Should we pay NCAA players?

[Dogeshak]

I think they should get paid a slight amount of money, nothing too drastic though probably around $10,000 a year depending on academics, athletics and ability to stay out of trouble. Too high or too much ?

[-kj]

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."

I dunno; I don't usually think of Gothamite on the same side as Charger.

Politically, I generally don't agree with Charger... but I find myself leaning more towards his side in this case.

[Gothamite]

I don't know anything about Charger's politics.

They really oughtn't be the issue here anyway.

[IceCap]

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

you should

*shrugs* I like cartoons about transforming alien robots that are primarily made to sell plastic versions of said robots. Who am I to judge?

-------------------------

EDIT- nm, we made it 4 pages before the inferring and name calling started *sets the counter back to zero*

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I don't know anything about Charger's politics.

They really oughtn't be the issue here anyway.

It's interesting that some of the generally pro-unfettered free market guys are for restricting a player's ability to monetize his value, while some of the more pro-regulation guys what the players to have the ability to get every cent coming to them. But I think it's less about economics than it is tradition vs. modernization.

Anyway, I like the idea someone had of allowing players to sell their memorabilia, at the least. And someone said something about the players either being athletes with no free education, or students with a free education and dealing with. Many, many universities offer free or reduced degree programs for their employees as a benefit of their employment. That a quarterback or lineman could be an athletic department employee and attend physics class isn't impossible.

[Lights Out]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

[Lights Out]

The Alabamas and USC's of the world have far, far deeper pockets than, say, the New Mexico States, or even the Iowa States of the world. The "name brand" programs have enough money to survive the losses incurred in a sudden change to paying players. Small-school programs do not by nature of their size and lack of recognition, and they'd have to seriously look at either axing the revenue programs (depriving themselves of a major outlet to promote the school), cutting non-revenue programs (a tricky proposition considering Title IX, current non-revenue athletes not wanting to transfer or give up their sport, anger from the alumni base and parents, etc.), or moving down to FCS. None of those are very good options, in terms of staggering potential losses in promotion and money.

Sure, the NCAA isn't fair, but it also is supposed to work for all schools involved. If a solution hurts more schools than it helps, it can't be done.

[McCall]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that.

[McCall]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that.

That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

[slightly shotgunned]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that.

That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will.

Schools take away their ability to make any money at all for fear that they'll be overpaid. That takes away their free will. To my knowledge no other student on campus is forbidden to take a part-time, or a full-time job if they're paying for school with a scholastic scholarship.

[The_Admiral]

It's virtually impossible to play developmental-level football outside of the NCAA and you know that to be true. The fundamental problem is that higher education should not be in the football/basketball business. They're not really in the baseball business. They're hardly in the hockey business. Baseball has it right, and football has it wrong. Why can't we make it right?

[McCall]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

NCAA is not nor has it ever been or portrayed itself to be a professional league. You may not like the way ot operates, but that does not mean it has to change what it has always been.

Analogy: You're a chef. You have a choice between working at an Italian restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. You want to work at the Chinese one but want the pay and benefits of the Italian one. Does that mean the Italian restaurant has to change to a Chinese restaurant to satisfy your preferences? No.

Players know when they go to college what they are getting, and they have the option to play professionally somewhere else if they don't like the situation there.

[Lights Out]

I'd be all for college football and basketball splitting from the universities and NCAA, as long as the corrupt BCS and idiotic bowl system goes down in flames with it. Of course, there'd still have to be a firm delineation between developmental football and the pros, otherwise they may as well be competing with the NFL.

[McCall]

I definitely think the players should be able to make money off endorsements and have jobs at the school. I also think schools should be able to sell jerseys with names on them (with players receiving a cut of the profit), because let's be honest, the nameless retail jerseys suck. However, I'd stop short of actual salaries based on being a member of a sports team. Like others have said, it creates a mess of who gets how much, etc. and also is simply not feasible for a lot of schools.

Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like.

NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are.

You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students.

No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that.

That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will.

Schools take away their ability to make any money at all for fear that they'll be overpaid. That takes away their free will. To my knowledge no other student on campus is forbidden to take a part-time, or a full-time job if they're paying for school with a scholastic scholarship.

Read back where we've all mostly said we don't have any issue with them working, selling merchandise or getting a stipen that allows them to maintain a student living. You don't blow up the whole thing when some smaller changes can be made.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

NCAA is not nor has it ever been or portrayed itself to be a professional league. You may not like the way ot operates, but that does not mean it has to change what it has always been.

Analogy: You're a chef. You have a choice between working at an Italian restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. You want to work at the Chinese one but want the pay and benefits of the Italian one. Does that mean the Italian restaurant has to change to a Chinese restaurant to satisfy your preferences? No.

Players know when they go to college what they are getting, and they have the option to play professionally somewhere else if they don't like the situation there.

Then what's with the billion-dollar television contracts, the merchandising, and the big-time coaching payouts? I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile the very much pro sports environment and staff payments with the ideal that modern NCAA football is just good ol' inter-collegiate fun times. How is a a network-exclusive television contract congruent with Notre Dame's stated mission of "The University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice, and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice."

[IceCap]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

NCAA is not nor has it ever been or portrayed itself to be a professional league. You may not like the way ot operates, but that does not mean it has to change what it has always been.

Analogy: You're a chef. You have a choice between working at an Italian restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. You want to work at the Chinese one but want the pay and benefits of the Italian one. Does that mean the Italian restaurant has to change to a Chinese restaurant to satisfy your preferences? No.

Players know when they go to college what they are getting, and they have the option to play professionally somewhere else if they don't like the situation there.

Then what's with the billion-dollar television contracts, the merchandising, and the big-time coaching payouts? I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile the very much pro sports environment and staff payments with the ideal that modern NCAA football is just good ol' inter-collegiate fun times. How is a a network-exclusive television contract congruent with Notre Dame's stated mission of "The University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice, and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice."

I think it goes back to what BiB said about it being a sad indictment on our society that we allowed the NCAA to get the point where it is, for all intents and purposes, a professional league. It also goes back to what you said earlier about what should be vs what is.

The NCAA SHOULD be seen as an amateur association. It should be seen as "good ol' inter-collegiate fun." People shouldn't get so wrapped up in kids playing a game to the point where the tv deals are on par with the pro leagues. Ideally I'd like to be able to say that no, you don't pay NCAA athletes because they should be students first and athletes second.

It's a sad indictment, however, that that's not the reality of the situation. Given the money, media, and fan interest involved NCAA football and basketball are essentially pro leagues. I'd like to be able to say that these athletes are students first and football/basketball players second, but that's just not the reality of the situation. It's a reality that everyone's going to have to accept sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner.

Again, I'm not happy about that, because I think it speaks volumes about our society that we allowed inter-collegiate athletics to get to this point, but that's the reality we're stuck with. So we might as well adapt and try to make it as fair for the athletes as possible.

[McCall]

This brings me back to one of my original posts in this thread: either you think the NCAA football is a professional sports organization or you don't. I do, and I don't think it's fair that everyone is profiting except for people risking their current health and future livelihood week after week.

NCAA is not nor has it ever been or portrayed itself to be a professional league. You may not like the way ot operates, but that does not mean it has to change what it has always been.

Analogy: You're a chef. You have a choice between working at an Italian restaurant or a Chinese restaurant. You want to work at the Chinese one but want the pay and benefits of the Italian one. Does that mean the Italian restaurant has to change to a Chinese restaurant to satisfy your preferences? No.

Players know when they go to college what they are getting, and they have the option to play professionally somewhere else if they don't like the situation there.

Then what's with the billion-dollar television contracts, the merchandising, and the big-time coaching payouts? I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile the very much pro sports environment and staff payments with the ideal that modern NCAA football is just good ol' inter-collegiate fun times. How is a a network-exclusive television contract congruent with Notre Dame's stated mission of "The University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice, and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice."

Ok you're just ignoring every point we've made.

A player can go to college and accept a free education as compensation OR go play professionally somewhere. It's their choice and they know what each offers. If they choose college, they are therefore accepting what comes with it. If they feel that's taking advantage of them, then they can choose the other option. See? They have the CHOICE. You can't say, "make a choice and then if you don't like it, we'll change it for YOU".