NCAA President ready to explore paying athletes

Donate To GopherHole
The university estimates the cost of attendance to be 27,000. Tuition is around 16,400. That gives a player around 10,600 for books, housing, and food. Usually housing will suck up 5-6K of that leaving 4-5K for books, food, and miscellaneous.
 

GopherInPittsburgh said:
The university estimates the cost of attendance to be 27,000. Tuition is around 16,400. That gives a player around 10,600 for books, housing, and food. Usually housing will suck up 5-6K of that leaving 4-5K for books, food, and miscellaneous.
Click to expand...

After tuition is paid, the player gets the incidental money as a monthly stipend. The compliance department checks on the housing to make sure that the athlete(s) is/are paying market rate.

The cheaper the housing (cramming as many guys as legally permitted into a dwelling), the more spending money the player has.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
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.
Click to expand...

...because they would still be playing college football.

If they were to all move to Bowling Green, KY to become a part of a new semi-pro league, they'd be as popular as rookie league baseball, which I haven't seen on tv in a while.

You are correct in that the individual popularity of the Auburn football team depends on the talents of it's players (and coaches). That has not been my argument. My argument is that the collective popularity doesn't depend on the talent of the players on any one team. The collective popularity of the sport as a whole requires only that the players in D1 college football are better than the players in any other college division.

This is America, if a semi-pro league with 18-22 year olds would be more popular than college football, somebody would have thought of it by now.
 

Unregistered User said:
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.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point. Are you okay with the school profiting off the athlete? The university of Florida made millions selling Tim Tebow jerseys and his likeness. The NCAA makes hundreds of millions of dollars selling athletes likeness, actual pictures and names.

College football and basketball is a billion dollar industry, coaches are paid millions, ncaa boss Mark Emmerman is paid in the $2 million per year range. I think it is morally corrupt for them to not spread some of the money to the folks who are most responsible. Fund football and basketball scholarships 100%. This doesn't apply to you but I find it suspect when folks are okay with some people becoming millionaires off of college sports but are adamantly against the athletes getting a few extra thousand per year in a billion dollar business?
 

badgergopher said:
...because they would still be playing college football.

If they were to all move to Bowling Green, KY to become a part of a new semi-pro league, they'd be as popular as rookie league baseball, which I haven't seen on tv in a while.

You are correct in that the individual popularity of the Auburn football team depends on the talents of it's players (and coaches). That has not been my argument. My argument is that the collective popularity doesn't depend on the talent of the players on any one team. The collective popularity of the sport as a whole requires only that the players in D1 college football are better than the players in any other college division.

This is America, if a semi-pro league with 18-22 year olds would be more popular than college football, somebody would have thought of it by now.
Click to expand...

Let me try it a different way.

If what you say is correct then why don't colleges opt to pay football and basketball coaches what they pay professors? According to your logic it's all about D1 sports correct? There is considerable more amount of coaches than there are jobs; there will always be someone who would coach for $130,000 a year...right? If the coaches don't like it they can go coach in a semi-pro league....right?

"This is America, if a semi-pro league with FORMER COLLEGE COACHES would be more popular than college football, somebody would have thought of it by now."

I couldn't resist (lol).

Anyway, the reason it doesn't happen is collusion. Colleges treat revenue (Football and Basketball) sports like the very profittable big business it is with one exception....the employees/labor. They're student athletes.

All I'm asking for is consistency. Hell, I'm not even asking for that. Just give the people responsible for the billions of dollars a true full ride scholarship.
 


It opens up a whole bunch of problems. If the walk-on player shouldn't be paid becuase he's not on scholarship, then should the third stringer get paid just because he's on scholarship? Should the third stringer get paid as much as the starter, or should there be a bidding war?

The cash value of a college scholarship adds up to a lot of money, a lot more than most people would be able to make right out of college. Assuming he doesn't play professional football there is also how much more money the player will make with a college degree than without it. And if the player goes pro, there is the value of preparation for pro sports. If it is so awful, then why do so many people work so hard to get a college scholarship?
 

Lots of good and not so good ideas presented here. None of them really matter since there is no chance of this ever happening. Too much money to be handed out to allcollege athletes to make this possible. A college exists to make money first...educate second. Without the first...the second doesn't happen.
 

tikited said:
Lots of good and not so good ideas presented here. None of them really matter since there is no chance of this ever happening. Too much money to be handed out to allcollege athletes to make this possible. A college exists to make money first...educate second. Without the first...the second doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Oh I can guarantee you there will be reform, the NCAA is in very precarious situation. They are making waaaay too much money off of "student athletes." They are ripe to lose a class action lawsuit. They could easily resolve the issue by increasing the value of scholarships to athletes in the sports generating the billions...football and basketball.
 

RodentRampage said:
It opens up a whole bunch of problems. If the walk-on player shouldn't be paid becuase he's not on scholarship, then should the third stringer get paid just because he's on scholarship? Should the third stringer get paid as much as the starter, or should there be a bidding war?

The cash value of a college scholarship adds up to a lot of money, a lot more than most people would be able to make right out of college. Assuming he doesn't play professional football there is also how much more money the player will make with a college degree than without it. And if the player goes pro, there is the value of preparation for pro sports. If it is so awful, then why do so many people work so hard to get a college scholarship?
Click to expand...

"Most people" don't make colleges tens of millions of dollars as undergraduates. I know kids/kid who would (do) play for free, so naturally they would play for an undervalued scholarship. That doesn't make it right. Toss in the ncaa working with pro leagues to limit their options........
 



Which athletes are we talking about giving the stipends to? Not every football player is on a full ride. Not every football player has need. Do we have a needs test or just roll it out in general (really bad idea). Not every division 1 school can afford this extra money. Right now, the U budget in general is about to be slashed and we are talking about adding an additional burden on the U for athletes so they can have laundry and pizza money. Not a great idea as staff and programs are about to be sacrificed. Once again, a bad idea gets raised again for no possible good. Title IX will raise its head on this debate. Costs for 500 athletes starts to add up to real numbers in a hurry.
:confused:
 

If players don't what the what the colleges are offering, no one is forcing them to play. Let the NFL pay the own cost of their player development. I'm all in favor of the NFL having a developmental league for players who do not want to go to college.
 


Mustang Mountain Man said:
Which athletes are we talking about giving the stipends to? Not every football player is on a full ride. Not every football player has need. Do we have a needs test or just roll it out in general (really bad idea). Not every division 1 school can afford this extra money. Right now, the U budget in general is about to be slashed and we are talking about adding an additional burden on the U for athletes so they can have laundry and pizza money. Not a great idea as staff and programs are about to be sacrificed. Once again, a bad idea gets raised again for no possible good. Title IX will raise its head on this debate. Costs for 500 athletes starts to add up to real numbers in a hurry.
:confused:
Click to expand...

Stipends would go to scholarship athletes in football and basketball regardless of need (they have earned it and were promised it), they are suppose to be full rides.

Affordability? Those two sports bring in more than enough money (Big Ten network alone paid the U $18 million). They can subsidize other sports while paying two coaches about $4 million per year with millions left over.

Title 9? If every women who attended a mens basketball game attended a womens game they wouldn't need title 9 for basketball. Point? 30 plus years after title 9, women don't support their own sports, why should men through title 9?
 



"Affordability? Those two sports bring in more than enough money (Big Ten network alone paid the U $18 million). They can subsidize other sports while paying two coaches about $4 million per year with millions left over."

Not according to the article I just posted.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Title 9? If every women who attended a mens basketball game attended a womens game they wouldn't need title 9 for basketball. Point? 30 plus years after title 9, women don't support their own sports, why should men through title 9?
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the power of Title IX
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Stipends would go to scholarship athletes in football and basketball regardless of need (they have earned it and were promised it), they are suppose to be full rides.

Affordability? Those two sports bring in more than enough money (Big Ten network alone paid the U $18 million). They can subsidize other sports while paying two coaches about $4 million per year with millions left over.

Title 9? If every women who attended a mens basketball game attended a womens game they wouldn't need title 9 for basketball. Point? 30 plus years after title 9, women don't support their own sports, why should men through title 9?
Click to expand...

Pay is for performance, not attendance. The question is do women athletes train and are their sports revenue generators? The answer to both is yes. Therefore, as a matter of pay, since the U is one entity and not 2 divided by sex, the women would have to get the stipend as well. Profitability has nothing to do with equal rights.
 

If players should be paid, then should boosters be paid as investors?
 

Paying Boosters

RodentRampage said:
If players should be paid, then should boosters be paid as investors?
Click to expand...

Good question RodentRampage. It should only be done under the table.

I must admit I am amazed how many people have such strong opinions about this subject and yet have very little knowledge as to how things actually work and the implications of their proposals. This is a tough and a complex subject. Therefore I hope that there won’t be any GopherHole members on any committee that is chosen to study this topic. LOL
 

Markous15 said:
"Affordability? Those two sports bring in more than enough money (Big Ten network alone paid the U $18 million). They can subsidize other sports while paying two coaches about $4 million per year with millions left over."

Not according to the article I just posted.
Click to expand...


Yeah I saw that.

There were articles last season when the Big Ten was considering expanding that talked about how much revenue was generated and disbursed to the schools; thats where I got my info from.
 

Mustang Mountain Man said:
Pay is for performance, not attendance. The question is do women athletes train and are their sports revenue generators? The answer to both is yes. Therefore, as a matter of pay, since the U is one entity and not 2 divided by sex, the women would have to get the stipend as well. Profitability has nothing to do with equal rights.
Click to expand...

Women sports do not generate revenue; they are subsidized. They do not bring in enough money to cover their cost.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom