| 0 |
Subject: Paid to Play
Posted by: Great One
- Sustainer [053272014] Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 11:11
After hearing during the Duke game last night that NCAA is nearing an aggrement to pay players a small sum of money (those that qualify based on need)... I'd like to hear some thoughts here on paying NCAA athletes.
Which side of the fence are you on and why? Do they get "paid" with their scholarship? How many hours a week does a college athlete devote to the school? Is that 15-20K in scholarships to "do their job" (represent the school) a fair amount?
What is impact of a successful college athletic program on the school as a whole? i.e. Did interest in Appalachian St. go through the roof after their upset win? How many $ in advertising is getting your name on a March Madness bracket or Bowl game worth? |
| 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 12:17
|
Personally, as someone who has been paying off student loans for the last 8 years and will be paying them off for another 12, I think I would have been okay with playing a sport in exchange for a free education and nothing else.
I wish some agency would poll student-athletes about this. I wonder what the percentages would look like when you compared athletes likely headed to the pros to athletes who know they're there to get a degree because there's no pros after they're done.
I have a suspicion what the differences would be. You don't see many student-athletes with no shot at the pros forgoing their senior season, do you?
I think the students that are there to be true student-athletes are probably more than okay with getting a free education in return. The "student"-athletes with dollar signs in their eyes probably want to get paid because they're not really there for an education anyhow. And if that's the case, I don't see why colleges should cater to the ones that are only there to use the college as a stepping stone to the pros.
|
| 2 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 12:51
|
The vast majority are going pro in something other than sports! :)
|
| 3 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:07
|
well put kkb. i argued this point with dick vitale one time and people were agreeing with me.
|
| 4 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:08
|
Here is the case where I could see where they are coming from.
Kid from a poor family earns a scholarship... now he has his books, credits, room and board paid for. Thats awesome. But they just don't have any money coming from the family and he has no time to get a job (or can't anyway) because of NCAA and his sport consuming so much of their day.
So how is this kid getting a little cash in his pocket to go the movies or split a pizza etc. Do they let him take a loan out of some sort at least for day to day expenses?
I realize most kids can at least have their parents float them 100 bucks a week or something and thats fine. But if these other kids meet this type of qualification I described above, shouldn't they be eligible to get an "allowance" or something like that from the University?
If they are devoting 40+ hours a week to their sport - who is then "paying" them say 15-20K in tuition etc - that still seems like they aren't getting paid enough. And lets be honest too, its not like the college is really paying that money. They aren't cutting a check to the admissions dept. They are just letting a few extra kids sit in each class. Its not costing them much at all.
|
| 5 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:15
|
Actually the athletics dept. does have to pay the University for all of those expenses. In turn the athletics dept budget is set and paid by the university. So while it may be filtering back, the athletics dept. still must raise the money to pay for those fees. At a state school for instance, they save quite a bit of money for an in-state student. The athletics dept. has boosters galore to help them raise money for athletics expenses well-beyond what is budgeted for them.
|
| 6 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:21
|
I wonder how that money is spread from the cash cows like basketball/football to the other sports like rowing, track, lacrosse etc.
Is it evenly distributed to all the sports or do they put it back into their own?
Rutgers may be a good example of an expansion in their athletic dept and overall school because of it. I know they are trying to fund a new stadium or add to it or something due to recent success.
Any Rutgers guys here to shed some light? or App St. or George Mason might be some more good examples.
|
| 7 | dpr
ID: 1733917
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:23
|
well rutgers cut there mens swim team in the past 2 years so i wqouldnt really say they are expanding the athletic department in that sense
|
| 8 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:29
|
Colleges and Universities have been cutting men's sports and addign women's sports for the past 15+ years due to the reaffirmation/clarification of Title IX.
They have in particular added cheaper sports. Many colleges have tried to separate football as another animal and then split the other sports close to equal as possible. As far as the pay issue, yes, they would be equal for all revenue and non-revenue sports. I'm not as close to those situations as I once was, but I don't see a whole lot of changes that could be made.
|
| 9 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:32
|
before I ring in, does the NCAA still have the rule that kids on athletic scholarships can't get jobs in the offseason? I feel like this was a rule a number of years back but it may have been repealed.
Or I guess better yet, what's the rule on scholarship kids getting a job?
|
| 10 | dpr
ID: 1733917
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:37
|
as far as I know tere are no limititations in terms of getting a job other than u can't use your status as an athlete to get the job.
|
| 11 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:44
|
Unless it was changed, you could get an off-season job, but there were limits on in-season jobs. There may have even been a prohibition against it--I can't remember.
|
| 12 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:16
|
And I'm trying to figure out when you'd have time to get a job in season anyway. Between class, practice and an inconsistent travel schedule.
It'd be hard to say "I'll work Tuesday's and Thursday's at Blockbuster" or whatever. What if you make the tourney or something? Is Blockbuster gonna just give you all those days off? maybe one week... maybe two... maybe a third... why would they want to deal with that when they can hire some kid with nothing else to do?
|
| 13 | Frick
ID: 13132113
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:32
|
I don't know if they have changed it, but when I was in college a classmate of mine played football, this was D2, claimed that he got a stipend for expenses. I believe that he got the stipend because he wasn't living on campus. If he had lived on campus he wouldn't have gotten it, but his scholarship would have covered all room and board. Why couldn't a scholarship athlete take a student loan for other expenses?
And would paying athletes only go to sports that made money? Do you start paying the guys and gals that are on cross-country scholarships?
|
| 14 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:45
|
I would think it would have to be consistent across all sports, and only based on need. So not everyone.
Like getting free lunch in grade school.
I remember when I got my student loans they would only give me enough for my credits, room and meal plan I think. I would have loved to take an extra 1000 on top of that for the semester. Of course I would have blown through that in 2 weeks! so I think its smarter if they do allow that extra -that its divided up throughout the semester as an allowance of sorts.
|
| 15 | GolfFreak
Leader
ID: 01730209
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:55
|
Sorry to jump in.
Hey Frick did you get my email???
|
| 16 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:23
|
RE: 12, an in-season job is probably pretty unlikely for most sports, but if they're so busy with in-season activities, their need for in-season extra money is probably diminished anyhow.
Off-season jobs can be had quite easily around college campuses. There are plenty of jobs within a college that will completely understand that you're only going to be there for 6 months before you have to return to the practice field.
As for going out for pizza and a movie, if that student is from a poor family and is NOT playing sports, how do they pay for it? If they're bogged down with classes to the point that they can't work a steady schedule, how do they pay for it?
I can recall, during a particularly tough part of my major, quitting one of the two jobs I had at the time because my schoolwork was so insane that there was no way I could work both jobs and get all my schoolwork done. I don't recall anyone from the university feeling sorry for me and handing over some money to make up the difference so I could still hang out with my friends. At that point in time, I was pretty much down to food and gas money and anything else was pretty much tossed. Realistically, I had far less than typical student athletes because they're at least guaranteed full (and then some!) meals every day. I was learning the value of Ramen Noodles.
Now, if they want to implement stipends for all students who could use a little "lunch money," then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But doing it just for the athletes sets a dangerous precedent for future "extras" for athletes, in my mind.
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 3714358
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:33
|
They should treat student-athletes more like students, and allow them to get jobs so long as they keep up with their studies and their athletic demands. I think it is a real kick in the pants to these athletes that they aren't allowed to even get a job, in nearly all cases. What is that teaching them?
I'm against a stipend if it is in lieu of getting a job. No reason to have, essentially, student welfare while preventing them from working for their cash.
As an aside, I'm also for extending student athletic scholarships to 5 years, to help those students get their degrees. Many of these students wouldn't even be at university if they didn't have a scholarship, and to kick them to the curb like a dried husk after their scholarship ends is institutional cynicism at its worst.
|
| 18 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 13:33
|
PD:
I think the problem is how would you regulate abuse.
How would you stop a wealthy alumni from giving "jobs" to the entire football team?
What if the job entails mowing the alumni's lawn once a week for $5,000.00 for each lawn mowing?
I can see the recuiting pitch now:
Come to our school and we will set you up with a job that guarantees $2,000.00 per month selling cars plus $5,000.00 for each car you sell provided your cars sold equal the number of touchdowns you score.
Would the NCAA then announce what jobs would be legit and how much a SA could make?
What message would that send?
You live in a capitalist society but we are going to tell you what jobs you can get and how much you can make.
|
| 19 | Frick
ID: 35131515
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 16:31
|
I had a cousin that "worked" with a future NBA player when he was in college. I say "worked" because he saw him exactly one time. The day that he came into fill out his paperwork.
Now, I do think that the NCAA might take exception to paying $5,000 for each car sold, but if the company is paying the same rate $10/hour and the hours aren't extreme, say 20 per week the athlete is getting $200/week. I'm guessing that this type of scam happens quite often.
Or look at the FSU players who wanted discounts for merchandise, and by discounts they basically wanted it for free.
Or look at the Shoe Hut in Wisconsin, they gave huge discounts to Wisconsin players before it was caught and Wisconsin was penalized.
Do you think those are the only 2 times that has happened?
|
| 20 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 16:38
|
I believe the car dealership scam was in college football last year, though I can't remember who. But it was a well known QB if I recall.
It was in the offseason.
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 3714358
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 16:41
|
weykool, I can understand the potential for abuse, but the mechanism for tracking potential abuse is already there. The best way to track this is through tax records.
The thing is, we can't get caught up in trying to make the system (any system) absolutely foolproof. There is always going to be someone who successfully cheats. But just because we have people who cheat doesn't mean we scrap the system. We know, for instance, that rape occurs. This doesn't mean we just decide to overlook it through a system which prohibits sex.
|
| 22 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 16:46
|
KKB and Ref,
I disagree with you as I think college athletes should be paid to play. I think you are taking a blanket statement that everyone has free rides, so, they should be happy with playing a sport and a free education. And, FWIW, if everyone had a free ride, then I would not hold my stance in this argument. Unfortunately, the majority of student atheletes, particularly in the "minor" sports, have a partial scholarship or no scholarship at all.
For example, the maximum scholarships a D-1 soccer school can have is 9.9/year (at least this was true 5 years ago). These can be diced up any way, for ex. 4 full rides, 8 1/2 rides, and 8 1/4 rides. Most D-1 soccer teams have 25 players or so, and you are looking at only 4 of 25 (16%) getting a free ride based on my scenario. I imagine the majority of sports are in this same predicament.
KKB, your post 1 is basically speaking out of two sides of your mouth, as it first says "those going pro" and then alludes to "true student athletes getting a free ride." The 2nd type of person in your comparison barely exists. Most "true" student athletes don't get a free education. The potential pro's do get a free education, but those aren't the athletes that need some sort of financial assistance to go to school.
I know this because I am one of the "true" student athletes, that didn't get a full ride until my junior season. My first two years I had partial scholarships and their was NO CHANCE I could of held down a job during the school year while playing a D-1 sport. I hear this view all the time from non-student athletes, which makes my hair stand up, that "we" (student athletes) should happy we get a free education. That's BS, in my opinion. Not only do I take the same amount of classes as everyone else, but I (1) travel 4 out of every 14 days during season (making studying harder since class is being missed), (2) practice for 25-30 hours per week between weights and actual practice (during season and offseason), and (3) have mandatory study hall for 15 hours per week during the offseason. Good luck finding time for a job with that schedule.
The only time a person MAYBE has time for a job is in the summer, but even then you are working out in the gym 6 days a week or playing in a summer league that, once again, sucks up time. In fact, I decided to try and work my first summer between freshman and sophomore season, and regressed my soccer skills, and once I reported to camp to see how out of shape I was, I vowed not to do that again. If you do get a job in the summer, you better watch out for that new recruit that didn't work and just focused on jumping you in the lineup.
There is alot more I could comment on, but I don't want the main point of my argument for payment to be lost, and it's that not all student athletes are receiving a free education. In fact, the majority are only getting a partially free education, and their free time to help minimize loans is limited, while a non-student athletes are not (as much). In fact, we had at least 10 guys on the team each year who had no athletic scholarship at all, but they wanted to play and sacrifice time (and money).
Those athletes are the ones that deserve payment, and if that means some of the future "pros" get paid too, then so be it. The majority of student athletes nationwide are not on a full ride or getting a free education.
|
| 23 | Frick
ID: 23117516
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 17:17
|
The amount of scholarships is set by the NCAA, is different for each sport.
NCAA.org
I don't know who sets those limits, I'm guessing the schools themselves. I'm guessing that the majority of sports are not self-supporting so the NCAA and the member schools set the limits to prevent added cost and expense.
I would rather see money available go giving each sport enough scholarships to field a full team of full scholarships than to give more money to sports that already field a full team of full scholarships.
|
| 24 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 17:29
|
I was looking for something like that, Frick, as it would help exercise my point in post 22. It appears that only football and basketball can give full rides to 90%+ of their players, while the rest of the sports have a cap of some sort (# of scholarships and # of players allowed to have a piece of the scholarship).
I think there are 29 college sports, so, the majority of sports have this scholarship cap. Meaning that the majority of sports, and in turn, student athletes, are not giving many full rides or free educations. Many athletes use their athletic ability to help pay for school (like many students who receive academic grants), but student-athletes do not have the ability like students to hold down a job to earn extra money.
Another way to look at it is: Person A is a student who gets 1/3 of his school paid for given his academic ability. Person B gets a 1/3 athletic scholarship due to his athletic ability. Person A gets a job and makes $6,000/year. Person B cannot get a job because of the extra hours needed to maintain his financial aid. Shouldn't person B be compensated in some way for this? I say yes.
|
| 25 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 17:55
|
Great! Let's pay the band too. They practice 3 hours per day and all day on Saturday during football season. Then have to practice and play at the basketball games. When do they have time to work? They aren't even on scholarship.
|
| 26 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 18:01
|
Ref, is that how you argued with Dick Vitale? I am surprised people agreed with you.
On the band front, you are just wrong. There are band scholarships is the first flaw in your argument. Most schools offer them. The second flaw is that if you have a band scholarship, you must take band classes, thus, many of your academic credits are counted while practicing. I wish I could of taken a finance class that counted as soccer practice. Not comparable at all.
Try again.
|
| 27 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 18:19
|
Dude, first this is a sports forum, not arguing 101. Since I have worked at a University that deals with scholarships and an Atheltic Dept. that deals with scholarships, I have a little insight anyhow...
1. Vitale said that all athletes should be paid to play. I said, they are getting paid by their scholarships, housing, meals and "Landry money" or whatever they called it then. He disagreed saying they should be paid like it was a professional job.
2. There are no such things as band scholarships. There are some grants etc. that a few elite people could get I suppose, but they didn't have anything to do with the university when I was involved (not too long ago). Most marching band members are not even music majors.
So that begs the question...why do it? Well why do the cross country runners run when they are not on scholarship? Because they enjoy it perhaps? Most athletes don't participate in a sport with the aspiration of turning professional in that sport. I only threw in the band as we had a lot of dealings with them as part of the athletic department as far as traveling/bowl games/ncaa tournaments, etc.
As for "trying again..." All I am doing is stating what facts I know and my opinion. I don't care if you don't agree or not nor am I trying to persuade you to my line of thinking. It's great to have all kinds of different people with different thoughts and philosophies on the same situation.
|
| 28 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 18:56
|
What if your "off season job is being a model/actor/professional in a DIFFERENT sport? NCAA says no.
link
|
| 29 | leggestand
ID: 20110420
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 19:41
|
Fair enough, Ref. Thanks for your insight. I googled "band scholarships" and it appears it exists, particularly if you major in band, but, if that's really a grant, so be it.
If Vitale was arguing for "being paid like pro athletes," then I disagree with him. I am talking more about stipends. Say, $150/week. And this is because an athlete cannot truly hold down a job, even one that pays minimum wage.
I am more against the line of thinking that KKB presented, as he made it seem like all athletes are on full rides and don't have student loans to pay off. In actuality, most student athletes have student loans to pay off if you don't play football or basketball.
So that begs the question...why do it? Well why do the cross country runners run when they are not on scholarship? Because they enjoy it perhaps?
I'll try and answer the question. Certainly, they enjoy it. Conversely, though, those on scholarship may not enjoy it, but choose to play because they can't afford to cover 100% of school, but can cover 50% or 75%.
I would love to see the NCAA institute a weekly stipend for all athletes. For all I care, this is fine to include band and cheerleaders as well. Athletes do make sacrifices and they should be compensated for that.
|
| 30 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 421148121
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 20:53
|
leggestand, RE: 22 & 29, apparently I wasn't clear in that I was specifically referring to student-athletes who receive a full ride as that is what most people refer to (see: Ref and Vitale). I mostly agree with what you said at the end of #24.
BUT, I also think that your Person B should only receive a reasonable stipend based on the hours/time they have to actually invest DURING the season. In other words, I'm not ready to give them 12 months of payment for 4 months (or whatever the particular season may be) of work. Let them get a reasonable stipend during the season, but then allow them to get reasonable jobs during the off-season.
Full rides? I stand by my Post #1.
|
| 31 | leggestand
ID: 20110420
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 22:01
|
Thanks for the response, KKB. I think I'll stay off of full rides, because I agree with you. If everyone had a full ride, then I don't think any form of payment/stipend is necessary. As it is, though, the majority of student athletes don't get full rides, so, that was the general direction of my posts. Looks like we were commenting about different things...
As I first read your post 30, I didn't think I would agree with a "just in season" payment, but I am backing off that sentiment. Pro athletes are not paid in the offseason, so, I also don't see why college athletes should be. I still don't think it's reasonable to hold a decent off season job, but you can certainly find on campus jobs if you need to have $100/week by working 15 hours/week. The major sports definitely have very grueling offseasons, but as we've said, these are the people with full rides already.
|
| 32 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:14
|
RE: 29
Vitale didn't say they should be paid like a pro athlete, but as a working professional (like an athletic department employee "professional"). He said they make the University a lot of money. My response was, they are already on a full ride and get everything paid for. He disagreed. Perhaps a "stipend" is what he was referring to, but he clearly felt they should make a good chunk of change based on the money the university makes because of these athletes.
What's weird, at the time only 5 athletic departments/universities were actually in the black. (Some Universiy/Colleges actually operate within the Universities Recreation Dept. and don't have a separate athletic dept.). No one would be in the black if you took away football/basketball. The scholarships given to these "non-revunue sports" come from the football/basketball revenue.
Now the colleges will start paying stipends to athletes based upon the NCAA settlement. The money will have to come from the university itself and/or boosters.
But here's the thing...Those universities make a ton of money on non-athlete enrollment. I recently read the entire study (on their website now) where Southern Illinois-Edwardsville did on their decision to go to Div. 1 next year. I don't remember everything but it's obvious that even though they are going to have to spedn a lot more money, the attention they are going to receive by going to Div. 1 is going to be worth it. Their college will gain more students because of their jump--which will bring in more money.
My thought is that "Elite" athletes are simply "using" the university anyhow. It's a two way street. But I still feel that the full-ride scholarship and meals and books, training tables, tutoring, etc. is fine. I wouldn't be opposed to that "laundry money" of say $20/week or something like that or additional loans for students that truly had nothing, but to pay them like an athletic dept. employee is way over the top.
|
| 33 | TacoJohn
ID: 590291817
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:20
|
The problem with arguing that they should get paid because they "bring in so much money" is that you're now basing their worth on how much money they can make for a school.
Granted it works that way at the next level, but I don't know if people want that to be part of college sports.
Should non-revenue players have to pay to play since they lose money for the school? Could this lead to stars being paid more than others in the future? Or to stars being the *only* ones who get paid?
Maybe I'm taking it too far, but it seems like a slippery slope sort of issue.
|
| 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 3615610
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:25
|
#33: I agree. There are some good reasons to allow student athletes on scholarship to make money while in school, but their contribution to a revenue generating sport isn't one of them. Indeed, most revenue generating sports at colleges go to pay for the other sports that make little or no money. Nearly all Div I schools lose money in their athletic departments overall.
Students (athletes or no) should be able to make money at a job, IMO. The presumption that they couldn't because of the demands of their sport are a one-size-fits-all rule which doesn't, in fact, fit very much, and doesn't allow the student or the school to make decisions about the students which match their particular context. If a student can't work then they won't. But don't take away from a student the chance to work.
|
| 35 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:40
|
I agree with posts 32-34, that the logic of "since they make a school a ton of money, they should be paid like AD employees" should not be a reason for paying student athletes.
|
| 36 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 16:27
|
PD, most athletes have summer jobs. The money they make there is supposed to go for spending money etc. since everything else is paid for. The problem is when an athelte has a no-show job or is paid WAY more than market value for those services. Remember that Oklahmoma QB just recently. There isn't ever a problem getting those athletes work it seems.
|
| 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 3615610
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 16:34
|
Nearly all athletes on athletic scholarships are prevented from having jobs, summer or otherwise. Those are the ones I am talking about, ref.
Athletes not on a scholarship, for the most part, are not prevented from working. My point was that the distrinction shouldn't be made between those athletes, preventing one while allowing the other. As I mentioned in #21, the potential for abuse already there--this shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing. As it is, those athletes on full rides cannot get a paid job (even a part time job in their major). This is wrong.
|
| 38 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 17:52
|
Nearly all athletes on athletic scholarships are prevented from having jobs, summer or otherwise.
PD, unless that is a new rule, that is false. Athletes are (were) allowed to have a job out of season--at least that's how it was written when I was involved.
|
| 39 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 17:55
|
I am pretty sure Ref is right. I haven't heard anything about not being allowed to have jobs in the offseason. It is hard to hold down a "stable" job in the offseason and summer, but working at a gym or specialty store (sporting goods is always a good idea) gives some time to allow for working out/playing in rec leagues.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|