Should Players Get Paid?

That's a stretch bro


stretch-armstrong-stretch.jpg
 
It isn't that simple. There is no guarantee whether O'Bannon will prevail on the merits of the case; there have been multiple issues raised in that case. Whatever is decided in that case, the "ruling" will be appealed!

This being said the basic issue in the case (originally) was/is "profiting" from an amateur athlete's "likeness" - see EA Sports. The issue really does not involve pay for play.

Should the NCAA lose the O'Bannon case, the "likeness" issue will end up effectively being wound up with pay for play. What the checks say they're 'for' doesn't really matter.
 
Paying college athletes is a STUPID idea that has gained, er, currency among some dopey sports-talk hosts/pundits in recent years. Paying athletes would open a huge can of worms and ruin college athletics. We should be downsizing college football and basketball, not making them more like pro sports. It won't happen, but that's what we should do. Beyond that, colleges have no money now--most athletic departments lose money. They couldn't possible afford to pay athletes. And how much are you going to pay them? And are you going to pay just football and basketball players but not soccer and tennis players? Athletic scholarships at many schools are worth about $100,000 over four years--that's a lot of money right there. They don't need more.
 
I mean, that's not my point but ok.

You claimed that your first paycheck was greater than his and all I did was cite a few examples that made me think that it's simply not true.

Being paralyzed and in a wheel chair for the rest of his life weren't discussed until your comment above.

Crickets...
 
I claim it would be ruined due to the unlikelihood it could be moderated and controlled. At least now it's black and white. No one can pay and if they get caught they get slapped on the wrist.

Besides, I think we'll all agree several of these guys are supplemented under the table. They're just rolling the dice, but you make it legit, then you have a monopoly for the big boys.
 
I think saying paying college players is good.
But actually paying them would be tough. I think the fairest thing to do is let do it like NCAA/MLB baseball. Where if the player commits they are in college no matter what for 3 years, otherwise they could go pro. That solves the one and done thing in bball too.
 
I think saying paying college players is good.
But actually paying them would be tough. I think the fairest thing to do is let do it like NCAA/MLB baseball. Where if the player commits they are in college no matter what for 3 years, otherwise they could go pro. That solves the one and done thing in bball too.

NCAA requires football players to be in school for at least 3 years.
 
Paying college athletes is a STUPID idea that has gained, er, currency among some dopey sports-talk hosts/pundits in recent years. Paying athletes would open a huge can of worms and ruin college athletics. We should be downsizing college football and basketball, not making them more like pro sports. It won't happen, but that's what we should do. Beyond that, colleges have no money now--most athletic departments lose money. They couldn't possible afford to pay athletes. And how much are you going to pay them? And are you going to pay just football and basketball players but not soccer and tennis players? Athletic scholarships at many schools are worth about $100,000 over four years--that's a lot of money right there. They don't need more.

I completely agree in theory, but you're not going to downsize anything now that there's so much money in it. High-level college football and basketball are already operated like pro sports, with the sole exception that the players don't get a check. How much class did the Louisville players miss in the last month? How much class did the students in the band miss? How many football players were admitted to four-year universities who are functionally illiterate? People keep talking about how giving players a stipend would "ruin" college athletics, but what part of it is left to corrupt?
 
NCAA requires football players to be in school for at least 3 years.

But the NFL requires them to be out of school for 3 years. My point was more in line with justifying not paying college players.
If player A gripes about not getting paid then you could argue that the guys shouldve gone pro and not go to college, like MLB/NCAA.

I do understand that very very few players can go to NFL from HS but it settles that argument
 
NCAA requires football players to be in school for at least 3 years.

no.

the nfl/nflpa have an agreement that a player will not be drafted who is not a certain age or who has not been in college for three years.

there's a difference.

otherwise, ohio state would have invoked their "master" clause in the scholarship agreement and returned maurice clarett back into slavery.
 
Last edited:
no.

the nfl/nflpa have an agreement that a player will not be drafted who is not a certain age or who has not been in college for three years.

there's a difference.

otherwise, ohio state would have invoked their "master" clause in the scholarship agreement and returned maurice clarett back into slavery.

That was a mistake on my part. Correct NFL/NFLPA.
 
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?

Yes they should be paid! They should get atleast A couple hundred bucks A week.
 
Yes they should be paid! They should get atleast A couple hundred bucks A week.

A couple hundred? So you think its possible for a university with a college football team with at least 85 players would fork out $884,000 per year at $200 per week?

Please come join us in the real world sir.
 
they should get some sort of stipend, especially considering all the time they dedicate to sports leaves no time for a job.
 
A couple hundred? So you think its possible for a university with a college football team with at least 85 players would fork out $884,000 per year at $200 per week?

Please come join us in the real world sir.

How much do schools pay fired ex-coaches? How much do tennis and softball coaches make? How much are teams willing to lose to play in a bowl game? The idea that major-conference football programs couldn't come up with a lousy $800,000 a year if they had to is nonsense.
 
How much do schools pay fired ex-coaches? How much do tennis and softball coaches make? How much are teams willing to lose to play in a bowl game? The idea that major-conference football programs couldn't come up with a lousy $800,000 a year if they had to is nonsense.

Ummmmmm. That's just for one team. :salute:

Also, even if we are just talking football how many D1 schools do you consider major? What about the ones that are not "major?" Do their players only get $100 per week?
 
The NCAA has this idealized notion of the sainted student-athlete. And for 95 percent of them, it's true -- lower-division sports, Olympic sports at the big schools, etc. Most student-athletes are exactly that: students who happen to be athletes. But as soon as the big money comes into play, the schools are willing to compromise like hell all over the place. Attendance, admissions, grades, degree requirements -- when money's involved, they'll fudge everything. The one sainted holy place where they draw the line is, of course, giving players a cut of the actual money itself. Need players to miss two days of classes because TV demands a game be played on Thursday night? No problem! We'll let the band skip class too! Cut players a stipend check for $3000 a semester? HOW DARE YOU! THESE ARE STUDENTS GETTING AN EDUCATION!
 
A couple hundred? So you think its possible for a university with a college football team with at least 85 players would fork out $884,000 per year at $200 per week?

Please come join us in the real world sir.

It should come from the NCAA. They have plenty of money.

It should also come from coaches salary.
 
Ummmmmm. That's just for one team. :salute:

Also, even if we are just talking football how many D1 schools do you consider major? What about the ones that are not "major?" Do their players only get $100 per week?


If the NCAA subsidizes the stipends, everyone can get the same. The NCAA has something like $800 million in revenue per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top