1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Real Sports story implicates Auburn, other schools

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by novelist_wannabe, Mar 30, 2011.

  1. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    It's not that difficult to work out an economic arrangement that is equitable and that would eventually pass through legal/courtroom challenges. Revenue sharing is one example. Athletes get a certain percentage of the revenues their sport generates--ticket sales, TV revenue, merchandising. For the men's archery team, they probably split $0. The women's lacrosse team gets a small honorariam. The football team divides up millions of dollars.
     
  2. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    I never made any argument that athletes don't get some compensation-I noted many posts earlier that a scholarship is certainly something. You've yet to respond to my main critique: why a completely arbitrary amount-a scholarship-is a fair amount, as opposed to any other value? People tend to receive compensation that has some correlation to the services rendered.

    Further, as I already pointed out, you are clearly missing the distinction between free markets that set a price based on unrestricted supply and demand and cartelized industries. There are many large companies that would be happy to have you direct this country's antitrust policy based on what appears to be your comprehension.
     
  3. Layman

    Layman Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing that I'm the only person on the board, who's been a financial aid director at an athletic scholarship granting institution. Unfortunately, I don't express myself very well in this format, thus I don't jump into these threads very often. Here's my (very abridged) perspective on the discussion.

    Folks need to remember, as they discuss the possibility of paying athletes, that the only way the athletic scholarship "model" (like it or not...I've got no dog in the fight) works, is to manage & disburse it under the financial aid mechanism. Yes, Title IX equity is important, but no more than Title IV financial aid regulation. It's one of the reason I always chuckle, when I read about the student who can't afford a pizza....yet inevitably is receiving a full Pell grant each year, above and beyond their scholarship...at the taxpayers expense.....for walking around / pocket money. Anyhoo....

    Paying players, particularly when it would make the total individual funding level fall above the institution's budgeted cost of attendance for ALL students (the FA holy grail), makes the model break. They're no longer "students", they become an entire new class of institutional employee. I can't fathom ANY university, no matter how important sports may be to them, wanting any part of that. At all.

    Just my .02, of course.
     
  4. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    If athletes get paid would the next issue is workmen's comp, unemployment benefits and COBRA.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I thought they made Whitlock sit in the back of the bus for balance. :D
     
  6. Layman

    Layman Well-Known Member

    Honestly, none of the times I've discussed the issues w/ colleagues (usually over numerous beverages, at FA conferences), did we ever get that far. Discussing the issue, is like pealing an onion...TONS of layers, that I'm not really capable of detailing on a message board. It usually ended with a resounding " No F-ing Way....."

    However, once you start disbursing funds, above and beyond the standard aid package, things get murky. Conceivably, all the things you stated, could be issues. Along with collective bargaining, etc.. Just can't see many places thinking it's worthwhile.

    As with SO many things, the theoretical / "moral" part of paying players, sounds good. Devil's in the details, though. There's no simple "all you have to do is______" answer. Just layers of ugly.
     
  7. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    You could make the argument that the football and basketball players better fit the definition of 'employee' as opposed to 'student' at a lot of colleges and universities today.
     
  8. Layman

    Layman Well-Known Member

    Not from a legal standpoint. They usually did far more work, than most of my co-workers, though. :)
     
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Oh, I'm sure. The fans would bitch and moan because they spent good money on tickets and how dare those students bitch about getting paid themselves.

    There is enough time? How many times have we heard about athletes being told that they weren't allowed to schedule classes when there's practice time? And like I said earlier on this thread, how much class time is missed for games? And not just tournament ones, but regular season games in which teams travel cross-country during the middle of the week so ESPN could televise them.

    And that's not counting all the hours the athletes have to put in off the clock. Teams are restricted to 20 hours a week of practicing. They use up all that time, which means that athletes have to use their own time to stay in shape with weightlifting and other workouts. If they don't stay in shape on their own time, their performance suffers, and their scholarship can be taken away. Being a college athlete is a full-time job in itself. Heck, I read an SI article a few years back which talked about "voluntary" summer workouts. One player (on Purdue, if I recall correctly), basically said that if he didn't show up, his scholarship would be yanked.

    As far as workmen's comp and those issues go, then let's treat them like employees. And please spare me the "athletics departments don't really make money" argument. Most of that money goes towards astronomical salaries for the football and men's basketball coaches.
     
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    1. Bob Sales, my old boss at the Herald, said college athletes should be made "jocks in residence" at schools like poets or musicians. That way they'd get paid to play, which is why they're in school anyway, and the student-athlete farce could be disposed of. Not a bad idea.
    2. The free market is telling us college football and basketball players are wildly underpaid by a college scholarship. That's what the HBO story is all about. The only time these athletes have any financial leverage is BEFORE they accept a scholarship. If schools find it necessary to offer bribes to jocks to get them to attend their school, that is a precise definition of the monetary value of said scholarship.
     
  11. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Baron, just a point of clarification, the 20 hours a week rule covers games and practice. Not just practice.
     
  12. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Are poets and musicians eligible for workman's comp, vacation time, etc.?

    And are ALL football and basketball players underpaid by scholarship vs. revenue? I don't think they are.

    How much does it cost to go to Stanford on your own dime? Notre Dame? Michigan? What's the value of that diploma?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page