Should college athletes be paid?

[Guest wildrover]

Though they may only be able to take one grant or scholarship, I believe student loans are still available to them aren't they?  

[FormerPokeCenter]

Student loans?  So, you'd have them be indentured servants for four years of undergraduate work and THEN leave school with a debt?

I think guaranteed student loans need a showing of need, but I could be wrong.  Maybe somebody with kids currently in college could comment..

[twillybull]

If the system were really fair, there would be NO college football  :'(  Or at least it wouldn't be the same.  Because... there would also be a minor league, where players are paid what they're worth.  

[Minotaur]

#$&* NO!! This is the craziest argument I have ever heard. If you pay football players you have to pay womens shotput players. They are paid enough in scholarships, living expenses and on the job training. Its the worst thing that could happen to college athletics.

I would rather see no scholarship teams competeing. KILL AGENTS!! KILL CHEATS!! Somebody help me sober up by tommorrow.

[FormerPokeCenter]

No living expenses are paid.    They can eat on a meal plan and they get their books and tuition  and fees taken care of....

That's what the whole argument is about.

Besides, the whole "paid enough" argument is weak, at best.   Suppose a kid whose been indentured to the football team for 4 years sustains a catastrophic career ending injury to, say, his knee.  Is what he was "paid" sufficient to compensate him for this?

Before you say "yes," go have a knee reconstruction or two and then tell me you feel the same way....

[Minotaur]

I am in need of a reconstruction, I graduated from USF and cannot afford one but I do not blame them. In fact I am indebted to them for allowing me to go into debt to reach my BA degree even though I am not using it.

What would be enough? The newest hip threads, a car sound system and some tunes and some bling so they can score Sherriff style off the field? $400/week? $1,000/week?

Who is more valuable a straight A student with no problems who plays womens golf in font of nobody or a stud QB from Miami who is highly touted but is smoking his way to Pearl CC? Are they paid the same? I say the lady is far more vaulable and neither is paid anything other than thier schooling expenses. If they have kids or other responsibilities, than that is what they are, thier responsibilities. They are either getting an education or getting training for the 1:1000 shot at becoming a pro athelte and that is enough.

Sorry if you do not feel the same, but take a student loan and then tell me how valuable free education is to you.

***edited due to drunkenness - my apologies.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I think a modest stipend, something along the lines of $200 a month, wouldn't be too outrageous....If a student is on a partial scholarship, the pro-rate the stipend accordingly....

If that's not acceptable, then drop the rules which limit how they can obtain income during the school year...

[Guest BasketBull.]

The only answer here is: Plasma bank!

It's a renewable resource, and it's good money.

[Knight_Light]

The teaser for Doug Woolard on WTVT's NewsEdge program was asking the question whether college athletes should receive part of the billions of dollars that college athletics pays every year.

My position - which is what Woolard has said: they are paid - tuition, books, room, board.  At USF that can be $30,000 or more over a college career.  They also have access to professional trainers and their own 'private' weight training area.  Oh, and tutors to help them with their classes.

They do not need to be paid in cash - or if they are paid, you should charge them for their education  and other services that are not provided to the general population.

Answer: No

For out-of-state players...5 year college room, board, tuition, books, etc....could end up being a $100,000 "payment". Plus, a lifetime of EARNINGS for having a good, college, education (probably $1.5 Million - $5 Million for many)

Does anyone think...with Title IX on the books, which already STATES that REVENUE for an individual sport can't be used to circumvent over sporting programs at said school? (obviously for women sports too).

There is ZERO legal chance that the NCAA can approve those football programs & basketball programs that produce a profit (not as many as one might think) can pay THOSE players...but not pay Women Softball players? Women Volleyball players? Swim Team Members? Track & Field? Archery? Lacross? Field Hockey? Soccer? Bowling? et al?

Not many smart analyst bring up the legal aspects of this idea (insert Dan Sileo here), but that's why this idea will never ever work, let alone be LEGAL.

KL

[Joe]

An NCAA athlete cannot have a job during the school year.  They can't stack scholarships, or convert another scholarship's value for cash.  If an NCAA athlete accepts an athletic scholarship, he or she pretty much takes a vow of poverty, agreeing to accept only THAT financial aid.

Not true anymore.

Student Athletes can work in season. In fact many did for the school I worked at (sorry not allowed ot mention the name because it is private info). They must be compensated like anyone else who would have gotten that job would be. NCAA Bylaws 15.2.7 the compensation part in somewhere in section 12, don't know it off my head.

Most don't because they just don't have time or fears by the institution that it could have some type of booster type problems. Rhett Bomar worked for the car company 5 hours a week during the football season last year.

The problem is it gives the compliance department MAJOR headaches as they have to keep track of these kids. Many gets jobs through boosters, which is fine, so long as they are paid the same as anyone else would in that position.