Nothing in it for the players

Originally Posted by SDK46
#1--Free education is great. But very few athletes get to pursue the degree of their choice. Pre-med? Pre-pharmacy/pharmacy? Pre-nursing/nursing? Engineering? Please. It's called "keep eligible." Rocks for jocks is alive and well. Not all degrees are created equal.

Be honest, most of these kids playing sports wouldn't go for these types of degrees in the first place if they went to the school without an athletic scholarship.
(Seth: My point exactly. The quality of the degree the athletes are getting for 'free' isn't first-rate. Sorry, it is what it is. There simply is no time for most of the FB'ers to pursue the really rigorous degrees...the ones with the best long-term employment opportunities. They are funneled into the "stay eligible" tract...and after 4-5 years they may have a piece of paper, but again, not all degrees are equal...not by a long shot. I had a chance to play JC ball after high school...but one look at the academic offerings and I realized I had a lot more potential than to give 40 hours a week to a program which would mold me into a gym teacher, with no other opportunities (it was highly discouraged to take classes outside the "proposed academic tract")

#2--The education isn't free per se. These student/athletes are putting out 50+ hours per week during the season and about 50% of that during the "off season" (if there is one). They earn it. A lot is given for sure, but a lot is expected. Try living under a spotlight/microscope for 5 years in Iowa City.

I can't really argue with this point. Except I highly doubt they would spend this 50+ hours studying if they weren't playing football. They would be doing something else not helping the school.
(Seth: All I can say is I gave my school work 40 hours per week...i.e. I treated college like a full time job, when I was going through pharmacy school, and later, my MBA. If you're an athlete, you do not have a choice but to give those hours to the athletic department. A sort of servitude if you will.)

#3--If it wasn't for these players, there wouldn't be the BCS, BTN, new Kinnick stadium, women's sports, wrestling....in essence the FB kids generate the millions and millions and millions of dollars the schools bank every year. We can't give them $100 a month for pizza and other incidentals? Please.

As soon as you give them $100 they will start to find envelopes filled with money that "accidently" must have been placed in the wrong envelope. This is a can of worms that should never be opened. Do you really think if giving a kid $100 was ok'd by the NCAA that schools like USC, Alabama, etc... wouldn't start giving kids more and creating bigger problems then there already is? It would turn out to be a bidding service for a kids services for him to come play football at your school, whomever supplies the most money can have his services.
(Seth: "More money" in the envelope is purely conjecture. You simply put another rule in the NCAA rulebook stating $100 is the max...give more and you violate it. You don't give cash money anyway....you deposit it through direct deposit so it can be monitored. My point is once you eliminate the "you can't have any at all" mentality, the pressure to seek any money at all subsides. Look at prohibition...zero tolerance and zero supposed availability was a monumental failure.)

Pay them.
It keeps the criminal/booster element out of it.

Not even close and very misinformed if you believe this, read what I wrote above, it would actually increase the criminal/booster element of it.
(Seth: We'll have to agree to disagree. Again, look at history...prohibition. Outlawing something doesn't work in the long run. Bring it out in the open, regulate it....is it perfect...no...but it's a lot cleaner with much less criminal element. Legalizing marijuana would do the same thing in this economic scenerio...remove the criminal element and drive prices downwards.)

They've earned it.
(Seth: This statement is my basic premise. Do the non-revenue athletes deserve the same $100/month...probably, but one could make an argument they don't because they don't produce millions of dollars of revenue like the FB'ers. Dunno...but if I were an athlete producing millions of dollars a year and I couldn't go get a pizza because I'm broke it's "illegal"...I'd find an "illegal" way to get my money and go have a dammed pizza!)
 
hawkeyescott said:
That's the players/student athletes choice, the schools doesn't limit what degree the players/students athletes can get so this argument holds no water.
Click to expand...

While you're technically correctly, realistically, you're not even close to reality.

Again, through experience of looking at JC ball, and, knowing some athletes during my days at the U of I, I can 100% tell you the "choice" is a smoke screen. You do not have time as a collegiate level FB'er to puruse the truly demanding academic offerings....forget the labs and the 18 hours per semester...the subject matter itself is highly complex and you need a lot of extra time to absorb, retain and regergitate it. (While trying to prep for PSU or tOSU, and, keeping your own complex playbook in order)....Organic chemistry, with lab, is immeasurably more difficult than writing a a few papers, with the help of an on-site mentor, for a general-studies class. Not even close.
 
SDK46 said:
#1--Free education is great. But very few athletes get to pursue the degree of their choice. Pre-med? Pre-pharmacy/pharmacy? Pre-nursing/nursing? Engineering? Please. It's called "keep eligible." Rocks for jocks is alive and well. Not all degrees are created equal.

#2--The education isn't free per se. These student/athletes are putting out 50+ hours per week during the season and about 50% of that during the "off season" (if there is one). They earn it. A lot is given for sure, but a lot is expected. Try living under a spotlight/microscope for 5 years in Iowa City.

#3--If it wasn't for these players, there wouldn't be the BCS, BTN, new Kinnick stadium, women's sports, wrestling....in essence the FB kids generate the millions and millions and millions of dollars the schools bank every year. We can't give them $100 a month for pizza and other incidentals? Please.

Pay them.
It keeps the criminal/booster element out of it.
They've earned it.
Click to expand...


Seth, I think you make some great points.
 
SDK46 said:
While you're technically correctly, realistically, you're not even close to reality.

Again, through experience of looking at JC ball, and, knowing some athletes during my days at the U of I, I can 100% tell you the "choice" is a smoke screen. You do not have time as a collegiate level FB'er to puruse the truly demanding academic offerings....forget the labs and the 18 hours per semester...the subject matter itself is highly complex and you need a lot of extra time to absorb, retain and regergitate it. (While trying to prep for PSU or tOSU, and, keeping your own complex playbook in order)....Organic chemistry, with lab, is immeasurably more difficult than writing a a few papers, with the help of an on-site mentor, for a general-studies class. Not even close.
Click to expand...

If students want to pick good majors they can definitely do it... just ask Myron Rolle.
 
As much money as these athletes generate for their respective schools, they deserve some per diem money. Make it a set rate for all BCS school athletes in revenue producing sports. I'm not talking Reggie Bush money, just some extra per diem money beyond books, tuition, etc.
 
Yes, the players are making a LOT of money for their university, but they are getting plenty in return. And some of them are getting a great degree, and contacts that will get them better jobs than the average Joe that gets through school on his own.

Myron Rolle is the most recent example of what an athlete can do academically while also being successful athletically. Another one that comes to mind is Craig Krenzel, and Big Ten athlete. Here's a quick bio taken from Wikipedia...

"Krenzel graduated from Ohio State with a degree in molecular genetics. He was a three-time All-Big Ten award winner, recipient of the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame post-graduate scholarship, Sporting News' Socrates Award winner, and Draddy Trophy winner. He was also awarded the Today's Top VIII Award (Class of 2004). His overall record with Ohio State is 24-3 as a starter. After quarterback Steve Bellisari was suspended from play due to an alcohol-related police charge late in the 2001 season, Krenzel earned the starting position against Michigan and led the Buckeyes to their first win in Ann Arbor since 1987."

And the "can't get themselves a pizza" argument seems pretty exaggerated. I'm pretty sure that these guys aren't getting shorted when they sit down at the training table to eat!
 
tdhawkeye said:
Yes, the players are making a LOT of money for their university, but they are getting plenty in return. And some of them are getting a great degree, and contacts that will get them better jobs than the average Joe that gets through school on his own.

Myron Rolle is the most recent example of what an athlete can do academically while also being successful athletically. Another one that comes to mind is Craig Krenzel, and Big Ten athlete. Here's a quick bio taken from Wikipedia...

"Krenzel graduated from Ohio State with a degree in molecular genetics. He was a three-time All-Big Ten award winner, recipient of the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame post-graduate scholarship, Sporting News' Socrates Award winner, and Draddy Trophy winner. He was also awarded the Today's Top VIII Award (Class of 2004). His overall record with Ohio State is 24-3 as a starter. After quarterback Steve Bellisari was suspended from play due to an alcohol-related police charge late in the 2001 season, Krenzel earned the starting position against Michigan and led the Buckeyes to their first win in Ann Arbor since 1987."

And the "can't get themselves a pizza" argument seems pretty exaggerated. I'm pretty sure that these guys aren't getting shorted when they sit down at the training table to eat!
Click to expand...

Yup...Myron Rolle and Mr. Krenzel are great examples of the very very unique college athlete who was gifted enough to take on rigorous academic offerings.

Two of the some 10,000 FB'ers in 1A program, per year. They are the exceptions rather than the rule. Make that rare exceptions. They didn't need football to excel. They excelled academicaly despite football. Trust me...been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
 
The current rules NCAA "student" athletes must live under were created well before TV and BCS money made today was even dreamed of by universities. There is a big pie that "student" athletes are getting an even smaller piece of year by year. The college sports landscape is being shaped almost entirely on greed right now, to say these athletes don't deserve just a little more than what they get now is ridiculous. Throwing out Craig Krenzel as a representation of the opportunity that exists for most of these players is pretty naive. Great story of an athlete earning a fine education, but most of these players are not brought in with their educations being viewed as a priority.
 
How many of these guys would be getting an education of any kind if you take athletics out of the picture? You guys are acting like if these guys had the time that football takes away that they'd all try for a pre-med degree, when truth be told, if they weren't football players they wouldn't be getting a degree of any kind. Yes, there are some that are academics that would succeed in college without an athletic scholarship, but there are just as many that wouldn't be there at all.

In the same sentence that you say schools are making more money off athletics because of BCS money, etc. I can point out how much more money is being spent on the athletes. Ask a player from the 70's or 80's what it was like playing in the Big Ten, the equipment and "perks" they got, and compare that to what an athlete gets today. The guys these days are getting plenty, and getting taken care of enough that we shouldn't feel too bad for them.
 
tdhawkeye said:
How many of these guys would be getting an education of any kind if you take athletics out of the picture? You guys are acting like if these guys had the time that football takes away that they'd all try for a pre-med degree, when truth be told, if they weren't football players they wouldn't be getting a degree of any kind. Yes, there are some that are academics that would succeed in college without an athletic scholarship, but there are just as many that wouldn't be there at all.

In the same sentence that you say schools are making more money off athletics because of BCS money, etc. I can point out how much more money is being spent on the athletes. Ask a player from the 70's or 80's what it was like playing in the Big Ten, the equipment and "perks" they got, and compare that to what an athlete gets today. The guys these days are getting plenty, and getting taken care of enough that we shouldn't feel too bad for them.
Click to expand...

Good points...nicely done...here are a couple of counter-points....

The academic "return on investment" is compressed as you go up the academic-talent scale...those who wouldn't have made it into any college do get the chance at a degree...good point. However, as you go up the mental-talent scale, FB become more of a hinderance than a help. I know of many cases where 'smart' people had to 'dumb down' their college courses in order to stay eligible.

While there is more money being spent on athletics, I'll betcha if you constructed a graph with two lines...one being what is spent on athletics (yes, has probably increased a great deal)....and the other what is earned/coffered by the university, I'll lay money there is a widening gap between the two since the 80's....with the gap becoming more pronounced every year.

Fact still remains, the FB'ers don't get a "free" education....they give the UI 50+ hours/week during the season and about 50% of that during the off-season for their room, board, books and tuition.
 
Last edited:
SDK46 said:
Good points...nicely done...here are a couple of counter-points....

The academic "return on investment" is compressed as you go up the academic-talent scale...those who wouldn't have made it into any college do get the chance at a degree...good point. However, as you go up the mental-talent scale, FB become more of a hinderance than a help. I know of many cases where 'smart' people had to 'dumb down' their college courses in order to stay eligible.

While there is more money being spent on athletics, I'll betcha if you constructed a graph with two lines...one being what is spent on athletics (yes, has probably increased a great deal)....and the other what is earned/coffered by the university, I'll lay money there is a widening gap between the two since the 80's....with the gap becoming more pronounced every year.

Fact still remains, the FB'ers don't get a "free" education....they give the UI 50+ hours/week during the season and about 50% of that during the off-season for their room, board, books and tuition.
Click to expand...

I guess we've both fought to make the point that nobody actually gets a "free" education then huh? Whether you're "paying" with blood, sweat, tears and of course a lot of time, or actually paying cash/money/$$$, in the end, you're paying... We've agreed on one thing?
 
Players have plenty to play for, college education, afterall thats what its "supposed" to be for as they are called Student-Athletes. They have opportunity to compete at a high level for conference championships, notariety, and potentially professional level of play/endorsements and as others have mentioned there are other numerous "fringe" benefits that come along with this.
 
SDK, I agree with your assertion that college athletes have earned something for the training and playing time they give to their school. The others are correct as well, of course. They already get "something", namely a free (or reduced cost) education. But I can even accept that the demands on an athlete's time prevent SOME of them from pursuing more rigorous (and supposedy lucrative) courses of study. However, I cannot accept the premise that paying an athlete (such as described above) who is trading their chosen course of study for the opportunity to play college athletics is the answer. What would a few hundered dollars a month mean compared to the lifetime of earnings lost?

If the real concern is that these athletes have actually earned the right to an education they cannot practically pursue, then any "raise" should come in the form educational opportunity, not cash. Instead of giving athletes five years to play four, let's give them six years to play four or six years to play five. Furthermore, let's allow scholarship athletes to be considered fulltime students while taking a course load consisting of 75% of the hours a non-athlete student. That should allow athletes who TRULY want to pursue more demanding fields of study to do so. It rewards those who find themselves in the situation you described. Paying cash may be a nice little "extra" but certainly would not address the core of the problem as you described it.
 
VAHawkFan said:
SDK, I agree with your assertion that college athletes have earned something for the training and playing time they give to their school.
(Seth: If you're talking about earning something above and beyond the standard books, tuition, room and board, then I agree).

The others are correct as well, of course. They already get "something", namely a free (or reduced cost) education.
(Seth: Again, my premise is a.) it's hardly free considering their mandatory time commitment to the university in order to keep the scholarship, and b.) the quality of academic pursuit for a lot of athletes is actually quite dumbed-down.

But I can even accept that the demands on an athlete's time prevent SOME of them from pursuing more rigorous (and supposedy lucrative) courses of study.
(Seth: Agree. A humanities degree doesn't mean much in all honesty)

However, I cannot accept the premise that paying an athlete (such as described above) who is trading their chosen course of study for the opportunity to play college athletics is the answer. What would a few hundered dollars a month mean compared to the lifetime of earnings lost?
(Seth: Agree...there are two arguments here....a.) giving the revenue-earners a small monthly stipend, and b.) enhancing their opportunity to get a meaninful degree.

If the real concern is that these athletes have actually earned the right to an education they cannot practically pursue, then any "raise" should come in the form educational opportunity, not cash. Instead of giving athletes five years to play four, let's give them six years to play four or six years to play five. Furthermore, let's allow scholarship athletes to be considered fulltime students while taking a course load consisting of 75% of the hours a non-athlete student. That should allow athletes who TRULY want to pursue more demanding fields of study to do so. It rewards those who find themselves in the situation you described. Paying cash may be a nice little "extra" but certainly would not address the core of the problem as you described it.
(Seth: Excellent points. I'd advocate....give true student athletes 6 years of education for 4 years of eligibility or 7 years for 5. If they want to try the NFL, then 'bank' the remaining years and allow them to come back to school when they're done if they don't make it. Also, as you said, give them fulltime status at a 75% workload. This, coupled with the extra years in the bank, would give them the opportunity to explore more rigorous academic undergraduate degrees if so chosen, or perhaps a masters.

However, I'm still saying and will always support a minimal monthly stipend for spending money since they do not have time to earn 'pin money' on their own as any college student does. Seems ironic to me.....giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'free' education, yet, balking at giving them a little something out of the war chest they create so they can actually enjoy college life. And the poorer the student is, the less likelihood they're going to be getting spending money from their family)
Click to expand...
 
On some points we'll have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate that you're willing to have a reasonable, logical and open minded discussion. So thank you for that.
 
Here are a couple of things that the idiotic NCAA could do for the players:

1. Provide much more money per player for basic living expenses (many of these players are from poor families and cannot even afford basic items).

2. Because of the incredible amount of time involved in practice, film study, etc., etc., give each player a lighter load of classes each semester (particularly the fall semester), and give the players at least 6 years to earn their degree.

Instead, the arcane, rigid NCAA spends all of its time enforcing its ridiculous "rules" against coaches who in many instances are just trying to take care of players who do not have enough resources to take care of themselves.

In 20 years you will have super-conferences, players who are paid much more than they are making now, and the NCAA will have gone the way of the dinosaurs, which is exactly what should happen.
 
ChosenChildren said:
Conference realignment - TV deals - millions of dollars for the big schools.

What is in it for the players? Nothing!!!

The Ivy League has it right. College football is a beast that is out of control.

Why not just pay the players - everything else about BCS college football is "professional" and money is king. The players should get a big piece of the action -- why not? They do all the hard work.
Click to expand...

You're right of course. It's so far gone there is no use to bother. Especially when the conference alliance world that we all grew up with has been turned upside down! Normal people would not pay a lot of money for the right to get squished by others in bad weather. But that's football! And if a Hawk game was going on, I couldn't not watch it on tv or hear it on the radio. Also, all coaches make too much. But where would the Hawks be without Kirk Ferentz? Without winning football, the we would either be sitting in the grass in the corners of Kinnick, or the hospital would have taken it over by now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top