Several lawsuits against the NCAA are advancing forward. They are not specific to paying collegiate athletes a salary for their services but they look like they’ll open up NCAA financial records previously withheld from public scrutiny. That will help reinforce the pay for play advocates.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/19/1704632/lawsuits-seek-to-compensate-college.html
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:23940”]Several lawsuits against the NCAA are advancing forward. They are not specific to paying collegiate athletes a salary for their services but they look like they’ll open up NCAA financial records previously withheld from public scrutiny. That will help reinforce the pay for play advocates.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/19/1704632/lawsuits-seek-to-compensate-college.html[/quote]
…they already get paid. It’s called a ‘scholarship’
I think they should get something. The regulations on working can impact a student athletes ability to have access to money which makes it easier for agents to swoop in and offer cash. Paying players though does open a new can of worms.
[quote=“ZombieLew, post:2, topic:23940”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:23940”]Several lawsuits against the NCAA are advancing forward. They are not specific to paying collegiate athletes a salary for their services but they look like they’ll open up NCAA financial records previously withheld from public scrutiny. That will help reinforce the pay for play advocates.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/19/1704632/lawsuits-seek-to-compensate-college.html[/quote]
…they already get paid. It’s called a ‘scholarship’[/quote]
Not for what they make for the university they don’t. The only problem I have with paying players is that it would create a huge disparity between the haves and the have nots. As it is, schools that don’t have as much money can compete, even if they aren’t getting the best players. But if you could get paid to play at a university, you would never see Butler in the title game again. You’d never see a Boise State ever again. Those pro caliber players that slip through the cracks are going to be content to sit on the bench at a school that will pay them more than a school that can’t afford it.
However, I do think it is criminal that they make so much money for the school and people say they get a scholarship. If we get an in-state student, they get, what maybe 10k a year? At most? We have such a hard on for “amateur athletes,” it is retarded. No other country in the world has a problem with athletes getting paid to play. It doesn’t cheapen the college game for people to be able to recruit someone who played for money before they went to college. I think that is one of the dumbest things ever. Or when we didn’t send professional athletes to the Olympics. Why would you not send your best?
[quote=“Powerbait, post:4, topic:23940”][quote=“ZombieLew, post:2, topic:23940”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:23940”]Several lawsuits against the NCAA are advancing forward. They are not specific to paying collegiate athletes a salary for their services but they look like they’ll open up NCAA financial records previously withheld from public scrutiny. That will help reinforce the pay for play advocates.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/19/1704632/lawsuits-seek-to-compensate-college.html[/quote]
…they already get paid. It’s called a ‘scholarship’[/quote]
Not for what they make for the university they don’t. The only problem I have with paying players is that it would create a huge disparity between the haves and the have nots. As it is, schools that don’t have as much money can compete, even if they aren’t getting the best players. But if you could get paid to play at a university, you would never see Butler in the title game again. You’d never see a Boise State ever again. Those pro caliber players that slip through the cracks are going to be content to sit on the bench at a school that will pay them more than a school that can’t afford it.
However, I do think it is criminal that they make so much money for the school and people say they get a scholarship. If we get an in-state student, they get, what maybe 10k a year? At most? We have such a hard on for “amateur athletes,” it is retarded. No other country in the world has a problem with athletes getting paid to play. It doesn’t cheapen the college game for people to be able to recruit someone who played for money before they went to college. I think that is one of the dumbest things ever. Or when we didn’t send professional athletes to the Olympics. Why would you not send your best? [/quote]
what about all the kids that don’t make money for the school?
For every Tim Tebow, how many kids get scholarships to flunk out or have some misconduct to get kicked off the team? For every Vince Young, how many kids never play until their junior/senior years and it is on kick coverage? For every Phillip Rivers, how many kids play in non revenue generating sports?
Knowing the NCAA, they will allow the players to be paid and then immediately rule them all ineligable due to losing their amatuer status.
I personally thing the scholly is enough.
[quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:23940”]what about all the kids that don’t make money for the school?
For every Tim Tebow, how many kids get scholarships to flunk out or have some misconduct to get kicked off the team? For every Vince Young, how many kids never play until their junior/senior years and it is on kick coverage? For every Phillip Rivers, how many kids play in non revenue generating sports?[/quote]
What about players that don’t make money for an NFL team?
Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.
[quote=“Niner National, post:8, topic:23940”]Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.[/quote]
That’s not entirely true. Some scholarships require that the student not take a job. Some post-grad require it scholarship or not. However, those scholarships usually give stipends to the student. Athletes do get money. They get an allowance usually. They get a food stipend, but all their meals are provided by the university. Some schools treat students better than others. So they are getting spending cash, and it is more than the average college student. But that doesn’t stop those guys from getting cash from agents. There is no penalty at all for a player who is good enough to take cash from an agent. None at all. If we’re going to stick to this hardline “no pay for play,” there have to be repercussions for the players. Otherwise, it will never end.
Yeah, there’s no easy answer here. Even if you paid them minimum wage there are schools that would struggle with THAT! Where does it end too? Division II? Division III? It would have to be a blanket amount too, else schools like Texas will be paying their athletes in the 6 figures!
How much money did Virginia Tech make off selling #7 jerseys that Michael Vick never saw a dime of? I think there lies a big problem when schools/NCAA are making money by essentially using one of their athlete’s likeness.
[quote=“Niner National, post:8, topic:23940”]Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.[/quote]
Lets see…they also get to travel extensively and get meals paid for much of the time. This on top of the scholarships which are worth thousands (sometimes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars. If its such a bad deal for these “kids”, don’t accept the scholarship. I promise someone else will take it, as is.
So what? If the school wasn’t spending the upfront money (facilities, scholarships, coaches, tutors, travel, food, etc.) these kids would have NOTHING. Some of you guys act like if there was no school that the Michael Vicks of the world would still be just as well off. The name and “draw” of these schools is what allows “Michael Vick” to become rich and famous…The guys that go pro end up just fine, while the ones that don’t get the education, etc. even though they probably weren’t the “big, money-making draw”…The school makes the investment up-front. It should get a return.
[quote=“919R, post:12, topic:23940”][quote=“Niner National, post:8, topic:23940”]Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.[/quote]
Lets see…they also get to travel extensively and get meals paid for much of the time. This on top of the scholarships which are worth thousands (sometimes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars. If its such a bad deal for these “kids”, don’t accept the scholarship. I promise someone else will take it, as is.[/quote]
The school and NCAA can profit from them, but they can’t profit in return? How is that cool? You buy NCAA football and the stats are based on the players playing. They have the same backgrounds, stats and abilities. They even look similar.
People buy jerseys of their favorite college player. The NCAA uses big time players to sell games. They sell the players, make millions of dollars, and the players get bumpkiss. They should at least give players royalties for using their likeness in commercials.
[quote=“Powerbait, post:14, topic:23940”][quote=“919R, post:12, topic:23940”][quote=“Niner National, post:8, topic:23940”]Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.[/quote]
Lets see…they also get to travel extensively and get meals paid for much of the time. This on top of the scholarships which are worth thousands (sometimes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars. If its such a bad deal for these “kids”, don’t accept the scholarship. I promise someone else will take it, as is.[/quote]
The school and NCAA can profit from them, but they can’t profit in return? How is that cool? You buy NCAA football and the stats are based on the players playing. They have the same backgrounds, stats and abilities. They even look similar.
People buy jerseys of their favorite college player. The NCAA uses big time players to sell games. They sell the players, make millions of dollars, and the players get bumpkiss. They should at least give players royalties for using their likeness in commercials.[/quote]
Did you pay your own way to college?"
See the problem is you can’t fix the issue of paying athletes till you fix the disparity in revenue between institutions in the same divisions and subdivisions. Now THAT is something the NCAA really doesn’t want to look at!
[quote=“919R, post:15, topic:23940”][quote=“Powerbait, post:14, topic:23940”][quote=“919R, post:12, topic:23940”][quote=“Niner National, post:8, topic:23940”]Considering athletes have so many stipulations on working, they should receive a small stipend from the NCAA (not the school itself). This eliminates the problem of big schools paying and small schools not being able to. A nominal salary of $5,000 is reasonable and would the equivalent of working part time.
A scholarship is not ‘pay.’ A student on academic scholarship isn’t banned from working or under scrutiny if they have a job.[/quote]
Lets see…they also get to travel extensively and get meals paid for much of the time. This on top of the scholarships which are worth thousands (sometimes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars. If its such a bad deal for these “kids”, don’t accept the scholarship. I promise someone else will take it, as is.[/quote]
The school and NCAA can profit from them, but they can’t profit in return? How is that cool? You buy NCAA football and the stats are based on the players playing. They have the same backgrounds, stats and abilities. They even look similar.
People buy jerseys of their favorite college player. The NCAA uses big time players to sell games. They sell the players, make millions of dollars, and the players get bumpkiss. They should at least give players royalties for using their likeness in commercials.[/quote]
Did you pay your own way to college?"[/quote]
I sure did, and I worked all four years I was there. It ended up costing me about 20k. That’s bumpkiss compared to what the universities and NCAA have made off of a player like Tim Tebow. ESPN too.
Don’t sign the NLI if you don’t like the terms. I know many of these kids come from nothing, but instead of being appreciative of having the opportunity to get a great college education FOR FREE and a chance to better themselves and future generations in their family, they feel a sense of entitlement. Their education is worth $50,000 - $150,000. If that’s not payment enough, too bad. I would have loved to get a full ride to get my education at Charlotte paid for in full all the while being treated like a rock star. They know that taking money from agents and gamblers is wrong, and yet they do it anyway. Then they try to make us feel sorry for them with some dumb sob story. Companies make more money off of their employees than they pay them sometimes. That’s just a fact of life. If the players don’t like the terms of the arrangement, then they can play semi-pro until they are NFL eligible. If they can’t read the NLI, then find someone that they trust who can read the NLI before signing it.
I don’t think most players complain about it. I also think that it is a racket and the NCAA is one of the worst organizations in the united states.
I also think that players are going to keep taking money as long as there is no penalty for them. Fans of a school may view it as selfish, but for a lot of these guys who “come from nothing,” that agent money means they can take care of themselves and their families until they get paid legit. I also think most players get extra money, at least the big time players. Some just get a lot more than others.
Sure the bigger stars get lots of TLC. No telling what Lattimore is worth at USC now. I accept it as that’s life.
Big producers at major companies get more perks in lots of cases too- doesn’t bother me.