Should College players get paid.

[Diesel]

After reading about the tragedy that is Mo Clairette.. I'm even more inclined to believe that College players should be getting paid. 1 player can bring the college program Millions of dollars. That's money that he really don't get to take part in.

For instance, How much money did Va Tech make off of Micheal Vick Stuff. The #7 jersey? Shirts? Etc... You're telling me that the University gets to market this guy and he gets NOTHING...

Not to mention the money made off of Bowl appearances. Va Tech played in 3 bowls while Vick was there. 2 of them were BCS. That's like 14 million dollars before the conference takes it's share. Virginia Tech has built buildings and made purchases off the back of Vick. It's like Slavery.

And now that a player can't jump from HS to the pros....there's even more reason to say... Pay them!

[AHF]

Vick could choose not to play for the Va Tech football team if he wanted. He could also choose instead to go play in the Canadian Football League or some other pro league that would accept a younger player. There is a probably a reason other than desire to be a slave that athletes prefer to go the college route. Not saying there aren't good arguments for paying players but I think the slavery analogy is pretty offbase.

My sympathy, though, for the argument that college players should be paid comes from the blatant commercial nature of college sports. If they dialed things down a few notches and didn't value $$ above all else then I would feel more moral outrage at the idea of paying players.

[Diesel]

The truth of the matter is nobody wants to go to the CFL. Nobody wants to play in the NBADL. Nobody wants to play in Europe. Not Americans. The NBA and the NFL has set up a system that is extremely unfair to the players. If you want to be in the NBA or the NFL, you must play college sports.

College Sports make Millions of dollars in every possible way off of these college players and these college players have nothing buy exposure to show for it. And really, exposure is overrated. The Euroleagues get very little exposure but everybody wants a Europlayer?

I think the thing is that there are to be a real farm system like Baseball. IN baseball, a player can either choose to play in college or go to the farm system and work their way up. Many just jump into the farm system and do well... The point is that making somebody go to college so that the college can get richer without compensating the player is WRONG.

[shock]

They absolutely should NOT get paid. They are getting FREE educations, meals, oppurtunities to showcase their talents on a national stage. How much is that worth?

[Diesel]

I would say that that education is paid for on the backs of those athletes.. moreover, not just their educations, but a great population of the student bodies education too.

Let's think about it.

How many students on SCHOLARSHIP will ever bring in the amount of revenue that an athlete brings in to the school. Even after the student on SCHOLARSHIP has gone on into the workforce and sends back money (if he chooses too) he will probably not match 1 star athlete's giving in the form of donation.

Quote:

---

he Tidewater Chapter of the Virginia Tech Alumni Association and The Vick Foundation will proudly present the Michael Vick Golf Classic, sponsored by W.M. Jordan, on June 16th, 2006 at noon at the prestigious Kingsmill Golf Course in Williamsburg, VA.

Proceeds from the event will benefit The Virginia Tech Alumni Association Tidewater Chapter Scholarship Fund

and The Vick Foundation, a newly-formed nonprofit organization founded by former Virginia Tech quarterback and current Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick to help disadvantaged children in the Hampton Roads, VA and Atlanta, GA communitie

---

Seeing that we have been talking about Vick, I would like to see how many Hokie alumni have given more than Vick, Bruce Smith, and Dell Curry? Or how many Bulldogs have given more than Herschell Walker, Dominique Wikins, and Vern Flemming.

They gave while they played and they have given afterwards...

Now here's the kicker...

You have these players playing for NO MONEY..

Then you have a coach that comes in and asks for Millions of dollars......

How is that at all fair.

College players should recieve some kind of stipend just like most elite scholarship students have. It makes no sense to pay those who give nothing in revenue while pay nothing to those who give the most.

[chillzatl]

The players receive free eductions and then some. They are given the exposure AND the training that will allow them to leave college and potentially make MILLIONS of dollars. Even if they leave college and don't become a pro athlete, the exposure they are given allows them to have an advantage over nearly anyone else who chooses the same profession the do.

College is about training and preparing young adults for their choosen profession. It doesn't matter if it's football or computer science. If you think that athletes should be paid, then EVERY kid in college who gets farmed out to a company while they are in school should be paid. Where do you draw the line? If V.Tech should pay Mike Vick because he's exciting to watch and people buy his jersey's and that allows him to go to the NFL and make many times over what he did for that school, shouldn't Ga. Tech pay the kid that they farmed out to Lockheed who developed a counter measure system for jets that makes BILLIONS for Lockheed and in turn a large sum for the school as well? Apart from media exposure, what's the difference?

Also, what happens when a school with a larger fanbase (ie, more revenue) starts using those payouts to lure players to their schools. Right now the exposure alone gives many schools an advantage over their rivals. If those schools could take it a step further and use money to lure players in, the gap widens even further. Then we have to start talking salary caps for colleges? That's just stupid.

The fact is, school, whether it's highschool or college, is about subjegating ourselves to the will of others for the purpose of getting training in return. That's why the primary purpose of college is an education. Don't throw the word slavery into the mix as if it has any meaning at all. It doesn't and it's insulting to suggest such. Also, Don't ask me to feel sorry for a guy because he bet his life on becoming a pro football player, only to blow out his knee his senior year and go on to become a bum, because he failed to take advantage of all of the other benefits that the school afforded him. He failed himself, the school didn't fail him. If the school had paid that guy, he would have wasted it just like he wasted the other opportunities.

Lastly, these athletes are given plenty within the realm of what's considered "legal" in the NCAA. For one they get a life of comfort in college that other students, even other athletes, don't know. Go back to when Reggie Bush was in college and look at the watch on his wrist, the earrings he wore and the car he drove. He was getting paid and he was living a life of comfort, in college, that few of us in the public sector enjoy. Don't even get me started on the ass these guys pull in just by being athletes. They're getting paid in more ways than one.

Also, tell me where other elite scholorship students are getting these stipends. I know a few that I would consider "elite" (the one above story is true) and they got NOTHING for their work except a great headstart in their CS careers. You won't hear any of them [censored] because Tech made millions of their work and all they got was immediate job making lots of money. The heart of your complaint is with the nature of capitalism, period.

[chillzatl]

Look, I readily accept that the NCAA deserves a solid 50% of the blame for what has become of Clarett. They decided to make an example out of him and unfortunately they picked a guy who simply didn't have the mental makeup or the self confidence to deal with it. He was arrogant beyond measure and refused to take take care of himself. The reality is that that is the only unfortunate part of the entire thing.

But the other 50% of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. He neglected all of the other benefits his school afforded him and literally bet his life on becoming a pro football player. He was arrogant and just plain stupid. He took loans from criminals so that he could live like a rap star in college. So confident that he would be a rich athlete who could pay them back 100 times over. His arrogance and ignorance lead him to where he is, as it often does.

Do you honestly believe that he wouldn't be exactly where he is now if the NCAA had paid him? If they had socked away 100k for him after he graduated, do you really think that he would have used it wisely? please.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

EVERY kid in college who gets farmed out to a company while they are in school should be paid. Where do you draw the line? If V.Tech should pay Mike Vick because he's exciting to watch and people buy his jersey's and that allows him to go to the NFL and make many times over what he did for that school, shouldn't Ga. Tech pay the kid that they farmed out to Lockheed who developed a counter measure system for jets that makes BILLIONS for Lockheed and in turn a large sum for the school as well? Apart from media exposure, what's the difference?

---

I agree.

Every kid who gets farmed out should be paid.

If you want to make it specific... how about this:

Micheal Vick should be paid some large percentage of his Jersey sales plus a regular stipend that each athlete gets.

I would make the athlete stipend the same as the college's student on scholarship stipend.

i.e. if a scholarship pays $2500 per semester, than that's what the athlete should get also.

Let's consider.. if the UofTex longhorns came back this year and all the players decided that they would sit out and wait for the NFL draft... How much would the school make in revenue then?

Even if the school decided to kick the athletes out of school, those athletes would still make it to the pros.

As far as the student who was farmed out to lockheed. Hell yeah, he deserves to be paid. Technology should cost something. More than just an internship... but it should cost something.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

The fact is, school, whether it's highschool or college, is about subjegating ourselves to the will of others for the purpose of getting training in return. That's why the primary purpose of college is an education.

---

Let's be clear on this point. Subjegation yourself to the will of another may be apprenticeship but even the apprentice expects more than just a databoy. Higher education is more than that. You don't PAY so that somebody can use you and not acknowledge you in anyway (weather it be financial or otherwise). IF there is money made off of your name, you're saying that because you're in the college system you don't have a right to it?

Come on now.

If you invented a new process while in school for making fuels and called it the CHillzfuel process... and the whole world started using your process.. You mean to tell me that you have NO EXPECTATION of recieving profit from what your mind invented??

[chillzatl]

If I made this fuel cell while working for Ga tech, I would GET NOTHING!!! That is a simple fact. Ga tech and those labs would own EVERYTHING I did while working there as a student. That's a fact.

But I would definitely get paid, because there would be research firms (or the govt) lining up to pay me whatever I demanded to come work for them.

your complaint is with capitalism, pure and simple. College is giving you an education in return for your work (or training as an athlete that could make you millions). My company gives me a paycheck for my work. Do I have a right to demand more money because my work (and my work alone) makes $1mil per year for my company, yet I only get a small portion of that? The nature of capitalism says, yes, I do. But if my company chose to have guildlines that say "employees cannot, under any circumstances, ask for a raise" and I go in bitching because I'm not making enough in proportion to what I bring in for the company, they can drop my ass in a heartbeat. College's have rules and those rules will be adheared to. You and I may not think they are totally fair (whether it be athletics or otherwise). But those are the rules. The great thing about capitalism is that if we don't like it, we can try our luck elsewhere. If athletes don't like the NCAA's rules, they are free to try their luck elsewhere as well.

[Diesel]

That's the nature of contracts. You sign a contract saying that you want to be paid this much per year for your work and your work makes your company A trillion dollars... Your contract stipulated that you only wanted this much. However, if you had no choice there's a problem.

That's the problem I see with basketball.

A player can't play in the NBA unless they spend 1 year in college.

So then they go to college for that one year and recieve no payment for their work, while the college benefits greatly.

Like it or not chillz:

Being an indentured servant is still slavery.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

A player can't play in the NBA unless they spend 1 year in college.

---

Yes they can. If you are Oden sign with an agent who hires some trainers and just works you out and develops your skills for the next year. You are still going #1 in 2007 regardless of a lack of college. You don't have to live a life of "indentured servitude" if you don't want to.

I actually did work in Georgia Tech labs while a student in undergrad. Had I invented Chillzfuel I would have gotten nothing more than my $6/hour or whatever it was I was paid.

That was my choice. College bball players can go to prep school if they want to spend another year somewhere other than college; goto a trainer; goto the Euroleague and get $$; play in the NBDL for small $$; etc.

They choose to go to college because they can be stars, get exposure, and live a fun as hell time in their lives.

Again, based on the $$ student athletes make for big schools I can understand an argument for paying them but the slavery/servitude argument isn't working for me.

[Lascar78]

I don't see why they should get paid. Like or not, an education is valuable, particularly to the vast majority who go in to the NCAA not truly knowing whether they'll succeed in the pros or not. Add to that housing and food.

Finally, they have the option of going NBDL, making money in Europe, etc... so the money argument doesn't hold. Why do they end up going to college? Because of the amazing exposure and competition the NCAA gives you, how much fun it is to be a star on a college campus, and the chance at the education if things don't work out.

Yes the Greg Odens are going to bring in more $$$ than the rewards they get, but it's guys like that who also have to bring in the cash for the female volleyball players etc... that no one really wants to go watch. That's where a huge portion of the money goes. Do you really want a system where only the stars get paid, where student athletes are holding out for more money? No. If you're going to have student athletes, they shouldn't be paid.

I have no complaints with the system given the fact that they have legit options of going pro elsewhere if they want to. Greg Oden could be getting PAID in Europe right now if he wanted to.

[AHF]

I think the fact that the NCAA runs its sports teams like a pro league in terms of scheduling games to accommodate television to maximize television revenue; expansion of seasons to maximize revenue; using athelete's likenesses to maximize revenue; etc. and pays its coaches like they were pro coaches and then claims to be all about student athletes is blatantly hypocritical.

Worse than that, these colleges admit and frequently keep eligible players who are not students in any real sense of the word. The fact that coaches like Bob Huggins keep getting rehired is a joke. The fact that colleges claim to be about education and then hire and fire coaches based MUCH more on on-field performance than graduation rates is a joke.

The NCAA runs a for-profit business. It does not take student athletes and run competitive teams - it takes the best athletes who can do the bare minimum to stay eligible and then makes as much $$ off them as possible.

It writes the rules to give the power to the schools and coaches and to keep the students from having power such as the right to transfer schools without being released while giving coaches the right to break contracts and schools the right to not renew scholarships. There is no pretending to do what is best for the student athlete over what is best for the financial revenue of the schools.

Given this system that is made to generate $$ and primarily driven by maximizing that revenue as well as the level of commitment demanded of the athletes (who get benched, for example, for not attending workouts that the NCAA demands be "voluntary" but are in fact required), I don't have a problem with the idea of athletes believing they should be entitled to a reasonable stipend.

[chillzatl]

Who is to decide what is fair? Once these "stipends" start being handed out, do you really think that will be enough? What is enough? If one kid is responsible for a 400% boost in revenue, how much should he get. Should the rest of the guys get nothing extra? You open a whole can of worms by allowingg it period and If you think the system is corrupt, or at the very least abused, now. How will it be when teams are allowed to give out money. But they just have to account for it.

You may not LIKE the system or rules that are in place. But by enforcing a blanket "we do not pay student athletes" policy they prevent far more problems than you have now and given the benefits available to the players (all players) it's a rather fair.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

You may not LIKE the system or rules that are in place. But by enforcing a blanket "we do not pay student athletes" policy they prevent far more problems than you have now and given the benefits available to the players (all players) it's a rather fair.

---

At a minimum, the obligations between a well-heeled institution and teenagers should be bilateral.

Why can coaches leave a school without repurcussions but student athletes can't?

Why can schools elect not to renew a scholarship for any reason at the end of the year but the student is locked in for his entire career or must sit out between 1-2 years depending where he goes to school?

etc.

I guess my fundamental problem is that sports are big business and the schools and coaches are the ones pocketing all the money while the athletes are the ones contributing the vast majority of the labor. It is just fundamentally not a free market.

I agree that the athletes have other choices, which is why I don't like the slavery/servant analogies, but the system is set up to profit the big schools and the . And the big schools already pay their athletes - they just do it primarily through boosters to keep themselves clean(er).

It is tough for me to understand allowing schools to sell jerseys based on the player but to make it illegal for the player to get a free ticket to the movies based on his athletic ability.

[chillzatl]

I agree that it is not a free market. But it never is for kids. That is the tradoff of those options. If you are willing to accept the restrictions placed on you (and thusly, the potential rewards) then you can go to college and benefit greatly. Otherwise, you try your luck elsewhere.

I think that the reason coaches can do what they choose is because they are employees. They work for the schools. Where students are just that, students. Those who happen to play sports are still students first and foremost and they are still reaping the benefits (well, those that do not neglect them) of being a student.

Is the system perfect? far from it. Very few are. But the solution definitely isn't found in paying those who contribute to the schools revenue. It would be a nightmare waiting to happen.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Where students are just that, students. Those who happen to play sports are still students first and foremost and they are still reaping the benefits (well, those that do not neglect them) of being a student.

---

That is where my assumptions and yours differ. In my mind, they are athletes first and foremost and their status as students is a distant second thought. Most schools have "puff" or non-substantive classes or majors that the athletes take. They get papers written for them; grade adjustments; put into joke classes; anything to keep them eligibile and making $$ for the school even if it makes a total mockery of the label "student." The demands on their time are such that they most could not truly focus on being a student even if they had the academic credentials that most football and basketball players lack in the first place. That is why well respected coaches can have god aweful graduation rates and no one cares as long as they are winning games.

If the student part of student-athlete came first then I would be totally on board with you on this one. As it is, I am somewhere in no man's land, discontent with the current system and not sure whether the alternatives are any better.

[DrReality]

You mean get paid legally right. Everyone knows they do.