Shooter: Joel Maturi questions paying college athletes

Donate To GopherHole

Title IX is one of the major reasons why student athletes will never be paid. I agreed, it wasn't the original rationale, but things change.

Paying student athletes has never been allowed, so Title IX obviously didn't create that, we all understand that. However, there are now another set of rules which overlap those already in place rules against paying student athletes. This newer set of rules (Title IX) would make it impossible to pay student athletes EVEN IF they repealed the old rules against paying student athletes.

It's a bureaucratic mess.

You can argue all you want if they old rules should be repealed or not be repealed, that really isn't the point. The point is that even if (hypothetical) everyone agreed that student athletes of the revenue generating sports should be paid, Title IX is a barrier. It wasn't there at the inception of the original rule, but it's sure there now.
 

AO54 said:
Rodent:

I was a non-professional college athlete at the D3 level. The gophers we watch on Saturday are paid more than $20k a year. They are most definitely professionals. Whether you get paid in crackers, scholarships or dollars, you're still being paid with real value equivalent to dollars.QUOTE]

By that rationale, you were also a professional athlete, you simply got "paid" less. You traveled to games and didn't have to pay for gas, you had uniforms which were supplied to you, you stayed in the dorms in the summer before classes started for "camp", you probably drank gatorade. Those things all have a monetary value which were passed onto you because you played football (probably helped generate the money to pay for those things).
Click to expand...
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
"Rodent:

I was a non-professional college athlete at the D3 level. The gophers we watch on Saturday are paid more than $20k a year. They are most definitely professionals. Whether you get paid in crackers, scholarships or dollars, you're still being paid with real value equivalent to dollars."

By that rationale, you were also a professional athlete, you simply got "paid" less. You traveled to games and didn't have to pay for gas, you had uniforms which were supplied to you, you stayed in the dorms in the summer before classes started for "camp", you probably drank gatorade. Those things all have a monetary value which were passed onto you because you played football (probably helped generate the money to pay for those things).
Click to expand...
I also paid $20,000 in tuition per year. You might say that other students who didn't play sports or use their portion of the activities budget were subsidizing my team, but I wasn't driving revenue for the program, I was the source of the revenue.
 


The point is that Title IX is not the reason players are not paid. Title IX is federal law, but not paying players is an NCAA rule. Nothing prevents schools from leaving the NCAA and paying players.

Given that their are multiple methods of compliance with Title IX, It is very much debatable whether Title IX requires paying all players, or whether it requires paying all players the same. Even if colleges did have to pay all players equally, they could easily pay players by cutting out all the non-revenue sports, cutting men's and women's tennis, men's and women's golf, for example, and just keeping enough women's sports to have Title IX compliance. This would free up quite a bit of money to pay both male and female athletes.

Do there exist university presidents and regents who want to leave the NCAA and pay players, but are thwarted by Title IX?
 

RailBaronYarr:

First off, let me admit that I LOVE a good debate. You make some great points...of course I don't agree with them:)

"Having an effect on the outcome of a game and having an effect on the experience of watching college football are different things. There are many people that do pay to watch people at a football game who aren't paid or on scholarship whose likeness is used in U of M media, on SportsCenter, College Gameday, etc for free (the U makes you sign an agreement in fact). Marching Bands, cheerleaders, spirit squads, dance line, people in the mascot uniform, etc. And yes, I guarantee you these ALL play in to why people pay to attend a college football game. In fact, here, here, and here all tend to agree that the BEST college football tradition is that of a marching band. Don't forget all TV games pan across the bands and cheerleaders when they score, they pipe in music from the band on the tv networks so everyone watching can hear what it's like to be in a stadium, etc etc."

Using this example you would expect Ragnar the Viking, the Vikings Cheerleaders and all of the concession stand workers to receive comparable pay to the Viking football players. They don’t because they are ancillary to the game/product on the field; the same as college football and basketball. Although I must admit I have grown to have a certain appreciation for the male cheerleaders who get to palm the ass of female cheerleaders every weekend. If the U announced today they weren’t allowing the band, cheerleaders or the many other people you mentioned to enter TCF stadium tomorrow but the game was still being played, I bet cash 45 plus thousand would show up. Now if everyone else was able to participate except teams, how many fans do you believe would pay those ticket prices and show? 500 hundred? 100 hundred? 1? Well we do know the “event” would not be televised.

"I'm all over the board because there's just so many ways to show that players do not need, nor should they receive payment beyond their scholarship for playing a sport."

You’re all over the board, because like me you are passionate in your beliefs/opinions and have a plethora of examples to back them up…also like me.

"You are right my example of my company is not apt since it points out that for-profit companies operate in a way that pays their lowest employees less than the sum of its revenue or profit. I should have just stuck to the example of thousands of non-profit companies who make money for a goal yet still need to pay their employees (akin to the AD, coaching staff, etc) to make it work. At the end of the day, most athletic departments are not profitable. They still require funding from the university/state to run the rest of the programs. The ones that do turn a profit put that money back in to the institution to keep general student costs down, fund research, etc that are, again, not for profit but achieving a mission of higher education."

Again you are correct most athletic programs are not profitable, but as you mentioned this is do to the funding of sports that generate no revenue and therefore are not self sustainable. This has nothing to do with the revenue producing sports that generate tens of millions and whose athletes face far more scrutiny that their non-revenue producing sport brethren.


"Sub-standard living conditions? That money they get covers on-campus apartments which, in addition to having 0 commute, are more than adequate. I'm confused why you keep throwing in un-qualified statements like that to try to prove your point."

I actually would consider myself somewhat of an expert on the living conditions of scholarship athletes. I would consider not having money to buy soap to wash your rear-end, wash your cloths, get home or for entertainment, substandard living conditions. Is this worse than some in the general student body? Absolutely not. Is it the full-ride scholarship that was promised? Again, absolutely not. And this is all while the sport they play generates hundreds of millions of dollars for their universities, NCAA, sports shows both television and radio and all the folks who siphon off comfortable living from the salaries they generate while claiming open market and the such.


"If you propose paying players, is it only in sports that turn a profit? Do you use a national average for which sports are profitable and which aren't? At the end of the day you are taking money FROM other sports (men's baseball, women's volleyball, wrestling, women's soccer, etc) to fund the revenue sports' players. Solely because more people tune in to watch them. Oh and by the way if you're doing that you're going to end up requiring MORE taxpayer money to fund the other sports since money is coming out of an already-not-profitable athletic department. Don't even consider the Title IX implications for doing this since I doubt there are many female sports that turn a profit.

Why not ONLY have men's basketball and football as our sports? We can keep hockey because it's profitable but I bet we won't end up playing anyone since not many college hockey programs make money. Oh well."

Until now I’ve allowed you to make assumptions and assertions about my argument to help make your point (it made it entertaining). But since you asked, when have I said they should be paid? I believe that it would be enough if they made scholarships for revenue producing athletes truly full-rides. Basically, add a small stipend of say $2,000 -$5,000 per year. And because these sports generate so much money (revenue producing), I don’t believe it’s fair that the universities have the athlete rely on tax payer funded grants like Pell grants. These should be for the students who truly need them. The schools should bridge the financial gap of RP sport athletes with the monies these athletes generate from the sport they play. Title 9? It’s past it’s time. Yes I said it! If women wanted to have opportunities for women sports here is a notion…..support women sports! Hell if they don’t care why should I? Anyway, if all women played sports, who would be the cheerleaders? You said something about Hockey but to be honest I fell asleep….I could not care less about hockey. Just being honest. And while we’re being honest; you are obviously a smart guy, why don’t you just admit for whatever reason: you just don’t want to see football and basketball players receive anything more than what they are getting.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
The marching band puts in a work load well over 500 hours every fall season. That is equivalent to a practice schedule of some D1 sports teams. In addition, these students have a full course schedule, most don't have jobs, and they have to pay to be in the band. The band is not compensated. Occasionally, athletics or the U promises compensation via free food before a performance. Sometimes these promises come up short on quantity estimates.

Would the band like to be compensated? Sure, who wouldn't? Would the band feel it is appropriate to be compensated? No. The band members chose to be there. They wouldn't have it any other way. no band members would advocate for a paycheck.

For the record, UW schools pay their PEP bands for every performance.

That being said, many posters on here can be quoted for saying they paid to see the band and all the pageantry that goes along with the game. To say you don't pay to see the band is false.

Paying players opens the flood gates to a scary place. Picture schools legally buying recruits with higher salaries. Volleyball teams striking because they don't get paid. This is amateur sports. Amateurs are not paid. Media contracts made college football what it is today. Most players get a free education that they don't take advantage of. Perhaps a monthly allowance to cover basic living expenses based on costs for respective campuses is appropriate. But only with heavy regulation by the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, it would be fair to say I paid to hear waiters and waitresses at TGIF sing happy birthday to some blue hair the other night.

You have not noticed, the NCAA is about become extinct. The new conference alignments are the first steps towards this happening. With that you will see super conferences with their own individual television NETWORKS. Football and basketball college sports has out grown the current setup, ie there is far to much money being made and far to much more money that gan be made. That is also why you are seeing AD's and college Presidents starting to come around to the fact they need make some financial concessions to the people responsible for this wealth.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
And while we’re being honest; you are obviously a smart guy, why don’t you just admit for whatever reason: you just don’t want to see football and basketball players receive anything more than what they are getting.
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY correct. I 100% believe that the mission of a university (particularly a public one but all will do) is to further the education and development of the people in this country. Future student-athletes enter in to a contract by which their entire cost of education PLUS room (housing) and board (food, an amount that feeds a normal college student), books and supplies for classes, and private tutors, and free training/coaching/etc are paid in return for their on-field play. This helps the university's reputation as well as generates money that goes in to the general fund of the athletic department or the rest of the university. It is a self-volunteered contract, and one that is pretty darn good. The $2,000-$5,000 you offer up they should receive can EASILY be made via jobs in the spring, winter break, summer break, etc even at minimum wage paying places. I do not believe that 40+ hours a week in january and May 15-August 15 are spent on workouts (which, by the way many people in this country PAY to take mart in). So you are right. We just have different opinions.
 



zambam said:
College athletes should not be paid. I don't care how much money they make these schools, make the scholarship a true full-ride and don't pay the players.
Click to expand...

You suck! That's what I have been trying to say. You did it in one short sentence. Okay I have to go start some more sh..
 

Sportsfan24 said:
You have not noticed, the NCAA is about become extinct.
Click to expand...

It is highly unlikely that the NCAA will become extinct. As the NCAA never had any networks, why is conferences having their own networks a sign of the downfall of the NCAA?
 

RailBaronYarr said:
That is EXACTLY correct. I 100% believe that the mission of a university (particularly a public one but all will do) is to further the education and development of the people in this country. Future student-athletes enter in to a contract by which their entire cost of education PLUS room (housing) and board (food, an amount that feeds a normal college student), books and supplies for classes, and private tutors, and free training/coaching/etc are paid in return for their on-field play. This helps the university's reputation as well as generates money that goes in to the general fund of the athletic department or the rest of the university. It is a self-volunteered contract, and one that is pretty darn good. The $2,000-$5,000 you offer up they should receive can EASILY be made via jobs in the spring, winter break, summer break, etc even at minimum wage paying places. I do not believe that 40+ hours a week in january and May 15-August 15 are spent on workouts (which, by the way many people in this country PAY to take mart in). So you are right. We just have different opinions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately NCAA rule prohibit those on scholarhship from working during the school year. They have about 2 months during the summer to earn enough money to last them the entire school year. This is difficult because most take smaller course load s during football season and make up those credits during the summer, so they are in school.
 

RodentRampage said:
It is highly unlikely that the NCAA will become extinct. As the NCAA never had any networks, why is conferences having their own networks a sign of the downfall of the NCAA?
Click to expand...

Conferences already have rules and governing bodies aside from those of the NCAA. Universities will never be able to maximze the earning potential of their revenue producing sports as long as they are under the banner of the NCAA.

With the advent of super conferences (American Conference and National Conference in the NFL) what if the SEC and it's 16 teams created a league with the BigTen with it's 16 teams and the Pac whatever and it's 16 teams? 48 teams playing 12 game conference schedules with the top 2 or 3 conference representitives meeting in the playoffs and playing a national championship game the week before the superbowl. All the while not having to be concerned about schools and conferences like the Big Sky (do they still exist?) and Montana State. Imagine a billion dollar playoff system split between 3 conferences. I can see the school presidents bulging pants from here.

Opps, I didn't answer your question. Why now? Money. Before no matter how much money one school was able to make (ND) as an independent you still needed to play someone else. Now entire conferences by wayt of establinshing their own networks are making ND type money or at least elevating to the point where there are enough teams to be able to go it alone.
 



Nothing would prevent the big conferences from breaking away from the NCAA, but we need a bit more than a what if for that. It's by no means impossible, but far from inevitable.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Unfortunately NCAA rule prohibit those on scholarhship from working during the school year. They have about 2 months during the summer to earn enough money to last them the entire school year. This is difficult because most take smaller course load s during football season and make up those credits during the summer, so they are in school.
Click to expand...

Actually students are allowed to work as long as they are doing work and paid a normal rate that isn't inflated due to their athletic recognition. Bylaw 12.

In addition, making the $2-3,000 you state would only take 300 hours of work over the course of a year at $10/hour. Considering summer school starts a month after regular term ends, January is there, along with the entire spring semester this is not difficult to attain at all. The most difficult part, in my opinion, is the regulation and investigation by the school/NCAA to make sure work is done and pay is fair.
 

AO54 said:
I also paid $20,000 in tuition per year. You might say that other students who didn't play sports or use their portion of the activities budget were subsidizing my team, but I wasn't driving revenue for the program, I was the source of the revenue.
Click to expand...

I get that you paid, but so did every other student. The fact that you were given anything of value, using your rationale, made you a professional athlete. It doesn't matter if you had to pay too. You said it doesn't matter if they get paid in "crackers, scholarships" etc. This implied that someone on scholarship is a professional, well D2 athletes are on partials, so they are on scholarship but they are also paying for school.

The fact is you are saying that if you receive anything of any value for playing a sport, you are a professional. I just pointed out that D3 athletes receive things because they are on the football team and that those things have value.

The fact that you paid for school doesn't really erase that you were getting things of value for playing a sport. The vast majority of football players on scholarship are also paying for their schooling (all of the D2 kids are on partials and I believe almost all of the FCS kids are on partials). Furthermore, the vast majority of athletes on scholarship are not GENERATING money to their Universities. The non-revenue generating sports athletes who are not on scholarship are certainly not generating any revenue to the school.

By your rationale, getting anything to play a sport makes you a professional and that's insane. You could call public HS student-athletes professionals by that rationale.
 

I don't have a problem with student athletes not getting paid, I do have an issue with a kid getting into trouble for signing his own name on a paper or whatever and making money. I think that is just insane that a guy like Pryor (and I hate OSU) is getting into trouble for signing his own name and people want to pay him for his signature. That's crazy...IMO.

In what other circumstance can someone not even have control over their own name.

You don't want to pay them? Fine.
You don't want to pay them a portion of their jersey sales which are obviously attributed to them? Fine.

I get that it can create problems down the line, what if a Texas booster told a HS kid, i'll pay $250,000 for signed picture of you in your texas uniform every year? But the Pryor situation was just absurd to me. I'm sure he did other things, so i'm not feeling too bad for Terrell, but in general, if someone wants to pay you to write your own name down, that shouldn't make you lose eligibility as an athlete.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I get that you paid, but so did every other student. The fact that you were given anything of value, using your rationale, made you a professional athlete. It doesn't matter if you had to pay too. You said it doesn't matter if they get paid in "crackers, scholarships" etc. This implied that someone on scholarship is a professional, well D2 athletes are on partials, so they are on scholarship but they are also paying for school.

The fact is you are saying that if you receive anything of any value for playing a sport, you are a professional. I just pointed out that D3 athletes receive things because they are on the football team and that those things have value.

The fact that you paid for school doesn't really erase that you were getting things of value for playing a sport. The vast majority of football players on scholarship are also paying for their schooling (all of the D2 kids are on partials and I believe almost all of the FCS kids are on partials). Furthermore, the vast majority of athletes on scholarship are not GENERATING money to their Universities. The non-revenue generating sports athletes who are not on scholarship are certainly not generating any revenue to the school.

By your rationale, getting anything to play a sport makes you a professional and that's insane. You could call public HS student-athletes professionals by that rationale.
Click to expand...
You don't quite get it. I paid more into the school, than I got direct value out of. schools like St. Scholastica have recently started d3-football programs, as a way to boost enrollment and revenue for the school, due to the 80 new bodies on new campus.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom