SEC Coaches Vote 12-0 in favor of $300/game pay for players

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
Steve Spurrier put that up for a kangaroo council vote...something along the lines of the 70-man travel squad gets paid

I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.

But if my kid gets a free ride to play sports, I will gladly write that check.
 
JonDMiller said:
I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
JonDMiller said:
Steve Spurrier put that up for a kangaroo council vote...something along the lines of the 70-man travel squad gets paid

I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.

But if my kid gets a free ride to play sports, I will gladly write that check.
Click to expand...


I'm old school my self. I wish my kids had a free ride. They were smart kids and got some scholarships, but they still had a $30k to $40k debit when they graduated. We need to stop pampering these kids.
 
JonDMiller said:
Steve Spurrier put that up for a kangaroo council vote...something along the lines of the 70-man travel squad gets paid

I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.

But if my kid gets a free ride to play sports, I will gladly write that check.
Click to expand...

With Title IX, I can't see this actually going into effect. I don't know how they could get away with paying FB players and not athletes in non-revenue sports.
 
Doesn't matter how they voted. The courts wont let a school pay football players and noone else. The law says it has to be all or none.
 
$300 per game is a pittance compared to what the SEC is paying these kids already.....not to mention the parents.
 
JonDMiller said:
Steve Spurrier put that up for a kangaroo council vote...something along the lines of the 70-man travel squad gets paid

I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.

But if my kid gets a free ride to play sports, I will gladly write that check.
Click to expand...

Jon,

I asked this in another thread but never really got an answer, is there an NCAA rule stopping players from getting personal loans?

Say if Matt Barkley or Andrew Luck took out a $50,000 loan with their future earnings potential as collateral, would this be illegal?
 
JonDMiller said:
Steve Spurrier put that up for a kangaroo council vote...something along the lines of the 70-man travel squad gets paid

I may be too old school, but damn if I don't think getting a free ride to be a college football player isn't a real good deal...no debt after college, which is an amazing head start in life, all of that exposure on TV to market yourself to the local and state business community where you went to college (for the non-NFL players).

It's a huge benefit. I realize the schools benefit financially in a big way, but it's an ROI IMO. They are the business owner, they are paying these players a darn good wage and all parties benefit.

Perhaps players should be able to take out monthly loans of $200 during the school year for walking around money or something like that. Or provide student athletes with jobs on the college campus and have strict NCAA oversight and pay scale limits.

But if my kid gets a free ride to play sports, I will gladly write that check.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm the same way, if my kid would get a free ride to play sports I would pay her rent if she wanted to live off campus and give her spending money for the month.
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
Jon,

I asked this in another thread but never really got an answer, is there an NCAA rule stopping players from getting personal loans?

Say if Matt Barkley or Andrew Luck took out a $50,000 loan with their future earnings potential as collateral, would this be illegal?
Click to expand...

Not many banks issue personal loans (or signature loans) to teenagers or early 20's who have no jobs. They don't issue many unsecured loans right now anyway...and this would be rife for corruption...unless NCAA set up their own 'bank' and loaned evenly.

Heck, that is where the $$ should come from...the NCAA, which works for the colleges.
 
You realize NCAA athletes are already allowed per diem allowances for food, etc., right? I believe it's $35 for meals and $20 for incidentals during competitions and sometimes even for practice sessions that are outside of the school calendar, up to 10 days at a stretch (there are a ton of bylaws but that is the basic idea). Football teams don't usually use this because they eat all of their meals as a team, but I don't really see how this proposal is dramatically different from that scheme.
 
Well...I'm not going to re-list all the reasons I think this is fair and all that...I'll just say...it's going to happen...just a matter of time.

And I'm all in favor of it.
 
SDK46 said:
Well...I'm not going to re-list all the reasons I think this is fair and all that...I'll just say...it's going to happen...just a matter of time.

And I'm all in favor of it.
Click to expand...

It may happen, but not for at least a decade as there will be two major lawsuits that will have to work their way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

1. Title IX and paying all athletes equal amounts so if you are giving football players $4000 per year you have to give the women's swimming, softball, soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, rowing team equal money, which gets sticky as do you use a head count or scholarship count as they split grants in aid.

2. If you include the non-revenue sports you are looking probably over $1 million per year. Then next lawsuit will be the non-BCS schools who can't afford the same "pay scale" suing for unfair labor practices and anti-trust again.
 
Additional "pay" for athletes is a necessary prelim for the BCS conferences to split from the rest of the current D-I programs to form a new "D-IA". How serious BCS schools get on pay will show you how serious they are in ditching the MAC and Sunbelt.
 
I think the SEC should just go ahead and implement this for 2011. No need to clear it with the NCAA first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top