<p>Tom … your proposal would take the NCAA back decades of the evolution of the rules trying to maintain something resembling a competitive balance. In the old days</p>
<ul>
<li>Schools could provide unlimited amounts of scholarships … so the schools who raised the most money won</li>
<li>Schools could provide jobs to athletes … however this was royally abused … schools just gave money to athletes</li>
<li>Athletes were allowed to have jobs off campus … this was abused even worse … booster would “hire” players. not have them work, and give them big bucks</li>
</ul>
<p>The last was the worst of the issues IMO … then the biggest influence of why an athlete picks a school and stays in a school has nothing to do with the school … all the shady characters outside the school are getting their mitts into the athletes and are driving a lot of the college athletics process … the team with the boosters willing to pay the most money wins … IMO a horrible set-up for college sports … much worse than the current set-up.</p>
<p>BTW - there is a court case right process right now where players and ex-players sued the NCAA about not getting a share of the revenue generated by their efforts. The judge recommended the NCAA talk to the players about a possible settlement … IMO, a pretty strong signal the judge was going to rule in the players favor to some degree … and is giving the NCAA a chance to move in the right direction.</p>
<p>All worried about some abstract of “college sports”. In the meantime, we have coaches making millions and student athletes who can’t afford to fly home on break to see family. They play revenue sports. Ticket sales pay for all the other college sports. </p>
<p>But it would be bad for college sports if they weren’t impoverished. </p>
<p>These ideals fall flat when people are getting wealthy off of these kids, when others are getting partial scholarships because of these kids. </p>
<p>Like it or not, colleges are serving as the precursor to a career in professional sports - - a leap few will make. They make a boatload off these kids from televising games, ticket sales, and donations. It is unreasonable to make these athletes ineligible because they need to take some steps to earn some money. </p>
<p>“The problem with allowing kids to make money from endorsements is that it fundamentally changes the recruiting process and impacts the nature of the university. Suddenly a high-profile recruit is less interested in finding the best fit and will likely make his decision based on maximizing his income potential.”</p>
<p>Who cares? (sorry if that sounded rude because I’m not meaning it that way).</p>
<p>I just don’t see if it matters whether a high school football player goes to school A because the coaches are nice, and they will let him play a lot, and the school seems cool. Or, he goes to school B because it maximizes his financial well being. Lots of kids who are strong academically make their choice of school based on the money as well. </p>
<p>There’s no way colleges should be able to make money off the backs of these kids while the kids cannot earn anything, in any manner.</p>
<p>Giving a kid a scholarship is really not the same because it is barely a dime out of the school’s pocket. The incremental cost of housing a kid and putting them a classroom is very low . . .it’s not like there is a real cost of $100k that they have to absorb.</p>
<p>Bottom line, people who have special, unique attributes that are in demand should be able to profit off their skills (which they have invested heavily in developing).</p>
<p>Is it exploitation? Perhaps. The O’Bannon court case is showing that it is likely illegal to own rights to athletes’ names and likenesses permanently, but a four-year bargain seems reasonable. ESPN’s documentary on Michigan’s “Fab Five” failed to note that, during Chris Webber’s freshman year, a senior teammate earned a Rhodes Scholarship. The current system works well for a majority of students, even in the revenue sports. </p>
<p>Would exploitation increase by allowing paid endoresements? Almost certainly. Naive HS athletes are already taken advantage of, even though a system attempts to regulate the street agents and other hangers-on. This would only increase if direct payments were allowed.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, and others, claim to care about the athletes, but her proposal would help less than 1% of college athletes - and likely help them at the expense of the other 99%. Who will fly the D3 field hockey player home when her mother dies? Why would alumni give generously to the university if they have already given generously directly to the star athlete?</p>
<p>Please tell me which schools not only offer scholarships to academically gifted students but pay them to attend as well.</p>
<p>Further, you are apparently unfamiliar with the dorms, dining halls and training facilities offered to D1 scholarship athletes today. Colleges invest heavily in providing an atmosphere to allow athletes to develop their talents fully. The incremental cost is enormous.</p>
<p>Restrictions on athletes’ earning is an unfortunate result of previous abuse of the rules. 3togo did an excellent job explaining how these rules evolved in post #121.</p>
<p>So you are advocating socialism for the athletes. Perhaps the straight A math major should give some of his points to the D student so they can pass too?</p>
<p>Why do you believe this system works well for these athletes? Lets look into the graduation rates. How about the fact that the athlete can lose his scholarship if he gets injured?</p>
<p>You still have not provided a solution for the $$$ problem… currently very few schools could even afford to give out stipends without further increasing tuition and fees for the rest of the student body.</p>
<p>And no, a couple of coaches claiming they would give it out of their salary is not a solution.</p>
<p>As for endorsements… only maybe .5% of student athletes would get endorsements, how does that solve the issue for the other 99.5% of athletes who can’t get “pizza money”.</p>
<p>Earning money in what ways? The only two solutions that have been posted in the last 4-5 pages have been stipends and endorsements neither of which will work.</p>
<p>It might not be possible for all conferences to offer stipends just like today where all do no have top level facilities, coaches etc. It can start with those that can with some minor budget adjustments afford the costs. Or the NCAA could use some of their own funds to help the colleges pay this stipend.</p>
<p>Athletes may be technically permitted to work, but people need to understand the pressure coaches put on kids not to work, and not to do other EC’s either. They aren’t allowed to tell you that you can’t work, but coaches can sure as heck hint about loss of playing time or favor for non-compliance. </p>
<p>Being a Div. 1 athlete is not easy, and time management is difficult even for the high-achievers. Coaches want their players to be at their best, so the last thing they want is for the kids to have a job too. They fear grades will take a hit due to the added time constraint of employment, causing the athlete to become academically ineligible to compete. Or else their sleep will suffer because of the extra commitment, and cost them optimal athletic performance.</p>
<p>So just saying kids “can” work solves nothing for a lot of them. D’s team is strongly encouraged not to work, and especially not to work in manual labor type jobs like dining hall ones, since that would drain them physically. Unfortunately, many of them including D were doing just that, because the schedule fit theirs and they could sign up for just one or two nights of dishwashing or whatever and make their money for incidentals.</p>
<p>As for summer earnings, D works full time every summer, but that money is needed to pay her tuition, books, and airfare. Very few Div. 1 athletes get scholarships, and fewer still get full rides. Obviously, the ones good enough to get endorsement offers probably do, and I think they should be permitted to receive a portion of that money. After all, they do sit for TV and print interviews, and photo shoots and autograph signings and all that to earn it.</p>
<p>I think you make some legitimate points that recognize that there are going to be issues either way - - whether the student athletes get paid or not, or allowed to endorse or not.</p>
<p>Perhaps I don’t know enough to really register an informed opinion. I do not have a D1 athlete though I did have a son who really wanted to be one, but he didn’t have enough athletic talent in his sport.</p>
<p>I just feel a great deal of concern when the free market process is completely thwarted by a set of arbitrary rules that supposedly are protecting students, but do so by making sure that revenues that are earned by the students’ talent, drive, and hard work are absorbed by an institution. I find it especially an issue when the student is 18 years old and is mostly focused on continuing to develop in their sport and feels there is no choice but to follow the rules. </p>
<p>I thought the Time magazine article made a pretty compelling case . . .</p>
<p>How about not.
People enjoy it. Lots of people.
I think most of the athletes love the overall experience as the tears flowing on senior days show.</p>
<p>We have no idea if the lineman from Vanderbilt, or Central Florida could parlay the fact that they are a college athlete into some form of compensation because they are not allowed. Maybe they could get paid for being an instructor at a camp, attend the grand opening at some local deli who knows. Why not try it. Make it legal and out in the open.</p>
<p>The old way was behind closed doors. Let the benchwarmer from Alabama sell his jersey and his bling he receives from the bowl game if he wants.</p>
<p>Why not try it–because you will get far more widespread abuses of the system. Some car dealer from Oklahoma will think it is fine to pay the QB $10,000 for an afternoon appearance. You are taking a small problem and expanding it.</p>
<ol>
<li>Drop professional sports from college.</li>
<li>Leave PE lessons similar to HS format is college.</li>
</ol>
<p>Why all this craziness about college teams? </p>
<p>Well, the answer to thart is simple, but opens another can of worms. Our society as a whole has an undeniable obesity problem. I believe that sports, whether intercollegiate, club or intramural isvital to the development of young men and women. I think that in sports, competing at the highest levl possible is imperative and that means that many students should have the opportunity to compete at the intercollegiate level. Over 400,000 students compete at this level who are not being exploited. There are swimmers, and gymnasts, and fencers, and (oh you get the point) that benefit from the educational aspects of sports. I believe the same about Music, the arts and a whole range of activities. I think that mathematicians should be athletic and that athletes should study hard. I believe that our colleges should produce “rennaisance” men and women. </p>
<p>The problem is that there is a general consensus (and I don’t know if it is true) that at the higest level the athletes are not receiving quality education. Maybe it is just a perception. I went to Cornell. Had a friend who played Lacrosse in the national championship and I have no doubt that he got a great education. I’m pretty sure that we can all agree that Army , Navy and Air Force are not taking short cuts educating anyone and they have excellent, (although not inthe ranks of Alabama or Texas) teams. </p>
<p>So the concern as has been voiced here best by our poet in residence is whether or not poor kids are being exploited. </p>
<p>I guess the take away is that if one poor kid is exploited, it is one too many and reforms are neccessary.</p>
<p>And I wouldn’t be surprised if paying college athletes led to friction within the team.</p>
<p>I think a better solution would to pay athletes a fixed sum (likely in additional scholarship money). Athletes in less popular sports such as swimming often have financial trouble even though they are elite athletes just like the football players. Unfortunately, the only time people realize these sports exist are when the Olympics roll around.</p>