Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I can't say that I recall having this debate on here before. It seems like the push has lost some steam from a year or two ago. Where you do you fall on this one?

I say no. They are getting a free education, housing, meals, and some clothes. Now they are getting a stipend.
Only the top 30 or so programs can afford to pay the athletes. But those same schools provide their athletes with the nicest amenities. Screw 'em. They are already getting enough.

CAA Flagship wrote:I say no. They are getting a free education, housing, meals, and some clothes. Now they are getting a stipend.
Only the top 30 or so programs can afford to pay the athletes. But those same schools provide their athletes with the nicest amenities. Screw 'em. They are already getting enough.

I'm in the same boat. Waiting for somebody on the "yes" side to speak up.

CAA Flagship wrote:I say no. They are getting a free education, housing, meals, and some clothes. Now they are getting a stipend.
Only the top 30 or so programs can afford to pay the athletes. But those same schools provide their athletes with the nicest amenities. Screw 'em. They are already getting enough.

Well put.

OK, somebody voted yes. Speak up you chicken.

89Hen wrote:I can't say that I recall having this debate on here before. It seems like the push has lost some steam from a year or two ago. Where you do you fall on this one?

The debate lost steam because it was settled with the stipend. I was in favor of that.

So, not sure what we're discussing here? A larger stipend? Allow schools to pay whatever they want?

(I haven't voted yet.)

I think colleges should pay their athletes

I also think those same athletes shouldn't have to be students

CAA Flagship wrote:I say no. They are getting a free education, housing, meals, and some clothes. Now they are getting a stipend.
Only the top 30 or so programs can afford to pay the athletes. But those same schools provide their athletes with the nicest amenities. Screw 'em. They are already getting enough.

Not every college athlete is getting a "free education, housing, meals, etc."

The reason I say NO here is that this would REALLY make life hard for walk-ons....

SuperHornet wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I say no. They are getting a free education, housing, meals, and some clothes. Now they are getting a stipend.
Only the top 30 or so programs can afford to pay the athletes. But those same schools provide their athletes with the nicest amenities. Screw 'em. They are already getting enough.

Not every college athlete is getting a "free education, housing, meals, etc."

The reason I say NO here is that this would REALLY make life hard for walk-ons....

But walk-ons can always get a scholarship at a lower-level school.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Not every college athlete is getting a "free education, housing, meals, etc."

The reason I say NO here is that this would REALLY make life hard for walk-ons....

But walk-ons can always get a scholarship at a lower-level school.

Not in every sport and not all walkons could get a scholarship at a lower-level school (or they displace others).

Pay them in white women.

Oh, they're already doing that? My bad.

It's not the NCAA's fault that college sports have become a developmental league for NFL and (to a lesser extent) the NBA. College athletics should not be blown up because of that.

Pwns wrote:It's not the NCAA's fault that college sports have become a developmental league for NFL and (to a lesser extent) the NBA. College athletics should not be blown up because of that.

Nobody's talking about college athletics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any more questions?

The Wolfpack athletic director had a plan to build a $15 million dormitory for basketball, and the school wanted to do it well

Kentucky had built a $7.9 million dorm for its basketball players in 2012, equipped with personal chefs, a dining hall, flat screen televisions and other lavish amenities.

Yow visited Kentucky’s dormitory in September 2015, and the same year visited Kansas’ $12 million dorm for basketball players, which has a barber shop, a half-court indoor gym, a media room and a rooftop lounge.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll ... 11846.html

Kind of what I was saying in the above post:

https://mises.org/wire/college-athletes ... -M.twitter

This is not to take away from the contributions athletes make for their school. Their achievements on the field are a large part of what keeps fans’ passion for their team alive (and the dollars that come with it). It is, however, the capital investments made by the university that has given the players such a prominent platform to perform on.

I voted yes. Particularly for the contact sports like football. I think it’s self explanatory.

89Hen wrote:I can't say that I recall having this debate on here before. It seems like the push has lost some steam from a year or two ago. Where you do you fall on this one?

I think they should get some type of stipend they see these coaches with these million dollar salaries and what are they getting besides a free ride NOTHING!!!!!!

Sean Miller the coach at Arizona is facing the heat for a supposed offering of 100,000 to a future recruit of
course he is denying it.

93henfan wrote:Pay them in white women.

Oh, they're already doing that? My bad.

Well, apparently Louisville screwed this up for everybody.

Snitches get stitches.

I say no. But my parents weren't dirt poor either. I understand that some kids come from shit holes. But not everyone. The big 5 conferences are leaving the NCAA in 6 years, I think. Then it'll be no holds barred with what goes on.
Asking schools to pony up for a handful of players that are going to make the Pros compared to the rest of players, this subject is asinine. If you can't do it for everyone, then you just can't do it. A free degree, with room and board is more than enough.

Tuition, room and board is great. But as I remember it, additional money was needed for other expenses. If the schools don't pay athletes, at least remove restrictions that stop them from earning money on the side. Who gives a fuck if someone is paid for their autograph, or works a job part time? People on scholarship for other reasons don't have the same restrictions on earnings.

AshevilleApp wrote:Tuition, room and board is great. But as I remember it, additional money was needed for other expenses. If the schools don't pay athletes, at least remove restrictions that stop them from earning money on the side. Who gives a fuck if someone is paid for their autograph, or works a job part time? People on scholarship for other reasons don't have the same restrictions on earnings.

Because boosters will give them jobs that don't require work and that is impossible to monitor/enforce.
If they didn't go to college, they would have to pay their living expenses. The first thing would be food and they get that for free as a scholarship athlete except when they are home. The second thing would be shelter, which their parent(s) already pay for whether they are home or not. The next thing is clothes and other items. This is the category that a job would help pay for. But what are we talking about here? How much could they possibly earn as a 20ish-year old, non-college graduate for 2-3 months during the summer? The stipend essentially makes up for that. That's enough.

CAA Flagship wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:Tuition, room and board is great. But as I remember it, additional money was needed for other expenses. If the schools don't pay athletes, at least remove restrictions that stop them from earning money on the side. Who gives a **** if someone is paid for their autograph, or works a job part time? People on scholarship for other reasons don't have the same restrictions on earnings.

Because boosters will give them jobs that don't require work and that is impossible to monitor/enforce.
If they didn't go to college, they would have to pay their living expenses. The first thing would be food and they get that for free as a scholarship athlete except when they are home. The second thing would be shelter, which their parent(s) already pay for whether they are home or not. The next thing is clothes and other items. This is the category that a job would help pay for. But what are we talking about here? How much could they possibly earn as a 20ish-year old, non-college graduate for 2-3 months during the summer? The stipend essentially makes up for that. That's enough.

Not everyone gets a stipend. And again it doesn't answer the question of why a scholarship athlete should have less of a chance to earn side money than a scholarship student in another discipline. If you are worried about outside jobs and booster interference, how about schools providing part time on campus work for them?

AshevilleApp wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Because boosters will give them jobs that don't require work and that is impossible to monitor/enforce.
If they didn't go to college, they would have to pay their living expenses. The first thing would be food and they get that for free as a scholarship athlete except when they are home. The second thing would be shelter, which their parent(s) already pay for whether they are home or not. The next thing is clothes and other items. This is the category that a job would help pay for. But what are we talking about here? How much could they possibly earn as a 20ish-year old, non-college graduate for 2-3 months during the summer? The stipend essentially makes up for that. That's enough.

Not everyone gets a stipend. And again it doesn't answer the question of why a scholarship athlete should have less of a chance to earn side money than a scholarship student in another discipline. If you are worried about outside jobs and booster interference, how about schools providing part time on campus work for them?

So you think schools can be trusted?

The NCAA set the rule to allow stipends. The fact that not every school can afford to pay this small amount is more proof that schools should not pay athletes. The gap is big enough between programs without allowing payments. Where are the income inequality police when it comes to college athletic departments?

Just pay them and stop making them be students already

Then there can be a league for schools like that and another league for schools that still adhere to the idea of student athletes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk