Spurrier - College is for Football, not Academics

I agree. It's really unfair that someone can help make a school millions and not profit from it. When Duke can sell a #4 jersey (Redick) or UNC can sell a #5 jersey(now Lawson, before Cota) and make money off of them when they clearly represent someone, that's BS. The question still stands, though, how do you account for the way a player or a sport makes a different amount of money for a school? How does a third string linebacker get paid compared to someone like Bryan McFadden? It's virtually impossible to quantify.

 

What's going to crash? There's no constitutional right to play college football, or get paid for it. There's no expectation of any of that. It sickens me that we expect winning teams from our universities more than we expect a cure for cancer or our future doctors and political leads. Hell, I'd pay the graduate microbiology student long before I'd pay a football player.

 

Last time I looked, Joe B (or even A)-student isn't getting to go to college for free. Jimmy Football-Stud gets a college education for free. Jimmy can waste his opportunity, make something of his opportunity by going pro or make something of his opportunity by going pro in something other than sports.

To those that advocate giving them money, how much would you pay them? Minimum wage, 30k, 50k, highest bidder...?

 

A conference commissioner once told me there's more to figure out than how much to pay the players. You'd better be prepared to pay all athletes, including those on teams that lose money, and their lawyers will argue they are entitled to the same stipend the QB receives. It's not their fault swimming and diving doesn't turn the same profit as football.

And get ready for the debate team, band, cheerleaders and other clubs to have their day in court. Also, someone will have to figure out how to structure such things as workers compensation, because now the players are employees of the school. I asked him about the argument that athletes could be considered contract workers, and therefore not entitled to benefits and workers comp protection, but he said it wouldn't pass the legal test.

Back to the original focus of the thread, it's hard to fault Spurrier for speaking out. His credibility with prospective recruits is on the line.

 

University of South Carolina said yesterday they're not changing their policy. Wonder how that will affect Spurrier's plans.

 

All athletic scholarships in all sports are abolished.

Athletes in revenue-producing sports are considered contract public-relations performers for the university. They are paid a nominal living wage ($25,000 a year). Athletic performance contracts are good for five years (four of competition). Football team rosters are limited to 70 players; basketball to 12.

If they choose to attend classes, they may do so at a discounted tuition rate, IF they can fully qualify for acceptance on their own academic merits.

If they choose to sit around and drink beer, so be it.

No academic requirements whatsoever. Whether you have a 4.0 GPA, a 1.4, or a 0.0, that's entirely your problem.

And nobody bitches when their eligibility runs out and they have no college degree. You want a college degree, get one.

 

If they weren't accepted then they weren't accepted. Sounds like Spurrier is crying over the same thing that millions of potential college students go through every year.

I am sorry, but I just don't feel too much pity for these athletes.

On a normal year sports departments lose money. Between all the money spent on new stadiums, head coaches, new facilities... schools are losing money. Very few even break even. So, what is the big deal?

If kids want to play, I don't mind it. But don't give me this crap about them "generating revenue." More money is brought in each year from government funded studies. In other words, the biggest revenue generators of universities are the geeky engineering students or chem students. Why is there no discussion about paying them?

 

Wouldn't you also have to change the definition of amateur athlete? If so, wouldn't that open a can of worms?

 

I believe a college admissions department can and should have standards that exceed the NCAA minimum requirements.

But Spurrier may be right. If he submitted the transcripts to the admissions department before Letter of Intent day and was told that the recruits were cleared for enrollment, then the school has an obligation to these kids and to the coaches. These are players who could have been recruited by other schools instead of wasting time listening to a school that didn't want them.

 

And when the system crashes, maybe they will.

 

Hey! one of the few subjects I'm actually qualified to discuss!! Unfortunately, I have neither the space to give all the details, nor am I a good enough writer to give the details in any coherent fashion. However, it's a discussion I've had, over many beers, at a few enrollment management conferences (yep......there's a partying bunch).

Paying athletes won't happen. CAN'T happen. JD's pretty darned close to the bottom line.

The "benefit" would have to be regulated one of two ways. Either via an institutional financial aid package, which is regulated under Title IV federal Financial Aid guidelines, or by making ALL athletes employees of the institution.

Under FA regs, it would be a nightmare of the HIGHEST degree. Nobody...the schools, the athletes, and most certainly not the DOE, want this taking place. However, considering the percentage of athletes who are Pell Grant recipients (an entitlement program), there's absolutely no way around this. In addition, the package would have to fit in under the cap of each institutions listed "Budgeted Cost of Attendance", which could lead to recruiting based on who can actually give you the most "money in pocket."

So, even if you COULD figure out a way to pay athletes (almost impossible) outside of the FA package and the accompanying Title IV regs, JD is spot on. They would HAVE to be considered "employees." In some states, STATE employees. No way around this. College athletics will be ended, before this would ever happen.

 

Women's basketball isn't a revenue sport at most schools. Do you pay them?

Better yet, if the schools that make a profit pay their women and the schools that do not make money don't, what's that do to the competition level?