<p>On one hand, the students make tons of revenue for the university so they should get a piece of the money.However, that means if they're paid they would be essentially employees and could be fired at anytime and they might have to pay there way through college.There is another issue too, who gets paid what amount?Should Jabari Parker make the same amount as Sim Bhullar,(based on the universities they go to and their effect on their teams, of course not, but is that fair?). Would this skew collegiate sports so that Universities would literally be bidding on high school athletes? I can only imagine the bidding wars between Texas,USC, and Alabama for that 5 star football player. Some projective students want this to happen because that would free up space for admissions and allow more scholarship to the full time students.</p>
<p>Tell me what you think and your solution to this issue.</p>
<p>They shouldn’t be paid. They should all have full scholarships though. </p>
<p>I disagree with any support for athletes. I don’t know if it’s only because I’m not one myself (so I do’t know the effort), but I think having an extra EC is good enough.
I mean, c’mon, if even colleges stop caring about knowledge, I give up trying to believe in society.</p>
<p>@Fernand126 What does that even mean?</p>
<p>No they should not be paid.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats haha, lemme try to organize my confusing mind.</p>
<p>I said I do not think they should be paid, because:
- Practicing a sport is good when applying.
- IMO, colleges should never focus on sport (if athletes were paid, imagine the madness, as pointed out by @Ghana1996.</p>
<p>I also pointed out maybe I’m so biased against paying athletes because I’m not one myself (never practiced sports because of health problems).</p>
<p>Hope it makes sense now, English is not my first language.</p>
<p>@Fernand126 @skieurope the NCAA is a billion dollar enterprise. Executives are literally making hundred of millions of dollars off of how they perform, off their Jerseys, and even off their last names. You don’t think they deserve any compensation? </p>
<p>These athletes are treated like mules. They can lose their scholarship if thy get paid for anything related to sports because the NCAA thinks that only they should be able to make money off these kids. </p>
<p>Until just recently, they didn’t get snacks or proper meal plans. Sports is sometimes the biggest revenue of these schools. I’m nt sure how it is fair that FSU can make millions off of Jameis Winston, but if Winston sells memorabilia, he can get suspended.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats </p>
<p>The Winston example is muddying the question. The OP asked if athletes should be paid which I assumed to mean by the university or the boosters. So, no, I do not. The purpose of college is to get an education. That should be first and foremost.</p>
<p>Whether athletes should be able to make money via endorsements, etc., is a different question. However, the NCAA is clear on that subject.</p>
<p>If a student-athlete wants to have more of a balance, there is always D3. However, for a large proportion of these D1 revenue-sport athletes, the reality is that athletic recruitment was the only way they were going to get to college.</p>
<p>What I do not agree with is how scholarships are allocated for non-rev athletes. Again, a whole 'nother topic.</p>
<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I make these statements as a rising senior waiting for the July 1 phone calls.</p>
<p>@skieurope The same rules apply to D3 athletes. Still making revenue for the school, they are just making a lot less. Even look at guys like Chris Davis at Auburn, or Sammy Watkins at Clemson. They don’t deserve a fine for what they do. College is more than just learning content. If so, more people would be in online classes. It’s an experience. Which is why they have clubs and activities and yes, sports. It’s not like these guys can get other jobs either. They spend every free moment in the gym, working to make their superiors millionaires. </p>
<p>@AnnieBeats I understand the same rules apply to D3 athletes regarding compensation. The downside to D3 is lack of scholarships. The level of commitment is less, though, allowing a student-athlete to actually fulfill the student part of the equation. What is your proposal?</p>
<p>There’s something skieurope said that I like a lot. “The purpose of college is to get an education. That should be first and foremost.” That’s how I feel, even though I think they should have help with paying for meals (as being an athletes changes your diet a lot) and being able to have endorsements.</p>
<p>Its hard to get an education when you have schedule classes around practices. I was thinking about walking on to a D2 track team, but I’d have to schedule classes around morning, afternoon, and sometimes evening practices. Also, I would not be allowed to have a job during season and would miss classes do to traveling. Being a college athlete can sometimes delay graduation, the time commitment is crazy, and the lack of an ability to get a job, intern in the summer (football players practice during the summer), the physical risk (concussions/future brain damage, possibly being paralyzed), less time to study, inability to make money off of ones name, and… Oh, and walk ons are subject to the same rules. </p>
<p>College athletes should absolutely get a stipend of around $5,000 a year.</p>
<p>They are already getting paid $20000-$50000 per year in free tuition, room & board, books, etc.</p>
<p>I think it would be OK to increase the general stipend – maybe give them a few hundred bucks per month – but to act like they are getting nothing is foolish, unless you think a college education (and the stage upon which to market yourself to the professional leagues…) is worthless.</p>