SHOULD COLLEGE FB PLAYERS GET PAID (STIPEND)/PROFIT SHARE?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Hey, cut the crap about SCHOLARSHIPS, bc when i got my statement from EWU, two days later i would get another statement from the athletic department saying for example:

Tuition ........................................15,000/-15,000=0
Fees...............................................800/-800=0
Blah................................................250/-250=0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fb blah.............................................3,500+
=================================================
Amount Owed.......................................-3,500

So don't give me that crap about "The tuition money wont be recouped" bc NO MONEY CHANGES HANDS AS FAR AS TUITION, BOOKS, FEES, LAB FEES, etc. AND IF U LIVE IN THE DORMS (REQUIRED FOR FIRST YEAR) THEY TAKE MORE MONEY OUT FOR ROOM & BOARD, EAGLE CARD, PHONE, INTERNET etc. Players should at least get a stipend.

My time at NDSU

TUITION..... pay it your damn self
BOOKS....... pay it your damn self
ROOM........ pay it your damn self
BOARD....... pay it your damn self
blah.......... pay it your damn self

I know it's really shitty that some guys have to leave college with 1/5th the student debt the rest of us have... life's unfair that way...

[SeattleGriz]

I don't think there is anything wrong with a stipend, albeit would have to be a small one.

One area I think needs to be looked at, is allowing a player to petition through the school to the NCAA, that their family (limit 5) gets to attend at least one important game (room and board and airfare) if the boosters are willing to pay for the tickets. Money would have to be transacted through the NCAA and also be anonymous.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with a stipend, albeit would have to be a small one.

One area I think needs to be looked at, is allowing a player to petition through the school to the NCAA, that their family (limit 5) gets to attend at least one important game (room and board and airfare) if the boosters are willing to pay for the tickets. Money would have to be transacted through the NCAA and also be anonymous.

I like the idea of the ticket thing. Seems very reasonable.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not sure I agree they are overpaid. They work pretty much year round, are on the hook for the performance of the team and have to juggle the incredibly dificult task of balancing NCAA rules and still getting players who are eligible without paying them. Coaches are not overpaid IMO.

I'm mainly talking about the very upper echelon of college coaches.

Nick Saban has over DOUBLE the annual salary ($5,997,349) as the highest paid university President ($2,774,000).

Nick Saban's 2010 salary was more than 28 NFL head coaches. It was more than 4 Super Bowl winning coaches. The only NFL coaches that made more than him in 2010 were Bill Belichick, Mike Shanahan, Pete Carroll, and Jeff Fischer.


And, this one isn't really on the point... but, I'm including it just because it boggles my mind......
Nick Saban made over TWICE as much in 2010 coaching at Alabama as Jerry Moore made total in over TWENTY years of coaching at Appalachian State. Both future College Football Hall of Fame coaches.

[89Hen]

I'm mainly talking about the very upper echelon of college coaches.

Nick Saban has over DOUBLE the annual salary ($5,997,349) as the highest paid university President ($2,774,000).

Who is the Alabama president?

[Herky]

They already do. Scholarships + getting into schools that they would NEVER get into without athletics + a launching pad to professional sports = PAID.

Some of the dumbest college students EVER, and I mean borderline retarded, play for a BC$ program. Those guys are paid via an education.

[Herky]

A lot more than that.

And, coaches are overpaid, especially the ones at the top making 4+ million a year. That is ridiculous. But, the fact that they're overpaid doesn't mean players should be paid.

Ok so for example: you're basically Armanti Edwards of Sacramento State and you lead CSUS to 4 straight National Championships. Crushing Portland State, Cal Poly & UC Davis all 4 years. You win the Payton 4 times. You dont deserve a little something extra besides 48$ worth of fruit roll ups & Jello Snacks? GTFOH

On the record, no.

Off the record, the guy would own the city.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm mainly talking about the very upper echelon of college coaches.

Nick Saban has over DOUBLE the annual salary ($5,997,349) as the highest paid university President ($2,774,000).

Who is the Alabama president?

Robert Witt. Makes ~$450,000 dollars a year. Much less than Saban makes in a month.

[89Hen]

Who is the Alabama president?

Robert Witt. Makes ~$450,000 dollars a year. Much less than Saban makes in a month.

I'm guessing you had to look up his name.

[Skjellyfetti]

Robert Witt. Makes ~$450,000 dollars a year. Much less than Saban makes in a month.

I'm guessing you had to look up his name.

What's your point?

You don't think it's out of whack for a football coach to be paid 12x more than the guy in charge of the whole university? Paid more than 90% of NFL football coaches?

[89Hen]

I'm guessing you had to look up his name.

What's your point?

You don't think it's out of whack for a football coach to be paid 12x more than the guy in charge of the whole university? Paid more than 90% of NFL football coaches?

Point is, the football coach is usually a larger face of the university than the president. Whether or not you think that is a ridiculous notion, that's the way it is.

As for the president's pay.... Matthew 20:1-16

[Appaholic]

Not only no, but hell no. They get scholarships to fund an education meant to serve them the rest of their lives. They should get the same stipend afforded all other college students.....nada....work at the student union if you want some pocket change.

[collegesportsinfo]

No, no stipend. But...

I think all athletic scholarships should be eliminated. No need for a full ride to some kid who can run fast in a circle, bump a volleyball, putt with a golf club, kick a soccer ball or swing a racket. These sports bring no revenue to the schools and are financial drains. You can argue all you want about these sports enriching the atmosphere at the schools, blah blah blah...and I'd agree. But NOT on someone else's dime. Should the schools pay to sponsor the sports? Sure. But should those athletes get a scholarship and NOT have to pay tuition and other expenses to fill a roster spot? No.

Instead, I've always thought that scholarships should go to students who have earned them for academics...since that is the reason for university: education.

But I also feel that for the few revenue producing sports at a school, that scholarships are worse while. It can be a rather simple equation, where "if sports generates X number of dollars, than school can grant Y number of scholarships". Of course, there would need to be some wiggle room for the POTENTIAL to generate revenue as a sport. But I look around FCS and see schools losing money while having football and lots of scholarships. Do they need to give these guys free rides to play a sport they supposedly love? Just don't see the benefit when you can just accept a student based on their willingness to play on your team, but make them pay on their own...unless they've earned it through academics.

[BlackFalkin]

No, no stipend. But...

I think all athletic scholarships should be eliminated. No need for a full ride to some kid who can run fast in a circle, bump a volleyball, putt with a golf club, kick a soccer ball or swing a racket. These sports bring no revenue to the schools and are financial drains. You can argue all you want about these sports enriching the atmosphere at the schools, blah blah blah...and I'd agree. But NOT on someone else's dime. Should the schools pay to sponsor the sports? Sure. But should those athletes get a scholarship and NOT have to pay tuition and other expenses to fill a roster spot? No.

Instead, I've always thought that scholarships should go to students who have earned them for academics...since that is the reason for university: education.

But I also feel that for the few revenue producing sports at a school, that scholarships are worse while. It can be a rather simple equation, where "if sports generates X number of dollars, than school can grant Y number of scholarships". Of course, there would need to be some wiggle room for the POTENTIAL to generate revenue as a sport. But I look around FCS and see schools losing money while having football and lots of scholarships. Do they need to give these guys free rides to play a sport they supposedly love? Just don't see the benefit when you can just accept a student based on their willingness to play on your team, but make them pay on their own...unless they've earned it through academics.

Typical un-athletic douche. But for the most part, thats how scholarships are secured. Monies generated + monies donated.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

No, no stipend. But...

I think all athletic scholarships should be eliminated. No need for a full ride to some kid who can run fast in a circle, bump a volleyball, putt with a golf club, kick a soccer ball or swing a racket. These sports bring no revenue to the schools and are financial drains. You can argue all you want about these sports enriching the atmosphere at the schools, blah blah blah...and I'd agree. But NOT on someone else's dime. Should the schools pay to sponsor the sports? Sure. But should those athletes get a scholarship and NOT have to pay tuition and other expenses to fill a roster spot? No.

Instead, I've always thought that scholarships should go to students who have earned them for academics...since that is the reason for university: education.

But I also feel that for the few revenue producing sports at a school, that scholarships are worse while. It can be a rather simple equation, where "if sports generates X number of dollars, than school can grant Y number of scholarships". Of course, there would need to be some wiggle room for the POTENTIAL to generate revenue as a sport. But I look around FCS and see schools losing money while having football and lots of scholarships. Do they need to give these guys free rides to play a sport they supposedly love? Just don't see the benefit when you can just accept a student based on their willingness to play on your team, but make them pay on their own...unless they've earned it through academics.

we have that... it's called D-III

[putter]

As Tom Cruise said in All The Right Moves.....trade football for an education. Given the amount of time some of these athletes have to put in I would not be against athletes getting minimum wage for practice time as you could argue they are "working" at the university just as I did at the athletic center. However, it took me 10 years to pay off my student loans and not many football players had that problem.......so I don't feel too sorry for them.

[Seawolf97]

Absolutely not1 They either receive full or partial scholarships paying for their education, many work on or off campus at jobs provided by the school and many will network into lucrative posistions after graduation. Plus some will get pro- contracts after graduation in their chosen sport.
Paying an athlete may start a bidding war for players in any sport and be difficult for the school or NCAA to police.
So leave the current scholarship programs as they are -which is offering a kid alot financially and socially.

[Ivytalk]

No. I prefer to maintain the veneer of amateurism. Schollies are enough.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I've always felt that we'd be better off if football and basketball were structured like baseball and ice hockey. That is, when a kid graduates from HS and decides he wants to commit himself to making the NHL or MLB, he has the option of signing with the pros and starting a career in the minor leagues. Because those options don't really exist in football and basketball since there isn't a bonafide minor league system, we get hundreds of kids pretending to be student-athletes instead. It's why I call the BCS schools quasi semi-pro organizations. Unfortunately, the schools are making so much money that they're too deeply ingrained to truly enforce academic standards. And the NFL and NBA get a minor league system run for them with hardly spending a dime.

If we didn't have all the BCS transgressions, we wouldn't have so many restrictive NCAA regulations. It would be easier for athletes to obtain part-time jobs . It would be easier to get a kid home for a funeral when common sense says it's right for an institution/booster group to buy a plane ticket.

Somehow, I think that Florida-Georgia, Alabama-Auburn, Ohio State-Michigan, etc. would be just as heated a rivalry game if true student-athletes were competing.

Nope, I'll never be in favor of paying college athletes.

[collegesportsinfo]

No, no stipend. But...

I think all athletic scholarships should be eliminated. No need for a full ride to some kid who can run fast in a circle, bump a volleyball, putt with a golf club, kick a soccer ball or swing a racket. These sports bring no revenue to the schools and are financial drains. You can argue all you want about these sports enriching the atmosphere at the schools, blah blah blah...and I'd agree. But NOT on someone else's dime. Should the schools pay to sponsor the sports? Sure. But should those athletes get a scholarship and NOT have to pay tuition and other expenses to fill a roster spot? No.

Instead, I've always thought that scholarships should go to students who have earned them for academics...since that is the reason for university: education.

But I also feel that for the few revenue producing sports at a school, that scholarships are worse while. It can be a rather simple equation, where "if sports generates X number of dollars, than school can grant Y number of scholarships". Of course, there would need to be some wiggle room for the POTENTIAL to generate revenue as a sport. But I look around FCS and see schools losing money while having football and lots of scholarships. Do they need to give these guys free rides to play a sport they supposedly love? Just don't see the benefit when you can just accept a student based on their willingness to play on your team, but make them pay on their own...unless they've earned it through academics.

Typical un-athletic douche. But for the most part, thats how scholarships are secured. Monies generated + monies donated.

Hmm, quite an insightful response. As you are quite incorrect in your assessment, mine could be that you're mom's a c#nt, but that would be the low road.

And as I said, I have no problems with schools having said sports. I think it's great. But any funds donated should be put towards the costs of the sports. A good year of donations could fund multiple years, maybe a decade in some cases. There's no reason to blow it all each year on costs and scholarships when you can just as well get STUDENT athletes to come to the school and participate for said program and pay their way. Especially when you get into sports like Tennis and Golf which historically have been played the statistically speaking, the majority of the time by kids whose parents could afford tuition. Of course, there are always exceptions though.

[collegesportsinfo]

No, no stipend. But...

I think all athletic scholarships should be eliminated. No need for a full ride to some kid who can run fast in a circle, bump a volleyball, putt with a golf club, kick a soccer ball or swing a racket. These sports bring no revenue to the schools and are financial drains. You can argue all you want about these sports enriching the atmosphere at the schools, blah blah blah...and I'd agree. But NOT on someone else's dime. Should the schools pay to sponsor the sports? Sure. But should those athletes get a scholarship and NOT have to pay tuition and other expenses to fill a roster spot? No.

Instead, I've always thought that scholarships should go to students who have earned them for academics...since that is the reason for university: education.

But I also feel that for the few revenue producing sports at a school, that scholarships are worse while. It can be a rather simple equation, where "if sports generates X number of dollars, than school can grant Y number of scholarships". Of course, there would need to be some wiggle room for the POTENTIAL to generate revenue as a sport. But I look around FCS and see schools losing money while having football and lots of scholarships. Do they need to give these guys free rides to play a sport they supposedly love? Just don't see the benefit when you can just accept a student based on their willingness to play on your team, but make them pay on their own...unless they've earned it through academics.

we have that... it's called D-III

And it's a splendid model. With the growing costs within athletic departments in D1, ever cent counts, and scholarship funds would make a big dent in some cases. Not all, but certainly some.

[Aho Old Guy]

I'm mainly talking about the very upper echelon of college coaches.

Nick Saban has over DOUBLE the annual salary ($5,997,349) as the highest paid university President ($2,774,000).

Who is the Alabama president?

(That's for Toomer's Corner)

[Skjellyfetti]

Frontline airing tonight on this topic. Should be interesting.

his March, the nation will once again go “mad,” as more than 140 million people tune in to watch one of the biggest sporting events on earth—the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. But “March Madness” isn’t just a basketball tournament. It’s become big business, with television rights alone worth $10.8 billion over 14 years.

In Money and March Madness, airing Tuesday, March 29, 2011, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE correspondent Lowell Bergman (Post Mortem, The Card Game) takes a hard look at the economics of the annual NCAA tournament—a cash cow for amateur athletics that generates enormous dollars for everyone except the players themselves, raising basic questions of fairness that are now leading a handful of influential figures to challenge the way the NCAA operates.

Chief among the NCAA’s critics is Sonny Vaccaro, a former executive at Nike, Adidas and Reebok who was a key figure in the commercialization of college and high school basketball in the 1980s and ’90s. In his first in-depth interview since leaving the world of sports marketing, Vaccaro tells FRONTLINE he’s had a change of heart after years of helping big corporations profit from amateur athletics. Now, he says, he’d like to help the players get in on some of the profits. “Unless the people who make the rules and the people who divide the money up come to their senses, there’s no recourse for the student-athlete,” says Vaccaro. “Everybody has a right except the player. The player has no rights.”

The question of paying players in big-time college sports has been raised for years, but now it’s gaining new force, thanks to a class-action suit that Vaccaro and others helped initiate on behalf of former players. The suit challenges one of the pillars of college athletics, a contract that the NCAA forces all players to sign which bars them from earning any money at any time from their college playing careers.

“The case is terribly important,” says Andrew Zimbalist, an expert on sports economics. “It goes to the core principles of the NCAA’s amateurism. ... If you look at it economically from afar, you say here’s an organization that, in the name of amateurism, has imposed a plethora of restrictions, a large number of which seem to be consistent with trying to maximize the economic return that the schools get. ... In practice, the NCAA functions as a trade association for the athletic directors and the coaches and the conference commissioners.”

“Who are these people making all this money?” former Final Four MVP and current Chicago Bulls star Joakim Noah asks Bergman. “And shouldn’t the kids, once their college careers are over, shouldn’t they get a piece of that? This is something that needs to be exposed.”

But the new president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, defends the amateurism of college basketball and rejects any form of payments to players. “I think that it would be utterly unacceptable to convert students into employees,” Emmert tells Bergman. “The point of March Madness, of the men’s basketball tournament, is the fact that it’s being played by students. ... What amateurism really means is that these young men and women are students; they’ve come to our institutions to gain an education and to develop their skills as an athlete and to compete at the very highest level they're capable of. And for them, that’s a very attractive proposition.”

All eyes now are on the pending outcome of the class-action suit against the NCAA. “You’ve got to get a decision here,” Vaccaro says. “It’s amateurism or it isn’t. Say yes or say no. If it’s yes, then take care of the kids. If it’s no, then the kids should be free to do what they want and shouldn’t have to sign [away their rights on] scholarship papers.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... e=proglist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;