Should Players Get Paid?

#51
#51
On one hand, we give them a paid for education, with housing, food, nutritionists, weightrooms, tutors, hotel rooms and trips.
Click to expand...

Out-of-state Tuition and fees, room/board, and $800 for books is almost $37,000 a year at UT. Throw in pell grants, academic support staff (tutors), nutritionists/strength and conditioning coaches/coaching instruction, private state of the art weight rooms, travel/hotels/per diem/entertainment/occasional meals/reasonable refreshments/unlimited fruit, nuts, bagels, gear/apparel/sporting equipment (during the season), medical insurance/rehab/trainers, complementary tickets for family/friends, student assistance fund/expenses for travel for family emergencies. Would anyone throw in free press/marketing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
TennesseeOrange said:
Out-of-state Tuition and fees, room/board, and $800 for books is almost $37,000 a year at UT. Throw in pell grants, academic support staff (tutors), nutritionists/strength and conditioning coaches/coaching instruction, private state of the art weight rooms, travel/hotels/per diem/entertainment/occasional meals/reasonable refreshments/unlimited fruit, nuts, bagels, gear/apparel/sporting equipment (during the season), medical insurance/rehab/trainers, complementary tickets for family/friends, student assistance fund/expenses for travel for family emergencies. Would anyone throw in free press/marketing?
Click to expand...

None of that is taxed either
 
#53
#53
99gator said:
You don't think a player's marketing value is exponentially higher by going to Ohio state as opposed to Toledo?

Would that be used and misused as a recruiting tool?

Whoever could funnel the most cash to players wins. The univ of Texas would love this
Click to expand...
Might as well give up this argument. I think bobcat is probably on the rowing team somewhere in Ohio and that's why he thinks athletes in college should get paid the revenue the sports programs bring in despite the expenses involved in fielding the teams. Tired of wasting my breath, or typing in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
Although it is not entirely and directly relevant to this question, the flip slide of this topic, one that evoked many of the same arguments pro and con, is covered by this thread: http://www.volnation.com/forum/tennessee-vols-football/189292-what-extent-do-you-care-about.html.

As a hardcore academic, I am not going to rehash my opinions here, given the fact that they will inevitably run contrary to prevailing sentiments on the matter. I will say, however, that there is a viable solution that, if implemented, would not violate the spirit of amateurism or the concept of the student-athlete: The NCAA should work to eliminate all existing institutional and legal roadblocks which currently prohibit scholarship athletes from receiving Pell Grants and other need-based forms of financial aid. Their total financial-aid package could then be configured in such a way as to provide a reasonable surplus without paying them, per se, to play their respective sports.
 
#57
#57
99gator said:
I've got to tell you that on a side note, I am tired of hearing how broke some of these kids are while they have thousands of dollars of tattoos on their body.

No date, pizza or condom money.

But, my arms and back are inked up. Every inch
Click to expand...


It isn't often that I agree with a Florida fan but I have to say AMEN to that sentiment. It is mindboggling to think that such a trivial pursuit was, in the short term, the downfall of Ohio State's program.
 
#58
#58
I jumped from the 1st page so sorry if someone said this but, pay them based on grades. Something like $800 a week for a 4.0, $150 for a 2.3 (or whatever the minimum to play is). Basing it on grades keeps the facade that they are students first and pro athletes second.
 
#60
#60
99gator said:
This is the problem.

What is "fair compensation"? Who determines that?

And the title Ix folks will want to chat.

Does the 3rd string left guard get paid what the starting qb makes?

Does the starting qb at western Michigan get paid the same as Johnny football?
Click to expand...




This is basically my point about all this too. It would be turned into a recruiting tool nightmare.
 
#62
#62
If a vile, incompetent, corrupt doofus like Mark Emmert (not to mention his ncaa minions) is living a life of luxury and raking in millions of bucks off the labor of America's college football and basketball players, and he is, then it's hard to buy into the argument that the athletes don't deserve to share in the wealth that they're creating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
Don't high schools make money off ticket sales to various athletic events? Lets pay high school athletes as well!! Sound absurd? So does paying college athletes. They are not professional athletes.


And I know this is lost on a lot of people nowadays, but life has never been nor will ever be fair. In fact unless you are talking to three year olds or referring to a carnival the use of the word fair should be restricted.
 
Last edited:
#64
#64
KBVol said:
How so? How is the free education argument BS? Anyone who's ever paid off student loans for a decade or 2 would probably disagree with you. At UT right now, when tuition, room and board and books are figured in, it's right at $20k a year. Lets see... 20 x 4 is ... $80,000.

I gotta kid who's gonna be a freshman in the Fall. After Hope and a little $1500 UT scholly, we're left with about $14,500 this year, will be more over next 3 years. As the guy who's gotta write the damn check for it, I see the value that a free ride scholly provides. Real money chief.
Click to expand...

and as someone who worked two jobs to go to UT and did not have student loans or parents to help out i too know the cost
 
#65
#65
i did not elaborate on some of the stuff i mentioned yesterday so i will try to explain and see if it makes more sense.

the first thing is a lot of the argument starts with a false premise or at least a false generalization. the schools make millions and millions of dollars.

no, some football programs make millions and millions of dollars. those football programs help finance the other athletic programs. they don't line the pockets of an owner or a bunch of stockholders.

secondly, again, it's some football programs. every football program is not created equal. texas and georgia produce a much different revenue than wake forest or temple.

and people forget, there's division II and division III, etc, etc, etc. what about them?

so, when asking do players get paid the same everywhere, that's important. because, the revenue generated is not the same everywhere. not close. and if we are comparing this to a business (which is what people want to do), the people playing for the yankees get paid differently than the players playing for the marlins.

in addition, each player's value to the team (program) is different. johnny football is worth a heck of a lot more than the 3rd string left guard for texas a&m. he's worth even more than the the 3rd string guard for central michigan. do you think this problem goes away and everyone is satisfied when the star player from a poverty stricken family at lsu receives the same stipend as the punter from san jose state who comes from a rich family?

if we do it on a "need based" basis, is that also not discrimination? it's ok to exploit peyton manning because his family is wealthy. but, it's wrong to exploit another athlete because his family is poor. or is exploitation, exploitation?

if players get a stipend "laundry money" and the stipend is a few hundred bucks, does that eliminate the problem and everyone walks away happy. the argument is that the schools make millions and i am supposed to be satisfied with some pizza money?

do redshirt juniors, seniors, and redshirt seniors deserve any sympathy in this matter with regard to football? all of these athletes were eligible to leave school to pursue their trade in the nfl. they all returned to school. there is an argument that this whole thing is a choice because a kid doesn't have to sign a scholarship. but, for these particular athletes, it was really, really a choice because they were able to leave school and didn't. i looked it up before and only 35 or so draft eligible underclassmen left school early and entered the 2012 nfl draft. 35. so, every other redshirt sophomore, junior and redshirt junior freely chose to be exploited.

there are several more things to consider here. it all revolves around the fact that, imo, a lot of people don't see that you are creating policy that everyone has to adhere because a few programs generate money and a few players have that kind of value.

if football were like baseball and there was a minor league, i guarantee that fan interest would center around the college game far more than the minor league. that's even assuming that all the best talent heads to the minor league.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#66
#66
No doubt they should get paid - should be their edication plus a stipend. Also, they should own their "likeness" and not the NCAA. It is BS that the NCAA can profit off them after they are out of college athletics with no compensation.
 
#68
#68
Life is all about options. Those at the top always get more...please give up the illusion of equity.

That being the premise each university should have 5-8 of the allotted 25 scholarships each year that has a finanical kicker over and about the present norm. Some kid come for the education, some football, and some come for both.

Or

Ultimately college football is a big business. Create a super college division of the true revenue producing programs. Pay all player and give them the option of earning a degree or volunteer time to community service.

Crazy ideas but change is coming...
 
#69
#69
TNHopeful505 said:
This may belong in the NCAA forum, but I figure it can work in here too.

Heard the debate that's age-old I'm sure today on the Drive, talking about whether or not players should get paid or not, since the NCAA makes so much money off of them.

I just hadn't seen a thread on it, and if there is one, I apologize, and merge immediately.

But I just don't know how I feel about it.

On one hand, we give them a paid for education, with housing, food, nutritionists, weightrooms, tutors, hotel rooms and trips. And so I would think that's pretty fair.

But then you have the NCAA that's making a ton of money off of these kids. And I think about kids on academic scholarship. Nobody is really making anything off of their success. At least not to my knowledge.

But I mean, nobody would have bought an #11 jersey this past year had it not been for Justin Hunter. And no, it doesn't have his name on it always. But it's obvious that it's his.

I just want to know where you all stand on it. Should the NCAA allow players to be paid, or keep it as it is? Or should we just go the route of super conferences, and let each conference dictate what they do?

As I said, I'm sure this debate is somewhere else on this mega site...but I hadn't really seen it recently, but it's resurfacing as a issue.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...



NO!!!!!

(1) Should college athletes get paid, then there will be some type of proposition for female athletes to get paid and also athletes get paid who play in sports that don't generate any income. Sports like golf, rowing, wrestling, swimming and diving, will have their athletes being paid but no money is generated from that sport.

(2) How much does the starting q.b. get paid vs. the 3rd string q.b.?

(3) Where does the money come from?
 
#70
#70
VolFan4Life87 said:
I mean they're basically slave labor at this point. I don't know what the right answer is though..
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. You must be a democrat.

Look, if they get paid, you probably believe there is some private stash out there that suddenly appears. Volnation fans will have our ticket prices increased or student fees and/or tuition will have to increase. Is that fair? Title IX will make it mandatory to pay all athletes. That would eventually kill everything.

If athletes are paid they become employees and would be taxed on income, their travel, meals, entertainment, medical treatment, on and on. Unintended consequences will get you every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
VolFan4Life87 said:
I mean they're basically slave labor at this point. I don't know what the right answer is though..
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this statement. These kids love the game of football so slave labor is a bit too strong. That said, their education, room and board, etc., being paid for is real compensation. However, I don't see what's wrong with a little extra spending money each month. What amount, I don't know, but something within reason. Of course, Auburn has had their own individual payment program operating for some time.
 
#75
#75
KBVol said:
How so? How is the free education argument BS? Anyone who's ever paid off student loans for a decade or 2 would probably disagree with you. At UT right now, when tuition, room and board and books are figured in, it's right at $20k a year. Lets see... 20 x 4 is ... $80,000.

I gotta kid who's gonna be a freshman in the Fall. After Hope and a little $1500 UT scholly, we're left with about $14,500 this year, will be more over next 3 years. As the guy who's gotta write the damn check for it, I see the value that a free ride scholly provides. Real money chief.
Click to expand...
Because there are other students who are on academic scholarship who get a free education too but the universities don't make any money off of them. The NCAA is filthy rich because of these kids. If you think what the NCAA makes off of athletes is comparable to the cost of tuition you are dead wrong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top