Poll: Should College Athletes be Paid in Cash vs. Scholarships?

Athletic Recruits
1

<p>Frank Deford is perhaps the most recognizable author and commentator on sports, and a little over a week ago he wrote an opinion piece, Bust the Amateur Myth, not for Sports Illustrated but for the Chronicle of Higher Education:

[quote]
The situation in big-time college sports in the United States—essentially football and men's basketball—is not just scandalous. It is immoral...</p>

<p>College football and basketball players are the only athletes in the world who are denied payment for their services in sports where significant sums of money are involved. Especially as the colleges make scores of millions of dollars from box-office and television revenue, when coaches are paid seven-figure contracts, and all sorts of others (including journalists) make handsome salaries on the backs of these young players, it is unconscionable that athletes are not paid*—and not just paid token fees but free-market salaries commensurate with what they bring in to the institution they represent.

[/quote]

Bust</a> the Amateur Myth - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education</p>

<p>Deford goes on to demolish the ideas that colleges can't afford to pay their revenue-generating athletes, and that it's right to let football and basketball programs fund non-revenue sports.</p>

<p>The article reads more like a rant than a thoughtful plan of action, but clearly Deford wanted to spark some discussion.</p>

<p>What do you think? Should athletes in revenue sports be paid? Should the financing of college athletics be blown up and redesigned from the ground up?</p>

2

<p>Definitely not! They should definitely just be paid in scholarships… It’s bad enough they get an edge on admissions just for being athlete; now they want actual money too? Give me a break.</p>

3

<p>the problem with paying athletes is that the schools would also have to pay the athletes in sports like cross country or track. these sports LOSE money for the schools, unlike football or basketball.</p>

4

<p>There is another problem with paying athletes cash: It would be fully taxable! Athletic scholarships are not taxable currently. If the athlete receives cash, it would be taxable. Even worse, they would be paying their tuition, room and board with non-deductible funds that would result in being MUCH worse for the athlete.</p>

<p>Frankly due to this problem alone, I don’t see how paying cash to the athletes would be a viable solution.</p>

5

<p>abbas432, I think the concept is to pay only athletes in revenue sports. Of course, without the funds generated by football and basketball, it’s not clear how the money-losing sports would survive.</p>

6

<p>I don’t think revenue sport athletes should be paid, but some other alternative need to be made to compensate the athletes. I don’t have the answer, but I know paying athletes will make things worse. I know most schools give their athletes free team gear like jackets as well as supply the athletes with equipments like cleats, socks, etc. Would anyone consider this enough payment along with the scholarships excluding the Ivy schools which ban merit aid?</p>

7

<p>Maybe not, Maybe I can see both sides. I think the real way to solve the problem is to let athletes sign endorsement deals and accept money from boosters. Let the free market dictate an athletes value.</p>

<p>Also the problem with paying athletes in revenue sports is based on Title IX, so it would probably have to involve paying all athletes. </p>

<p>It’s bad they get an admissions advantage for being an athlete? Come’on they contribute to the university more than adding whoever the next most qualified applicant that was rejected.</p>

8

<p>I suppose a related question is how one would determine the compensation for each athlete. Do a few visible stars get all the money, or most of it? Or should there be a single rate for all players? Or something in between?</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Couldn’t have said it better.</p>

10

<p>The free market decides. </p>

<p>Right now the basketball stars at the Univesity of Kentucky have enormous economic value to the University. Instead of being compensated in cash they are paid in scholarships (generally, but not always, of little to no value to the player), and contributions are made, on their behalf, to pay the exhorbitant salary of their duplicitous coach(and the rest of the athletic department). In addition, they generously, if unwittingly, sponsor scholarships for swimmers, golfers, discus tossers, bowlers, and various other participants in sports that have appeal to particant’s family, friends, and …noone else.</p>

<p>The market would say (as it will next year) that Terrence Jones’ or Marquis Teague’s skills are worth millions. The market would say that the pole vaulter’s skills are worth absolute zero. They get the same benefit, a scholarship (for various reasons, worth far more to the pole vaulter).</p>

<p>NCAA athletics are, economically, a great deal if you are a kid who plays an unpopular sport and would not qualify for financial aid and a terrible deal if you have monetizable skills and would otherwise qualify for financial aid.</p>

11

<p>Paying players would result in far more un-fairness than not paying players.
If each player is payed the same, the stars would still be upset.
If each player is not payed the same, the linemen who make the qb’s job possible would be getting the short end of the stick… just because they don’t play a glamorous position</p>

<p>A full ride scholarship is extremely valuable if the student athletes put it to good use. They get the opportunity to give themselves a better future based on their jumping ability.</p>

12

<p>^word. I think paying athletes is a bad idea. </p>

<p>Don’t some (or most?) of the athletes receive refund checks? So I mean like, they’re getting some kind of compensation,right? I remember once seeing on facebook a a guy I went to high school who’s now playing college football bragging about his refund check and how he’s going to use that money for spring break -_- lol.</p>

13

<p>That’s not true about linemen not being coveted. At the pro level, it is not uncommon for a tackle to be the first pick the draft and often the highest ranked prospect coming out of high school is a linemen. Who says a player wouldn’t be happy with the amount of money they are getting… you are speculating based on nothing. The ability to “jump” is more valuable and a lot rarer than the ability to get an A. Yes a scholarship is valuable but Div. 1 football players spend almost 44 hours on football, that’s more than a full-time job and they deserve to be compensated acccordingly</p>

14

<p>For the sports where players make a career out of playing (football, basketball mainly), there needs to be a better minor league system. I think it should work more like hockey, where there’s more than one route to the pros: you can play junior hockey and work up to the amateurs (OHL, AHL, etc), or you can play college hockey. That way, if an athlete does not care much about a college education, they can still make it to the NHL. </p>

<p>But doing that would decrease revenue for colleges, and decrease the level of competition. The athlete only really benefits from a scholarship if they graduate, and many do not. Maybe the NFL should discourage players from entering the draft before they graduate, so then players will all have a degree to use later in life, when their glory days are done</p>

15

<p>Easta- if an athlete is on a full ride and not living on campus (at least at my sons school) they receive a check each quarter that would equal the cost of room and board to live on campus. If they can live cheaper than that then I suppose the rest could be viewed as a refund or at least money not used to live and pay for off campus housing and food. </p>

<p>Stats21-no need to harsh on non revenue sports…</p>

16

<p>Actually, it’s not the true stars who suffer under the current system. Sure, they are individually worth a lot of money to their college programs. But it’s likely they will likely get a paycheck, at least for a year or two, at the pro level, and they benefit from the training and exposure they get while playing in college. </p>

<p>The group that really loses financially is the 99% (OccupyNCAA?) who put in the same hours, suffer the same injuries, etc., and have no chance of getting a look from pro teams. These student athletes often don’t even end up with a diploma or marketable skills to show for their four years. </p>

<p>Credit is due to those schools that at least ensure their athletes have a high probability of earning a degree. These are the top football programs: </p>

<p>Notre Dame 96%
Duke 95%
Northwestern 95%
Rice 93%
Navy 92%
Boston College 90%
Vanderbilt 89%
Rutgers 88%
Stanford 86%
Air Force 86%</p>

<p>Many schools don’t do nearly as well. Oklahoma, for example, graduates just 44% of its football players. That means more than half their players will leave the school with nothing to show for the value they provided. One can argue that it’s not always the school’s fault, but still…</p>

17

<p>I see that the graduation rate at Texas is also poor - 49%. I am aware of the support services the school offers the athletes - they are quite impressive! Lots of tutoring and advising, and a great study facility. I did hear that a lot of kids who play pro ball come back to finish their degree later, but I don’t know the stats.</p>

<p>So it seems that schools such as Texas need to be more selective when looking at the recruits’ academic abilities, but I guess that wouldn’t go over well with the fans.</p>

18

<p>Quite true, ML - realistically, some recruited athletes have little or no interest in academics, and may be minimally qualified to succeed in college-level classes. Notre Dame has always had a tougher recruiting job because of its academic and behavior standards. If every Division I school emulated Notre Dame’s policies, there would be lots of talented high school athletes with no place to go. What then? Minor league football?</p>

19

<p>No, because almost anyone can join a sport at any level…</p>

<p>sports like swim, track, cross country etc etc etc</p>

<p>That would destroy schools and destroy college sports.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Some info first, the OHL, along with the WHL and the QMJHL, is still a “junior” league (considered major juniors) that is for players from 15-16 to 21 years of age. These leagues consist mainly of Canadians, with a few Americans on every roster. The exact rules seem to change often, but essentially, if you play in major juniors, then you lose your NCAA eligibility. Other leagues in the U.S. and Canada, like the USHL, NAHL, BCHL, etc., are junior leagues with players of the same age as the major junior leagues, but these players keep their NCAA eligibility. The AHL the minor pro affiliate to the NHL; only one step down from the NHL.</p>

<p>Although, in theory, it sounds alright, in reality, hockey is probably the worst/most confusing sport when it comes to playing college hockey. As a 17 year old hockey player who has considered trying junior hockey, I wish hockey was more like other sports where you could go play college hockey right out of high school. As it is now, unless you are a top prospect, you’re going to be playing junior hockey until you’re at least 20 just to have a shot at playing DI hockey.</p>

<p>For top players who have a bright future in the pros, major juniors is a better option for them in terms of exposure to the NHL and competition. The problem is, they make up a small percentage of the players out there. I have heard of too many horror stories of guys going up to Canada to play in the OHL, only to be unsuccessful or get hurt. Now, these guys are stuck without NCAA eligibility, and they either try to play low-end pros or just give up.</p>

<p>IMO, other sports should not adopt an alternative to NCAA because the majority of these college athletes will not play in the pros, and a lot of those who do will not play very long. Most importantly, though, I do not like the idea of forcing 18, 17, and even 16 year olds to decide their future b/w a college education or a slim chance at the pros. Many of my peers have made the choice of taking that chance, and I feel like it is only a matter of time until it’s over for them.</p>