Should College Players Be Paid?

[cohibasmoker]

I say NO for a couple of reasons;

1) What about the athletes in other Sports programs within the University? If the football and/or basketball players get paid, one cannot discriminate against the other athletes;

2) College players are already paid because they get scholarships. Seems to me the college players are doing well - look at last years NFL draft - bling all over the place - diamond earrings, custom gold and diamond watches, custom suits etc. Where did all this money come from? WAITING TABLES IN THEIR OFF TIME? Not too bad for a person coming out of college.

Besides, the major Universities need the money generated from their sports programs to help pay for the inflated salaries of college professors.

Just some thoughts,

Jim

[coxfan]

Paying college athletes would cause the following major problems:

1) Only football and men's basketball make profits, and that money supports dozens of other sports (including college baseball, growing in popularity in many places, but making no profits anywhere.) Even the South Carolina Gamecocks, who from 2010-2012 were one of the best college baseball teams in history (and had strong fan support), lost $300,000 annually. The football team's huge profit covered it and dozens of other sports.

2) The competitive disparity between rich and poor programs would grow exponentially if athletes are paid, making it harder for the latter to survive, and reducing overall fan interest.

However, I favor these changes:

1) Loosening up absurdly strict NCAA rules, that don't allow athletes to accept even minor perks that might be available to other students (such as a free golf round.)

2) Realizing that memorabilia, including jerseys and trophies, have inherent economic value that can't be regulated. So the NCAA should loosen up on their sales.

[xpress34]

I too say NO.

I had this conversation with Dave Logan (former CU Buff and former Denver Bronco - now On Air personality on 850 KOA in Denver) during an afternoon drive time segment.

Dave is all for them being paid because of the revenues their sports generate for the school.

I had one simple question for him... if student athlete's get paid, shouldn't other students be paid as well?

He said NO, because FOOTBALL brings revenue to the school.

I countered and asked him to look into Grants and fundings brought to schools by Research Students. When they find a worthwhile project, a Research Student's work can generate MILLIONS (from ONE student) in grants to a school to fund their project - why shouldn't those students get paid?

He had no answer.

I also said the Majority of Student Athletes anymore are on a FULL RIDE scholarship, so they are being paid - with an education. Unfortunately, too many Student Athletes fail themselves (and their schools help them) by cutting classes but getting covered, or only playing for a couple of years before declaring for the Draft. How come THOSE players aren't required to pay back their Scholarship Money when they don't graduate?

I personally think Scholarships should be reworked and given 1st to SCHOLARS, NOT ATHLETES who are looking for an education (Universities are Places of Learning - sports are a Secondary part to that), then 2nd to Low Income Athlete's who want to play there - not to families who can afford to send their sons and daughters to any school they want and not ever have to even think about a Student Loan.

The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

The other thing I have an issue with with current Student Athlete Scholarships is it limits even how much they can work or how much they can make from a job outside of school or sports and maintain their scholarship status.

Just my .02

[jake33]

I would say let it be an open market and competition between the colleges would determine if college athletes got paid.

But overall, I say yes. I get the free education arguement. But, really if you are a starter for a D-1 majr college, you are in the top 1% of the people within that field. Look at the top 1% of the people in really any field (exception of some public works people like school teachers and firemen) and all of them make WAY more than the top 1% of atheletes int he world.

What do you think the top 1% of the CEO's, accountants, business owners, actors, clothing designers, and inventor's make? All all of those people don't lose everythign the second that their ACL gives out or Tomym John surgery doesn't heel correctly.

I never understand when people are upset at what pro atheletes make or when they hold out. There is limited moments in life that we all have leverage and can maximize our earning potential, what is wrong with legally capitalizing on that? When you are the best at something, you should have different rules both to your benefit and not to your benefit (see Riley Cooper on that one).

[jake33]

Also, in regards to the argument of athletes in other sports not being worth as much if they were paid. That is true, but that is whi I feel it should just be an open market.

Well look at this country. Our best athletes don't play soccer, track and field, or volleyball. Making a broad generalization, the USA's best athletes in general play sports that end up paying the most in the long run anyways.

Can you imagine the outcry in an open market that $1.0M was paid to a football player really at any college. The outcry would come from science departments who are doign research, it wouldn't take much to have a public relations back lash. AAnd I say if a scchol wants to pay a kid and take on their own internal back lash, let them do that. Plus school would really put a bullseye on that kid as it would become public knowledge. Think that would be easy going to college socially when everyone knows that you have money and are treated differently both good and bad.

[frikativ54]

1) What about the athletes in other Sports programs within the University? If the football and/or basketball players get paid, one cannot discriminate against the other athletes.

Agreed on this one. If college athletes are being paid, the women's softball players ought to make the same salaries as those who are playing football or men's basketball. However, in practice, I'm sure that paying athletes would only benefit the men in a few high profile sports.

Besides, the major Universities need the money generated from their sports programs to help pay for the inflated salaries of college professors.

What's the point of attacking college professors on a sports forum? I've known several profs who work at least 60 hours a week. Many do tough and taxing work, and a good portion deserve every penny they make. It's really only those at the very top who have six-figure salaries.

[cohibasmoker]

Agreed on this one. If college athletes are being paid, the women's softball players ought to make the same salaries as those who are playing football or men's basketball. However, in practice, I'm sure that paying athletes would only benefit the men in a few high profile sports.

What's the point of attacking college professors on a sports forum? I've known several profs who work at least 60 hours a week. Many do tough and taxing work, and a good portion deserve every penny they make. It's really only those at the very top who have six-figure salaries.

Attacking college professors? I must have missed that. Whether or not you like it, salaries and wages are part of operating expenses. I guess college professors, like small business owners, are lucky that they are able to work 60 hours a week and like small business owners, deserve every penny they make.

Just some thoughts

[xpress34]

All all of those people don't lose everythign the second that their ACL gives out or Tomym John surgery doesn't heel correctly.

I never understand when people are upset at what pro atheletes make or when they hold out. There is limited moments in life that we all have leverage and can maximize our earning potential, what is wrong with legally capitalizing on that? When you are the best at something, you should have different rules both to your benefit and not to your benefit (see Riley Cooper on that one).

Why should you have different rules? You choose to play sports, and just like Police, Fire and Military, you must accept personal responsibility for the inherent risks that come with that choice.

By your statement alone, Police, Fire and Military should also have different rules and be paid exorbitant salaries (which I would be all for for them) because any second, a fire or bullet or whatever could cause them to lose everything as well - including their lives.

[mbrieve]

Agreed on this one. If college athletes are being paid, the women's softball players ought to make the same salaries as those who are playing football or men's basketball. However, in practice, I'm sure that paying athletes would only benefit the men in a few high profile sports.

Honest questions:

1. Should NBA and WNBA players be paid the same?
2. Should all professional athletes be paid the same, regardless of ability or value to their team?

[GameUsedGR61]

i am on the fence with this issue. i think of all of you make great points that are tough to argue but I think the players should get something in return.

i mean if the schools and the ncaa can make money off these players, I don't see why the players can't. I am not saying to give them a salary but I would loosen some of the rules. Perhaps let them make money for public events or for autograph signings. Maybe give them a stipend every week where some can be used on campus while the other can be used for personal use

I am not sure if anyone caught that ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on the Fab Five and I remember Jalen Rose complaining how the University of Michigan was selling their jerseys, their shoes, their shirts, and posters with the fab five moniker attached to it.