Miller: Athletes are ALREADY Getting Paid

[WinOneThisCentury]

Don't get me wrong, I agree, free tuition, room and board, all you can eat when you want to eat. All good things the university provides as part of an athletic scholly. Now, I'm an athlete from an economically challenged family who gets to Iowa City and wants to go out with his friends for dinner or drink. Do you really expect him to get a job...maybe during the summer or offseason...but come on. As hard core fans, we want them dedicated to being the best they can be on the football field, basketball field, etc. Asking them to deal with school and staying eligible, the requirements of their chosen D1 sport, then get a job is pretty freaking ridiculous. It's no wonder the SEC has figured out a NEARLY infallable pay scale to their athletes (from the booster to the mule to the athletes family to the athlete), yet one that will eventually cause embarrassment, yet no sanctions (see Alabama and DJ Fluker for the operational aspects of the pay scale).

It's time to pay them $100 or $150 a month. It may not curb all the Fluker situations, but it may give the athlete reason to pause if he doesn't have to deal with the embarrassment of having no actual money to do anything that is part of the college experience, outside of their sport that is.

 

[MeatMan]

i like Delaney's recent suggestion to follow the baseball model, and this might help somewhat.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany discusses possible football, basketball changes - ESPN

i also feel that this situation is a lot more complex than Jon and others are suggesting. there is a certain percentage of athletes who are being used and eaten up by the system. yeah, this isn't really happening all that much in the big10 and other conferences, but you could make a case for serious abuses in some of those schools down south. just my 2 cents.

 

[conn53victor]

Ignoring the whole (not trivial right-wrong/fair) argument, what if a players union takes off and several top programs have significant players (numbers and importance) threaten to sit out a big game. Would that change the landscape? Sure, go ahead and scream to 'fire the strikers,' but in the real world, the bosses often look at the bottom line to make a decision.

In conjunction with the NCAA, the presidents of Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, and UCLA have agreed to participate in talks with the leaders of the APU in return for the full participation of all players in this weekend's conference championship games. Mark Emmert, NCAA president, said, "We want to work with the players to address their concerns." The first meetings are not expected until after the end of the football season."

I am just asking if anyone would be surprised at this reaction if the APU really takes off.

 

[kicker22]

Don't get me wrong, I agree, free tuition, room and board, all you can eat when you want to eat. All good things the university provides as part of an athletic scholly. Now, I'm an athlete from an economically challenged family who gets to Iowa City and wants to go out with his friends for dinner or drink. Do you really expect him to get a job...maybe during the summer or offseason...but come on. As hard core fans, we want them dedicated to being the best they can be on the football field, basketball field, etc. Asking them to deal with school and staying eligible, the requirements of their chosen D1 sport, then get a job is pretty freaking ridiculous. It's no wonder the SEC has figured out a NEARLY infallable pay scale to their athletes (from the booster to the mule to the athletes family to the athlete), yet one that will eventually cause embarrassment, yet no sanctions (see Alabama and DJ Fluker for the operational aspects of the pay scale).

It's time to pay them $100 or $150 a month. It may not curb all the Fluker situations, but it may give the athlete reason to pause if he doesn't have to deal with the embarrassment of having no actual money to do anything that is part of the college experience, outside of their sport that is.

While I see both sides of the argument and still sit on the fence and haven't really taken a side on the issue because I see logic in both sides I don't see how giving an athlete $100-$150 a month helps them deal with "embarassment of not having money to do anything that is part of the college experience".

Nothing about their lives is anything comparable to that of the average student. Does this mean we're going to go the other route and start providing the average students compensation for not being able to workout in multi-million dollar facilities or set up "groupie services" for those that want to live the social lives of gods like many of the athletes on campus.

I'm not trying to mock your idea as I think it has validity, but at the same time I feel that the god-like status of athletes on campus is something that a "normal" student will never have the luxury of and that makes the athletes anything but normal. Athletes simply are not "normal" college students and that will most likely never change. I think morally if we're going to start paying athletes so they can "do normal college activities" then its only fair to give the "normal" students compensation for not being an athlete and getting such treatment.

I'm pretty sure that most athletes are currently able to come up with a way to go out with friends, with the way things are today. There are things they've been doing in the past that may not be by the book but has worked in the past so I don't think it'll change simply because they're not given cash by the university. I always thought being broke was synonymous with being in college and as most I found ways to do it.

 

[HomerChampless]

Well, that's just not right....... the paying the players thing.

 

[MeatMan]

Ignoring the whole (not trivial right-wrong/fair) argument, what if a players union takes off and several top programs have significant players (numbers and importance) threaten to sit out a big game. Would that change the landscape? Sure, go ahead and scream to 'fire the strikers,' but in the real world, the bosses often look at the bottom line to make a decision.


I am just asking if anyone would be surprised at this reaction if the APU really takes off.

if they could get enough athlete involvement, they are the one's with all the leverage. like you said, whether you disagree with it or not, they really are the one's that people are showing up to see (money makers), and if they choose to organize they would be a serious force to reckon with.

 

[BQuastU]

Most of you are confusing the various issues involved with whether or not the NCAA or member schools should pay players. This most fundamental point is that this is nothing more than a contractual agreement between an individual (the athlete) and institution (school). The athlete is presented with a contract and decides whether or not to accept the offer. If he (in the case of football) accepts, it is on the terms of the contract (essentially the scholarship terms). There is serious 6 figure consideration given to the athlete and potentially large returns for the school. The larger relationship is governed by rules - namely, the NCAA as governing body.

That is it. It's that simple.

If you want to talk about whether the athlete should get a piece of the profits or "get paid," well the contract does not provide for this. This is what Delany address with his recent comments. In other words, the athlete needs to go somewhere else and sign a contract with somebody else - IMG development, the NBA's development league, etc.

I have no idea why the NCAA left itself open to an O'Bannon type of lawsuit, but it appears to have done so. Its agreements and waivers with the athletes should have been air tight. Apparently they were not.

For those of you that think athletes should get paid, and particularly football and mens basketball players, who actually generate profits. Not only will you have to deal with how much each member of the football team gets, and whether this is going to differ among teams and conferences, can you imagine what happens (and it will happen) when the Title IX/women's interest groups get involved and demand that the volleyball team gets an allocation of the football net revenues? Game's over at that point and the toothpaste is out of the jar.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Two things:

#1--International track and field, for decades, mandated amateur status for those who competed at the olympics, etc. Look back on that now. How silly all that seems.

#2--The whole "gets a free education" thing is a sham. Truly. These FB players are so busy, 12 months a year being a conscript to the sport, they (for the most part) do not have time to devote to a truly rigorous academic pursuit (pre-med/pharmacy/nursing, engineering). "Keep me eligible" is the mantra. Sorry....having a piece of paper stating you have some truly worthless degree is just that....worthless.

Meanwhile, Iowa does a $93/mil renovation.....Michigan does a $225/mil improvement. Goodness.

Can't go along with this, especially #2. Yeah, they are busy, and it's a bunch of time to put in....which is at least part of the reason the get tuition, board, room, meal plan, and books....for FREE. What they choose to do, is on them.

If it's too demanding - Take the minimum 12 hours(which is very little), easier classes/ gen eds first.....then go a 6th year to finish and pay for 1 year (still about $250K ahead of the average student that had to take loans for their education, AND pay interest on those loans. Figure all that interest for 10-20 years up and its probably closer to $400+GRAND.

This whole thing bothers me. Let's just do away with ALL scholarships and and see how that Transforms the landscape of college sports....the only way to get to play college sports is if you can first Qualify for school.

Don't give me the "the schools, conference, blah blah make SO much money on these athletes" Crap. Yeah, it's true. My company makes Millions on my sales every year....I get a %....its how things work in life.

whoa...didn't expect to get so fired up...Jon is right...this thing is like a powder keg....

 

[LutherHawk]

I think Delaney and Miller are spot on! The only payment I can see the logic in would be a SMALL stipend to put a FEW bucks in these guys' pockets. The demands of the sport are so rigorous that there's no way they can get a part time job on the side like lot of college students have. A small stipend would give them some cash if they want to get a pizza or go to a movie. Hopefully this would also help them resist the $50 handshakes from boosters.

These athletes have access to guaranteed loans (just as the rest of the student population. Read some of the points Doug Gottlieb makes on this…and he knows from the inside). If they want to buy extra pizzas and beer, put it on debt like so many students do. If they mismanage their monthly room and board stipends (which they do receive) when living off campus, that is on them.

FWIW…I played college football. There are limits on the amount of time per week players are allowed to participate in formal football activities (yet, you can voluntarily do more…which we all did). However, You DO have extra time. Don't be fooled. I still had time to study (double major…graduated magna cum laude), lots of socializing, workouts, dates with the ladies, tv time, movies, gaming, going out to eat, summer part-time job, travel, eating, sleeping, partying, etc.
I feel I missed nothing and I got a lot in return.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Don't get me wrong, I agree, free tuition, room and board, all you can eat when you want to eat. All good things the university provides as part of an athletic scholly. Now, I'm an athlete from an economically challenged family who gets to Iowa City and wants to go out with his friends for dinner or drink. Do you really expect him to get a job...maybe during the summer or offseason...but come on. As hard core fans, we want them dedicated to being the best they can be on the football field, basketball field, etc. Asking them to deal with school and staying eligible, the requirements of their chosen D1 sport, then get a job is pretty freaking ridiculous. It's no wonder the SEC has figured out a NEARLY infallable pay scale to their athletes (from the booster to the mule to the athletes family to the athlete), yet one that will eventually cause embarrassment, yet no sanctions (see Alabama and DJ Fluker for the operational aspects of the pay scale).

It's time to pay them $100 or $150 a month. It may not curb all the Fluker situations, but it may give the athlete reason to pause if he doesn't have to deal with the embarrassment of having no actual money to do anything that is part of the college experience, outside of their sport that is.

The small stipend of $50-$100 is fine and I don't think is what people are so against. I am fine with that(although I would say $100/month is more than enough) for what you describe above. If they need more than that, they can do what almost everyone else does that comes from a lower economic situation does....They can take out a loan for the "entertainment" expenses. It wouldn't be much...maybe $2-3,000/year. They would still be about $400K ahead at graduation time.

 

[MeatMan]

For those of you that think athletes should get paid, and particularly football and mens basketball players, who actually generate profits. Not only will you have to deal with how much each member of the football team gets, and whether this is going to differ among teams and conferences, can you imagine what happens (and it will happen) when the Title IX/women's interest groups get involved and demand that the volleyball team gets an allocation of the football net revenues? Game's over at that point and the toothpaste is out of the jar.

i'll address this point. and this is why the future of the NCAA as it is will be in doubt. do certain schools willingly drop out of the NCAA to pursue their own conference/association? if so, they wouldn't necessarily be bound by Title 9 rules, or am i wrong on that?

yeah, it's too sticky a situation to just make a blanket "pay this much to every athlete" type of rule, simply based on different schools pull in different money and all that.

 

[JonDMiller]

This would be a ******* disaster. Schools could just flat out buy kids then. Schools with big money boosters could pick off smaller schools star players. Schools like Texas and Oregon would have boosters handing out $50,000 to kids just to have them be in some Nike commerical or car dealership spot. This would create a gigantic gap between the top few schools and every other program.

The schools who are on the biggest stages more often would get the most talent...like Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, USC...hey wait

 

[JonDMiller]

i also feel that this situation is a lot more complex than Jon and others are suggesting. there is a certain percentage of athletes who are being used and eaten up by the system. yeah, this isn't really happening all that much in the big10 and other conferences, but you could make a case for serious abuses in some of those schools down south. just my 2 cents.

Used and eaten up how?

 

[herky01]

Many D1 players come from poverty. They are fine while on campus, but they might not be able to afford to go anywhere when they aren't playing football (which is a full time job in and of itself). I played D1 and I had to give guys stuff all the time because they couldn't afford anything. These players can't have jobs per the NCAA. Everybody is getting rich (off of them) and many can't afford the basic things that every other college student gets to experience (and probably take for granted). I would be in support of giving the players a couple hundred bucks a month.

Also, the fact that these educations cost so much is crap. The institutions jack up the tuition because they know the kids can get student loans. So hey, why not push tuition higher if they know the lenders will give them the money. Look at how much these colleges have in endowment. Some of the larger institutions have hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions (the University of Texas endowment is 7.2 billion). Every student could go for free some places and they would still make money hand over fist. It's a scam for the 1%'s to further load their pockets.

 

[theboat]

They should be able to profit from their likeness and their fame, ie selling signatures. But should not be paid. If they need extra money for living expenses I have no problem with that bc they can't work. But I think that help is already available if they are poor in the form of grants.

There are too many problems with actually paying players
Only a limited amount of ADs are profitable so the rich get richer
Would this violate nonprofit status of school?
Titile IX problems
Rising ticket prices
Force schools to drop sports bc can't keep up
It wouldn't stop kids from taking money from agents or boosters
Do some get paid more than others? Do all athletes get paid not just football?

They can after they leave the institution. Nobody would know who manziel is if he was on the spelling team. Face it. He needs A&M football to be famous. They don't need him to make money.

 

[hawkinn3]

Why is it that these athlete are so unable to make ends meet? Free room and board, free food and free clothing. (casual workout stuff but free all the same) and yet they have to take outside money to eat? (as Adrian Foster recently said).

I had no support from my parents in college and worked part time for spending money while taking a full load of classes which generated less money than these athletes get for stipends and I manged to get by just fine.

The reason is that I wore the same pair of Levi's for 4 years and lived in an crap hole apartment with 3 other guys after I moved out of the dorm. Some of these football players are renting codominiums, wearing designer labels and driving luxury cars. (some not all)

They get more than enough to make it as an average college student, but they want to live high on the hog and pretend they are pro atheletes before they are. ZERO sympathy and I don't want my donations going to fund a player's Lexus payment.

 

[CWooD4]

If they move to pay athletes, my time invested in college athletics would be essentially zero. It'd ruin everything. It's so stupid that athletes can't figure out all the "pay they get".

Tuition + athletic amenities use + free books/tutors + free gear + monthly stipends + free living on campus + meal plan... I'm sure I'm missing a few other ones, but those are the key ones. This goes for any scholarship athlete, just not revenue sports. Please continue to complain how their life is so rough. It's no different then a student working 2 or 3 jobs, with student loans, and taking 18 credit hours.

 

[CWooD4]

Many D1 players come from poverty. They are fine while on campus, but they might not be able to afford to go anywhere when they aren't playing football (which is a full time job in and of itself). I played D1 and I had to give guys stuff all the time because they couldn't afford anything. These players can't have jobs per the NCAA. Everybody is getting rich (off of them) and many can't afford the basic things that every other college student gets to experience (and probably take for granted). I would be in support of giving the players a couple hundred bucks a month.

Also, the fact that these educations cost so much is crap. The institutions jack up the tuition because they know the kids can get student loans. So hey, why not push tuition higher if they know the lenders will give them the money. Look at how much these colleges have in endowment. Some of the larger institutions have hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions (the University of Texas endowment is 7.2 billion). Every student could go for free some places and they would still make money hand over fist. It's a scam for the 1%'s to further load their pockets.

D1 athletes can get jobs in the off-season. That is not against the rules.

 

[JonDMiller]

I added this to the original post, too:

these numbers reflect just tuition and room and board, per semester, for an OUT OF STATE athlete on scholarship at the University of Iowa, as of September 26th, 2013...out of of state costs make up the majority of the football and basketball teams, 100% of the field hockey team which is the 2nd most expensive sport at Iowa relative to scholarship costs as there isn't a native Iowan on the team and it operates at a loss.

Out of state tuition: 13,465.50 a semester
Room and board: 4682.5 a semester

If off campus later in careers, off campus housing award is roughly $4,000 a semester that is sent in installments

That's a freshman year total of $18,148. Back it off $1,365 after freshman year assuming the players move out of the dorms after one year

FRESHMAN: $18,148/semester x2 = $36,296 per year
SOPH-SENIOR (x3): $16,783 x2= $33566 per year x3 = $100,698.
FOUR YEAR TOTAL: $136,994
add additional costs for the fifth year...but there could be minimal credit hours involved, but the $8000 in annual off campus room and board is still in play.

So let's just call it $140,000 for ease of discussion and most players are there beyond four years.

Those are not estimated costs, those are actual costs as of September 26th, 2013. Add to this the free healthcare that each student athlete gets while at Iowa...some of those players could be on their parents plan, some of their parents are not insured. But there is no monthly premium, no co-pay, etc for these plans. None at all. They are covered, just as they would be if they were playing professionally.

That value doesn't include the amazing value opportunity they receive from building their personal brand on the fields of the B1G. They don't pay any costs associated with the maintenance, upkeep and construction of Kinnick Stadium or Carver Hawkeye, nor should they...they are receiving their just and agreed up reward; a free ride...and they get the amazing benefits that go along with that. If some of them need tutoring, they don't have to pay for that. They don't have to pay extra for the world class strength training and nutrition they have access to. They don't have to pay a health club membership fee to access the football facilities.

It's not a stretch to say there is $200,000 in value from a scholarship. The USA Today suggests the value for a basketball scholarship is upwards of $600k.

The players are 'getting paid' and they (as well as others) are naive to think this is an unfair deal. How many other 18 year olds are receiving that value for their services? And it's not a one-off value; it's an accruing value and the ability to build their own brand in a state or region hold incredible value...as you'll see if you read the article.

 

[ICHawk24]

For those student-athletes who come from poor backgrounds, they are eligible for Pell Grants, which award up to $5550 per year per student-athlete.

----

The Register's look into finances revealed that 1,064 football players at the 23 responding schools last year received a combined $4.7 million through Pell Grants, a federally funded program "that provides need-based grants to low-income students," according to the U.S. Department of Education.

That's an average of $4,442 per recipient beyond his full athletic scholarship, which includes tuition, room and board, and books.

At Iowa during the last school year, 22 football players received Pell Grants worth a combined $94,334 — an average of $4,287 per recipient. At Iowa State, 40 football players received Pell Grants worth a total of $180,121 — an average of $4,503 per recipient.

In comparison, 423 scholarship football players from eight responding schools in the Southeastern Conference received an average of $4,602.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...yers-collecting-millions-in-grants/50170388/1