Not a new question...but one that can stir up quite a bit of debate. Do you think big name guys should be allowed to be sponsored by companies or receive some form of income from their sport? Imagine the kind of money Ches could have made in the four years he ran for Oregon. Would guys like Drew Hunter still go pro? Would track and field benefit or be harmed by this?
harmed because as money gets involved more and more athletes will market themselves and college teams will become a mess of marketing, drama, and that whole problem rather than a typical happy-go-lucky team where everyone is a friend. if two guys on a team compete, they will be duking it out to see who gets the money for first rather than "wow, we finished 1st and 2nd, great job man!" although this may seem anecdotal it is very true
They already get paid with tuition, coaching, therapists, use of facilities, apparel, travel, and entry to meets.
Yes, but distance runners often do not get paid full tuition because of how the NCAA groups XC with the track and field team. There are more kids than there are full scholarships. What if they had some sponsorships to help them out..
SorryAthlete wrote:
Yes, but distance runners often do not get paid full tuition because of how the NCAA groups XC with the track and field team. There are more kids than there are full scholarships. What if they had some sponsorships to help them out..
Yes.... You can be ranked in the top-500 in football and easily gain a scholarship. If you are ranked in the top 100 in Track good luck finding a full ride.
SorryAthlete wrote:
Not a new question...but one that can stir up quite a bit of debate. Do you think big name guys should be allowed to be sponsored by companies or receive some form of income from their sport? Imagine the kind of money Ches could have made in the four years he ran for Oregon. Would guys like Drew Hunter still go pro? Would track and field benefit or be harmed by this?
College athletes should be treated like the minor league pros that they are. Toward that end, players in football and men's basketball should be paid a market rate. (I guess that goes for other sports, too, but in most cases the market rate would be zero for those sports.) They should allow more than four years of eligibility, allow transfers, eliminate academic requirements.
Who is paying the athletes?
A) The school
B) The NCAA
C) Corporate sponsors
I do not believe in A or B. I have no problem with C.
Agreed Manly Man wrote:
SorryAthlete wrote:Yes, but distance runners often do not get paid full tuition because of how the NCAA groups XC with the track and field team. There are more kids than there are full scholarships. What if they had some sponsorships to help them out..
Yes.... You can be ranked in the top-500 in football and easily gain a scholarship. If you are ranked in the top 100 in Track good luck finding a full ride.
I've been told that the revenue sports subsidize the other less popular teams. In reality there should be more football and basketball scholarships and virtually no track scholarships at all. If track and cross country were revenue generators they wouldn't need to be subsidized, right?
If anything sponsorship deals should generate more scholarships not income for athletes. Would it be awful to have a Gatorade logo next to the Nike swoosh if it meant more income for the program? If an athlete is good enough to go pro they should do what Allyson Felix or Drew Hunter did.. go pro.
It is completely absurd to require that an athlete go through the NCAA system if they want to go to the NBA or NFL (not positive on NFL).
Agreed Manly Man wrote:
SorryAthlete wrote:Yes, but distance runners often do not get paid full tuition because of how the NCAA groups XC with the track and field team. There are more kids than there are full scholarships. What if they had some sponsorships to help them out..
Yes.... You can be ranked in the top-500 in football and easily gain a scholarship. If you are ranked in the top 100 in Track good luck finding a full ride.
Life is unfair.
That's an interesting take. It could end up looking a lot like NASCAR which would be funny. Kind of like what Meb did.
SorryAthlete wrote:
That's an interesting take. It could end up looking a lot like NASCAR which would be funny. Kind of like what Meb did.
True. It'd look ugly. But probably worth the trade-off if it meant more/better opportunities, no?
I mean we're all bombarded with advertising everywhere anyway. Why not make it a more direct benefit for the athletes? Oh, that's right...
Totally agree. It would benefit both parties if someone like SOS or Skratch could be paired with college teams. The athletes could be in ads and commercials and be compensated for it in some way or another. This would benefit both the athlete and the company, and it would also benefit the school if the athlete could wear his uniform in the advertisement.
Yes.
Cycling pays 10000% more than runners get paid, for a sport with the same kind of viewership, and the same type of training. There is no reason why runners should be so grossly underpaid.
I was banging the hell out of one of our girl pole vaulters. I paid her plenty over 2 years with meals and cheap gifts. So, yes, they should get paid :)
I think the way the system is set up now is good, but I think track should get more scholarships. Theres more than 12.6 events so it should be more than 12.6 scholarships. I think 20-25 would be more reasonable
4thewin! wrote:
I was banging the hell out of one of our girl pole vaulters. I paid her plenty over 2 years with meals and cheap gifts. So, yes, they should get paid :)
Pics?
Remove the scholarship limit, that's for sure. Outside of that I don't think the schools should pay athletes, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to accept gifts/money from boosters.