Paying college athletes is the most stupid idea I ever heard

A. Not complaining. Loved my time and what I got to do.

B. Assuming it’s a 50k private school. Let’s look at in state D1 programs. I’m averaging UNC, UGA, Texas, UCLA, Virginia, and Michigan. All good schools. In state is around 15K before aid.

In that case, the value actually falls to 8.36/hr.

So again when my eligibility ran out, I took a job as an undergrad my spring semester for 27/hr.

I’m not spoiled, you’re just simply misinformed on what we had to do.

I’ll also admit my sport broke CARA more than most. The others in order were basketball, baseball, and soccer.

The in state total cost for Michigan is $51k. If you were on a full ride, you would know that you get tuition and books and room and board and expense money. My son is on a full ride at another B10 school. He gets about $3k for expenses and travel. He is now off campus so he gets that plus $12k for a total of $15k. He uses only about $8k for room and board because so much of their food is provided also. That gives him a $50k education each year of which he gets $7k per year of spending money. The money shows up im my bank account twice per year. It almost feels like a crime to get a free education and also to get paid on top of that.

Well good luck to you and your son. I know how it was for me and my wife. Also the rules regarding cost of attendance have changed since we played.

Also you’re just wrong on Michigan. Coast of attendance - tuition + Room + board + fees Is 29K per year.

Again I hold my viewpoint. I was not allowed to coach during the two months we actually could do something as I did not own my name, or my image, or my likeness and wasn’t allowed to use any of it for marketing purposes.

david45 wrote:

get to go to college for free, have priority in picking classes, gets a ton of extra tutoring, have easier admissions, get better dorms, and be granted all sorts of additional privilege and leeway.

oh look! It's david45, peeking over the fence into other people's lives, and determining they have it WAY BETTER than him! And he is right! By constantly engaging in this comparison game rather than living a real life, david45 is sure to remain miserable

Hi! We’re a group of grad students doing research on sustainability in sport and outdoor brands and would appreciate anyone willing to answer a few questions. Thank you!

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_02ndEqPiUITEacR

david45 wrote:

The idea that college athletes should be paid is ridiculous. How the hell do people who get to go to college for free, have priority in picking classes, gets a ton of extra tutoring, have easier admissions, get better dorms, and be granted all sorts of additional privilege and leeway deserve to get paid? College athletes are already treated like king. It is unfair that people who aren't doing something academic get scholarships in an academic institution in the first place. Most college athletes are studying in useless majors like communications or political science that don't contribute to society.

I don't get how college athletes are treated like trash. If someone hates being a college athlete, then quit. It is that simple.

1) I agree that colleges paying athletes beyond cost of attendance is a bad idea. I am very much for NIL rights though and let others pay them.

2) I think athletic dorms are now banned by the NCAA .

3) They do get benefits the typical students do not get. They also have demands placed on them that the regular student body does not have placed on them.

4) There is a valid argument to be made that intercollegiate at the high levels do not fit with academic missions. At the same time, Stanford, Michigan, VIrginia and dozens of other top flight universities carry on quite well academically as well as athletically. There might be 500 athletes on campus receiving athletic grants (the more appropriate word since the athletes are there for their athleticism not academics). On a campus of 30,000, they are not taking huge resources away. It is not like if athletics went away that the money going to the athletic department would be going to academic programs. TV revenue would just be gone. Not sure Boone Pickens gives the money he gave to athletics to the geology department (although I think he donated to the university as well).

5) What evidence do you have that "most" are studying "useless" majors? Also, while I am an elitist when it comes to academics, I think the denunciation of political science and sociology and others are "useless". BTW, here is some data on majors of athletes who earned degrees.

the statistician wrote:

I don't think athletes of most sports should be paid directly by schools, but at least let them profit off image and likeness, as well as relax all of those rules surrounding athletes being paid. However, for football and basketball, where players are expected to sacrifice their education for athletics, I believe they should be given at least some of the millions schools earn.

I think paying one group of athletes and not another would be highly problematic even if those are the athletes in the revenue generating sports. Title IX would be insurmountable. Schools lost lawsuits over lockers and field conditions; do you think they would win if the back up left tackle is getting $5000 a year and the All-American outside hitter on the volleyball is getting nothing?

david45 wrote:

the statistician wrote:

I don't think athletes of most sports should be paid directly by schools, but at least let them profit off image and likeness, as well as relax all of those rules surrounding athletes being paid. However, for football and basketball, where players are expected to sacrifice their education for athletics, I believe they should be given at least some of the millions schools earn.

Except that most jobs in the real world also don't let employees profit off image and likeness. That rule isn't unique to the NCAA

Really? I do some writing and consulting and as long as it does not interfere with my day job my employer does not care. I cannot recall a job where my contract said I could not say model on the side. Now I was limited in using my job title and affiliation if I endorsed a product, but I was not kept from doing it.

College professors profit from books and speeches and patents (sometimes split with the college).

I am not sure where you get the idea "most" jobs. Let's also be honest that your plumber is not likely to be in demand for his name, likeness or image.

They are the only ones that cannot be divided in division 1. All the others are split. Track gets 11.3 for the entire team. Few athletes outside of football and basketball are on full rides.

Allow the athletes to reach endorsement deals on their own and you wouldn’t have Title IX or other fairness issues.

If Pepsi wants to give the backup left tackle money and not the star volleyball player that has nothing to do with the schools.

Writing a rule that stays they can’t take that money is a bit crazy.

david45 wrote:

business wrote:

? I thought you were serious until this point

How was I not serious? College sports should remain non-profit

They are non-profit. You need to learn that all non-profits make a net amount and are allowed to. The difference is in how money is spent. A non-profit needs to funnel the money back into its mission or face tax penalties. Any decently run non-profit puts aside money for bad times.

A problem with college athletics is that the money has gotten crazy in the last decade. The money has gone to bigger and better facilities (in part to recruit players and in part because they have to put the money somewhere) and additional staff. Look how many sports now have Director of Operations (including track) and access to better facilities. That new weightroom for the football team means the old one is available for the other athletes.

I wonder if COVID and the financial problems will stop the buildings arms race and staff explosion and more money put aside for rainy day (or pandemic) funds.

Swim Bike Run wrote:

Well, 99.9% of colleges are non profit and ergo the athletic departments are as well. The reality is, the revenue generated from football, basketball (sometimes) and baseball (sometimes) is used to float all other sports. The rest of the money is put directly back in the school.

Our new XYZ academic building? Paid for by a 22 million dollar bowl game payout.

Not sure how many academic buildings are paid for with athletic funds.

The rules governing when players can enter the league are negotiated between the league owners and a players' union (or association). The courts have determined this is allowed under labor laws. Clarett lost and not because he was the wrong person (he did very little wrong before that decision--most of his bad life decisions came later).

Swim Bike Run wrote:

Well good luck to you and your son. I know how it was for me and my wife. Also the rules regarding cost of attendance have changed since we played.

Also you’re just wrong on Michigan. Coast of attendance - tuition + Room + board + fees Is 29K per year.

Again I hold my viewpoint. I was not allowed to coach during the two months we actually could do something as I did not own my name, or my image, or my likeness and wasn’t allowed to use any of it for marketing purposes.

Just to back up the claim about cost of attendance at UM. (This has it at $31K, but still closer to $29K than $51K).

Star wrote:

Allow the athletes to reach endorsement deals on their own and you wouldn’t have Title IX or other fairness issues.

If Pepsi wants to give the backup left tackle money and not the star volleyball player that has nothing to do with the schools.

Writing a rule that stays they can’t take that money is a bit crazy.

Exactly. That is why I am for NIL rights and not the college paying the athletes. I have made that clear in postings.

I doubt you guys would be this sore if you yourselves were on scholarship. If you're complaining just bc it's not fair, then think about how many things in this world are more unfair. Deal with it. Work harder in school.

One of the main reasons they said they didn’t want them paid in anyway was to give all colleges an equal chance at competition simply by offering the same maximum amount of scholarships.

Yet somehow the same top schools keep winning while other schools who offer full scholarships don’t.

That’s partly because of money under the table.

Just hand it over the table.

Then welcome to America, rube.