NCAA President ready to explore paying athletes

Donate To GopherHole
Gopher07

Gopher07

Captain of Awesome
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
15
Points
38
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll..._N.htm?sms_ss=gmail&at_xt=4d93d876081f62dd,0"

Nothing huge, but worth noting..

He's not thinking big. Maybe bump up the value of players' scholarships by a few thousand dollars to take care of travel, laundry and other typical college expenses that aren't covered now. And Emmert isn't promising anything, only that he'll bring it up at the NCAA's board meetings in April.
Click to expand...

Your thoughts - If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Or, an overdue exploration?
 

One tough part about paying kids or even expanding scholarship amounts is that in this debate, everyone only thinks about the big boys in the big conferences. There are plenty of schools - most, in fact - whose athletic programs lose money. How would those schools foot the bill for payment? If any type of equality or parity is the goal, then it would be tough. For every Ohio State, there is a Louisiana Lafayette that would be hurt by it. Lower scholarship numbers increased parity. This would decrease parity.
 

The 12th Man said:
One tough part about paying kids or even expanding scholarship amounts is that in this debate, everyone only thinks about the big boys in the big conferences. There are plenty of schools - most, in fact - whose athletic programs lose money. How would those schools foot the bill for payment? If any type of equality or parity is the goal, then it would be tough. For every Ohio State, there is a Louisiana Lafayette that would be hurt by it. Lower scholarship numbers increased parity. This would decrease parity.
Click to expand...

Keep it simple. Give them a $400 stipend each month or something to that effect. It's not a whole lot of money, but it is enough to make a difference in the lives of college students and cover some necessary fees/bills.
 

I really don't think this will stop the schools that are already cheating. $400 a month turns into $800 at Alabama, which turns into $1200 a month at Auburn, etc.

Programs/coaches/boosters that cheat now will continue to cheat. It just will make it that much more difficult to punish because a booster that pays $400 a month now to a kid when $0 is expected, won't be punished as much as someone that now pays $800 to said player who is able to accept $400, even though it's the same $400 more.

Go Gophers!!
 

BleedGopher said:
I really don't think this will stop the schools that are already cheating. $400 a month turns into $800 at Alabama, which turns into $1200 a month at Auburn, etc.

Programs/coaches/boosters that cheat now will continue to cheat. It just will make it that much more difficult to punish because a booster that pays $400 a month now to a kid when $0 is expected, won't be punished as much as someone that now pays $800 to said player who is able to accept $400, even though it's the same $400 more.

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Agreed. The schools that are currently paying players under the table will undoubtedly continue to pay players under the table. Would the stipend given by the NCAA reduce the influence of illegal payments on players? Can't say for sure but I would say that its very unlikely.
 


PHP: 
Keep it simple.  Give them a $400 stipend each month or something to that effect.  It's not a whole lot of money, but it is enough to make a difference in the lives of college students and cover some necessary fees/bills.

I am all for a living stipend in college athletics.

It is time for the NCAA take care of the student athletes better. A living stipend will help all student athletes especially those who come from low income families whose family can ill afford to pay for their extra expenses.

The NCAA must level the playing field by establishing a general pool of money for stipends to be shared by all all the member schools. This will benefit all the student athletes who help generate huge amount of money for the NCAA revenue producing sports.

You won't prevent the cheaters from cheating no matter what policy the NCAA institutes. The temptation & the pressure to win is too great. However, we will take of the kids that help generate money for college sports.
 


Time to break the big football conferences out...allow enhanced scholly with stipend...BB players can go to NBA after one year...football still requires three...must make changes and not all schools can compete at the top level...need to break it out...and bring in a playoff for top 32 teams ...bowls for the rest.
 

Keep in mind that some of these kids are dirt poor. I know of some kids at what I would consider major programs who would immediately give half of the shoes they receive to their families (I heard this from a guy whose family has money) he still has extra shoes he hasnt worn through yet leftover...and he hasn't been a player since 06 I believe. (not a u of m player).

This is illegal according to NCAA rules I think. They should relax the rules about selling equipment and merchandise you receive from the school or from bowls/conference championship games, ect.

While it will probably make rule violative even more bold, I am for anything that can help the poorest of D1 athletes get by. For them a stipend would often go back to their families.
 



"A living stipend will help all student athletes especially those who come from low income families whose family can ill afford to pay for their extra expenses. "

I just don't agree. These guys get everything covered. Everything. That means food and as noted above a ton of clothes and shoes.

These are items that some of these families (not all of them come from dire poverty as we'd be led to believe) were paying for while the kid was in high school. The families no longer have to pay the kid's food, health insurance, and everything else (I am assuming they had enough cash to feed their athlete a pretty good diet and had funds to cover sports fees and equipment). So now that the kid goes to college the family now has more disposable income and they ought to be able to cover their laundry.

People make it seem like these guys are too broke to do anything. Poor Tyrelle Pryor had to sell his rings so he could ride in a luxury SUV. These poor guys can't even take their girlfriend out on a date, even though a college date is house party with a $40 keg of BLD. Boo-freaking-hoo. Every other kid is struggling to make ends meet in college. That is what college is about. I suppose these guys could always give up the scholarship and attend school like everyone else. Do you really think $400 of beer/weed money per month is going to help guys like Jew-Jew Party?
 

I think it is an excellent idea to pay each scholarship player a modest stipend out of a NCAA pool. All of the science grad students (that lab TA you had) get their tuition paid plus a small stipend to cover living expenses. They are performing a service for the university.

Make it a standard few hundred bucks a month to cover miscellaneous personal items (fix a flat tire on the bike, pay for gas, a pizza, etc..). The players really do not have time to get an another job on top of working for the University.
 

I heard a conversation the other day on NPR where they put out what I thought were some very good, elegant solutions to the issues the NCAA has:
1) Add a living allowance like the one they mention here
2) Allow athletes to make money off their own skill and profile in the off season (much like every non-athlete student is able to do) - Allows the star athletes to get paid, which stops people talking about ripping off these kids for free labor (which in some cases is a valid argument), without costing the NCAA or the universities anything.
3) Get an anti-trust exemption and put a cap on coaches salaries. - Stops the arms race that favors the big-pocket programs, and helps ease the perception that the NCAA is just another pro league. Coaches won't like it, but where else will they go?

Specifically with number two, what's the NCAA's reasoning for being so adamantly against this? It makes logical sense, no one would really blame them, and it would save them a lot of trouble with kids breaking rules, punishing players and programs, etc.
 

I dont think they should be paid. The common argument that they are suffering while the schools make millions doesn't wash. Go try to start a minor league for 18-22 year olds to compete with them and see how far you get. The fact that these teams are made up of students and that they represent a university, along with the eligibility limits are what make the game great, not the athletes. I believe I just heard that the NCAA just signed a record BB extension with CBS. How can that be when, for the last dozen years none of the best players go to school, and those that do, go for a year? It is because it is school allegiance, tradition, and a compelling format that draws fans in.
 



I agree with pretty much everything RedPoo has said. The poor kids who get scholarships have no pocket money. None. Zip. Zero. They can't work during the school year so how are they supposed to even afford to go to a movie or download a song? Sometimes they can get summer jobs, but often they have to go to summer school to keep up with their academics and continue to lift and work out.

Give them a stipend and if any schools/athletes are found violating the stipend amount, clear remedies: automatic suspension for the kid (rest of season) and no bowl for the team.

Especially agree on the coaching salary cap. That has gotten totally ridiculous.
 

badgergopher said:
I dont think they should be paid. The common argument that they are suffering while the schools make millions doesn't wash. Go try to start a minor league for 18-22 year olds to compete with them and see how far you get. The fact that these teams are made up of students and that they represent a university, along with the eligibility limits are what make the game great, not the athletes. I believe I just heard that the NCAA just signed a record BB extension with CBS. How can that be when, for the last dozen years none of the best players go to school, and those that do, go for a year? It is because it is school allegiance, tradition, and a compelling format that draws fans in.
Click to expand...

I lean towards this thinking. Let the pros pay for their own development leagues or make them pay the NCAA. Call their bluff. They want the product they should pay for it or get out of the way. Take away scholarships in direct relationship to kids making four years of progres toward a degree. Draw the line here because most college students don't get it done in four years either.

"But they'll still be cheating." Yeah there will be; just like there's speeders, tax cheats, drunken drivers and crack heads. Catch the ones you can, but try to minimize the incentive.

The constant discussions of "because the pros do it","he's not pro material", "what's his draft status" or the WORST "is he staying another year" should go away. You want to watch games being played by "play for pay players" watch the pros. You want throw away regular seasons for TV playoffs in January or March? Watch the pros.

Can't get a real pro team? Boo hoo. Let's just get rid of the college pro teams.

Oh, then listen closely: the teams screaming the most about making college teams play for their college will be the schools paying for their players.
 

50PoundHead said:
I agree with pretty much everything RedPoo has said. The poor kids who get scholarships have no pocket money. None. Zip. Zero. They can't work during the school year so how are they supposed to even afford to go to a movie or download a song? Sometimes they can get summer jobs, but often they have to go to summer school to keep up with their academics and continue to lift and work out.

Give them a stipend and if any schools/athletes are found violating the stipend amount, clear remedies: automatic suspension for the kid (rest of season) and no bowl for the team.

Especially agree on the coaching salary cap. That has gotten totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This too.
 

Pretty sure I saw the players tweeting about their direct deposit notifications a couple months ago. That means their scholarship went above the cost of tuition, fees, room, and board. They're getting plenty.
 


GopherInPittsburgh said:
Pretty sure I saw the players tweeting about their direct deposit notifications a couple months ago. That means their scholarship went above the cost of tuition, fees, room, and board. They're getting plenty.
Click to expand...

Just because they get something above tuition, fees, room and board doesn't mean they're getting plenty. I had a full meal plan, lived in a dorm, and still had plenty of expenses. I had a job during the school year to help pay them, and parents with enough money to help me out. A lot of these kids don't have either of those things. A living allowance wouldn't hurt anything, nor would letting them sell their jerseys or autographs.
 


RedPoo said:
Just because they get something above tuition, fees, room and board doesn't mean they're getting plenty. I had a full meal plan, lived in a dorm, and still had plenty of expenses. I had a job during the school year to help pay them, and parents with enough money to help me out. A lot of these kids don't have either of those things. A living allowance wouldn't hurt anything, nor would letting them sell their jerseys or autographs.
Click to expand...

Just by how excited they were, I would assume the deposit was plenty. Or maybe, instead of a living allowance, they give the option of a loan of say $2,000 a year. Then, once they're out of school, after receiving a free education, they can pay it back. People are so soft nowadays.
 

And they have this little thing called the FAFSA for people with less money to fill out. Players can get grants from that too if they qualify. If they don't then obviously they are doing just fine.
 

So many poster seem to be jealous that the players may get something they were never able to get. Get over it.

Anyone who thinks that the player are getting a free education should just drop in, suit up and run through a couple of Coach Kill's practices, let the press and message board talk about how inadequate you are and keep up with all the classwork demands. College athletics is a JOB!

The players signed contracts and are working for the university as an entertainer/representative/whatever. The university benefits just as much (or more) as if they were teachers, TA's, custodians, etc.. The players current "pay" structure is to pay for tuition and allow them to get an education. Adding a meager stipend (out of a NCAA pool) for a little spending money will help the whole situation. It will smooth things over and remove the temptation from some of the players to get money from other sources. It will never stop the ones that want to "make it rich", but there are rules in place to address them.

I don't think they should open it up to where individual players can profit based upon their popularity or what school they play for because that can be another whole can of worms. Just image how an SEC school can attract players if they have a "sports memorabilia" buyer (read as booster) that will pay big money in the summer for their helmets/jock straps, etc...

A small, equal stipend for scholarship players paid by the NCAA to every player at every schools will be the most fair.

A "semi-pro" league is not the way to go, just look at all the discarded Junior hockey players in Canada that didn't even finish high school. The college system at least gives the player a chance to improve themselves and have a chance at having a career outside of pro sports.
 

How about the NFL starts up a Major Junior Football League, similar to the CHL in Canada. IMO, it would stop the mariginal academic athlete and the student who has no desire to get a degree from attending a major university like Minnesota. I know this will not happen but it would help BCS schools overnight.
 


mattw1067 said:
Keep it simple. Give them a $400 stipend each month or something to that effect. It's not a whole lot of money, but it is enough to make a difference in the lives of college students and cover some necessary fees/bills.
Click to expand...

alchemy2u said:
I think it is an excellent idea to pay each scholarship player a modest stipend out of a NCAA pool. All of the science grad students (that lab TA you had) get their tuition paid plus a small stipend to cover living expenses. They are performing a service for the university.

Make it a standard few hundred bucks a month to cover miscellaneous personal items (fix a flat tire on the bike, pay for gas, a pizza, etc..). The players really do not have time to get an another job on top of working for the University.
Click to expand...


This would turn into every NCAA athlete receiving equal amount. There are 400,000 NCAA student-athletes. This would equal around $1.92 billion a year in stipends. Something tells me the NCAA has no interest in footing that bill.
 

"The poor kids who get scholarships have no pocket money. None. Zip. Zero. They can't work during the school year so how are they supposed to even afford to go to a movie or download a song? Sometimes they can get summer jobs, but often they have to go to summer school to keep up with their academics and continue to lift and work out."

Do you really think there is a D-1 athlete who can't afford to go to a movie or download a song? Ignoring the fact that team lounges are stocked with tvs, dvds, x-boxes, etc I can't se where a parent whose kid is now off their dime and now has free food, clothes, and healthcare can't/won't send them a few bucks a month.

You know how many kids are just scrapping by in college? Pretty much all of them. That is why $3 bottles of MD 20/20 are purchased and consumed on dates. If we start giving these guys beer money, why wouldn't we give it to other poor students as well. This whole this thing also assumes that all student athletes come from completely impoverished backgrounds.

Three words these guys never hear: $5 cover. This puts them in a much better situation than most of their fellow students.
 

GopherInPittsburgh said:
If you start this stipend, then it becomes a mess due to Title IX and other sports.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Are you going to pay the crew team? Or do you just limit it to profitable sports? Does that mean that small programs that don't turn a profit in football won't be able to pay players? Won't that make hurt those programs drastically?

Furthermore, the thing that irks me about this is when I see college players before the game listening to music with Beats by Dre headphones. These retail at $300. So tell me how these poor athletes afford $300 headphones?
 

gall0249 said:
Exactly. Are you going to pay the crew team? Or do you just limit it to profitable sports? Does that mean that small programs that don't turn a profit in football won't be able to pay players? Won't that make hurt those programs drastically?

Furthermore, the thing that irks me about this is when I see college players before the game listening to music with Beats by Dre headphones. These retail at $300. So tell me how these poor athletes afford $300 headphones?
Click to expand...

Or $2000 scooters. If a player doesn't have any spending money it's not a payment problem, it's a money management problem, something almost every college student has to figure out.
 

GopherInPittsburgh said:
This would turn into every NCAA athlete receiving equal amount. There are 400,000 NCAA student-athletes. This would equal around $1.92 billion a year in stipends. Something tells me the NCAA has no interest in footing that bill.
Click to expand...

There's no way they're going to start giving stipends to every athlete. And there's no way they can only give it only to the revenue sports. That would be a political/PR bleep-storm and possibly violate title IX.

The only thing they could do is apply the Olympic rules to the athletes which would allow them to make money from endorsements. But would that really make it better or make it worse? The Minnesota car dealer might be willing to pay the Gopher QB an honest $1,000 bucks for an endorsement and the Alabama car dealer and booster will pay $50,000 for the same thing (he probably was anyway, may as well get a commercial from it.)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom