Now that the Rose Bowl is over and Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White have all declared themselves eligible for the draft, the old debate of paying college athletes rears its ugly head once again.Like a King Cobra coming out of the basket to the tune of the Indian snake charmer, fans of these athletes begin to hum the familiar tune, “If they were paid to play they will stay and finish their college degree and we can see them play one more year.”Of maybe it is the tune of, “Students on academic scholarships can work and get paid so we should pay our athletes.”My personal favorite is the tune that is played by the boosters, who are the snake charmers of the NCAA, “We need to pay these guys because the NCAA is just ‘pimpin’ them anyway.”
To all of the snake charmers out there here are my reasons athletes should not be paid and why if they choose to leave early I support them:
1. College and universities are for education first.Athletics is secondary.The majority of the student population is not made up of athletes, but of young men and women who value that degree so much that they pay thousands of dollars to obtain it.
2. If you pay the athletes, do you also pay the cheerleaders, the water boys, the equipment guys, the stat keepers, chess club, physics club, honors society, and the list goes on.
3. The majority of money brought into the university system is not from athletics but from tuition and state coffers as well as lottery money.The money that is brought in helps to pay for the athletic travel, coaches’ salaries, administrative expenses, and facilities management.None of these are needed without athletics.
4. If you pay athletes, tuition will go up for the rest of the student population.Most schools are not in the black with their sports programs.Some women’s programs siphon money from the men’s programs but because of Title IX they have to exist.
5. Title IX., "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid." Do we have to pay women basketball players as much as the men players?Some women’s programs are more successful than the men’s in terms of wins but not in terms of revenue.Who should be paid more?
6. The NCAA is not “pimpin” athletes; it is the other way around.Athletes use the university system to get a free education and the exposure that comes with it to impress NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB scouts.Where else would you get free publicity and an opportunity to showcase your talents and earn a degree at the same time?
7. Student athletes can not work jobs outside of school because of the integrity of the job, it would be from a booster, and then it would make a sham of the already low academic standards expected of the student athlete.
8. Lastly, paying athletes to play in college would not keep them in college.If they are going to go pro, then they will always leave when the offer is high enough.Colleges would never be able to compete with professional salaries.The student athlete is getting paid thousands in educational expenses alone and if that isn’t enough 50k here or there will not keep them when the offer of millions arrives. Those guys are like Bart and think school bites so they will leave.
Let me say that these arguments are for the athletes at the so called prestigious programs like USC, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Michigan, UT, and other division I schools.The problem is that if you paid any athlete in any NCAA school precedent would be set. Then all schools would have to do so or be sued and suffer irreparable damage.I also want to be very careful about what I say here because when you play with Snakes, you can be bitten. Feel free to disagree and let me know why.
College athletes are already being given scholarships and under-the-table deals. Don't think Mo Clarett's case was an isolated case. Tons of big time D-I athletes are given cars, money, and others from boosters and the lots.
Also, socal, I understand why you put all your articles in the NFL,NCAA, MLB, you want all the comments, but I gotta say, it ticks me off a bit to see that my Big Ben article is about to be bumped off the front blogs page because you put this in the NFL category. My piece was actually an NFL piece while this is an NCAA piece. I'd really appreciate it if you just put this where it belongs instead of putting in a zillion categories to get comments.
I say we need a third way--semi-pro teams (like the old Phillips '66ers basketball team) that the pros would use as minor leagues. Athletes get something of great value in a scholarship, but unfortunately many aren't prepared for college and the schools work them so hard they never catch up. Big-time teams could opt out of amateurism, give students life-time learning vouchers and maybe other forms of compensation. As it is, too many athletes get to the end of their eligibility with no degree and no college-level skills, and so never get the educational benefit of their scholarship.
If they did pay, would all schools pay the same? Or would USC, Texas, ND pay more, getting the better athletes?
There are so many questions around this. Honestly, I don't why they would even debate it. As you said, schools are about education, not sports. When did we forget this?
First of all, my compliments on a nicely written piece.
Secondly, and more importantly, student-athletes should never, ever, EVER, get paid for their participation in collegiate sports. A few points dictate that assertion. For one, look at the market diversity. Start paying these kids and there goes next term's enrollment quota at the University of Littletown; let alone the demise of U of L's athletic program.
Next in line is the fact that there are many more college sports than just football. Beside the obvious ones (like baseball, basketball, and maybe hockey), would kids playing the other sports get paid too or would we only pay athletes who's sport draws a hefty Neilson rating??? Would Sergei Queentorookfournichov collect a game check after each chess match? Perhaps we could toss a few Benjamins to Pierre St. Perrythrust after landing a kill shot in the fencing championship. Its funny how this subject mainly rears its ugly head in regards to the "major players", but where on earth would the line be drawn? Personally, I don't think one could be drawn.
But that's all beside the point. Amateurs don't get paid... PERIOD!
Arab, your work speaks for itself. As to posting my articles on numerous posts, the one on College athletes applies to NFL as well as the NBA, MLB. I did not post it in Nascar because it does not apply there. My comments were in reference to Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White going pro and into the NFL early. Do you not see how that ties into the NFL. If that bumps your NFL post, I am sorry, but it is appropriate to be there.
North, LP, Forgotten, Shooter, I think we all agree it should never happen. I enjoyed my college days too much to ever want to skip college, but for a couple of million, I might have considered it.
I say pay em. Why not? All sports that generate revenue in excess of their expenses should be able to use some or all of that money for their athletes. Of course, the first 20-30K, per student, should be sent back to the University's academic departments to make up for the scholarship money these athletes receive. But whatever is left over should go to the players. Thye earn it.
All sports that don't generate revenue should be scaled back so they stop siphoning off the sports that do. As the father of two daughters, I think Title IX is stupid. Girls want to play basketball? By all means, let them. Just don't fly them all over the country to play games that nobody is going to watch. If there aren't enough local teams to compete with, set up an intramural league. But stop forcing legitimate, successful sports to fund the ones nobody care about. They (and I don't just mean girls, I also mean the track team and the wrestling team) can earn their own money to travel, or be happy playing in their own back yard.
Sorry bitter, but all the money generated will not pay for the stadiums used, the utitilities, travel, and all the costs associated with sports. If you believe the revenue from bowl games is that much, you need to take accounting 101. Returfing of fields, equipment needs, and salaries alone is in the millions. UT basketball is currently paying Buzz Peterson, Bruce Pearl, and the coach before both of them. Salaries are killing major sports programs. Nick Saban was being paid 2 million a year as is Bob Stoops. I dare not ask how much Pete Carroll is making now. When the cobra gets out of the basket, it becomes highly dangerous. Paying athletes once started will ruin college sports.
No, not I. I haven't called a radio show since I left Knoxville, TN, and then it was the Golf Channel and we discussed my picks for the British Open. I guess either someone is using my handle or it is so generic that it is overused.
Nice to see you on my post again.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on January 17th at 4:32 PM.
Yeah I kept telling my husband - hurry up, gotta get home and blog. :)
Never could get into golf. I know by admitting that I will never get ahead in the corporate world, because even on my small scale of the business world, EVERYONE plays golf and networks by playing each other.
So you lived in Knoxville, TN?? My sister and my niece are in Kingsport, TN with my brother-in-law. He's an Army recruiter.
I completely agree with Socalsportsfan in the fact that there is no amount of money that the colleges can give athletes that are going to go pro to make them stay just another year or two. MILLIONS are irresistible compared to what ever the schools would be able to offer. Tuition is already outrageous paying the athletes would make the tuitions skyrocket.
Last edited by mickey4421129 on January 17th at 7:14 PM.
Hey socal, do you ever wonder if you're getting blackballed by the monitors of the site? I've noticed that your last couple of blogs had as many or more comments than some that got into the most popular section, but yours never made it there. Maybe I'm full of tripped out conspiracy theories, but I remember you calling the judges to task a while ago and wondered if this was their way of getting back at you...what do you think?
P.S. now that I've raised the question, your blogs are sure to appear in the most popular section again.
Yes Sports, I have wondered about that. I was on the MFB every day there for awhile, but now I cannot make it and I know my posts have more comments than some that are on there. I am sure the judges are not happy with me for pointing out some inconsistencies, but I would rather be honest and black balled than turn a blind eye. Thanks for noticing.
I also will put forward the non-conspiracy theory that maybe they try to rotate most popular board space in order to give newcomers and others a chance to get up there.
So Cal, I agree with bitterman
True the university is for education first but universities have come a long way since the big fur coat days and college sweaters and the win one for the gipper.
1. The stadiums are paid for. When was the last time a university got a new stadium? What are they going to move? Oh my the trojans are going to be playing in SanDiego next year? No if schools still pay for stadiums then that accounting department is a bust.
2. Cheerleaders getting paid, waterboys, and all these clubs you mention making doe? The kids in the physics clubs can get paid even if they are on scholarship and can work for well heeled alumnus. Cheerleaders would have to work the pole if there were no sports. As soon as 60-100k people show up to watch them on a regular basis then okay you get paid.
Also if CBS pays 1.7 billion for the rights to your tourney you deserve to get paid.
3.How much money would schools make if kids from Socal didn't see Miami gear all over and start to wonder about the eastern bay watch school? When schools recieve national exposure sats scores go up and along with that comes in a more affluent clientel of students with fat pocketed parents.
4. If you created a big money division where the schools with big time sponsors and programs played each other you can't tell me money would not be made.
Also why is it that small schools that play big schools receive a nice check for allowing their kids to get beaten by 50pts. I should know I was one of those kids that got thrown to the lions for a cool miilion for the school.
5
Big, again you are missing the point. Because of Title IX, if one school that generates income starts paying players, every school will have to. As far as physics club guys getting to work, I don't think any of those guys have scholarships for physics club. They may have an academic or lottery scholarship which is totally independent of performance on the field.
I have a hard time saying a player should not be able to work, but boosters have taken integrity away from a normal job..
Lastly, I will do some research to show you that stadiums are not paid for nor are programs making money. I lived in Knoxville and UT was trying to raise 400 million to renovate Neyland stadium. The big programs are always building new athletic complexes and finding ways to spend more tax payer money. Do you really believe if you pay athletes tuition will not rise for the average student?
Forgotten, I will check it out now.
Socal dude
Stop saying I am missing the point, just because I don't agree with you.The academic student on scholarship can work for anyone and make as much money as they want yet the athlete can't work for a booster and make whatever the booster wants to pay the kid?
Also only the booster understands time constraints on the player, so if a kid can only work a couple of hours a day and a booster pays for 8 or nine how is that different then the rich booster who pays the kid on academic scholarship a ton of cash?
You failed to answer any of my points.
Also how old are most of these stadiums these teams are playing in? the Coliseum hmmnn, Rosebowl? These places are old as dirt so renovations are needed.
So CAL you missed the point if a school that is a big money school like a USC pays its football team too bad for all the other sports football makes the most money.
Oh and what of the billion dollar deal NBC did with Notre Dame? Are you going to tell me that the athletes couldn't receive any money from that?
Come on let's go
Actually, I didn't miss your point, I addressed it you just choose to ignore the response. Title IX does not allow one school to pay just because they have money and another to not pay. If one pays, they all pay.
Renovations are a part of costs so you cannot ignore them. They are real costs. As to the big TV deal, do you know how many teams that is split between?
I also said that I will do some research and answer a few questions on the accounting side. Being an educator, I know that few schools are in the black including major universities even with the TV money. Yes they pay money to small schools to come play them because small schools have very little reason to come play otherwise. This is one more reason the large schools have no money because they waste it on that type of nonsense.
Boosters paying athletes? I guess integrity means nothing to you.
As to a different opinion. I welcome that. You are one of two to take that position and I welcome it. That is what makes a post a great post. You need to viewpoints, but please back yours up with facts not suppositions. I will do some research and make a post later today to back up the money aspect of schools and provide links. If I am wrong, I will post a retraction in my blog.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on January 18th at 6:54 AM.
Fair enough.
But let's face it the books on how much money a team makes are not going to be open for the public. As I read in USA Today a sports accountant said" you show me a 20 million dollar profit, and guy with a good eraser can turn that into a 200K loss". I would like to see what the NCAA is making, how much money they are sitting on. Also the Notre Dame deal was for exclusive rights to Notre Dame, so where did the money go?
And as I said before title 9 is dumb. All big money schools any school that constantly fills large stadiums is big money. They aren't giving seats away are they? No.
You failed to explain all the people making money on college athletes. As an educator I'm sure you don't think its fair a coach makes a few million for a sport, is he really saving the world.
Also those athletes are selling the school, the good and the bad when they screw up no such thing as bad publicity.
Integrity as far as boostwer paying athletes whats wrong if a kid get a chance to intern at boosters firm and get valuable work experience and makes 10k for the offseason. Would he have got that chance for 4 years as an every day inner city lower middle class black student with average grades? No.
oh yeah and sure the March madness splits the check. But wait a billion dolllars plus. I would be very curious where all that money goes.
And you failed to touch on what sports brings to universities from their national exposure.
The intern at a booster will turn from 10k to a car allowance, and then a bidding war at boosters around the country to sign a recruit. If boosters could be kept out of it, I support an athlete's right to work a job as any other student can.
Notre Dame's deal is suspect and yes Title IX is dumb as it applies to sports, not in gender equality in education. As in most government fixes, Title IX has been used to go beyond its intended purpose, but with lawsuits today it is still a valid argument against paying players because it will filter down to the small schools like a UT-Chattanooga or East Carolina or a Drake.
The exposure schools get do very little to bring in new students. If I live in Boston and see USC play in the Rose Bowl, I am not traveling to LA to go to USC. Athletes go places because of recruiters, where there parents attended, and a host of other reasons, but few because they saw a school on TV.
Lastly, I am an educator and I do have a hard time seeing Bob Stoops make 2 million a year when a professor makes 75k-150k, but hey that is his profession. I could have been a doctor and made more money as well. The good athletes will soon be making more than any coach except Larry Brown and Phil Jackson.
My final comment
A car allowance is fine unless your Marcus Vick. 10 k for a summer job with allowances for practice in an office or whatever. I 'd say thats a great job for a college kid. What if the booster paid the player intern, I see nothing wrong. Just like I see nothing wrong with rich dads friend's firm hooking up some other kids son who belongs to the same country club. Money helps money.
If you are seriouslly trying to tell me that kids don't go to programs they see on tv then I 'm really gonna have to tell you to give your head a shake.
John Thompson and Georgetown how many players wanted to go there just because of him and the fact they were on tv. Without tv exposure guys in socal would stay in socal. Just like Duke.
I guess the president of the large university that was in USA today that said national exposure definetly helps in recruiting a better quality of students was lying. Especailly after
Nwestern made the trip to the ROsebowl.
And finally you tell me the best of the bunch always make the most money, either by hook or by crook.
Just like the biggest schools that make the most money can afford to pay the athletes in the money making sports a small weekly allowance, with bonuses on graduating on time.
I think back to Bosworth and his National communist athletics association shirt worn on the sideline. Maybe he was on to something.
I would stand by my comment that TV exposure does little to bring in one athlete. College recruiters and coaches make the difference. Listen to the guys each year when they are asked why they signed. When I lived in Knoxville, a huge college town, each year the recruits came because of Coach Fulmer's visits. One or two make pick a school, but not the vast majority. UT regularly gets guys from CA, and it certainly isn't there TV coverage on the west coast because it is non existent. IN SEC, I had to see King of Queens pre-empted by UT men's basketball with Buzz Peterson last year. Talk about upset! I cannot find a UT game out here on the West Coast.
Anyway, we agree to disagree and the research I have done today is very interesting. Wait for my next post.
Great piece SoCal. I echo everyone's opinion on not allowing College Athletes to be paid salaries. They already get exposure and a top-notch education others have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for at absolutely no cost.
Only thing I think should change though is the rule that student athletes on athletic scholarship can not work a job to earn money. There are a lot of college athletes who come from poor families that can't afford to send them money, something every college student needs plenty of. Allowing them to work would also decrease the incidents of players accepting money, gifts, etc. from boosters.
And spare telling me how busy their schedule is too. If I can take 18 units, work 25 hours a week, work an internship two days a week, serve on two college student committees, all while being a husband and father of one and a half(my second daughter was born 2 months after graducation) during my senior year in college and maintain a GPA above 3.5, then these guys can find the time to work, go to school, and practice too.
G, I agree with that about letting them work, but I can also see the side of it where boosters will start giving some athletes cushy well paid jobs and then a bidding war for these type jobs becomes part of the recruiting war. If there was a way to regulate those jobs, I am fine with that.
Born, you will be added. Just an oversight as I often read your work and comment, as you already know.
Good point SoCal. There would definitely need to be some sort of regulation so it would not just be a front for Boosters to give money to players. Throw in a clause that students can't work for companies that donate above a certain dollar amount to the University, and/or monitor student salaries, job title, and hours worked to make sure there are no inconsistencies.
Okay,So I really don't see the big deal in why the people playing sports shouldn't be getting paid. I really think that it should be dependant upon how much in revenue the team made the year before and if every member of the team is getting paid equally wether it is a bench warmer or the star quarteback, there really cannot be any disputes to larger contracts but it is hard to divide yourself in college between jobs and school academics and football (for example). So, if they are getting paid equally it really shouldn't be that big of a deal -plus they tend to be worked just as hard if not harder than the people who have already been accepted to say the nfl. they bust butt and if their team does awesome its not a bad thing to reward them.. PLUS, look at how much money the professionals are making - is it fair that if they are working just as hard they are not really getting any benefits?? ohhh wow, a scholarship - that takes place of the academics portion of things, but all sports occur outside of the classroom - do they not?? thank you very much
Well hyper, if they are good enough to play in the NFL, NBA< they can go. There are age limits, but after one year of college they can turn pro. In baseball they can go straight from high school. Sports are for fun unless you are a professional. I play sports, should I be paid? As far as revenue goes, colleges are all in the red. Look it up. Do a google for NCAA audits, or NCAA financial summaries. You will be suprised to see how much each institution is in debt, and they raise tuition each year. Should every other student finance the athletes. I think not.
Socal You are concerned that allowing athletes to be paid would cause a bidding war for college athletes? Are you saying there is not a de facto war in place now? Aren't the highest paid men in both the Texas and Oklahoma state governments the head ball coaches? I say let the market decide who should be paid. If there was such high demand for cheerleaders, female softball players or chess players that people wanted to see them play/cheer, then charge for it and give the money earned to those that earned it.
You state "Should every other student finance the athletes. I think not." Well they do now at most schools, are you asserting that we should therefore do away this athletics "to be fair" Lets look at it another way : Should Reggie Bush, who brings in about $100 million in increased ticket sales, TV rights, goodwill and contributions subsidize the rest of Southern Cal's money losing athletes?
Last edited by lasvegassooner on July 3rd at 9:18 PM.
and the reason why those schools are all in debt? they spend everything they have on sports. recruiting trips/expenses, stadiums, arenas, equipment, travel, security for games, medical care, coach and athletic director salaries....if they all did away with sports, and did what they were created for, which is offer an advanced education, they'd all be making money.
not that i'm against sports, simply saying as good as people think sports are for a college or university, it's not really true. especially when 90% of the money set aside for sports goes to football, basketball and 1 other sport, which depends on what school it is.
I dont think they should be paid because theres no fair way to do it. Like football and basketball bring millions of dollars to there colleges, but the other sports just cant do that america just dosent watch college track or tennis. But on teh other hand nah i dont think they should be paid.
Last edited by Ozoneguy on September 7th at 2:38 PM.
Ok I see what you saying. what about an athlete’s life out side of football you said that they where not to have jobs if they are in a sport, so what if an athlete was to have a family back home say like 2 kids how would he be able to help out if he is going to a school that is making football his main focus for being there because I am sure that the athlete spend way more time on the filed then they do in the class room so you tell me what are they going to school 4, to be a good person and be very successful no because the last that I herd there are not that many advertisements on T.V that say we have the best education and you should come to are school, and u no it’s not like that all we see is who won the rose bowl and say that look like a very nice school I would like to go there I just do not make any since that athlete bring in so so so so much money and they cant even get a dollar ( and that is the fact that the rest of the people are there who would it heart if athlete got paid because if I had the money I think I would not even play football but because my family don’t, I have to play football so the school can pay for it but the people that pay for an education they are allowed to have jobs year around so why should they not pay for school and if they could be in are shoes I no they would take it any day and they would wont to get paid to
Completely without reading every single one of those comments listed believe those 8 bulletins listed. Colleges and univerties are for education first, not sports, they infact are really second. Yes they may give entertainment to the audience and students yet they are mainly used for a simple game or section to watch for an hour to an hour and a half. What my main point is that i'm not rambling or anything like that, i just want to make my point that sports are used for entertainmant and life purposes. Yes it's true that students go to schools to get into popular sports and impress scouters. But that is why we live life the way we do, sometimes u gotta suck it up and live life with no expences sometimes, not every day or game of your life will you payed for doing a good job at what you do. tyvm
I dont think a lot of announcers and people realize. There are a lot of colleges out there, that they dont really think about. Professional football has 32 teams. College has 3 divisions of probably 100 each. To have to keep track of all those peoples "contracts" would be literally impossible. Thats why they shouldnt be paid. It also takes away from the love of college football. The reason its so great is because they care and leave it all on the line every game. Pro they dont care if they win or lose. College its one and done for any team.
well i feel diffrent about your fews because how in the world can you make money off of someone and not pay them. Yea they are getting a free college education but what i read about reggie bush is outlandish. The school sold of no. 5 jerseys including in two days 1,200 replicas that carried a Rose Bowl patch on them and more than 5000 fans paid $79.95 to get behind the scenes of bush and teammate matt leinart on www.mattreggietv.com So that adds up to 60,000 dollars from the 1200 that weer sold not including the thousands of other.Also lets not forget about the ones who paid to watch on the internet thats 399,750 .Now who making money off of who .They just paid the school back in full, i know it would be hard for every school to pay every player. So why not find a way to get them something other than free food at the school cafateria .Have they thought about making contracts from them . This can teach most of them how to treat their money when they get . Lets be real i just dont wont to pay them with out some form of organization. Make them earn it like they do on the field ,good grades,incentives for good performences. All this is notable because if one year you have a player become the number one player in the nation then he or she tears an acl (one of the most horrific injury none to a player) they might not come back. And all hopes and dream of making big money is dash . Hey give it a try start small , If it doest work hey we alawys have the BCS computers to cry about
I am writing a paper on this very topic as we speak. All of the points were valid, and also I agree with this article a lot. As was mentioned in the article athletes that play college sports have good enough publicity to get a contract. Why should they get paid? Most of them are already getting full rides, plus free books and housing, are they going to do that for the kid on an academic scholarship
The job that they are in get millions of dollars, i mean professional athletes get paid like in NFL and NBA why not athletes in college? They do get free meals and housing. How are they suppose to get back and forth to school. It'll be hard working and going to class. The athlete is working over fifty hours a week at pratices and rarely have personal time for them or even time to study for the classes they are taking.
Now that the Rose Bowl is over and Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White have all declared themselves eligible for the draft, the old debate of paying college athletes rears its ugly head once again.
