Miller: Athletes are ALREADY Getting Paid

I'm not going to quote that whole post, but HFN has some great points. the NCAA might just not be able to rectify this issue unless there are other options out there. a "minor league" for football and b-ball might take an investment initially, but if done well could work. wouldn't need a ton of teams to pull it off right.
 
What needs to be thought about is where is the money coming from to pay the athletes. According to the USA today only 23 athletic departments were profitable out of 228 schools of the 23 16 took subsidies. I think we need to realize that college sports isn't all that profitable college football is but not all programs are the same. As other people have stated before with title IX schools can't get rid of all non profitable sports so where is the money going to come from? A lot of athletic departments take subsidies already that would just increase.

Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies
 
Just pay them and don't give a bleep about everything else.......it will work itself out.


signed.

Jay Bilas
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
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.
Click to expand...

If an athlete is from an economically challenged family, they are eligible for Pell Grants, as others have said. The average benefit of those grants per player is around $4,200 to $4,500 per year. That's nearly $400 per month, in addition to any job they would be eligible to work at in the summer. How much is needed to go out with friends or to drink? Seriously.
 
Look, don't you think if college athletes were struggling so much we'd have seen a freakin Outside the Lines report on it? Someone show me a college football player who is seriously struggling. By that I mean like having trouble with basic life necessities like food, shelter, and water. The majority of them are living a lifestyle that most in this nation would be incredibly jealous of.

I understand they put in a lot of work. I understand football is extremely time consuming. However, I also understand the value of a college education. If the players are too self-absorbed to understand how lucky they are to be handed a FREE scholarship to a four year University then that's their problem. If they don't take their classes seriously then that's on them. If they don't earn a legitimate college degree that translates into the job market then that's on them. They have every opportunity to do so.

I'm sorry but the more "pity the athlete" posts that I read the more upset I get. I agree with HFN. If they are going to do a pay for play option then it needs to be outside of college football. It needs to be a separate entity. A scholarship is worth its weight in gold. If the athletes are too dumb or greedy to understand that then that is their problem. They can choose to play elsewhere and 10 or 15 years down the road the vast majority of them will realize what a moronic decision they made.
 
I just don't see it happening. The fact being I just don't see all of the smaller schools being able to fit it in there budget
 
DP5555 said:
Look, don't you think if college athletes were struggling so much we'd have seen a freakin Outside the Lines report on it? Someone show me a college football player who is seriously struggling. By that I mean like having trouble with basic life necessities like food, shelter, and water. The majority of them are living a lifestyle that most in this nation would be incredibly jealous of.

I understand they put in a lot of work. I understand football is extremely time consuming. However, I also understand the value of a college education. If the players are too self-absorbed to understand how lucky they are to be handed a FREE scholarship to a four year University then that's their problem. If they don't take their classes seriously then that's on them. If they don't earn a legitimate college degree that translates into the job market then that's on them. They have every opportunity to do so.

I'm sorry but the more "pity the athlete" posts that I read the more upset I get. I agree with HFN. If they are going to do a pay for play option then it needs to be outside of college football. It needs to be a separate entity. A scholarship is worth its weight in gold. If the athletes are too dumb or greedy to understand that then that is their problem.
Click to expand...

That's what these greedy SOBs don't understand. For football college basically is the minor leagues. Unlike basketball there is almost no way possible that a kid from high school will be able to jump straight to the pros. That's why the NFL has the current rules in place that a kid must play in college three years before jumping to the draft. What these kids need to realize is that college is their tryout for the NFL if that is the route they choose. Perform well and be rewarded in the end. Otherwise at the very least you get a degree to fall back on and lets not forget Jon's point, a kid who was at least known for playing football already has a decided advantage in the job market as compared to other students. People recognize their names.

Now I know some people are making it a point that the reason the kids are pizzing and moaning is because college football is raking in money like nobody's bizness. Well, that's life. The company I work for is bringing in record profits almost every year. Do I ever see any of that extra profit? Not really. Just because your employer or in this case league is making record profits doesn't mean everybody gets a chunk. Life isn't fair and the more time is spent on trying to make it fair the more screwed up it gets.
 
Sums said:
What needs to be thought about is where is the money coming from to pay the athletes. According to the USA today only 23 athletic departments were profitable out of 228 schools of the 23 16 took subsidies. I think we need to realize that college sports isn't all that profitable college football is but not all programs are the same. As other people have stated before with title IX schools can't get rid of all non profitable sports so where is the money going to come from? A lot of athletic departments take subsidies already that would just increase.

Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies
Click to expand...

I was just looking for this. Some think that these sports make a lot of money but in reality, they support the other sports as well and the college doesn't make as much as it seems. Yes, those administrators make a lot too but they have this thing called a degree and chances are, they have/had a student loan to pay off. It's been mentioned how much their scholarship is worth, this even applies to the non-revenue sports and those wearing a FB or BB uni who never see the field. Where do you draw the line there? If they don't see the field are they making the school money?

I guess if they opened their eyes and took the education seriously, they wouldn't have to worry about life after football. Even if they go pro, what's the average years they play? I thought it was in the neighborhood of 3-4. Even those who play 20 go broke after and end up selling shoes or you have the Larry Station's of the world who had the talent but was ready if the NFL wasn't the answer.

I had to work fulltime when I got my degree. I guess I am wrong to think I would trade my student loans to wear a FB or BB uni.
 
Hawkfromnorwalk said:
That's what these greedy SOBs don't understand. For football college basically is the minor leagues. Unlike basketball there is almost no way possible that a kid from high school will be able to jump straight to the pros. That's why the NFL has the current rules in place that a kid must play in college three years before jumping to the draft. What these kids need to realize is that college is their tryout for the NFL if that is the route they choose. Perform well and be rewarded in the end. Otherwise at the very least you get a degree to fall back on and lets not forget Jon's point, a kid who was at least known for playing football already has a decided advantage in the job market as compared to other students. People recognize their names.

Now I know some people are making it a point that the reason the kids are pizzing and moaning is because college football is raking in money like nobody's bizness. Well, that's life. The company I work for is bringing in record profits almost every year. Do I ever see any of that extra profit? Not really. Just because your employer or in this case league is making record profits doesn't mean everybody gets a chunk. Life isn't fair and the more time is spent on trying to make it fair the more screwed up it gets.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. Most of us who work for someone else's company can relate to this.

It's all about the kids. It's all about their egos continuing to grow. It's all about social media and the fact that a young athlete can become famous overnight. It reminds me of Kirk talking about how much recruiting has changed since he began coaching. Today, it's all about showering the athletes with as much love as you can give them. It's ridiculous.
 
DodgerHawki said:
If an athlete is from an economically challenged family, they are eligible for Pell Grants, as others have said. The average benefit of those grants per player is around $4,200 to $4,500 per year. That's nearly $400 per month, in addition to any job they would be eligible to work at in the summer. How much is needed to go out with friends or to drink? Seriously.
Click to expand...

I was wrong. I didn't realize athletes on full ride scholly's were eligible for Pell grants. Ok, that's different. Where do these greedy bastards get off asking for a stipend. I officially have changed my position.

My new stance is that we should take excess football revenue, beyond a strict budget approved by the non-athletic student body, and pour those funds into the student union for gaming, wide screen viewing rooms, a really nice sports bar, oh and it would also be nice if we could get free tudors for each and every student.
 
It's the direction our society is headed in, and quite frankly it makes me sick. These kids are blessed with athletic talent that gives them an opportunity for a free college education, a chance to play football on a big stage, and possibly a chance to make millions playing a sport they love if they are good enough. The idea it's getting to the point they are now asking for even more is disgusting.

I don't think it's fair to mention what college coaches or AD's are making either. How many college coaches or AD's do you know who simply had their positions handed to them? How many do you know without a college degree? They had to work to earn the positions that they hold, and they have to be damn good at what they do. If a college player is upset because he isn't getting his slice of the pie it's because he's had everything handed to him his whole life and he's become so dense that he doesn't understand the value of a full-ride scholly.
 
The revenue/profit argument isn't exactly accurate as many U's strand the costs differently. i.e. the U charges back the athletic department for parking on game day, etc. Go through the U of I's end of year report. It is interesting. As is the Foundation's.
 
I think athletes should be able to be paid what their skills are worth in the market. If an 18-year-old can find somebody to pay him for his skill, why should he have to waste time, energy, money, and risk career-ending injury? There should be a minor league or development league system where young players are paid the amount they can demand on the market if they wish to instead of going to college and getting less than cost of attendance to play.


If a person wants to put all their money into their education, that's great. But right now the system forces them to.
 
Golfer said:
The revenue/profit argument isn't exactly accurate as many U's strand the costs differently. i.e. the U charges back the athletic department for parking on game day, etc. Go through the U of I's end of year report. It is interesting. As is the Foundation's.
Click to expand...

I often see people undervalue the influence that a good football team has on recruitment/enrollment and alumni donations, as well.
 
DP5555 said:
Look, don't you think if college athletes were struggling so much we'd have seen a freakin Outside the Lines report on it? Someone show me a college football player who is seriously struggling. By that I mean like having trouble with basic life necessities like food, shelter, and water. The majority of them are living a lifestyle that most in this nation would be incredibly jealous of.

I understand they put in a lot of work. I understand football is extremely time consuming. However, I also understand the value of a college education. If the players are too self-absorbed to understand how lucky they are to be handed a FREE scholarship to a four year University then that's their problem. If they don't take their classes seriously then that's on them. If they don't earn a legitimate college degree that translates into the job market then that's on them. They have every opportunity to do so.

I'm sorry but the more "pity the athlete" posts that I read the more upset I get. I agree with HFN. If they are going to do a pay for play option then it needs to be outside of college football. It needs to be a separate entity. A scholarship is worth its weight in gold. If the athletes are too dumb or greedy to understand that then that is their problem. They can choose to play elsewhere and 10 or 15 years down the road the vast majority of them will realize what a moronic decision they made.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
SamBrownlee48 said:
I often see people undervalue the influence that a good football team has on recruitment/enrollment and alumni donations, as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. The documents are hundreds of pages long, and I'm only interested in a couple of line items, so I've never read the entire report and footnotes. I've not noticed anything accounted for as goodwill. I doubt quasi governmental entities have such an accounting entry, but I'm not a CPA. I'm going to look just out of curiosity. Goodwill is not exactly what you're referring to, and I get that, but your point is valid. I'm talking about an accounting entry, and you're talking about increased revenue through a higher profile, and more successful athletic program. I just freely associated the two because both pique my curiosity.
 
This really isn't about the "student-athletes." This isn't about the universities making boo-koo money. This is about universities graduating thousands of lawyers who need a new stream of money so they can pay back the universities and remain in their 'honorable' profession.

;)

And....shhhh, this is also about the rich/powerful and insiders keeping down the poor and outsiders (especially minorities).
 
ThunderHawk said:
This is not the case at institutions like Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, etc. Those are real degrees worth real money.

If these athletes want to get paid, go pro.
Click to expand...

Those degrees also cost real money, and those degrees are just as likely to saddle the average grad from those four schools with crippling student debt as a degree from Iowa or Iowa State is.
 
They're not always real degrees, and not always worth real money. I get the point, but always is absolute, and I have first hand experience that it isn't always true. In any event, I think we're going to eventually give schollys +. Not much to stop it. I believe Delaney's view on this will eventually be adopted. The bigger issue is cracking down on SEC schools over signing and other things that actually cause real harm to young student athletes. Paying them a stipend when we already defacto pay them isn't a big deal.
 
Givem a prepaid debit card...one each semester...bout $600...teach budgeting while feeding/entertaining the starving athletes. When its gone....its gone.

Stipends will prolly happen...but with the ability for grants and loans for kids that need it...I think its dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top