College football player = full-time job

[novelist_wannabe]

Not saying it should, but I wonder if anyone will change their mind on whether college athletes should be paid. Average college fb player spends 44.8 hours per week on the sport ...

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/stories/2008/01/12/ncaaburst_0113.html

 

[MU_was_not_so_hard]

I've had a differing opinion on this since college, when a wrestler at Mizzou broke down what he gets paid compared to what he got for scholarship/housing.
It essentially worked out to where he could work at McDonald's for 25 hours a week and make more money than he received for wrestling (he was close to full ride).

 

[Football_Bat]

Dan Hawkins gives his players three weeks off a year.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

yeah, but that's the Big 12 brothah ... ;D

I know that when I was in school, playing baseball (no scholarship), there wasn't much time left over for anyting once I got done with baseball. It's debatable whether they can be considered pro, but it takes a pro commitment to play a college sport.

 

[Blitz]

Not saying it should, but I wonder if anyone will change their mind on whether college athletes should be paid. Average college fb player spends 44.8 hours per week on the sport ...

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/stories/2008/01/12/ncaaburst_0113.html

Payment is in the form of a $50,000-$100,000 college degree and an offer of learned preparedness for the real world.
(Perks include TV face time for those who are real good, lots of free clothes and food, and hero status around campus for 2-5 years.)
End of story.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Not saying it should, but I wonder if anyone will change their mind on whether college athletes should be paid. Average college fb player spends 44.8 hours per week on the sport ...

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/stories/2008/01/12/ncaaburst_0113.html

Payment is in the form of a $50,000-$100,000 college degree and an offer of learned preparedness for the real world.
(Perks include TV face time for those who are real good, lots of free clothes and food, and hero status around campus for 2-5 years.)
End of story.

The problem is, the NCAA continues to portray its 'student-athletes' as a group of college students who just needed to blow off some steam after class, so they decide to play a sport, and after a while, decided to challenge the nearest school next to their campus. The thing is, that ended about 100 years ago.

Today, it's all about the money. Yes, the majority of schools athletic departments are not money-makers. A lot of that is because of the huge rise in coaches salaries and the arms race to build bigger facilities. But there is so much money in football and men's basketball. The choice the NCAA needs to make is either forgo the money hunt and make each school like an Ivy League or Division III team, (which it won't do, naturally) or allow everyone (including student-athletes) to partake in it. If they don't come up with some plan, like Major League Baseball, it will eventually backfire on them.

Do they receive those $50,000-$100,000 scholarships? Sure. Then you are effectively saying that playing a sport is their job. Then let's treat it as a job, and the players as employees of the university, just the same as a student who is working in the school cafeteria or lifeguarding at the school pool.

That means, if someone outside the school wants to tip them for a job well done (scoring a touchdown), then let them. If O.J. Mayo wants his own sneaker deal for playing at USC, let him. The way big-time college sports is now, is like an employee at McDonalds who is told that he must wear McDonalds-related clothes all around campus on his own time, and can only eat at McDonalds-owned shops. And if a customer likes the way the McDonalds employee flips burgers, and decides to tip him an extra $5, the employee can't take the money. And pay them overtime if they have to work extra (playoffs).

 

[ADifferentOkie]

I refuse to believe that everything an athlete gets combined is worth less than minimum wage.
I'm talking about full-scholarship guys at the major collegiate level. They get tuition, housing, meals, tutoring, books, travel, personal trainers, medical care, etc.
I don't care if they spend 50 hours a week on their sport. There is no way that stuff is worth less than $258 a week.

 

[Condition Of Anonymity]

When I was in college, I spent at least 50 hours a week at the school paper for three years. I got paid $250 per semester. My best friend was a theater major who spent more than 40 hours a week at the workshop or in show rehearsals every week, on top of other non-class activities. My roommate was a bioengineering major or some crazy thing, and he spent at least eight hours a day studying on top of his classwork.

None of us got a single dollar worth of scholarship money.

Cry me a ****ing river, jocks.

 

[Lester Bangs]

When I was in college, I spent at least 50 hours a week at the school paper for three years. I got paid $250 per semester. My best friend was a theater major who spent more than 40 hours a week at the workshop or in show rehearsals every week, on top of other non-class activities. My roommate was a bioengineering major or some crazy thing, and he spent at least eight hours a day studying on top of his classwork.

None of us got a single dollar worth of scholarship money.

Cry me a ****ing river, jocks.

This is spot on. I teach at a university and about 90 percent of my students -- none of them athletes -- have jobs aside from their commitment to the school paper. One of my kids wraps burritos to pay his way through school, another works the late shift at a local gas station ... and these kids do not get release time from class to do their things. I'll not feel bad for the kid who gets to play basketball to pay his way through school. Athletes do not have the easy life, but neither does anybody else.

And then there is the issue of debt load ... athletes have considerably less upon graduation. Some of them have none, while I have kids going into a dying profession carrying at least 25k in debt and they'll likely make less than that in their first year in the biz.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

That's what I mean. I feel these athletes should get treated like anyone else, like the NCAA says they should. That means either let boosters give them cars, or take away the sneaker money from the coaches. You don't see the theater professor getting paid by a clothing designer to make sure his actors are wearing the designer's clothes.

Where the NCAA comes off looking idiotic is when they jump on the jocks for having someone buy them a beer at a bar, stuff that everyone else is allowed to do for their friends. But whines when an athlete gets a sponsorship for a non-collegiate sport (Jeremy Bloom) and ignores Coach K's million-dollar sneaker deal.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

None of those other students are expected to work FOR THE UNIVERSITY. None of them have 55-hour a week jobs that require travelling the entire country. This is cheap labor and the system better recognize it or the system's going to collapse one day.

 

[cranberry]

When I was in college, I spent at least 50 hours a week at the school paper for three years. I got paid $250 per semester. My best friend was a theater major who spent more than 40 hours a week at the workshop or in show rehearsals every week, on top of other non-class activities. My roommate was a bioengineering major or some crazy thing, and he spent at least eight hours a day studying on top of his classwork.

None of us got a single dollar worth of scholarship money.

Cry me a ****ing river, jocks.

This is spot on. I teach at a university and about 90 percent of my students -- none of them athletes -- have jobs aside from their commitment to the school paper. One of my kids wraps burritos to pay his way through school, another works the late shift at a local gas station ... and these kids do not get release time from class to do their things. I'll not feel bad for the kid who gets to play basketball to pay his way through school. Athletes do not have the easy life, but neither does anybody else.

And then there is the issue of debt load ... athletes have considerably less upon graduation. Some of them have none, while I have kids going into a dying profession carrying at least 25k in debt and they'll likely make less than that in their first year in the biz.

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

And if a university tries to pay only its football and men's basketball players, it will have a Title IX legal headache on its hands faster than Ohio State's defense gives up two touchdowns in a BCS title game.

So what about the other 400 or so athletes, from archery to water polo? Ohio State or Texas might be able to pay them. What about Northern Arizona and Southern Illinois?

 

[Mr. Homer]

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

And if a university tries to pay only its football and men's basketball players, it will have a Title IX legal headache on its hands faster than Ohio State's defense gives up two touchdowns in a BCS title game.

So what about the other 400 or so athletes, from archery to water polo? Ohio State or Texas might be able to pay them. What about Northern Arizona and Southern Illinois?

No payment for water polo. Archery, maybe.

 

[Pastor]

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

Being s most schools don't actualy "reap huge profits" the fact that the players are getting a scholarship while the school's athletics departments are losing money seems as though they are receiving more than their fair share of the "profits."

 

[cranberry]

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

Being s most schools don't actualy "reap huge profits" the fact that the players are getting a scholarship while the school's athletics departments are losing money seems as though they are receiving more than their fair share of the "profits."

It's pretty simple, really. Top Division I football and basketball schools generate huge revenues and the athletes who generate those profits should be compensated fairly. Athletes in the not-for-profit sports shouldn't be compensated because those sports are not run as businesses.

 

[Blitz]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
And it has been drawn.
No, the system will not someday collapse. There will always be a crop of kids who choose to play the game as it is scripted now.
Remember, less than 5 percent of these kids will matriculate to the CFL or NFL or even Arena Ball.
They just aren't good enough.
They should sign on for the 4-year deal and enjoy the ride (and the food and the clothes and the "status")
Then, if they obtain the degree, they can enter the real world prepared to make an honest living with the rest of society.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

When I was in college, I spent at least 50 hours a week at the school paper for three years. I got paid $250 per semester. My best friend was a theater major who spent more than 40 hours a week at the workshop or in show rehearsals every week, on top of other non-class activities. My roommate was a bioengineering major or some crazy thing, and he spent at least eight hours a day studying on top of his classwork.

None of us got a single dollar worth of scholarship money.

Cry me a ****ing river, jocks.

This is spot on. I teach at a university and about 90 percent of my students -- none of them athletes -- have jobs aside from their commitment to the school paper. One of my kids wraps burritos to pay his way through school, another works the late shift at a local gas station ... and these kids do not get release time from class to do their things. I'll not feel bad for the kid who gets to play basketball to pay his way through school. Athletes do not have the easy life, but neither does anybody else.

And then there is the issue of debt load ... athletes have considerably less upon graduation. Some of them have none, while I have kids going into a dying profession carrying at least 25k in debt and they'll likely make less than that in their first year in the biz.

Workers (like Division I football and basketball players) who generate huge sums of money for their schools/employers should be paid a proportionate, negotiated cut of that revenue. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Comparing these athletes to students working on the school newspaper or Taco Bell is disingenuous. Top Division I athletes are uniquely skilled and in extremely high demand by the schools who recruit them and the viewing public. To limit their compensation to scholarship while a school reaps huge profits from their services is patently unfair.

Spot on. The revenue generated is the difference maker here. And there's a way to solve the non-major sport issue: give every athlete a set percentage of the revenue that exceeds the value of the scholarship. For the archery and water polo teams, that's going to equal zero (less than zero actually). Factor in the ticket money, TV money, licensed apparel sales, there's some money that would be coming the football and basketball players way.

You have coaches making millions of dollars in salary with unlimited endorsements, but the people actually on the playing field being "paid" a set value, non-cash benefit (a nice one albeit).

Years from now, people will look back on this arrangement similar to how we today might view the reserve clause in baseball.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

They should sign on for the 4-year deal and enjoy the ride (and the food and the clothes and the "status")

It's not a 4-year deal. It's four one-year deals. Coaches have to agree to renew the scholarships after each year and can yank them at any time. That's why you often see a bunch of players leave when there is a coaching change. It's called running them off. Of course, if a player wants to transfer, they have to sit out for a full year, as long as the school releases them by the goodness of their hearts. If a player wants to transfer to a school that his current one doesn't want him to go to (same conference, archrival, etc.), the current one can force him to sit out for two years.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
And it has been drawn.
No, the system will not someday collapse. There will always be a crop of kids who choose to play the game as it is scripted now.

That's what they said about Major League Baseball for the first 75 years of the 20th century. Look at their system now.
The NCAA has slowly, by piecemeal, started given in on some areas (allowing athletes to work jobs, not that they actually have the time), practice hour limits (not that they are enforced). There was a near-player revolt at Florida State a few years ago when one of their teammates died during a "voluntary" workout.
As I've said on earlier posts, it may take an O.J. Mayo deciding to cover up the Nike logo on his sneakers or something like that, but there will eventually be some sort of change in the system. It may take years, but it'll happen.

 

[Starman]

Major-revenue sports (football and basketball most schools, baseball, hockey and women's basketball at a very few schools) are professional public-relations enterprises conducted by the schools to increase public visibility.

The individuals engaged to perform those sports should be paid for those services, and offered the opportunity to pursue academic programs at the schools, should they so desire and should they be able to qualify (completely on their own merits, of course). If not, tough rocks.

All other (i.e., non-revenue) college sports should be offered on a strictly non-scholarship basis.