South Park blasts NCAA

[Enhance]

I think the writer you're quoting is using a strawman argument. The proposal being considered by the B1G is about increasing the athletic scholarship amount for ALL scholarship players, not how much to pay players based on performance. This is not a performance-based consideration. He asks the question "So if you advocate paying college football players, how do you clear that hurdle? By giving a fourth-string defensive tackle as much money as Heisman candidate Denard Robinson?", which clearly has the answer "yes" as a solution. In fact, the proposal actually takes the stance that not only will the 4th string DT make as much as the Heisman candidate, but so will the backup schollie player on the women's soccer team.

 

Here's a couple takes I tend to agree with: link and link

The OP's question is should athlete's get paid. I was not talking about the B1G's scholarship increase, as it appears you are. Furthermore, nowhere in the article I quoted did it talk about scholarship increases in the context you're referring to. That article was written in reference to giving player's a salary, so although I appreciate your response you misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

But to go along with what you're saying, if scholarships are increased then every player would get the same. I wouldn't have a problem if athlete's had a scholarship increase.

[RedDenver]

I think the writer you're quoting is using a strawman argument. The proposal being considered by the B1G is about increasing the athletic scholarship amount for ALL scholarship players, not how much to pay players based on performance. This is not a performance-based consideration. He asks the question "So if you advocate paying college football players, how do you clear that hurdle? By giving a fourth-string defensive tackle as much money as Heisman candidate Denard Robinson?", which clearly has the answer "yes" as a solution. In fact, the proposal actually takes the stance that not only will the 4th string DT make as much as the Heisman candidate, but so will the backup schollie player on the women's soccer team.

 

Here's a couple takes I tend to agree with: link and link

The OP's question is should athlete's get paid. I was not talking about the B1G's scholarship increase, as it appears you are. Furthermore, nowhere in the article I quoted did it talk about scholarship increases in the context you're referring to. That article was written in reference to giving player's a salary, so although I appreciate your response you misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

But to go along with what you're saying, if scholarships are increased then every player would get the same. I wouldn't have a problem if athlete's had a scholarship increase.

Gotcha. We're talking about 2 different things then. I thought the OP and topic were related to the B1G proposal for giving schollies athletes more money. And I agree with your points for player salaries.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

That was awesome! My fav was when Cartman visited the Buffs office.

[Hercules]

The simple answer is no, and there are several reasons why they shouldn't.

 

1) They are attending college and receiving an entirely free college education.

2) They receive all-expenses-paid trips across the country.

3) Schools' training tables, or the large dining halls reserved for student-athletes, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain yearly including food costs. Again, at no cost to the student, they receive the best food and diet advice money can buy.

 

The list goes on for all of the things these guys get, but there's one overwhelming issue to also considers.

 

Gregg Doyel of cbssports.com tells why here

 

This quote sums up his point.

 

That's where the payment of college athletes becomes untenable. Not all players are equal. At Michigan, quarterback Denard Robinson could be worth more to the athletic department's bottom line than any three or five or maybe 10 players on roster. And you could probably identify the last 25 players on scholarship and determine that Robinson is worth more than all of them combined. So if you advocate paying college football players, how do you clear that hurdle? By giving a fourth-string defensive tackle as much money as Heisman candidate Denard Robinson?

 

Or you could go the more democratic route and base a player's pay on his performance. But then, key players do get injured. Or even benched. Which means they'd require a cut in pay.

 

See my point? Paying college players is a fool's errand, but let's go one step farther and talk to the fools who think these guys need the money in the first place. If you're one of those fools, my apologies -- but stop being foolish. Do a Google search for the terms "A.J. Green" and "slavery" and see just how stupid some people can get

 

Also...

 

The same goes for an athlete's book allowances. Buy used books, pocket the difference. Athletes know the system and they work it -- and don't get me started on Pell Grants, which can be thousands of dollars in free money, no strings attached, for qualifying players in addition to their scholarship.

 

Alabama's Marcell Dareus was suspended for the season's first two games for receiving benefits from an agent. To be reinstated, he had to pay $1,787.17 -- the amount of benefits on two agent-funded trips -- to the charity of his choice. The NCAA allowed for a payment plan, but Dareus didn't need it.

 

He paid in cash.

 

How you think he did that?

 

The poll question aside, the point of the South Park episode is less about whether student-athletes should get paid, and more about the administrators at universities, the NCAA, and EA Sports who are making lots of money off of the students. All the while, the students are the ones putting in the work and risking their health, while the administrators raking in the cash are risk-free. South Park was basically saying that the Universities and the NCAA are corrupt, and that EA Sports is a bunch of heartless, exploitative douchebags who threw away their moral compass in favor of profit. They were saying that the status quo is a scam, which it is.

[corncraze]

The simple answer is no, and there are several reasons why they shouldn't.

 

1) They are attending college and receiving an entirely free college education.

2) They receive all-expenses-paid trips across the country.

3) Schools' training tables, or the large dining halls reserved for student-athletes, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain yearly including food costs. Again, at no cost to the student, they receive the best food and diet advice money can buy.

 

The list goes on for all of the things these guys get, but there's one overwhelming issue to also considers.

 

Gregg Doyel of cbssports.com tells why here

 

This quote sums up his point.

 

That's where the payment of college athletes becomes untenable. Not all players are equal. At Michigan, quarterback Denard Robinson could be worth more to the athletic department's bottom line than any three or five or maybe 10 players on roster. And you could probably identify the last 25 players on scholarship and determine that Robinson is worth more than all of them combined. So if you advocate paying college football players, how do you clear that hurdle? By giving a fourth-string defensive tackle as much money as Heisman candidate Denard Robinson?

 

Or you could go the more democratic route and base a player's pay on his performance. But then, key players do get injured. Or even benched. Which means they'd require a cut in pay.

 

See my point? Paying college players is a fool's errand, but let's go one step farther and talk to the fools who think these guys need the money in the first place. If you're one of those fools, my apologies -- but stop being foolish. Do a Google search for the terms "A.J. Green" and "slavery" and see just how stupid some people can get

 

Also...

 

The same goes for an athlete's book allowances. Buy used books, pocket the difference. Athletes know the system and they work it -- and don't get me started on Pell Grants, which can be thousands of dollars in free money, no strings attached, for qualifying players in addition to their scholarship.

 

Alabama's Marcell Dareus was suspended for the season's first two games for receiving benefits from an agent. To be reinstated, he had to pay $1,787.17 -- the amount of benefits on two agent-funded trips -- to the charity of his choice. The NCAA allowed for a payment plan, but Dareus didn't need it.

 

He paid in cash.

 

How you think he did that?

 

The poll question aside, the point of the South Park episode is less about whether student-athletes should get paid, and more about the administrators at universities, the NCAA, and EA Sports who are making lots of money off of the students. All the while, the students are the ones putting in the work and risking their health, while the administrators raking in the cash are risk-free. South Park was basically saying that the Universities and the NCAA are corrupt, and that EA Sports is a bunch of heartless, exploitative douchebags who threw away their moral compass in favor of profit. They were saying that the status quo is a scam, which it is.

It was a brilliant episode

[Enhance]

The poll question aside, the point of the South Park episode is less about whether student-athletes should get paid, and more about the administrators at universities, the NCAA, and EA Sports who are making lots of money off of the students. All the while, the students are the ones putting in the work and risking their health, while the administrators raking in the cash are risk-free. South Park was basically saying that the Universities and the NCAA are corrupt, and that EA Sports is a bunch of heartless, exploitative douchebags who threw away their moral compass in favor of profit. They were saying that the status quo is a scam, which it is.

I agree with them in some regards.

 

It reminds me of the NFL situation going on right now. I'm on the fence and haven't taken a side - I can't fault people for wanting to make money (owners) and I can't fault players for wanting to protect their interests after sacrificing their bodies and lives.

 

That said, I always do lean towards players because of the said reason above. It's a scientific fact that the life expectancy of a football player is less than the average American citizen.

 

Anyways, I think universities, the NCAA and EA do exploit players in some ways, but I'm just not sure there's an easy solution for compensating the players or resolving the issue without drastically affecting the way things are done.

[I am I]

I played college ball and was BROKE.

during the season, you CANNOT have a job (not that there is time for one..)

After the season you are not allowed to work more than 20 HOURS per week!!

In the summer you are training 3-4 hours per day and are tired, so any type of hard labor job is damn near impossible.

scholly covered school expenses and $300 for rent and food. I'm not sure what it is now, but i bet it's hard to cover more than just your 'basic' living (not talking car payments and nice watches and new shoes--just more like cable, toiletries, etc..)

 

just a couple hundred more dollars for scholarship players per month seems about right to me. other students can work, take less hours to lighten the load, decide times of class schedule (FB not so much because of practice) so as to maximize time for jobs, etc...

 

not to mention at about 90% of schools in all NCAA level FB programs the team pays for itself and most other sports.

[huskersurfer]

I love how people think a free education is worth a couple hundered thousand dollars up front! How much money do you think a person like Tebow Frazier Or even Reggie Bush brought in to there school?? A college degree doesn't get you jack in this country!! Except maybe a trip to the unemployment office!!! If your lucky enough to get a job chances are you will be laid off to cover your fat and happy bosses quarterly bonus!!!!!

A college degree is over rated!!!

 

"but you get free trips!". Wow great so they get to go to a hotel room and study film for three days! If they are lucky enough to go to a bowl game you are still there for football that is what everyone expects. Don't act like it's a vacation!!!

 

Bottom line college football is a billion dollar industry and the pigs up top want to keep there money!!

 

If it was really about education the NCAA and Universities would put more focus on being a student and not an athlete!

 

Plus what about the stress they are put under by the media and fans!! Being scrutinized the whole week for what happened on Saturday!!!

[The Dude]

I love how people think a free education is worth a couple hundered thousand dollars up front! How much money do you think a person like Tebow Frazier Or even Reggie Bush brought in to there school?? A college degree doesn't get you jack in this country!! Except maybe a trip to the unemployment office!!! If your lucky enough to get a job chances are you will be laid off to cover your fat and happy bosses quarterly bonus!!!!!

A college degree is over rated!!!

 

"but you get free trips!". Wow great so they get to go to a hotel room and study film for three days! If they are lucky enough to go to a bowl game you are still there for football that is what everyone expects. Don't act like it's a vacation!!!

 

Bottom line college football is a billion dollar industry and the pigs up top want to keep there money!!

 

If it was really about education the NCAA and Universities would put more focus on being a student and not an athlete!

 

Plus what about the stress they are put under by the media and fans!! Being scrutinized the whole week for what happened on Saturday!!!

Not gonna lie, I stopped reading your post because all the exclamation points were raising my blood pressure.

[NUance]

If ncaa rules don't allow student athletes to have a part time job then why not let schools pay them? Or at least raise the stipend limit so athletes can live comfortably. (I dunno--are they broke or something?)

[Hercules]

If ncaa rules don't allow student athletes to have a part time job then why not let schools pay them? Or at least raise the stipend limit so athletes can live comfortably. (I dunno--are they broke or something?)

 

Some of them are... Scholarships cover tuition, room/board, but I don't think they pay for your food or laundry. If a player comes from a broken or poor household, how is he supposed to call his parents to ask for money if they're having trouble putting food on the table as is? I can't blame some of these kids who take money from boosters when they and their families really need it.

[Enhance]

I love how people think a free education is worth a couple hundered thousand dollars up front! How much money do you think a person like Tebow Frazier Or even Reggie Bush brought in to there school?? A college degree doesn't get you jack in this country!! Except maybe a trip to the unemployment office!!! If your lucky enough to get a job chances are you will be laid off to cover your fat and happy bosses quarterly bonus!!!!!

A college degree is over rated!!!

On average, people with a college degree make at least $1 million more in their life time than people with a high school degree, and U.S. Census Bureau statistics prove this.

 

"but you get free trips!". Wow great so they get to go to a hotel room and study film for three days! If they are lucky enough to go to a bowl game you are still there for football that is what everyone expects. Don't act like it's a vacation!!!

You get free trips to at least five different cities and have hotel, food and in-city travel expenses paid for.

 

Bottom line college football is a billion dollar industry and the pigs up top want to keep there money!!

You fault people for wanting to make more money? Sorry to say it but a boss as some point in your life has probably made a lot of money at your expense.

 

If it was really about education the NCAA and Universities would put more focus on being a student and not an athlete!

The student part is just to appease people. In reality, players are there to make millions for universities. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

 

Plus what about the stress they are put under by the media and fans!! Being scrutinized the whole week for what happened on Saturday!!!

Hate to say it, but they signed a piece of paper that said they were okay with this.

 

Listen, I understand you. I think college players are taken advantage of to the nth degree. But when you consider a college education, free travel and free food every week at school (it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep schools' Training Tables up and running for all of the athletes), these guys have it pretty easy.

 

That said, a part-time job is pretty much out of the question for these guys during the school year. I'm all for increasing scholarships to give them money to cover expenses. But if you truly, truly think about it, these guys are getting A LOT for their contributions.

 

Plus, the large majority of college athletes don't go on to the NFL and start careers. What would they do if they left school early and had a career-ending injury? They'd have to go back to school or, in most cases, take a job that would pay far less than if they actually had a college degree. It's not as overrated as you think. Union Pacific dispatcher makes $70,000 a year and their biggest requirement is a college degree of any kind. No degree, no job. How many people make more than $70,000 a year without a college degree?

[Hercules]

Enhance, if college football was simply considered a part-time job, much like a graduate teaching assistantship is, then the student-athletes would deserve compensation on top of free tuition, just like a graduate teaching assistant receives. Considering the amount of money these student-athletes bring in to the university, especially compared to grad assistants, I think it'd be fair to give them some money for food and laundry. Even $500/month (about what a .2 appointment teaching assistant might make) would go a long ways in helping some of those players, and it would be perfectly fair considering the amount of money the university is making off of them.

[Enhance]

Enhance, if college football was simply considered a part-time job, much like a graduate teaching assistantship is, then the student-athletes would deserve compensation on top of free tuition, just like a graduate teaching assistant receives. Considering the amount of money these student-athletes bring in to the university, especially compared to grad assistants, I think it'd be fair to give them some money for food and laundry. Even $500/month (about what a .2 appointment teaching assistant might make) would go a long ways in helping some of those players, and it would be perfectly fair considering the amount of money the university is making off of them.

It was kind of hidden in my post, but I said I would be in favor of increasing scholarships in order to cover expenses. I'm sure there is some type of grant that could be increased to cover player expenses like those you mentioned. I'd have no problem with this and see the need for it.

 

However, it's going to be extremely difficult to spend more money on the football players and not do it for every single other scholarship athlete. Doing it for only football players would cause a heap of trouble. It's well-known that the basketball team doesn't bring in near the revenue the football team does (and never will) but they put in more hours every week than even the football players do.

 

Furthermore, many people make the argument that the athletes don't have to move off campus in many situations. They choose to and thus choose to incur the expenses they've been given. It's a valid point that must be considered in all of this.

 

But, again, I'm in favor of giving the players money in some regard to help cover expenses. But we're fooling ourselves if we think this is going to solve much. The funny thing about money and people is that we like to go where there's more of it, even if more involves getting it the wrong way. But something is a better deterrent than nothing.

[sd'sker]

Enhance, if college football was simply considered a part-time job, much like a graduate teaching assistantship is, then the student-athletes would deserve compensation on top of free tuition, just like a graduate teaching assistant receives. Considering the amount of money these student-athletes bring in to the university, especially compared to grad assistants, I think it'd be fair to give them some money for food and laundry. Even $500/month (about what a .2 appointment teaching assistant might make) would go a long ways in helping some of those players, and it would be perfectly fair considering the amount of money the university is making off of them.

this is the best point yet. they aren't debt free, where do they get living money?