Paying College Football Players: It’s Coming, But How Much?
More than a century ago, the very idea of paying coaches was up for debate. The arguments against it looked very similar to the arguments against paying players, right down to the concern for the college game’s amateur spirit.
But as football evolved, coaches were elevated above players, rising to become salaried employees, tenured professors, and, eventually, living legends who could demand millions to ply their trade. They broke down the walls of amateurism at the expense of athletes, whose own push for compensation hasn’t gone much further than paid tuition.
It’s going to go much further in the next decade or two.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 07:54
I hope not. It would hasten the downfall of college football. From what I understand, a lot of Division I football programs don’t make money as it is and I think they’d end up with a college pro division of about 20 schools. I don’t think the NCAA would want that or the scramble to outbid each other for the latest high school phee – nom.
They already get paid with free tutors, free education, special dorms and other facilities. Colleges have sophisticated publicity departments to promote them in the media. Colleges also spend incredible amounts of money on stadiums for them to play in, provide them food and they already get stipends.
Only a tiny percentage go on to play professionally.
But the NCAA has already shown it is willing to trash traditions that do so much to make their product interesting in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. They are happy to self-destruct tomorrow if it means making a buck today.
If I were king I’d restore the bowl system and restore the conferences even going back to putting South Carolina back in the ACC. And the only games that could use the name “bowl” would be the Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Bluebonnet, Fiesta, Rose….and that’s about it. Something tells me I’m missing one of the classics (and no, it’s not the Gator Bowl. Sorry, that one doesn’t maker my cut).
No college would be allowed to play in the “Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl.” Those other games could have whatever sponsors or names they wanted, but could not have “bowl” in the name. They’d be invitationals and second tier.
Also, players would be introduced one by one again, running toward the camera and breaking off to one side, the way they oughta.
Were I king, I’d also maroon the designer of those Oregon uniforms on a desert island.
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 11:30
Teams going 6-6 play in bowls now and that in itself is a joke. How many bowls are there now? Way too many! It’s all about money even if a stadium is only half full or less. I just don’t get any of this and never will!!
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 12:19
Yeah, there’s like, at least bowls or so and what, 120, or so Division I schools? So half o them get to go to a “bowl.”
The old bowl system worked better than the BCS and there’s gonna be a lot of griping about the current playoff system till they go to 16 teams or more.
I wanna see the Big 10 and Pac 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, the SEC champs in the Sugar and Cotton taking on the Southwest, ACC or other Pac 10 or Big 10 school or a Big 12 school. Shoot, I’ve forgotten a lot of how it was organized, but it worked great the way it was.
Notre Dame was always independent and would get in a major one when they were good. So would Penn State.
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:33
We both know that money talks and the powers that be will likely get their way. Still is a big turn off for me and I’m sure millions of others but we can’t stop it…
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 03:28
The NCAA makes close to $800 million dollars off of the March Madness tournament alone. The highest paid public employees in most states are college coaches that are either football or basketball. Jim Harbaugh just signed a seven year $49 million dollar contract with Michigan, yet you claim that most DI school’s football teams don’t make money? I have never heard this, and would love a source.
burqa January 3rd, 2015 at 04:13
Sorry, don’t have a source. Tournament or Bowl money is not divided equally. I am not up to date, but the following is how it’s been done for a long time. A school going to a bowl or the NCAA Tourney gets a big check and the conference gets another, which is divided among member schools. Some schools have TV deals, but I think most of it goes to the NCAA.
Football teams carry something like 80 players and about 60 travel to away games, but they all go to bowls. They will be accompanied by tutors, coaching staff, administrative, medical personnel, chearleaders, media and publicity staff and perhaps others, so you’re talking about maybe 150-200 hotel rooms a day to be bought, 450-600 meals a day to be bought, buses to drive all those people around, round-trip plane tickets for everyone – it adds up pretty fast. I don’t know where the band budget comes from, but some schools have 100 or so in the band, a few have as many as 200, and they go with additional personnel, too.
Coaches at the top like Saban at Alabama pull 5-7 million and their coordinators pull, I’d guess about a million or two. A top 10 basketball coach makes that kind of money. The football team has all those assistants, maybe 20 of them making 50-200,000.
Often the creampuff schools we see on schedules are there because they pay the big boys to play them. It’s kinda wacky how that money goes back and forth.
20,000 seat basketball arenas come with large monthly payments that have to be made, as well as insurance and maintenance. Same with 60,000 seat football stadiums. Those things burn through an incredible amount of electricity and water, and have to have large backup water supply systems for fire suppression.
For some schools, the money coming in from the football team is used to finance other sports, and some goes to the rest of the school. At the same time, some get donations dedicated to the sports program.
All that money flowing around requires an audit staff. I’d guess the top dog pulls 150 grand and has a staff pulling some nice salaries, too.
A school that doesn’t go to the tournament or bowl games very often loses out on a lot of money and have a harder time fundraising because they’re losers.
Maryland recently left the ACC for the Big Ten because they had been losing money and it was the only way to stop the bleeding. Not sure, but I think they were losing about 800,000 a year.
Schools like Alabama or Florida State rake it in for football, but not a little school like Wake Forest.
I’d guess – and it’s only a guess, that probably 20 Division I schools turn a solid profit, another dozen that are making a few million and most of the rest barely treading water or losing money. I’m sure those figures are off, but they give a general idea.
searambler January 3rd, 2015 at 18:46
“Often the creampuff schools we see on schedules are there because they pay the big boys to play them. It’s kinda wacky how that money goes back and forth.”
Actually, it’s the other way around. The big schools pay the little guys. Here are some payouts that big schools paid back in 2012, according to a quick google search:
Oklahoma State vs. Savannah State (Week 1, 84-0): $385,000
Florida State vs. Murray State (Week 1, 69-3): $450,000
Pittsburgh vs. Youngstown State (Week 1, 31-17 – UPSET!): 400,000
Florida State vs. Savannah State (Week 2): $475,000
Oklahoma vs. Florida A&M (Week 2): $650,000
Alabama vs. Western Kentucky (Week 2): $1,000,000
Arkansas vs. Louisiana-Monroe (Week 2): $500,000 – part of $3,000,000, six-game deal
Virginia Tech vs. Austin Peay (Week 2): $318,750
Tennessee vs. Georgia State (Week 2): $500,000
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 08:54
I hope not. It would hasten the downfall of college football. From what I understand, a lot of Division I football programs don’t make money as it is and I think they’d end up with a college pro division of about 20 schools. I don’t think the NCAA would want that or the scramble to outbid each other for the latest high school phee – nom.
They already get paid with free tutors, free education, special dorms and other facilities. Colleges have sophisticated publicity departments to promote them in the media. Colleges also spend incredible amounts of money on stadiums for them to play in, provide them food and they already get stipends.
Only a tiny percentage go on to play professionally.
But the NCAA has already shown it is willing to trash traditions that do so much to make their product interesting in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. They are happy to self-destruct tomorrow if it means making a buck today.
If I were king I’d restore the bowl system and restore the conferences even going back to putting South Carolina back in the ACC. And the only games that could use the name “bowl” would be the Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Bluebonnet, Fiesta, Rose….and that’s about it. Something tells me I’m missing one of the classics (and no, it’s not the Gator Bowl. Sorry, that one doesn’t maker my cut).
No college would be allowed to play in the “Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl.” Those other games could have whatever sponsors or names they wanted, but could not have “bowl” in the name. They’d be invitationals and second tier.
Also, players would be introduced one by one again, running toward the camera and breaking off to one side, the way they oughta.
Were I king, I’d also maroon the designer of those Oregon uniforms on a desert island.
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:30
Teams going 6-6 play in bowls now and that in itself is a joke. How many bowls are there now? Way too many! It’s all about money even if a stadium is only half full or less. I just don’t get any of this and never will!!
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 13:19
Yeah, there’s like, at least bowls or so and what, 120, or so Division I schools? So half o them get to go to a “bowl.”
The old bowl system worked better than the BCS and there’s gonna be a lot of griping about the current playoff system till they go to 16 teams or more.
I wanna see the Big 10 and Pac 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, the SEC champs in the Sugar and Cotton taking on the Southwest, ACC or other Pac 10 or Big 10 school or a Big 12 school. Shoot, I’ve forgotten a lot of how it was organized, but it worked great the way it was.
Notre Dame was always independent and would get in a major one when they were good. So would Penn State.
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 13:33
We both know that money talks and the powers that be will likely get their way. Still is a big turn off for me and I’m sure millions of others but we can’t stop it…
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 04:28
The NCAA makes close to $800 million dollars off of the March Madness tournament alone. The highest paid public employees in most states are college coaches that are either football or basketball. Jim Harbaugh just signed a seven year $49 million dollar contract with Michigan, yet you claim that most DI school’s football teams don’t make money? I have never heard this, and would love a source.
burqa January 3rd, 2015 at 05:13
Sorry, don’t have a source. Tournament or Bowl money is not divided equally. I am not up to date, but the following is how it’s been done for a long time. A school going to a bowl or the NCAA Tourney gets a big check and the conference gets another, which is divided among member schools. Some schools have TV deals, but I think most of it goes to the NCAA.
Football teams carry something like 80 players and about 60 travel to away games, but they all go to bowls. They will be accompanied by tutors, coaching staff, administrative, medical personnel, chearleaders, media and publicity staff and perhaps others, so you’re talking about maybe 150-200 hotel rooms a day to be bought, 450-600 meals a day to be bought, buses to drive all those people around, round-trip plane tickets for everyone – it adds up pretty fast. I don’t know where the band budget comes from, but some schools have 100 or so in the band, a few have as many as 200, and they go with additional personnel, too.
Coaches at the top like Saban at Alabama pull 5-7 million and their coordinators pull, I’d guess about a million or two. A top 10 basketball coach makes that kind of money. The football team has all those assistants, maybe 20 of them making 50-200,000.
Often the creampuff schools we see on schedules are there because they pay the big boys to play them. It’s kinda wacky how that money goes back and forth.
20,000 seat basketball arenas come with large monthly payments that have to be made, as well as insurance and maintenance. Same with 60,000 seat football stadiums. Those things burn through an incredible amount of electricity and water, and have to have large backup water supply systems for fire suppression.
For some schools, the money coming in from the football team is used to finance other sports, and some goes to the rest of the school. At the same time, some get donations dedicated to the sports program.
All that money flowing around requires an audit staff. I’d guess the top dog pulls 150 grand and has a staff pulling some nice salaries, too.
A school that doesn’t go to the tournament or bowl games very often loses out on a lot of money and have a harder time fundraising because they’re losers.
Maryland recently left the ACC for the Big Ten because they had been losing money and it was the only way to stop the bleeding. Not sure, but I think they were losing about 800,000 a year.
Schools like Alabama or Florida State rake it in for football, but not a little school like Wake Forest.
I’d guess – and it’s only a guess, that probably 20 Division I schools turn a solid profit, another dozen that are making a few million and most of the rest barely treading water or losing money. I’m sure those figures are off, but they give a general idea.
searambler January 3rd, 2015 at 19:46
“Often the creampuff schools we see on schedules are there because they pay the big boys to play them. It’s kinda wacky how that money goes back and forth.”
Actually, it’s the other way around. The big schools pay the little guys. Here are some payouts that big schools paid back in 2012, according to a quick google search:
Oklahoma State vs. Savannah State (Week 1, 84-0): $385,000
Florida State vs. Murray State (Week 1, 69-3): $450,000
Pittsburgh vs. Youngstown State (Week 1, 31-17 – UPSET!): 400,000
Florida State vs. Savannah State (Week 2): $475,000
Oklahoma vs. Florida A&M (Week 2): $650,000
Alabama vs. Western Kentucky (Week 2): $1,000,000
Arkansas vs. Louisiana-Monroe (Week 2): $500,000 – part of $3,000,000, six-game deal
Virginia Tech vs. Austin Peay (Week 2): $318,750
Tennessee vs. Georgia State (Week 2): $500,000
amongoose January 2nd, 2015 at 07:56
You could make a case that they already are and have been or years. Alumni sponsored sham jobs, free grades from courses rigged to bring up their averages such as UNC was just caught at and both reasons were Alabama received their sanctions.
.
Should they be, no I don’t think so, they are there on scholarship. If they are to be paid then they should pay for their own education, otherwise they are receiving dual compensation for services rendered.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 07:58
I agree. I posted as much but for some reason my post is waiting for approval to be posted. There’s no feelthy words in it or nuthin’, but they need to think about it a while before they let it go up.
amongoose January 3rd, 2015 at 08:56
It’s about the money. Big college football, basketball, and in some schools baseball are big revenue. Other sports put few fans in the stands, they just don’t pay.
Successful college football, and basketball programs bring in multi millions.
It’s why you see these small schools volunteering to be sacrificial lambs for the Tigers and Bama’s (yea SEC fan) even though they know it will be a slaughter, they can make 100k or so doing it. That pays a lot of costs.
DII and III are regulated by NCAA, that way the best athletes are assured of going to the big money makers. It’s the same reason there are such large conferences, each school gets a cut of bowl revenues.
Should they be paid, no they already are, or if they are, no scholarships.
They can pay from their income as most of us had to do for our education.
Little bit biased on that, blew out left knee in HS football, never had a chance at a scholarship, had to work to pay for mine, and that 4 year degree took 6 years as a result.
burqa January 5th, 2015 at 01:24
Imagine if they were just paid employees and Alabama gave a “job offer” to a dozen or so Ohio State players before the game the other day……
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 03:22
Not all athletes are paid, there are only enough spots on the roster for 1/2 of the team to receive a full ride, and the schools usually split most of them up anyway, not to mention DII athletes that can only receive a 1/2 ride max, or DIII which cannot get any type of athletic scholarship. How are these athletes to be treated? How are athletes in sports that aren’t as popular as football, basketball, or whatever the most popular sport at a give school is to be treated?
amongoose January 2nd, 2015 at 08:56
You could make a case that they already are and have been or years. Alumni sponsored sham jobs, free grades from courses rigged to bring up their averages such as UNC was just caught at and both reasons were Alabama received their sanctions.
.
Should they be, no I don’t think so, they are there on scholarship. If they are to be paid then they should pay for their own education, otherwise they are receiving dual compensation for services rendered.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 08:58
I agree. I posted as much but for some reason my post is waiting for approval to be posted. There’s no feelthy words in it or nuthin’, but they need to think about it a while before they let it go up.
amongoose January 3rd, 2015 at 09:56
It’s about the money. Big college football, basketball, and in some schools baseball are big revenue. Other sports put few fans in the stands, they just don’t pay.
Successful college football, and basketball programs bring in multi millions.
It’s why you see these small schools volunteering to be sacrificial lambs for the Tigers and Bama’s (yea SEC fan) even though they know it will be a slaughter, they can make 100k or so doing it. That pays a lot of costs.
DII and III are regulated by NCAA, that way the best athletes are assured of going to the big money makers. It’s the same reason there are such large conferences, each school gets a cut of bowl revenues.
Should they be paid, no they already are, or if they are, no scholarships.
They can pay from their income as most of us had to do for our education.
Little bit biased on that, blew out left knee in HS football, never had a chance at a scholarship, had to work to pay for mine, and that 4 year degree took 6 years as a result.
burqa January 5th, 2015 at 02:24
Imagine if they were just paid employees and Alabama gave a “job offer” to a dozen or so Ohio State players before the game the other day……
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 04:22
Not all athletes are paid, there are only enough spots on the roster for 1/2 of the team to receive a full ride, and the schools usually split most of them up anyway, not to mention DII athletes that can only receive a 1/2 ride max, or DIII which cannot get any type of athletic scholarship. How are these athletes to be treated? How are athletes in sports that aren’t as popular as football, basketball, or whatever the most popular sport at a give school is to be treated?
uzza January 2nd, 2015 at 08:00
Fine, pay em. They can have a part time job while they go to college, just like the rest of us. Then if they want to use the school to promote their business they can pay big bucks for the privilege, like any other business.
uzza January 2nd, 2015 at 09:00
Fine, pay em. They can have a part time job while they go to college, just like the rest of us. Then if they want to use the school to promote their business they can pay big bucks for the privilege, like any other business.
Jeffrey Samuels January 2nd, 2015 at 09:56
I am totally against this kind of thing. I work for a small college and having to pay our athletes would devastate our budget. If these folks are to be classed as employees, it opens an entire can of worms for benefits as well as salaries. It changes the paradigm of students choosing to play sports for the college to College employees choosing to apply for classes at their place of employment.
If they are going to be employees, then they should not be accepted as students first but should apply (and pay) for their education like any other student. No more early acceptance, early arrival, free or greatly reduced housing and scholarships (college supplied tuition reductions).
junesxing January 2nd, 2015 at 10:56
I am totally against this kind of thing. I work for a small college and having to pay our athletes would devastate our budget. If these folks are to be classed as employees, it opens an entire can of worms for benefits as well as salaries. It changes the paradigm of students choosing to play sports for the college to College employees choosing to apply for classes at their place of employment.
If they are going to be employees, then they should not be accepted as students first but should apply (and pay) for their education like any other student. No more early acceptance, early arrival, free or greatly reduced housing and scholarships (college supplied tuition reductions).
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 11:26
Terrible idea and I’m totally against this practice. Number one reason is that large donor schools will have a huge advantage of doing this over smaller schools with limited funds. Number two is …what happened to going to college for an EDUCATION??!! This is all about money and greed. It sends a message that college is not about getting an education but rather getting paid for playing a game. Call me old fashioned but this will be a disaster before it’s over…
crc3 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:26
Terrible idea and I’m totally against this practice. Number one reason is that large donor schools will have a huge advantage of doing this over smaller schools with limited funds. Number two is …what happened to going to college for an EDUCATION??!! This is all about money and greed. It sends a message that college is not about getting an education but rather getting paid for playing a game. Call me old fashioned but this will be a disaster before it’s over…
Stuart Shapiro January 2nd, 2015 at 11:35
Obviously paying athletes is not something very popular with the commenters below. But frankly, if we have a system (as we do in football and basketball) where colleges are feeder systems to the pros, then not paying the athletes is merely a form of exploiting them. They get little education (the sports are a major time commitment), the schools greatly profit off of their effort, and most of them will never make a dime playing pro sports and may suffer injuries that compromise their ability to do anything else.
If you want to get rid of college sports, wonderful and I am sympathetic to that desire. But if we have our current system, then I think we need to treat the kids fairly.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 12:11
If they take advantage of what the schools offer, they can get an excellent education. If they don’t graduate, it’s their own fault because they have to pass a certain number of hours each semester. They have summer school to catch up and also have individual tutors and people who do little more than try to get them to class on time. Often, though, they stop going to class when the season ends and don’t get that last semester of classes and in football, get incompletes their last season as well. So if they don’t get drafted into the pros, they only need to pay for one year of college to get a degree and they’ve already got a great head start.
They get better dorms, training table food, close attention from team physicians and stipends, too. I doubt those hundred dollar handshakes have gone away, either, nor have the bogus jobs with boosters.
They use the colleges and the colleges use them.
Right now, the football or basketball programs don’t just make profits for the school, but that money funds sports – a lot of them women’s sports that lose money. Take a big chunk of those profits to pay football players and say goodbye to women’s field hockey, golf and swimming.
I’m in favor of reform. They should offer 4-year scholarships so a player who gets injured can finish school. Maybe give them an extra year. Redshirting used to be more common. It used to be that freshmen didn’t play so they could get that first year under their belt. Now they do play, so give them another year on the back end.
Stuart Shapiro January 2nd, 2015 at 13:30
Fair points (especially on the women’s sports). I just do not see 18 year olds who have been admitted to schools where many of them are bound to struggle to keep up in classes and therefore very unlikely to get that diploma, that will make the deal worthwhile for them as “using” of the universities. Also all of them come in to the college believing they hold the golden ticket of an eventual pro career (and have probably been told that by the college) when really all they hold is a 1/100 shot (if that) of doing so. At 18, I don’t think they can/will know the difference.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 14:43
Good points. I’d add that even though both use each other, it’s hardly a level playing field. The only time the athlete has any real leverage is during the recruiting phase, before he signs.And a lot of those athletes were able to get by slacking in high school and if they got hurt and lost their scholarship, would hardly be prepared to finish college on their own.
The closest thing we have to legit student-athletes are the service academies, and even they recruit athletes to play sports primarily.
I remember back in the day when the Marines had a team that played college ball (in the 20s they were a national power). They would go to other schools recruiting. Not only could they promise a graduating athlete they would not be drafted and sent to Vietnam, but they could play football for 4 more years.
The money has gotten so big it has correspondingly warped everything to where it’s nothing like it once was. Everyone is trapped in such a way as to where it seems as if it’s in their best interest to ride this thing straight to hell.
Stuart Shapiro January 2nd, 2015 at 12:35
Obviously paying athletes is not something very popular with the commenters below. But frankly, if we have a system (as we do in football and basketball) where colleges are feeder systems to the pros, then not paying the athletes is merely a form of exploiting them. They get little education (the sports are a major time commitment), the schools greatly profit off of their effort, and most of them will never make a dime playing pro sports and may suffer injuries that compromise their ability to do anything else.
If you want to get rid of college sports, wonderful and I am sympathetic to that desire. But if we have our current system, then I think we need to treat the kids fairly.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 13:11
If they take advantage of what the schools offer, they can get an excellent education. If they don’t graduate, it’s their own fault because they have to pass a certain number of hours each semester. They have summer school to catch up and also have individual tutors and people who do little more than try to get them to class on time. Often, though, they stop going to class when the season ends and don’t get that last semester of classes and in football, get incompletes their last season as well. So if they don’t get drafted into the pros, they only need to pay for one year of college to get a degree and they’ve already got a great head start.
They get better dorms, training table food, close attention from team physicians and stipends, too. I doubt those hundred dollar handshakes have gone away, either, nor have the bogus jobs with boosters.
They use the colleges and the colleges use them.
Right now, the football or basketball programs don’t just make profits for the school, but that money funds sports – a lot of them women’s sports that lose money. Take a big chunk of those profits to pay football players and say goodbye to women’s field hockey, golf and swimming.
I’m in favor of reform. They should offer 4-year scholarships so a player who gets injured can finish school. Maybe give them an extra year. Redshirting used to be more common. It used to be that freshmen didn’t play so they could get that first year under their belt. Now they do play, so give them another year on the back end.
Stuart Shapiro January 2nd, 2015 at 14:30
Fair points (especially on the women’s sports). I just do not see 18 year olds who have been admitted to schools where many of them are bound to struggle to keep up in classes and therefore very unlikely to get that diploma, that will make the deal worthwhile for them as “using” of the universities. Also all of them come in to the college believing they hold the golden ticket of an eventual pro career (and have probably been told that by the college) when really all they hold is a 1/100 shot (if that) of doing so. At 18, I don’t think they can/will know the difference.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 15:43
Good points. I’d add that even though both use each other, it’s hardly a level playing field. The only time the athlete has any real leverage is during the recruiting phase, before he signs.And a lot of those athletes were able to get by slacking in high school and if they got hurt and lost their scholarship, would hardly be prepared to finish college on their own.
The closest thing we have to legit student-athletes are the service academies, and even they recruit athletes to play sports primarily.
I remember back in the day when the Marines had a team that played college ball (in the 20s they were a national power). They would go to other schools recruiting. Not only could they promise a graduating athlete they would not be drafted and sent to Vietnam, but they could play football for 4 more years.
The money has gotten so big it has correspondingly warped everything to where it’s nothing like it once was. Everyone is trapped in such a way as to where it seems as if it’s in their best interest to ride this thing straight to hell.
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 03:10
What is left out of these discussions is how do you treat DII and DIII athletes? Most if not all of these players have accepted the fact that they are not making it to the NFL, NBA, MLB but they still put in the same amount of time that DI players do. Why not treat athletics as a work study job, pay at minimum wage the first year and have it increase every year that they play. This way all sports are treated the same and the walk on/scout team player will still be rewarded for their time played as these players aren’t on scholarship anyways. The high profile athletes can still receive full or half rides, but the less stellar athletes are compensated for their time away from classes while the school makes their millions of dollars on the team.
bahlers January 3rd, 2015 at 04:10
What is left out of these discussions is how do you treat DII and DIII athletes? Most if not all of these players have accepted the fact that they are not making it to the NFL, NBA, MLB but they still put in the same amount of time that DI players do. Why not treat athletics as a work study job, pay at minimum wage the first year and have it increase every year that they play. This way all sports are treated the same and the walk on/scout team player will still be rewarded for their time played as these players aren’t on scholarship anyways. The high profile athletes can still receive full or half rides, but the less stellar athletes are compensated for their time away from classes while the school makes their millions of dollars on the team.
rg9rts January 3rd, 2015 at 09:06
So it will be out in the open…what has been going on for ages…
rg9rts January 3rd, 2015 at 10:06
So it will be out in the open…what has been going on for ages…
edmeyer_able January 3rd, 2015 at 18:50
How long before the QB is making more than the tenured professor teaching physics or calculus.
Budda January 8th, 2015 at 20:16
as soon as he gets drafted….
edmeyer_able January 3rd, 2015 at 19:50
How long before the QB is making more than the tenured professor teaching physics or calculus.
Budda January 8th, 2015 at 21:16
as soon as he gets drafted….
searambler January 3rd, 2015 at 18:51
Collegiate football and basketball is nothing more than the farm system for the pros. The NCAA has made billions over the years, off the blood and sweat of their unpaid labor force. Of course these kids should be paid. And insured. And able to make endorsement deals and sell their autographs. AND get compensated for the use of their images in video games, which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise entirely separate from everything else.
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 19:45
No way, they are supposed to be in college, they are getting a free ride
searambler January 5th, 2015 at 21:52
That may have been true fifty years ago. But today, the NCAA is a multi-billion-dollar a year business. And they make that money literally on the backs of these kids. Most of whom do NOT get a full four year free ride, and most of whom will NOT go on to be a pro athlete. But if they play a sport, they’re expected to devote all their spare time to that sport, for free. The NCAA rakes in over six billion a year. The highest paid public employee in, like, forty states, is either a college football coach or a college basketball coach. But the kids get nothing? The NCAA has evolved into the de facto farm system for professional sports. Everybody sees this. It’s not a question of if, but when and how much they’ll get paid…..
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 21:53
do not care, do not pay them.
Jeffrey Samuels January 9th, 2015 at 10:57
so who may I ask is twisting their arms to play college sports? It is sort of like saying that college chess club students should be paid because they spend all their time playing chess outside of classes.
Wait! Before you start with the ‘but they are bringing in revenue’ whine, remember college athletes get scholarships, free room and board with the best facilities on campus and status on campus (something kids value highly), as well as preferred acceptance despite other students being more academically sound .
To pay them more changes their status from students playing sports to employees playing sports. If you are going to go that route, then the scholarships, housing, and preferred acceptance should be thrown out. People hired to play sports for a college should apply in a blind situation and compete with all the other applicants for acceptance and scholarships based on academic standards. If they are going to be paid, then they shouldn’t have to be a student to be employed by the college any more than any other employee.
searambler January 3rd, 2015 at 19:51
Collegiate football and basketball is nothing more than the farm system for the pros. The NCAA has made billions over the years, off the blood and sweat of their unpaid labor force. Of course these kids should be paid. And insured. And able to make endorsement deals and sell their autographs. AND get compensated for the use of their images in video games, which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise entirely separate from everything else.
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 20:45
No way, they are supposed to be in college, they are getting a free ride
searambler January 5th, 2015 at 22:52
That may have been true fifty years ago. But today, the NCAA is a multi-billion-dollar a year business. And they make that money literally on the backs of these kids. Most of whom do NOT get a full four year free ride, and most of whom will NOT go on to be a pro athlete. But if they play a sport, they’re expected to devote all their spare time to that sport, for free. The NCAA rakes in over six billion a year. The highest paid public employee in, like, forty states, is either a college football coach or a college basketball coach. But the kids get nothing? The NCAA has evolved into the de facto farm system for professional sports. Everybody sees this. It’s not a question of if, but when and how much they’ll get paid…..
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 22:53
do not care, do not pay them.
junesxing January 9th, 2015 at 11:57
so who may I ask is twisting their arms to play college sports? It is sort of like saying that college chess club students should be paid because they spend all their time playing chess outside of classes.
Wait! Before you start with the ‘but they are bringing in revenue’ whine, remember college athletes get scholarships, free room and board with the best facilities on campus and status on campus (something kids value highly), as well as preferred acceptance despite other students being more academically sound .
To pay them more changes their status from students playing sports to employees playing sports. If you are going to go that route, then the scholarships, housing, and preferred acceptance should be thrown out. People hired to play sports for a college should apply in a blind situation and compete with all the other applicants for acceptance and scholarships based on academic standards. If they are going to be paid, then they shouldn’t have to be a student to be employed by the college any more than any other employee.