Paying athletes

<p>Are they exploited? Taylor Lewan, the All-American left tackle anchoring Michigan’s offensive line, had an opportunity to go pro after his junior year. The NFL draft handicappers projected him as a top-10 draft choice, meaning he could be making millions this year playing football on Sundays. He elected to forego the NFL draft and return to Michigan for his final year of eligibility. Some people questioned that decision. Lewan’s response: “You wouldn’t understand if you never played football at Michigan. It’s like a family.” He obviously doesn’t think he’s being exploited. (But then it might be a case of “false consciousness,” as the Marxists used to say).</p>

<p>Some of these guys play college football because they hope one day to draw an NFL paycheck, but most are realistic about their prospects. It becomes pretty obvious if you’re still #3 or #4 on the depth chart at your position after 3 or 4 years that you’re not NFL material. Yet most of them stay and play for the love of the game, for the love of the competition, and yes, for their teammates. Many are there because it’s a ticket to an education. Former Michigan QB Denard Robinson graduated last spring with tears streaming down his cheeks; he said graduating was the proudest moment of his life because he was the first in his family to earn a 4-year degree, and he wanted to be a role model for his younger siblings and nieces and nephews coming up.</p>

<p>And then there are the walk-ons, players who make the team without scholarships and play for the love of the game, most of them seeing more action in practice than in actual game-time competition. Are they exploited? They know their chances of making a living in the NFL are approximately zero, but many of them say having the opportunity to play college football, to be a member of the team, is the greatest experience of their life.</p>

<p>What makes it exploitation, exactly? The fact that their sport is so popular that tens of thousands of people are willing to pay good money to see them play, and millions more watch on television, bringing revenue into their school’s athletic department to allow it to pay for its operations and support some non-revenue sports? So then it’s only the football players and men’s basketball players who are exploited, while women’s basketball and lacrosse and track and field athletes whose sports are not as popular and not as lucrative for the athletic department are not exploited, even if they spend just as much time and effort in training and practice and intercollegiate competition? Or is it that the best of the football and men’s basketball players may one day have an opportunity to make millions at the professional level but in the meantime are doing the same thing for the paltry price of an athletic scholarship (or less, if they’re walk-ons)? And if the latter, what about all those players who know they’ll never have a shot at the pros but play anyway, for the love of the game and the competition and being part of a team? Are they only exploited if they think they’ll one day have a chance to go pro? Of course, by the time they’re juniors and seniors I should think most would have a realistic sense of where they stand. Certainly at the top football and basketball programs, a substantial fraction of the star players will actually have a chance to go pro (in some programs it’s as much as 50% of the starters in some years, but of course the percentages are much, much smaller if you use a larger denominator that includes everyone on an NCAA football roster, or everyone on an FBS football roster). Is it only the delusional ones who vastly overestimate their chances who are exploited? </p>

<p>I guess I don’t really understand the “exploitation” argument. It’s an easy pejorative label to throw around. I should think the vast majority of the nation’s 450,000 NCAA athletes know they’re never going to make a dime as professional athletes. Most are playing sports or playing at schools that are not raking in huge revenues from ticket sales and broadcast rights. Are they all “exploited,” and if not, how do we determine which ones are, and which aren’t?</p>

<p>In the past you have requested I not disagree with you BCclintock. But since you seem to like to disagree with me on threads, I’ll go ahead and say this:</p>

<p>The coaches and the athletic departments make millions from these teams. Are all of them exploited? No</p>

<p>But the impoverished ones, the ones who cannot even afford to go home are being exploited. </p>

<p>If you do not wish to have me disagree with you? Please refrain as well. This is the fifth thread since you sent the pm. </p>

<p>This is my first response.</p>

<p>barrons if it is not a secret deal why can 't a kid be paid $10k to appear at a car dealer? Would we rather have a system that some secret Cam Newton deals get done and the school gets punished after Cam has left and the poor kids there now pay the price by being banned from bowls?</p>

<p>

Auburn was never punished for anything related to Cam Newton</p>

<p>

You constantly complain about how impoverished students are being exploited because they can’t go home (never mind the fact that there are plenty of impoverished non-athletes who not only can’t afford to go home, but had to take out loans to go to school) yet you give no solution to the problem. </p>

<p>I would also argue that these impoverished students are benefiting greatly from their free education, yes? Many of these players would not have even been able to afford college if not for their athletic scholarships and would possibly be out in the streets doing who knows what.</p>

<p>My point is the same the penalty comes after the person has left. The kids there now pay the price.</p>

<p>They have a skill that is worth something. If a kid gets a grant or scholarship for music should he be banned from playing in a wedding band on weekends?</p>

<p>Why should there financial reward be limited to only the scholarship if on the free market they can earn more?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sure they wouldn’t have any trouble playing in a league overseas (say Spain), in fact, Brandon Jennings played overseas instead of going to college before entering the NBA. No one is forcing these people to play college ball.</p>

<p>Why should they have to do that if the can earn something here?</p>

<p>Again, why why why why WHY does the US have professional level athletics muddled with the academic pursuits of a university. Let’s uncouple this unholy alliance.</p>

<p>barrons:

</p>

<p>Same argument goes for healthcare coupled with employment. And yet, we somehow are able to move beyond the ‘we’ve always done it that way and therefore will continue to do it that way…because that’s the way it is done and it works for a lot of people…oh and let’s not forget a lot of people make a lot of money in the process’</p>

<p>Professional athletics and Higher Education go together like peanut butter and sardines. I guess if you serve it long enough it becomes the norm…but it is still unpalatable and unnatural. Well…at least compared to the entire rest of this planet we live on.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well…I’d bet a football scholarship that a female mud wrestling team would also bring in funds and be self supporting…let’s get on going then…it fits all the reasons for having a football team.</p>

<p>I have no issue if schools want to get rid of big time sports.</p>

<p>And I say why not? It is great exposure for schools. Alumni enjoy it. Students enjoy it. Gives opportunity to compete at high level to 100s of athletes with top coaching and facilities. Nobody is coming back to campus and paying to watch a math lecture. </p>

<p>They seem to go together just fine to most of us. More like lobster and butter. Last comment is just stupid.</p>

<p>

But they don’t * have* to do that, if they want to play in America they can, but the NFL won’t take them until they are 21 (maybe the AFL or UFL will take them?). If they want to take endorsements while or after high school no one is stopping them (LeBron did).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh good grief…neener neener neener your mother wears army boots…and here I thought this was a grown up forum. As much as it may pain you…other OPINIONS are valid. Just deal!</p>

<p>Bclintonk nailed it!</p>

<p>I don’t “constantly” do anything bark</p>

<p>If you like the status quo, that’s great for you. Clearly, given the number of “violations” it’s not really working. We all know that the number who get caught are a fraction of those engaged. </p>

<p>The programs are so desperate even the coaches are offering to pay stipends out of pocket. </p>

<p>Revenue athletes deserve the same consideration we give to co op students on engineering programs, to actors who work professionally while still doing school productions, to musicians who are paid for studio work while completing their degree. </p>

<p>Why is it only athletes who cannot earn professionally while still in school, but a CS student can earn from his internship, and the marketing major can work while in school at her career? Why can a studio artist have her first show. Sell the work and still be an art student? </p>

<p>It is an anomaly. The schools need the money</p>

<p>[Y</a>! SPORTS](<a href=“Latest college scandals again reveal folly of NCAA rules”>Latest college scandals again reveal folly of NCAA rules)</p>

<p>

A $2000 stipend isn’t going to change the violations, most of them are either due to minor mistakes (boise state giving recruits a place to sleep overnight) or involve much more money than $2000.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A football player who is also an Econ major can take money and still be an econ major at the school.</p>

<p>Great article Tom</p>

<p>Those of us whose kids received merit awards for academics and creativity know there was no restriction placed on their working professionally in these fields while they were students. </p>

<p>Only sports carry this restriction. Why?</p>

<p>In addition… Students who receive merit scholarships, not tied to need, frequently get to keep outside scholarships. Those on need based aid don’t get to improve their situation with outside scholarships. They still pay that EFC every year.</p>

<p>Something about that situation bothers me.</p>

<p>[Pay</a> for play isn’t the answer for college athletics - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9666004/pay-play-answer-college-athletics]Pay”>Pay for play isn't the answer for college athletics - ESPN)</p>

<p>This about sums up my thoughts on the issue</p>

<p>“Well…I’d bet a football scholarship that a female mud wrestling team would also bring in funds and be self supporting…let’s get on going then…it fits all the reasons for having a football team.”</p>

<p>Stupid was being kind. Try idiotic example of nonsense. College football has been around for well over 100 years and predates pro football.</p>