Over the past few years the debate about college athletes being paid has been a hot topic in the world of sports. What do you guys think? Should college athletes receive a financial stipend for playing a sport?
Most of them already do. It's called a free education. If that's not enough, they are more than welcome to shop their talents elsewhere.
its a tricky subject, but i lean more on the side of that they get paid $30k+ a semester to play a game and get an education. Oh and if they are good enough they get special accolades such as very expensive trophies,rings,etc. etc. . Lets not forget the free advertisement they receive to show off their skills to the country/world in a bid to try and make millions upon millions in their respective sports. And if they dont they can get a good degree in any field they wish to help carry them in life after sports.
They should be paid. The vast majority will not play professional sports, and are simply exploited by the colleges...in particular the alum who could careless about the student in student-athlete. This exploitation is particularly evident in your large Division I football/basketball programs, wherein the student-athlete is dedicated almost year round to their sport, putting their education on the back burner. Sure they get a "free" education, but most of their time is dedicated to their sport, not to getting an education. It's a farce. Pay them a percentage of what the school grosses on TV revenue, ticket sales and merchandise...
These are adults we are talking about. If they have a better avenue to take in life over that of college athletics, then they are certainly welcome to take that road, and many in that situation do. No one is forcing anyone into college athletics, so this notion of 'exploitation' is silly. And besides, once colleges get into paying players you're really going to see the big schools take over and the smaller ones fall behind. No more revelant sports programs at the smaller schools.
I agree that it's a tricky subject since the revenue from the sports could not be brought in without the players themselves. However, by getting a free education, the players are essentially being saved $120,000-200,000 that they would have paid for their college education. Another issue is college sports were always viewed as an amateur sports league where players would compete out of pride for their schools. If you paid the players, it would destroy the sense of amateurism in college athletics and many players would play solely for the money. Personally, I think that people should go to college to get an education and enjoy the opportunity to play sports for the name of their school, not get paid to play sports (and by that I mean getting an additional financial stipend in addition to what they are receiving from free tuition.) One other aspect of this whole pay-for-play debate is all of the illegal benefits schools and coaches have been giving their players. Schools like Ohio State and Miami have been investigated or convicted for giving these illegal benefits to players. Would these illegal benefits go away if players were given an additional financial stipend? Personally, I think that some schools and coaches will still do whatever they can to get ahead and therefore get the best players, even if it means cheating the system, so I doubt that by paying college athletes money that all of the illegal benefits would go away.
I think something that is often overlooked is that athletes in football and basketball are forced to attend colleges before becoming pros. Many of them, especially the best ones, would gladly pass over college altogether and go straight to the big leagues. Many more leave school early, never to go back and get their degrees. Doesn't a football player who could easily make $20,000,000 in the three years he has to be in school deserve to receive some sort of compensation? Do you honestly expect me to believe that $120,000 of an education he'll never use is comparable to the lost salary?
College coaches get paid like big pro dollars,If a student gets hurt bad enough while playing for a college,and don't get a degree to bad .Winners Schools & Coaches.
there are more college teams than you see on ESPN. It's not only football and basketball the top sports reward top players with free education, housing, meals, books, lab fees etc. On top of that, they receive free apparel and sneakers. soccer players train just as hard and the requirements of training are vigorous yet they might receive enough scholarship money to cover 1/4 if they are lucky and some, get nothing or a stipend toward books. How often are those athletes discussed and their graduation rate? What about gymnastics, band members, lacrosse, baseball, wrestling, hockey, volleyball etc etc etc They all take road trips and maintain a good GPA.
A College football Player has no alternative to the college game. The NFL won't take players under a certain age, or until they've attended college for at least 2 years. The NCAA basically has a monopoly on NFL quality football talent, and they reap great profits from it. The players should be paid.
A university loses money on every sport except football and basketball, but if you want to place your blame anywhere then you can thank title IX. A program is not going to cut scholarships from the football program and reward them to the soccer program, seeing as that football program fully funds that soccer program. And since title IX guarantees women's athletics receive the same number of scholarships as the men's program, you have irrelevant women's sports eating up scholarship that would have been rewarded to your soccer team.
Yes, there are more college teams, but hockey players, soccer players, tennis players, golf players, swimmers, etc. do not have to go to college. If they're good enough, they can turn professional whenever they want to. And those who are not good enough, aren't losing future profits by staying in school because they wouldn't make any if they tried to turn pro. Their education is actually what will make them their money. Their education is more valuable than that of an NFL or NBA prospect. These leagues force their future players to attend colleges and actively prevent them from making money. That's where the problem is.
No, they don't. The CFL accepts players at 18 years old, and there have been pleanty of CFL to NFL crossovers. And off the top of my head, Antonio Gates went to college but never played football while there. The vast majority do though, because it is by far the best opportunity given to them.
Absolutely they should be paid, and they are.In the form of tuition and room and board. And let's not forget to add in tutors, medical, etc etc that the school picks up the tab for every year. And I think we all know that college athletes at every major school don't pay for anything when they are out and about town. Also, even the kids who don't go pro have it made after graduation if they played sports. It's all about investing their time for four years for a future payout. They deserve no extra money.
Players that have successfully transfered from the CFL or Euro leagues to the NFL or NBA (like Jeff Garcia and Brandon Jennings) are absolutely the exception and not the rule. I shouldn't have said forced because technically they aren't forced. But as you said, colleges are the best option available to them. All i'm questioning is the fairness of that. Just because its the best option available doesn't mean that it is a good option or that there are not better options possible. I think that paying players would vastly improve both college and professional play. Players who might otherwise leave early due to financial concerns could potentially stay in college and extra year or two improving their skill level and making them even more marketable when they eventually do turn professional. P.S. Antonio Gates and Jimmy Graham both played basketball in college (Kent State and Miami respectively).
CFL players are the exception to the rule because college to NFL is a far more lucrative option. But lets be honest, only a small fraction of these kids, even in major programs, will ever be signed to an NFL or NBA contract. And a player could just as easily improve his skill level in the pros as he could on the college level. Not to mention the threat of blowing out a knee of worse which could send their stock plummeting when the real money comes calling. Let me ask you, would you like to pay all college athletes? Or just the college football and basketball players? Or just the small percentage of college stars, kids that have a chance at at the next level?
I'm curious as to where you would suggest that this money would come from? A big concern is the fact that most athletic departments across the country lose money on a year-to-year basis. Also, in which sports would you pay the players? Would it only be the big sports, like football and basketball, or would it be for every sport? - - - Updated - - -
Where would the money come from? Boosters, same place the under the table money comes from now. There is no shortage of money in college athletics.
Ahh, so you're really going to screw everyone outside of a few schools then? An Ohio State or USC could pull in 10 times the revenue from boosters that a Purdue or Louisville could. So much for a college education being revelant, eh?
