The NCAA needs to pay the players!

No. They already get paid. If they want spending cash go get a loan and have to make payments after graduation like the REST of the student body does.
 
BALDIES7980 said:
No. They already get paid. If they want spending cash go get a loan and have to make payments after graduation like the REST of the student body does.
Click to expand...

1. They are not like the rest of the student body

2. Not every players family have the credit to take out loans and that is not the players fault their family cant provide for them.
 
Mac makes a good argument but it is the CHOICE of the kids and their parents for a kid to attend college and play basketball.

Poor kids who can't play bb simply are unable to go to college without massive loans and such.

The kid is already getting a free education and what does an education cost these days? What does 5 years at Iowa (considering the kid takes a redshirt) cost--$50,000 $60,000 or more? That is a pretty good deal in my opinion. If the kid's parents cannot help him get spending money, then perhaps the kid should not be going to school?

Many of the kids who go to college, go to college to play bb not for the education so IMO THAT is THEIR problem. Players should not be paid unless colleges are ready to pay spending money to kids on academic scholarship. But you say, THAT kid can get a job for spending money. Can he/her? They are probably taking a very rigorous course load in an extremely difficult major simply because they ARE on scholarship. Maybe they don't have time to work?

I don't see anybody worried about the kid on an academic scholarship as to whether that kid has spending money. THAT is up to his/her parents is it not? If they have poor credit what does the kid on scholarship do? Of course, he/she might be able to get a job but can they really?

No, a $50,000 to $100,000 or more scholarship is being paid QUITE WELL imo. Quite well indeed.

Instead we worry about kids who come to a school to primarily play BB/FB or whatever. In those two sports, many of the kids take pretty easy courses in a pretty easy major. But, you say, bb/fb is very rigorous and takes a huge amount of their time. Do you think studying very long hours to keep his/her academic scholarship might not take a long time for the academic scholarship kid?

Paying kids to play sports in college is a bad bad idea. They are ALREADY being paid anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 or more for 5 years. They are already being paid to go to college.
 
How does this situation lead one to think that anyone needs to pay players? Seriously, get a clue. A great education would have lead to a lot more but this guy, apparently, just ****** it away. Many, many, many college students scrimp and save, just like a lot of non college students, without taking advantage of another person like this. Stop treating college athletics like pro sports, how does that sound?
 
Pete Rose belongs in the HOF. College football needs a playoff. I guess this debate never gets old.:cool:
 
NewMexHawk said:
Mac makes a good argument but it is the CHOICE of the kids and their parents for a kid to attend college and play basketball.

Poor kids who can't play bb simply are unable to go to college without massive loans and such.

The kid is already getting a free education and what does an education cost these days? What does 5 years at Iowa (considering the kid takes a redshirt) cost--$50,000 $60,000 or more? That is a pretty good deal in my opinion. If the kid's parents cannot help him get spending money, then perhaps the kid should not be going to school?

Many of the kids who go to college, go to college to play bb not for the education so IMO THAT is THEIR problem. Players should not be paid unless colleges are ready to pay spending money to kids on academic scholarship. But you say, THAT kid can get a job for spending money. Can he/her? They are probably taking a very rigorous course load in an extremely difficult major simply because they ARE on scholarship. Maybe they don't have time to work?

I don't see anybody worried about the kid on an academic scholarship as to whether that kid has spending money. THAT is up to his/her parents is it not? If they have poor credit what does the kid on scholarship do? Of course, he/she might be able to get a job but can they really?

No, a $50,000 to $100,000 or more scholarship is being paid QUITE WELL imo. Quite well indeed.

Instead we worry about kids who come to a school to primarily play BB/FB or whatever. In those two sports, many of the kids take pretty easy courses in a pretty easy major. But, you say, bb/fb is very rigorous and takes a huge amount of their time. Do you think studying very long hours to keep his/her academic scholarship might not take a long time for the academic scholarship kid?

Paying kids to play sports in college is a bad bad idea. They are ALREADY being paid anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 or more for 5 years. They are already being paid to go to college.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets say a kid is on an academic scholly. They dont have to worry about their scholarship being took away if they accept a gift from someone. A player could commit a violation just by getting a few dollars for gas or a meal from someone. The University does NOT have to pay them, but dont make it so no one else who wants to give them money cant do it.
 
See mac, I am actually in favor of paying players, but I see things a little different than I think you do. I think for the most part, the role of a student athlete at the high D1 level is a sham. Many of these kids really don't have any business in college. Since the university is making some serious coin from these athletes, I think they should be paid. Let them go to class if they want an education, but don't make it mandatory (how many do you think would take advantage of this opportunity?). Now, if they are on the university pay role, if they get caught accepting anything from anyone, they are done. Any added cash from anyone but the university would be considered an attempt to buy a players cooperation in a points shaving scheme. Major college athletics would now be a for profit minor pro league that benefits the university and the athletes. End of story.
 
They don't have to go to college to play. There already is a minor league they can go to.......it's called the SEC. I wonder how many Ohio State players will be heading down south now that their sugar daddy is gone. I wonder how long it will take them to dig up a new buckeye pimp?

Who really believes that giving these kids a spending allowance would change anything? The scum that is destroying the college game would only be more corrupt than they all ready are if we started paying the players. Once you go down that road then then the next step would be paying high school kids. Corruption is a slippery slope.........(see US Congress). :)
 
They are already getting paid. It is called a free education. It's worth quite a lot actually. What some people forget about is the education is free (lets face it 90% of these kids do not end up playing professional sports) it means they do not have student loans to pay once they get into the working world. This can be quite a load. My wife would love for someone to pay the $450 a month I have to pay, and I was a student athlete. I wasn't a student athlete on the D1 level by any means, but I still had the some committments these guys have. I think the $50,000-$70,000 they get now is quite the payment.
 
Mac50702 said:
1. They are not like the rest of the student body

2. Not every players family have the credit to take out loans and that is not the players fault their family cant provide for them.
Click to expand...
Correct the rest of the student body doesn't get college paid for.
Funny their family kind of sounds like my family and I wasn't a scholarship athlete.
 
Last edited:
Everyone keeps talking about a free education. What about the walkons who have to pay their own way. They are not getting a free education, but they would be held to the same rules as scholarship athletes.
 
It's funny how the original poster was joking and it actually turned into a thread about paying players instead of this guy being a literal pimp. :)
 
Paying players? No. But, there are some rules that I think needs to be relaxed. College athletes get an opportunity that most students don't. But they are denied an awful lot of things that a typical college student can do/get.

1. Drew Tate has to refuse prize money for winning a hole-in-one contest. I wouldn't have to do that as a normal student.

2. Jeremy Bloom. An Olympic-class skier is forced to choose either skiing (and the Olympics) or college football. The NCAA really dropped the ball on this case. The endorsements that Bloom had were ONLY regarding his talents as a skier, and he needed that money to fund his training (training at that level can cost in excess of $100,000 per year). He wasn't out buying an Escalade or 300. He was training for the Olympics. Ineligible.

I remember reading about Darnell Autry, who was a drama major, having to go through all kinds of red tape just to get a 5-minute cameo in a low-budget film. If he were any average college student, he could take the lead role in a blockbuster if a director/producer wanted him. But since he's a college athlete, his opportunity was severely narrow and limited.

And all the while, the schools, Nike, and EA Sports are making millions off of these players through jersey and video game sales. This has always been an issue that's gotten under my skin. I'm still against paying players, but there are other ways to make their lives better than just giving them money. Just give them more opportunities that other students are allowed to have.
 
I think paying college athletes will bring a multitude of problems along with it. Granted - college athletes are hampered by some of the rules in accepting money - but you need to look back at why the NCAA put those rules in place in the first place. I could go on and on but will try to stay specific with my points as they could be debated for days.

1) You will always have athletes that will want more (even if you do pay them) so for those athletes that always want more - I dont forsee much changing there.
2) You bring on additional costs to the university in regards to taxes and payroll.
3) I could easily see the costs of game tickets going up to pay them - do you think the universities are going to incur that additional cost - think again. I for one already have a hard time affording game tickets.
4) They get free room and board and a free education to boot - those that are not gifted athletes dont share the same luxury - therefore I think its an fairly even trade off.
5) Eventually this could end up like the NFL where the players may feel that what they get is not enough and we end up with the possiblity of a lost season.

And on and on. I just think if they head down this path - some issues will be resolved but think that in the end - there is better reasoning behind not paying them than there is if they do get paid.
 
tm3308 said:
Paying players? No. But, there are some rules that I think needs to be relaxed. College athletes get an opportunity that most students don't. But they are denied an awful lot of things that a typical college student can do/get.

1. Drew Tate has to refuse prize money for winning a hole-in-one contest. I wouldn't have to do that as a normal student.

2. Jeremy Bloom. An Olympic-class skier is forced to choose either skiing (and the Olympics) or college football. The NCAA really dropped the ball on this case. The endorsements that Bloom had were ONLY regarding his talents as a skier, and he needed that money to fund his training (training at that level can cost in excess of $100,000 per year). He wasn't out buying an Escalade or 300. He was training for the Olympics. Ineligible.
Click to expand...

The problem with getting rid of these rules is that if they weren't in place, boosters and other jock-sniffers would abuse these situations.

If it were legal for college athletes to accept prizes like Tate's, that tattoo shop in Columbus would have set up a scam 'raffle' or contest that OSU players would conveniently win every week. Every car dealer in town would set up arm-wrestling contests with free cars as prizes. Tate's situation did kind of suck, but there's no way to separate the real, honest things like that one from the scammy payola schemes that would happen if the restrictions were lifted.

Same thing with #2. Rich boosters would claim that star stud quarterback was also training for the state bowling tournament and offer huge $$ for fake endorsements.

There's just no way to open this up without people taking advantage of it.
 
Don't pay players. Raise the academic requirements. Get the guys that are just coming to play sports out of college where they never belonged in the first place.
 
I think the OP has failed to think this all the way through. You can't just pay the star football player. You'll have to pay every single athlete at the school.
That means: all the football players, all the basketball players (men & women) , all the baseball players, all the softball players, all the volleyball players, all the track athletes (men & women), all the lacrosse players, (men & women), all the soccer players(men & women), all the golfers (men & women), and on and on and on.
A free or reduced education is one hell of a deal!
I worked my *** off to get through college. Athletes can do the same. My parents had no money to give me either and I survived.
Pay NCAA athletes = stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top