NCAA President ready to explore paying athletes

[Sportsfan24]

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 revenue sports generally make money, schools that didn't want to participate could drop sports are leave the NCAA. The athletic programs that are loosing money is because the schools are having to fund non revenue generating sports.

 

[Sportsfan24]

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!!

The schools that are cheating according to recent news paper articles, are paying kids anywhere from $80,000 to $250,000 to sign. A $400 stipend will have no effect, good or bad.

 

[Sportsfan24]

They are paid enough as it is.

Really? Are you aware that a dozen are so kids who play every Saturday or NOT on scholarship? They pay to go to school and play football?

Why should a walk on kicker have to make a field goal to send his team to a bowl game that pays $2 to $8 million?

 

[Sportsfan24]

"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?

Wrong, they do not get everything covered. They get meal tickets during the week. Cool, what if they practice late or get hungry in the middle of the night? Back in my day we used to get shoes and some athletic cloths; today not so much, beside it's against NCAA rules to sale or give it away.

No money for dates boo-hoo? Other kids can work, even if scholarship athletes had the time they can't. It's against NCAA rules to have a job during the school year.

Also; the president, coach and staff all get salaries from the University. Why should they get free cars, clothing contracts (the players wear the cloths), television shows and first class accomodations to bowl games for their families?

 

[Sportsfan24]

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.

What do you mean it doesn't wash? The big ten network pays each school in the big ten about $18 million dollars, dress up the student body in uniforms and let's see how that works out?

The NCAA works with professional sports teams to create drafting road blocks for a reason, NCAA suffers when talent leaves (or bypasses altogether) college sports. ALL of the best college athletes go to school for at least ONE year.

 

[Sportsfan24]

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.

You don't understand.

Kids not living in campus housing, get money (paid directly to them) in lump sum payments to cover rent for the semester. It's not extra.

 

[Sportsfan24]

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.

They don't get free educations.

How about paying coaches professor salaries? Why should every football coach (and coordinators) make more than the people (AD and President) he reports too?

Why should Tressel get money from Nike by having Terrell Pryor wear Nike shoes. Why should Ohio State get money from selling Terrell Pryor posters? Why should Terrell Pryor get suspended for selling something that belongs to Terrell Pryor?

 

[RedPoo]

There are plenty of good points in this thread as to why stipends might not work, but I think there's a larger point here. It feels like we're building towards a critical mass of public opinion where the current system, with it's poor graduation rates and millions upon millions of dollars changing hands (with an incredibly small percentage of that going towards the actual players) is simply not going to be allowed to continue. People see the obvious hypocrisy of the fact that these kids are fundamentally employees, regardless of what they're called, who are working for virtually nothing and making their employers millions. The fact that this applies to just a handful of football and basketball players is largely irrelevant. Major college sports teams are viewed as a sham. The student athletes are students in name only. People are fed up. What gets done about it? To those out there arguing against all of these changes, can you think of a way to fix these issues?

 

[RedPoo]

They don't get free educations.

How about paying coaches professor salaries? Why should every football coach (and coordinators) make more than the people (AD and President) he reports too?

Why should Tressel get money from Nike by having Terrell Pryor wear Nike shoes. Why should Ohio State get money from selling Terrell Pryor posters? Why should Terrell Pryor get suspended for selling something that belongs to Terrell Pryor?

Agreed on all three points. These are the issues that the general public notices, and they paint college football in a HORRIBLE light.

 

[Gophers507]

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!!

I agree, it's a slippery slope if you open this up. cuz now well I can get this much here and this much here. You think the big boys with the big budgets separate themselves now, just wait, this would give them a chance to really flex their financial muscles.

 

[50PoundHead]

I think SportsFan24's angle on this is probably the most credible and I agree with his posts.

 

[Ski U Master]

Really? Are you aware that a dozen are so kids who play every Saturday or NOT on scholarship? They pay to go to school and play football?

Why should a walk on kicker have to make a field goal to send his team to a bowl game that pays $2 to $8 million?

What are you talking about? If there was a stipend it wouldn't be paid to non-scholly players.

As for the walk-ons, they knew there wouldn't be any benefits when they signed up, it is their choice to play football while going to school and if they can't afford the tuition they probably chose the wrong school.

 

[Gophers507]

"When that happens, its pro sports. We already have pro sports. This is not how to handle cheating."

This point too. I like college sports...amateur sports. we already have pro sports leagues go watch them. Leave college sports out of it. I just really can't stand the idea of ruining college sports with money thrown into it cuz that's what its gonna do. I understand it's already in it but those schools need to be punished and loose sh*t until they stop doing it. Don't turn college football into the NFL for the love of god. Look what the NFL is about to do, not have a season because the millionaires and the billionaires can't agree on the gold mine. It's really sad...

 

[Sportsfan24]

"When that happens, its pro sports. We already have pro sports. This is not how to handle cheating."

This point too. I like college sports...amateur sports. we already have pro sports leagues go watch them. Leave college sports out of it. I just really can't stand the idea of ruining college sports with money thrown into it cuz that's what its gonna do. I understand it's already in it but those schools need to be punished and loose sh*t until they stop doing it. Don't turn college football into the NFL for the love of god. Look what the NFL is about to do, not have a season because the millionaires and the billionaires can't agree on the gold mine. It's really sad...

You said it yourself, the money is already in college sports. The haves want to keep it from the have nots. The current system is great....if your not a player. Coaches are making $2 to $5 million per year, while the players are getting scholarships (funded by donations). Big Ten schools make millions on football....with no financial risk to the school.

The NFL situation is easy. The billionaires want to take money away from the millionaires....and not show them why. I'm with the players on this one. It's one thing if you losing money because of the economy...it's something else if you losing money while having most of your family on the pay roll in make believe (the don't show for work; think organized crime) jobs.

 

[matt]

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.

How many are on scholarship though?

 

[stevedave23]

I've always thought the NCAA should consider one or a combo of these three things:

1) Pay scholar athletes a lump sum after they've completed their eligibility and obtained a degree.
2) Reserve a pool of money to pay for scholar athletes tuition towards a post secondary degree. For example, if a former scholar athlete wishes to pursue a law/masters/phd perhaps part or all of their tuition could be paid for.
3) Reserve a pool of money to pay for medical expenses incurred by former college football players later in life.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I've always thought the NCAA should consider one or a combo of these three things:

1) Pay scholar athletes a lump sum after they've completed their eligibility and obtained a degree.
2) Reserve a pool of money to pay for scholar athletes tuition towards a post secondary degree. For example, if a former scholar athlete wishes to pursue a law/masters/phd perhaps part or all of their tuition could be paid for.
3) Reserve a pool of money to pay for medical expenses incurred by former college football players later in life.

Interesting options; I would go for anything that includes a true 100% scholarship. That would include all room and board (ie all meal, laundering cloths, spending money, trips home and travel/lodging to bowl games for family). If university staff family can travel on the universities dime why can't the players?

 

[Replacement Gopher]

I've always thought the NCAA should consider one or a combo of these three things:

1) Pay scholar athletes a lump sum after they've completed their eligibility and obtained a degree.
2) Reserve a pool of money to pay for scholar athletes tuition towards a post secondary degree. For example, if a former scholar athlete wishes to pursue a law/masters/phd perhaps part or all of their tuition could be paid for.
3) Reserve a pool of money to pay for medical expenses incurred by former college football players later in life.

Makes more sense than anything else I have heard. Good ideas.

 

[mplsbadger]

What do you mean it doesn't wash? The big ten network pays each school in the big ten about $18 million dollars, dress up the student body in uniforms and let's see how that works out?

The NCAA works with professional sports teams to create drafting road blocks for a reason, NCAA suffers when talent leaves (or bypasses altogether) college sports. ALL of the best college athletes go to school for at least ONE year.

I mean that the big revenues are not the result of the players, they are a result of the product. See my point regarding NCAA hoops being bigger than ever despite the fact that Garnett, Bryant, James and many others never played a minute in college. Did the fans respond by saying, "this is an inferior product, I'm not watching March Madness anymore"?

 

[GopherBeef]

What are you talking about? If there was a stipend it wouldn't be paid to non-scholly players.

As for the walk-ons, they knew there wouldn't be any benefits when they signed up, it is their choice to play football while going to school and if they can't afford the tuition they probably chose the wrong school.

I completely agree with the above point, and not just for walk-ons, but for all college athletes.

We all can talk about how tough it is for some of these kids to cover incidental expenses, but the bottom line is they signed up for this. They are not forced to play, nor are they forced to go to college. Yes, it is hard work, but again that is why they receive the scholarship. For many of these kids it is the only chance they will get to a. receive a college education, and b. have a chance to become a professional athlete.

Many of us who went to college completed an unpaid or low-pay internship. Why? To better our chances for future careers. The company for whom the intern works certainly is not paying them adequately for their work, but both the company and the intern benefit. The company in the short-term, and the intern in the long-term. And, this is understood ahead of time. I look at college athletics the same way. The future career may or may not be pro sports, and most of the time it is not, either way the college athlete is better prepared for their future than they would be without college.

Plus, what college athletes receive goes far beyond tuition and room and board. Much of their food is paid, and is much better quality than what the normal college student would have. They receive elite fitness training, they receive tutoring. Then there are the ancillary benefits-they are the big men on campus, they are eligible for post-grad scholarships that many others are not, they make connections with boosters that will help them when they look for a job after college, they are more recognizable among the general public, which will also help them later in life.

Plus, the math does not work. As a previous poster estimated, it would cost NCAA nearly 2 billion to give each college athlete a $400/mo. stipend. As another noted, if it was limited to revenue sports, Title IX issues would surely arise, and what is a revenue sport? For some schools there are no revenue sports, while for others, like us, we have an extra revenue sport in hockey that many other schools do not. If it were left to the colleges to pay, what would the cash-strapped athletic departments do? Fold up the program entirely?

Finally, on the salary cap for coaches issue. Why? What would this solve? Would it make college sports more competitive? I doubt it. Most college coaches started out as grad assistants somewhere making next to nothing, and worked their way up through assistant jobs and small-college head coaching jobs, so it is not like they did not work to get where they are. I really don't know what this would solve, as the top coaches would still be attracted to the top programs, even without a pay increase. If you had a choice between coaching at Iowa State for $500,000/year or Ohio State for $500,000/year, which would you choose? Even without a pay increase, the coaches would be attracted to facilities, tradition, institutional support, etc. The top coaches would then attract the top assistants, top recruits, and we are right back where we started.

 

[JoeDirt]

Great post GopherBeef. It is the way that I feel about this whole situation also.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I mean that the big revenues are not the result of the players, they are a result of the product. See my point regarding NCAA hoops being bigger than ever despite the fact that Garnett, Bryant, James and many others never played a minute in college. Did the fans respond by saying, "this is an inferior product, I'm not watching March Madness anymore"?

I respect what you're saying but I can't agree. Garnett and Bryant bypassed college 15 years ago and James is only one player (and that was 7 years ago). Your sample size consist of 3 players over a period of almost two decades?

The NCAA recogizes the impact of highschool stars bypassing the college. That's why they work with the pro teams to lessen the impact. I would argue the popularity and large television contracts are a RESULT of the success of keeping players in college, ie forcing them to play college for at least one year.

 

[Unregistered User]

They don't get free educations.

How about paying coaches professor salaries? Why should every football coach (and coordinators) make more than the people (AD and President) he reports too?

Why should Tressel get money from Nike by having Terrell Pryor wear Nike shoes. Why should Ohio State get money from selling Terrell Pryor posters? Why should Terrell Pryor get suspended for selling something that belongs to Terrell Pryor?

First off, I agree with almost everything you have posted, and have respect for your opinions. But I disagree with the bolded part above.

If the NCAA allows players to sell merchandise, or tickets or anything that was given to them by the institution, it would not be long before the players got more and more merchandise, and there were more and more "fans" who show up with a great interest in having the "collectible item", and paying way above market price for it.

How many tOSU boosters would be showing up with wads on $100 bills and saying "Wow...a game worn jersey? Sure I'll give you $2,000 for that". And that would really tilt the balance to the schools with the most money.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I completely agree with the above point, and not just for walk-ons, but for all college athletes.

We all can talk about how tough it is for some of these kids to cover incidental expenses, but the bottom line is they signed up for this. They are not forced to play, nor are they forced to go to college. Yes, it is hard work, but again that is why they receive the scholarship. For many of these kids it is the only chance they will get to a. receive a college education, and b. have a chance to become a professional athlete.

Many of us who went to college completed an unpaid or low-pay internship. Why? To better our chances for future careers. The company for whom the intern works certainly is not paying them adequately for their work, but both the company and the intern benefit. The company in the short-term, and the intern in the long-term. And, this is understood ahead of time. I look at college athletics the same way. The future career may or may not be pro sports, and most of the time it is not, either way the college athlete is better prepared for their future than they would be without college.

Plus, what college athletes receive goes far beyond tuition and room and board. Much of their food is paid, and is much better quality than what the normal college student would have. They receive elite fitness training, they receive tutoring. Then there are the ancillary benefits-they are the big men on campus, they are eligible for post-grad scholarships that many others are not, they make connections with boosters that will help them when they look for a job after college, they are more recognizable among the general public, which will also help them later in life.

Plus, the math does not work. As a previous poster estimated, it would cost NCAA nearly 2 billion to give each college athlete a $400/mo. stipend. As another noted, if it was limited to revenue sports, Title IX issues would surely arise, and what is a revenue sport? For some schools there are no revenue sports, while for others, like us, we have an extra revenue sport in hockey that many other schools do not. If it were left to the colleges to pay, what would the cash-strapped athletic departments do? Fold up the program entirely?

Finally, on the salary cap for coaches issue. Why? What would this solve? Would it make college sports more competitive? I doubt it. Most college coaches started out as grad assistants somewhere making next to nothing, and worked their way up through assistant jobs and small-college head coaching jobs, so it is not like they did not work to get where they are. I really don't know what this would solve, as the top coaches would still be attracted to the top programs, even without a pay increase. If you had a choice between coaching at Iowa State for $500,000/year or Ohio State for $500,000/year, which would you choose? Even without a pay increase, the coaches would be attracted to facilities, tradition, institutional support, etc. The top coaches would then attract the top assistants, top recruits, and we are right back where we started.

There are two many inconsistences and non-sensical points of view to comment on. I will just say this. The PLAYERS are the reason for the TV contracts, coaches salary and popularity. Don't believe me? I can prove it. If the starters (returning) for Auburn where to transfer to Western Kentucky, the Hilltoppers would be in a $5 milion major bowl game in January on national TV.

 

[Tee09]

If they apply themselves, players can get an education and a degree in something useful from a Big Ten school for free, and leave school with no debt. If they feel that's exploitation, they A) don't have to do it, and B) can STFU, as tons of kids would LOVE the opportunity these guys get.

 

[GopherFan75]

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.

And most of them will be going pro in something other than sports.

 

[Markous15]

I heard through the grapevine (my sister had a roommate that was dating a football player) that players on full ride scholarships here at the U get $800 a month in "spending money." I don't want to present that amount like its a fact (I would guess its a little lower) because I didn't hear it personally so I don't know how accurate it is but the gist was they get a fair amount of money outside of their basic needs.

 

[dinkything]

I heard through the grapevine (my sister had a roommate that was dating a football player) that players on full ride scholarships here at the U get $800 a month in "spending money." I don't want to present that amount like its a fact (I would guess its a little lower) because I didn't hear it personally so I don't know how accurate it is but the gist was they get a fair amount of money outside of their basic needs.

If true, there is both good news and bad news associated with this post.

The bad news is $800/month per player for "spending money," above and beyond the football players' full rides, is clearly a major violation of NCAA rules.

The good news is we are not talking high-profile programs like Oregon football, Auburn football, UConn hoops, Kentucky hoops etc., so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

But regardless, we don't want the NCAA setting up shop in dinkytown.

 

[GopherInPittsburgh]

If true, there is both good news and bad news associated with this post.

The bad news is $800/month per player for "spending money," above and beyond the football players' full rides, is clearly a major violation of NCAA rules.

The good news is we are not talking high-profile programs like Oregon football, Auburn football, UConn hoops, Kentucky hoops etc., so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

But regardless, we don't want the NCAA setting up shop in dinkytown.

I don't think it is a big deal. It be claimed to cover the estimated cost of attendance, books, food, rent, and miscellaneous costs.

 

[Markous15]

I don't think that that is above the rules. I had a friend whose sister went to Toledo on a full volleyball scholarship and she got an extra $300 a month. I think its standard to give them extra to buy extra food and clothes and stuff like that (because they can't work while under scholarship). Maybe "above and beyond" wasn't the right way to say it.