<p>Time2, I don’t think you understand the scope of the discussion. We are talking about paying players only in major, profitable football and basketball programs. Further, they would still be required to attend classes and meet graduation requirements. The only thing that would change would that they would receive money for the value they are creating.</p>
<p>Another (separate) suggestion was made, that they shouldn’t have to attend class. I disagree with that, but think that a major in football or basketball offered only to the top athletes at the top programs might be a decent idea, but of course it would probably include 60 credits of general education, 30 credits of electives, and then 30 credits of the major, which would be the sport. But again, I do have doubts about this.</p>
<p>That suggestion, however, is not the main discussion topic of this thread, which is simply that nothing change in the academic sense, but profitable athletes are paid.</p>
<p>Somebody needs to figure out a way of establishing professional minor leagues in football and basketball. That would fix the money-related problems in college football and basketball. </p>
<p>There are two other major professional sports in the US, namely baseball and hockey, and we don’t have the same corrupting hypocrisy in the college versions of those two sports. If a young baseball or hockey player wants to focus on that sport, the non-college paths are actually better than the college path. However, in football or basketball, college is the only practical choice for sports development.</p>
<p>Tempting as it may be to rip up and re-structure college football and basketball, there is no guarantee of getting it right.</p>
<p>In other words, I made an uncomfortable point, so you resorted to a personal attack? </p>
<p>So, let’s hear an actual response - for the 70 percent of Div 1 football programs that are losing money, should those players be paid as well? </p>
<p>The rationale some seem to espouse is that some colleges (a tiny minority when you consider <em>all</em> college football programs in Div 1-3) are making money from (some of ) their sports programs - yet most colleges lose money, often a <em>lot</em> of money on these and other programs. So, what about <em>those</em> players? Should they be paid? Or should they have to pay to play?</p>
<p>^ FWIW I dont think there should be any pay for the athletes—none.
Scholarships for need covers it.
However, as I said, my scholar-athlete has a tremdendously rigorous schedule academically and athletically…and the school and league don’t give any merit money nor athletic money. It works.</p>
<p>In other words, I made an uncomfortable point, so you resorted to a personal attack? </p>
<p>No personal attach at all… bitter? is a question. You made reference to students not getting into state schools because of abysmally low academics of athletes who took the spots. I would say your post would be more of an attack with your critical remarks toward athletes. No personal agenda here, my athlete has a 4.3 and got in without his sport. I just thought your post was harsh.</p>
<p>Yes, I read and understood the prior posts. Paying ‘student athletes’ to participate in their sport is a terrible idea. What happened to attending college PRIMARILY to get a degree? Threads on here often go off in various directions. In many cases the original question may/may not be what people are still discussing.</p>
<p>If they don’t ever attend class, the whole concept becomes a sham to simply pay someone to play a sport.</p>
<p>NCAA football and basketball are already de facto minor leagues anyways. They’re too competitive for any athletes (with a few exceptions) to be able to hold a good GPA in a decent major at the same time. Athlete graduation rates are pretty much meaningless, every school with a good sports program creates joke majors for athletes like sports management, general studies, leisure studies, etc…</p>
<p>IMO the idea that college athletes (mostly talking basketball/football) are “amateurs” is complete ********. The only purpose is so the schools don’t have to dole out the money to any of the players. Instead the $$ goes to the schools and the conferences, so coaches and administrators can take home multi-million dollar salaries.</p>
I think it would be better with the recruiting focus on a professional minor league. Of course, that can’t happen now. Recruitment standards are already set with college, college sports are a multibillion dollar industry, and the long-standing traditions of these programs are a big attachment for the general populace.</p>
<p>There are too many interests that would fight the lessening of importance of college sports.</p>
<p>
It’s true for most people who attend college, but is simply not true for major athletes. And it will continue to not be true unless you eliminate their ability to play their sport. As long as you have kids going to college to play football with the eventual goal of going to the NFL, they’re nearly always going to care more about their future multimillion dollar careers than their classes. In fact, a large amount of the other people going to college are doing so primarily to be able to make a lot of money once they leave. The only difference is that they need the degree to do it, and the football players don’t.</p>
<p>Another scam that prevents college athletes from not bypassing the college system to be paid is that basketball requires a player to be 19 to enter the draft and the NFL requires them to be 21. The NCAA essentially has a monopoly on their skills. I am not sure why no one has discussed that athletes should be allowed to sell their likeness in forms of advertisement instead of schools paying them. Most superstar athletes make most of there money in endorsements so whats the problem with letting college athletes do the same?</p>
<p>If Andrew Luck cared most about going pro and making money, then he would have entered the NFL draft last year when he would have been the #1 pick and would have earned millions more than he will this year, since he would have just missed the new salary caps. Stanford, for the most part, does a great job allowing students to combine high level athletics with high level academics. But their system isn’t perfect.</p>
<p>I don’t think college athletes should be paid. However, what I object to as the parent of a Div. 1 athlete in a non-revenue sport (which is actually 3 sports in the sense that she’s a distance runner who runs cross country, winter track, and spring track), is that my D’s financial aid package includes expected work earnings during the academic year. I believe it’s unfair to expect her to put in 25 hours or so each week on her sport and then on top of that work a part-time job too. D does have a job, but can’t always fit in the 10-14 hours/week she’s supposed to to earn the required amount. Athletes need more sleep than non-athletes due to the energy they expend, and my D often gets less. This has had some health implications for her. Secondly, I object to the team obligations which aren’t related to the sport. For example, athletes are expected to host recruits, which is a time-consuming activity. Also, even though the host is given money to use to take their recruit to dinner or wherever, the other teammates who join them (as they are expected to do when they can, and when it makes sense) have to use their own money for that trip to the ice cream or pizza shop. Also, the athletes have to help out with minor administrative tasks related to events the team hosts. For example, D has had to fill give-away bags for their home invitationals. Not a big deal, but this doesn’t exactly qualify as something she is doing for the love of the sport.</p>
<p>And yes, her GPA is lower than it should be and would be if she weren’t competing. It seems that certain companies want to recruit athletes and will make allowances for that, but how this will play out remains to be seen. I doubt grad schools make allowances, though.</p>
<p>TheCFG - wow, as the parent of a former HS distance runner, I cannot imagine requiring the athletes to work that much and fulfill the extra obligations! My son ended up injured, so he couldn’t run in college, but I feel for your daughter!</p>
<p>Many college athletes - on scholarship or not - have a required amount of community service that is expected of them, beyond their academic and athletic roles. </p>
<p>I was surprised at how much is expected at my D’s future school - but it sounds like the athletes from the different sports teams enjoy this activity very much, and especially the response of the people in the community that it benefits.</p>
<p>This extra time demand and the required discipline to manage through it, is why I always give an extra look at resumes of former college athletes when I’m recruiting people for jobs.</p>
<p>The fear is that with revenue sports you’ll have a bidding war for the a talent, but what is the difference between a equipment sponsor that provides equipment/outfits/travel expenses for a none revenue sport? The inequity is that some schools make money and others barely or don’t make enough to cover their expenses, but trust me paying isn’t the answer I went to school in late 70’s & 80’s back when school really hooked you up and that didn’t include all the vendors around campus…great times back then</p>
<p>One of my football coaches and I talked about this and we both think it’s ridiculous. It should be an honor to get to play at a collegiate level, there are a lot of guys who would kill just to play on a practice squad and get nothing (I’m one of them). They are already receiving $100,000+ education for free. I do think that they should be able to sell their rings and such, though. I don’t think it’s right but when the average college student needs cash, they sell what’s on hand that they don’t need (xbox, TV, whatever) so why can’t athletes?</p>
It should be an honor to generate millions of dollars in value for the school and NCAA yet not be properly compensated? This is most basically a question of workers’ rights, where the parties involved won’t even admit that the students are workers.</p>
<p>Further, if they are required to do some form of work (play the sports that generate tens of millions of dollars for these top programs), the education is not free. It is a form of compensation. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable means of compensation.</p>
<p>With few exceptions, most athletes in D1 revenue generating sports, and even many in other sports, aren’t able to truly devote themselves to serious academic work. Their coaches and institutions monopolize nearly all of the productive hours in a day, and frankly, those who’ve had the experience first hand also understand that a great number of them are not particularly well treated in these athletic programs. People fixate on the value of the scholarships and handful of “success” stories, but it’s mostly just a ruse. These athletes don’t receive the same depth of educational opportunities as non athletes. Their main purpose is not to be educated, but to entertain and generate revenues for their institutions. Scheduling conflicts? Could you imagine a player missing practice one or two days a week because he had to be in lab? He’d be off the team in a heartbeat. In fact, most are directed away from the most demanding academic work to make sure they have more time for athletics. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t go as far as saying their exploitation is intentional, but it is clearly a systematic problem that leaves far too many of these kids used up and unprepared for life after their tenure on the team with nothing to show for the time they were quite literally owned by their coaches and the institution for which they played. This, after having generated big $$$$ for their universities. </p>
<p>I don’t know what the right answer is, but I see the current system as being inherently unfair once you pull off the window dressing and look at the circumstances realistically and honestly. It’s very exploitive and inequitable.</p>