Should Players Get Paid?

#153
#153
All this talk about "where are the schools going to come up with the money?" is ludicrous. College football is the second biggest sport in the US. It's a money-making machine. There is plenty of money being made by everyone but the players.

We have to stop thinking about this in terms of scholarships and stipends. These aren't student athletes anymore. Not with all of these TV deals, and sponsorships and promotions hinging on them. No, these are professional athletes who don't get paid. College football is the NFL's minor league and its past time it was run as such. If it were run as the minor league it is, then yeah, there is alot of money to go around. Does it mean the coach and administrator salaries will probably come down? Yes. Does it mean that facility funds would have to be reduced? Yes. But there is plenty of money to pay the players at the major programs (and it doesn't really matter what the smaller programs do, anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
VOLinthaNATI said:
Why do you get to determine if an entity has plenty of money or not? Like, on what basis are you qualified to make that assumption?
Click to expand...

Like, on the basis that like, i've done research on like the NCAA.


"For 2011-12, the most recent year for which audited numbers are available. NCAA revenue was $871.6 million, most of which came from the rights agreement with Turner/CBS Sports."

Revenue - NCAA.org

“Football and men’s basketball players at top sports schools are being denied at least $6.2 billion between 2011 and 2015 under National Collegiate Athletic Association rules that prohibit them from being paid,” according to a study by the National College Players Association and the Drexel University Sport Management Department.
$1.06 million over four years for the average men’s basketball player, not including his scholarship. The number is higher, $1.5 million, for basketball players at Bowl Championship Series schools.
Click to expand...

How profitable? In 2010, the NCAA reached a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting, covering just “March Madness.” That’s $770 million a year.
Click to expand...

Fat profits at NCAA while athletes play for free
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#155
#155
VOLinthaNATI said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, when said football players are bringing in twice that to the school! That doesn't even count the money the school gets from the tv networks!
 
#157
#157
VOLinthaNATI said:
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?
Click to expand...

Compensation levels could be easily established so that water polo players don't have to be given the same stipend as SEC football players. What we're arguing here is the monolithic argument that no players can be compensated ever, because billions of dollars aren't enough for there to be any left over for any of them.
 
#158
#158
the problem isn't college football making enough money to provide a stipend for football players.

it's football providing enough money for everyone.

an athletic department (to use the business analogy) is like a company with 20 divisions. only 2 divisions make money. the other 18 divisions lose money, have never made money (for any company) and never will. now, in the real world, you would fold the 18 divisions that lose money so the 2 that make money can thrive. but, this isn't a normal business.

the 2 divisions that make money now and forever must support the 18 divisions that don't.

so, again, it's not a matter of football being able to provide for football. it's football being able to provide for everyone.

at a school like florida, ohio state, tennessee, etc, that's not a problem. or rather, that can be done.

however, for a relatively high percentage of schools, that's a big problem. it would wreck the athletic departments at these schools and the irony is that the athletes don't make those schools much of anything which is why some of them are struggling now.

and again, what about division II or division III schools.

not to mention, as has been discussed in other threads, schools are starting to have problems with football attendance across the country. schools and bowls have squeezed people as much as possible and now are receiving some push back.

i think some perspectives are skewed because we cheer for schools that make that kind of cash that can pull it off. a lot don't
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#159
#159
99gator said:
the problem isn't college football making enough money to provide a stipend for football players.

it's football providing enough money for everyone.

an athletic department (to use the business analogy) is like a company with 20 divisions. only 2 divisions make money. the other 18 divisions lose money, have never made money (for any company) and never will. now, in the real world, you would fold the 18 divisions that lose money so the 2 that make money can thrive. but, this isn't a normal business.

the 2 divisions that make money now and forever must support the 18 divisions that don't.

so, again, it's not a matter of football being able to provide for football. it's football being able to provide for everyone.

at a school like florida, ohio state, tennessee, etc, that's not a problem. or rather, that can be done.

however, for a relatively high percentage of schools, that's a big problem. it would wreck the athletic departments at these schools and the irony is that the athletes don't make those schools much of anything which is why some of them are struggling now.

and again, what about division II or division III schools.

not to mention, as has been discussed in other threads, schools are starting to have problems with football attendance across the country. schools and bowls have squeezed people as much as possible and now are receiving some push back.

i think some perspectives are skewed because we cheer for schools that make that kind of cash that can pull it off. a lot don't
Click to expand...


there is no need for coaches, NCAA officials, and ADs to make millions upon millions of dollars. put salary limits on them, pull money from the NCAA TV contracts and I guarantee you there will be enough money to give to student athletes.

it would take radical reform. but it's needed.
 
#160
#160
Yes. Players in revenue producing sports should get paid....but with title 9 there is no way to make it happen.
 
#161
#161
99gator said:
and again, what about division II or division III schools.
Click to expand...

no one cares about them. They aren't making insane profits off of unpaid labor.

This whole notion that if you pay football players at major college football programs, then you have to pay all non-revenue sport athletes and football players at lower level schools is a misnomer. It would require restructuring of athletic departments and maybe separating major football programs into their own entity/league, but a system could definitely be set up where the players at major programs were paid commensurate with the money they generate for those programs.
 
#162
#162
oregonvol said:
no one cares about them. They aren't making insane profits off of unpaid labor.

This whole notion that if you pay football players at major college football programs, then you have to pay all non-revenue sport athletes and football players at lower level schools is a misnomer. It would require restructuring of athletic departments and maybe separating major football programs into their own entity/league, but a system could definitely be set up where the players at major programs were paid commensurate with the money they generate for those programs.
Click to expand...

talk to the title ix folks
 
#163
#163
whocaresgobobcats said:
Like, on the basis that like, i've done research on like the NCAA.


"For 2011-12, the most recent year for which audited numbers are available. NCAA revenue was $871.6 million, most of which came from the rights agreement with Turner/CBS Sports."

Revenue - NCAA.org





Fat profits at NCAA while athletes play for free
Click to expand...

The assumption comment was referring to your "need" comment. The fact that you thought I was referring to your revenue figure, as if revenue is somehow able to be assumed is laughable.
 
#167
#167
allvol123 said:
Decision should be made by each individual school.
Click to expand...

but it would have to be allowed by the ncaa first.

and if it was up to each school, that would lead to recruiting issues.


by having a flat stipend for all student athletes with the ability to make more based on appearances, etc, that levels the playing field.
 
#168
#168
whocaresgobobcats said:
but it would have to be allowed by the ncaa first.

and if it was up to each school, that would lead to recruiting issues.


by having a flat stipend for all student athletes with the ability to make more based on appearances, etc, that levels the playing field.
Click to expand...

I am just saying what should be, not what is. Eff the NCAA.
 
#169
#169
99gator said:
That's not it at all.

If we want to step into reality, like everything else, the "rich" (money making programs) would make out like a bandit because of unintended consequences and the "poor" (athletes) would end up being worse off.

It happens every time. Then, someone will step in to fix what they screwed up and make it worse yet again.

Because of title Ix, the vast majority of athletes would not be better off at all.
Click to expand...

I guess the real question is do you believe the current system and process is broken? I believe the answer to this is yes. I am not saying I have the solution but I do know there are people smart enough to figure it out.
 
#170
#170
The NCAA calling them "amateur" student-athletes is a joke. I don't have a solution because I see a ton of issues in allowing the athletes to get jobs. If the schools are going to give each kid a stipend that could add up to serious money and a lot of schools can't afford it...including UT in 2013 with all the buyouts, etc. Much less a smaller school on a shoestring budget.
 
#172
#172
volfanhill said:
I guess the real question is do you believe the current system and process is broken? I believe the answer to this is yes. I am not saying I have the solution but I do know there are people smart enough to figure it out.
Click to expand...

why is the current system and process broken?

based on what? schools making money? schools cheating? athletes being paid on the sneak? athletes not really belonging in college?

that's never happened before.

i don't want to be misuderstood here. however, for the vast majority of athletes, they are getting a financial reward beyond their actual value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#173
#173
VOLinthaNATI said:
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.
Click to expand...
You join the real world. That's chump change compared to what is being made off these kids man.

Look at only ticket sales alone. If every one in the stadium paid 60 for a ticket you're talking over 5 million dollars. For one home game.
 
Last edited:
#175
#175
So would star players get paid more than the others on the team ? And what about recruiting the big money schools can buy all the 5 stars.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top