it, but in no other case (that I know of) is it acceptable to have your likeness used without your permission and/or without compensation.

I don't think that anybody here would have a problem with any student athlete having a legit job in the off season months.

You know who would have a problem? The coaching staff, specifically football. They want as much control over their athletes as possible and it still funnels onto off-season workouts. There was a time in which the player would go home and work on the family farm, but that is long gone. I've seen on-campus applicants for summer jobs from every sport offered, but rarely football unless that player is out of eligibility and can work part-time in the winter semester.

[infrared41]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

[slightly shotgunned]

In the interest of not going this route, I'm going to back up and not be sarcastic in my response.

To restate, I don't think the solution is as simple as saying, "the education is worth it" and closing the book on the issue. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It's been said over and over again already, but right now, college sport is no longer about world class students who are also athletes. Do they need a salary like they're professionals? I don't think so, but if they are restricted from making money on their own and we want to cut down on some of the corruption that is the worst kept secret in sports, then something has to give. The way I see it: either start to pay them outright, continue to pay them under the table, or let them find a source of income on their own.

I say, if we're worried about outside elements giving kids too much money for not enough work, have them work through the school. A lot of work done in bursars offices is pretty light during non-enrollment months, isn't it? The dining halls are always looking for student labor, right? Let them do that kind of stuff. It's an income source and it's not one that could overpay without anyone noticing.

Another thing, are athletes required to live on-campus if they're on scholarship? I'm asking because I don't know. I'd say make that a requirement as well if it isn't already. Kids don't have to pay rent, then they have no need for money for rent.

Again though, should they be compensated for the use of their likeness in video games and/or for the sale of their replica jerseys...I say they should. Don't know how you'd do it, but in no other case (that I know of) is it acceptable to have your likeness used without your permission and/or without compensation.

I don't think that anybody here would have a problem with any student athlete having a legit job in the off season months. Additionally, I was told by a friend of mine that coached Big Ten basketball that the players sign a release that their image can be used in promotional materials, videos, games, etc... Acatually, at most colleges all students sign a similiar waiver at their freshman orientation that states pretty much that.

I was told by several sources that coach various levels of college basketball and football (NAIA d2 through NCAA "BCS" d1) that is the case, so I know the legalities. What I'm actually asking is, do they deserve a cut of that money? I can't imagine it would be substantial, but I don't know how much the schools get from game sales.

[McCall]

And what choice do they have besides signing the waiver? And if the education was that valuable, then wouldn't the most expensive schools be the ones getting the best players, because it'd be like playing for 60k/year as opposed to playing for 20k or even less at some schools? I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school. Sports really shouldn't be as big of a business as it is, and if it wasn't, we wouldn't even be having these discussions. But it is, and we are - and we have to.

Playing somewhere else. Overseas. CFL. Anywhere they're allowed to. They may not like those options, but hey, at least they have the choice. You can't just complain and whine because the place you want to play isn't exactly how you want it. There are options. You can't have everything EXACTLY your way.

And on the replica jersey sales thing, the uniforms are property of the school and since no names are featured on the jerseys sold, the players have no claim to any money made off of it. They usually only sell them in one number for a team anyway. Now the player's image being used, that's another situation. I don't necessarily mind if they're paid for that. It's basically modeling, not basketball. Seems more of a "side job" than pontentially complicating their amateur status.

[BBTV]

Aren't GPA / SAT requirements for athletes much lower than they are for normal students at many (if not most) colleges? That right there should say something - they bend their own rules to get these guys in. Why? Because they know that they can make money from them. It's not to "give them a chance". That right there should show that it's not really a scholastic venture anymore. Some of these kids are getting in to colleges that they're just not equipped to make it through, be it because of their overall intelligence level, their work ethic, prior schooling, or whatever. In at least some cases, these kids have no shot. At some schools, it's basically a professional team being run under the banner of the institution, certainly not a group of kids that any rational graduate can sit back and feel is "representing" them (whatever that means.)

[Gothamite]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

[infrared41]

And on the replica jersey sales thing, the uniforms are property of the school and since no names are featured on the jerseys sold, the players have no claim to any money made off of it. They usually only sell them in one number for a team anyway. Now the player's image being used, that's another situation. I don't necessarily mind if they're paid for that. It's basically modeling, not basketball. Seems more of a "side job" than pontentially complicating their amateur status.

Is that so? These are all available at OhioStateBuckeyes.com

Show any one of these to any Ohio State fan and ask whose jersey it is.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

It's impossible to prove, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that some level of jealousy is driving some people's opinions. It wouldn't be the first time for that subtext to be involved in a conversation about athlete compensation.

[infrared41]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

Fair enough, but I think Vet made a valid point. It does sound like that at times.

[IceCap]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

Fair enough, but I think Vet made a valid point. It does sound like that at times.

I don't think he does.

Maybe I missed something, but no one here is advocating the removal of athletic scholarships. Even the people who take the position that NCAA athletes shouldn't be paid (a point I can understand, even if I don't agree with it) seem to agree that they should be compensated with free university education. I just don't see where BBTV's "you're just jealous" argument comes from. Everyone seems to be in agreement that these university athletes deserve some kind of compensation, be it monetary or otherwise.

On that point Vet has a bad habit. He's very well spoken, obviously intelligent, and more times then not he makes great points. It's just that the "I'm better then you and here's why you're a severely flawed person for disagreeing with me/annoying me" online persona tends to undermine a lot of great points he brings up.

[Gothamite]

It's impossible to prove, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that some level of jealousy is driving some people's opinions. It wouldn't be the first time for that subtext to be involved in a conversation about athlete compensation.

As you say, impossible to prove. And therefore irrelevant.

All it does is add unprovoked personal attacks to the discussion, which is never cool.

[BBTV]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

Fair enough, but I think Vet made a valid point. It does sound like that at times.

I don't think he does.

Maybe I missed something, but no one here is advocating the removal of athletic scholarships. Even the people who take the position that NCAA athletes shouldn't be paid (a point I can understand, even if I don't agree with it) seem to agree that they should be compensated with free university education. I just don't see where BBTV's "you're just jealous" argument comes from. Everyone seems to be in agreement that these university athletes deserve some kind of compensation, be it monetary or otherwise.

On that point Vet has a bad habit. He's very well spoken, obviously intelligent, and more times then not he makes great points. It's just that the "I'm better then you and here's why you're a severely flawed person for disagreeing with me/annoying me" online persona tends to undermine a lot of great points he brings up.

At least I haven't resorted to calling anyone "sparky".

[IceCap]

I really think that some people are just bitter that seemingly dumb kids can theoretically get a degree from the same school that they had to take out loans to attend, and they want to make things as difficult and unfair on these players as possible because it somehow justifies the sacrifice they made to attend the same school.

It sure sounds like that at times.

If you have to make claims about posters themselves, and not the argument, then you're losing the argument. Come on, you guys are better than that.

Let's keep it on point, shall we?

Fair enough, but I think Vet made a valid point. It does sound like that at times.

I don't think he does.

Maybe I missed something, but no one here is advocating the removal of athletic scholarships. Even the people who take the position that NCAA athletes shouldn't be paid (a point I can understand, even if I don't agree with it) seem to agree that they should be compensated with free university education. I just don't see where BBTV's "you're just jealous" argument comes from. Everyone seems to be in agreement that these university athletes deserve some kind of compensation, be it monetary or otherwise.

On that point Vet has a bad habit. He's very well spoken, obviously intelligent, and more times then not he makes great points. It's just that the "I'm better then you and here's why you're a severely flawed person for disagreeing with me/annoying me" online persona tends to undermine a lot of great points he brings up.

At least I haven't resorted to calling anyone "sparky".

And I haven't demanded high schoolers seek therapy for liking a show about talking horses.

To your point though, since you brought it to my attention I've thought about it, and I've refrained from using that term. Why? You had a good point. Consider this a similar courtesy.

[infrared41]

On that point Vet has a bad habit. He's very well spoken, obviously intelligent, and more times then not he makes great points. It's just that the "I'm better then you and here's why you're a severely flawed person for disagreeing with me/annoying me" online persona tends to undermine a lot of great points he brings up.

I think Vet will agree that few people have called him on that more times than I have. He'd probably also agree that rare is the instance where I take his side on something like this. That said, in my opinion, some of the posts in this thread read a helluva lot like his description of them. It's the way we both interpret it. I think it's patently unfair to tell us that our interpretation is nothing more than a "personal attack." Could he have worded it in a less "Vet-like" manner? Sure, but his wording doesn't lessen the validity of his opinion.

Anyway, Gothamite is correct. We'll get nowhere digressing to an argument over the intent behind a post.

[BBTV]

For what it's worth, there's another point that I've wanted to make for a while, and I've consciously held back on it because despite my belief, there is no concrete evidence to point to that would justify my assumption. So basically it's just an unsupported hunch, so I haven't started trouble by bringing it up. I feel differently about the jealousy thing - I think there's been several posts both in this thread and in the other thread where people just seem to be butthurt about what they went through to get through school. I don't think that I'm losing the argument at all (though it appears to be turning in to one of those political things where nobody's mind will ever be turned. Speaking of which - isn't it funny how people's feelings on this topic seem to side along political lines?)

[IceCap]

On that point Vet has a bad habit. He's very well spoken, obviously intelligent, and more times then not he makes great points. It's just that the "I'm better then you and here's why you're a severely flawed person for disagreeing with me/annoying me" online persona tends to undermine a lot of great points he brings up.

I think Vet will agree that few people have called him on that more times than I have. He'd probably also agree that rare is the instance where I take his side on something like this. That said, in my opinion, some of the posts in this thread read a helluva lot like his description of them. It's the way we both interpret it. I think it's patently unfair to tell us that our interpretation is nothing more than a "personal attack." Could he have worded it in a less "Vet-like" manner? Sure, but his wording doesn't lessen the validity of his opinion.

Anyway, Gothamite is correct. We'll get nowhere digressing to an argument over the intent behind a post.

Agreed.

So back to the point behind the post. I'm still not seeing where this "jealousy" thing comes from. Even people in this thread who are against paying university athletes agree that they should be compensated somehow. Be it the ability to capitalize on their fame around town, or simply the ability to receive a university education free of charge. If someone was taking the position of "there shouldn't be scholarships for these athletes/cut the funding for university athletics" then yeah, the jealousy argument would hold water. Again, maybe I've missed something in this thread, but no one seems to be taking that position. Sure, people have bitched about how hard they had it paying for university, but no one's saying "deny athletes the opportunities they have enjoyed up to this point."

So where are the claims of jealousy coming from?

[McCall]

If players ought to be paid like employess, as some have expressed, fine. Then they can do the following:

- Payback or forfeit any free education/scholarships they are recieving from the university.

- Forfeit free room and board.

- Pay taxes on their "salary".

Of course, since the NCAA could still require that all participants be students, they would have to enroll in the school in which they desired to play. Therefore, they would have to do the following:

- Pay full tuition as they are no longer elgible for scholarships.

- Attend classes.

- Pay for a place to live as they are no longer elgible for free room and board.

- Still pay taxes. They're being paid an income, right?

Wow. I guess that is better than recieving all of the things they currently do.

And since there are a lot of team members who have no expectations of playing professionally, how are they going to determine who gets paid and who doesn't?

[slightly shotgunned]

If players ought to be paid like employess, as some have expressed, fine. Then they can do the following:

- Payback or forfeit any free education/scholarships they are recieving from the university.

- Forfeit free room and board.

- Pay taxes on their "salary".

Of course, since the NCAA could still require that all participants be students, they would have to enroll in the school in which they desired to play. Therefore, they would have to do the following:

- Pay full tuition as they are no longer elgible for scholarships.

- Attend classes.

- Pay for a place to live as they are no longer elgible for free room and board.

- Still pay taxes. They're being paid an income, right?

Wow. I guess that is better than recieving all of the things they currently do.

And since there are a lot of team members who have no expectations of playing professionally, how are they going to determine who gets paid and who doesn't?

...The free education and room and food does not stop players from taking money on the side and costing institutions in the future when the truth is revealed. So clearly, it doesn't have the value that you seem to think it does to the players that take the money.

Not only that, your sarcastic solution doesn't even begin to sovle that problem. Even if you treat student athletes like professionals, there'd be no real way to regulate what would constitute a signing bonus or incentive bonus. You wouldn't stop students from taking fluff courses and being given their grades...and what's to stop a school from giving out their own scholastic scholarships to athletes that fit the criteria of the award?

The reality is just not that simple.

[The_Admiral]

I haven't demanded high schoolers seek therapy for liking a show about talking horses.

you should

Speaking of which - isn't it funny how people's feelings on this topic seem to side along political lines?)

I noticed that too. I mean, it's not a perfect split, but, like, show of hands if you srsly thought Charger and McCall wouldn't say "they're students getting free educations, they're amateurs, and that's good enough for me, harumph."