PDA

View Full Version : Is Room, Board and an Education Enough?


houghtam
08-17-2011, 07:34 PM
Simple Question. Simple choices.

The Joker
08-17-2011, 07:41 PM
They should probably give them a few hundred dollars a week to compensate for the fact that they can't work part-time.

Bronco Boy
08-17-2011, 07:43 PM
Magnum condoms should also be gratis.

Inkana7
08-17-2011, 07:44 PM
I don't think they should be paid per se, because then what's the point of the NFL or having age restrictions on the draft? But some sort of stipend built into their financial aid would probably be a good thing.

schaaf
08-17-2011, 07:49 PM
I think they should be given something like 500 a month, in college football you have no other time for a job, they should be given a little something.... Have it similar to a work study job

houghtam
08-17-2011, 07:49 PM
I don't think they should be paid per se, but some sort of stipend built into their financial aid would probably be a good thing.

Okay, but the question wasn't "should players be paid?", it was "is room, board and an education enough?"

Your answer makes it sound like it's not.

tsiguy96
08-17-2011, 07:52 PM
absolutely. if its not, student loans are available like the rest of us had to take out.

i think people tend to forget, these STUDENTS play for an education. the vast, vast majority will need to use that education for something later in life. the money brought in by these programs, if there is any profit at all, is used for academic and sport purposes outside of the world of football. they are at school to be in school, they are not professional athletes. rev has been pimping joe pa lately, that guy has his head on straight as to the priorities of athletes in COLLEGE.

OBF1
08-17-2011, 08:10 PM
Here is a breakdown on attending USC in Los Angeles

Estimate of Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Costs for Undergraduate Students
The estimate of costs in the table below would be for a USC undergraduate who:

is full-time (taking 12-18 units during both fall and spring semesters)
is living in university housing
has a meal plan
has season football tickets
has a transportation allowance
(Fall / Spring academic year)

$42,162 Tuition
1,109 Student Health Insurance (may be waived with proof of sufficient coverage)
488 Student Health Service fee (mandatory)
155 Student Season Football Tickets (optional)
656 Mandatory fees: Student Programming, Student Services, and Topping Aid (see Other Costs* below...)
12,078 Room and board (rent & meal plans)
1,500 Books and supplies
1,825 Personal / Miscellaneous
828

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (parking permit) or $796 - Housing (parking permit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$60,801 Total (add $150 USC Orientation Fee for your first semester)

60,000 a year is not enough of a "Payment"... I sure call that being paid, just ask anyone that is paying the 60K or taking out student loans to cover it. That is $240,000 over a 4 year period.

houghtam
08-17-2011, 08:23 PM
Here is a breakdown on attending USC in Los Angeles

Estimate of Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Costs for Undergraduate Students
The estimate of costs in the table below would be for a USC undergraduate who:

is full-time (taking 12-18 units during both fall and spring semesters)
is living in university housing
has a meal plan
has season football tickets
has a transportation allowance
(Fall / Spring academic year)

$42,162 Tuition
1,109 Student Health Insurance (may be waived with proof of sufficient coverage)
488 Student Health Service fee (mandatory)
155 Student Season Football Tickets (optional)
656 Mandatory fees: Student Programming, Student Services, and Topping Aid (see Other Costs* below...)
12,078 Room and board (rent & meal plans)
1,500 Books and supplies
1,825 Personal / Miscellaneous
828

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (parking permit) or $796 - Housing (parking permit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$60,801 Total (add $150 USC Orientation Fee for your first semester)

60,000 a year is not enough of a "Payment"... I sure call that being paid, just ask anyone that is paying the 60K or taking out student loans to cover it. That is $240,000 over a 4 year period.

So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

tsiguy96
08-17-2011, 08:27 PM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

one is contributing to the true purpose of a university, expansion of knowledge, the other is there for entertainment. you do realize what the real reason for a university is right? i mean you went to college, why do you think its simply there to be a football factory? and why are you now trying to say that football players are more deserving than people being rewarded for good grades?

besides, the academic son raises the average incoming GPA of the school, which increases its prestige in the country and allows them to be more selective with incoming freshman, which increases the general intelligence of the student base creating more opportunities for research, which brings in far more money than football.

McDman
08-17-2011, 08:29 PM
They should probably give them a few hundred dollars a week to compensate for the fact that they can't work part-time.

They do, they get a stipend. Although it isn't much, it's more than anyone else gets.

McDman
08-17-2011, 08:31 PM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

Problem is, you can't just pay the athletes that make money for the school. For a lot of schools that is only football. Plus, if you pay all of them you have to pay the women the same amount.

Even if we paid players they'd still get paid more under the table and it'd be the same thing as right now.

Bronco Boy
08-17-2011, 08:32 PM
one is contributing to the true purpose of a university, expansion of knowledge, the other is there for entertainment. you do realize what the real reason for a university is right? i mean you went to college, why do you think its simply there to be a football factory? and why are you now trying to say that football players are more deserving than people being rewarded for good grades?

besides, the academic son raises the average incoming GPA of the school, which increases its prestige in the country and allows them to be more selective with incoming freshman, which increases the general intelligence of the student base creating more opportunities for research, which brings in far more money than football.

So by that logic a 4.0 student who also wins a Heisman should get paid, right?

houghtam
08-17-2011, 08:33 PM
one is contributing to the true purpose of a university, expansion of knowledge, the other is there for entertainment. you do realize what the real reason for a university is right? i mean you went to college, why do you think its simply there to be a football factory? and why are you now trying to say that football players are more deserving than people being rewarded for good grades?

besides, the academic son raises the average incoming GPA of the school, which increases its prestige in the country and allows them to be more selective with incoming freshman, which increases the general intelligence of the student base creating more opportunities for research, which brings in far more money than football.

Oh I absolutely agree that a university's primary purpose is for education. However the point stands that times have changed, and it is the universities and the NCAA who have made athletics (primarily football) into a cash cow. I could say the same for you, that I'm surprised that you, a college football fan, doesn't support paying athletes in direct proportion to the amount of money they generate for the university.

Willynowei
08-17-2011, 08:37 PM
Of course they are worth more than the $240k in tuition. Some of these guys are bring in millions for the school, they increase notoriety and attract a larger applicant pool, often leading to a more selective admissions process and a stronger student body.

The real issue is that some of these schools are public institutions (at least in part) and then you go down the slippery slope of justifying why ray rice should get paid for playing at rutgers but not Lebron James for his play in high school.

razorwire77
08-17-2011, 08:39 PM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

And that's not including the gigantic amount of revenue generated for the universities by selling star players jerseys (Tebow, Cam etc.)

At this point, I wish the marquee football universities and the NCAA would drop the pretenses and just create a sports (football, basketball etc.) career path major with a modest paid component. In addition to the basics required for a university studies degree, with each year, a potential pro caliber athlete is taught how to invest their future earnings, how to interact with the media, how to read interpret a contract, what to expect if you move overseas etc. For those kids that are not on the cusp of going pro, incorporate classes on coaching football. Call it an enhanced stipend, call it a paid internship, but it would allow poorest kids on scholarship to have some pocket money, drive a somewhat decent car (legally), and to act as a deterrent against the sharks, the boosters and agents. Once you establish a paid system, those students that continue to take elicit money outside the school should have the hammer dropped on them.

tsiguy96
08-17-2011, 08:42 PM
Oh I absolutely agree that a university's primary purpose is for education. However the point stands that times have changed, and it is the universities and the NCAA who have made athletics (primarily football) into a cash cow. I could say the same for you, that I'm surprised that you, a college football fan, doesn't support paying athletes in direct proportion to the amount of money they generate for the university.

i think you missed the part where we talked about how most universities do not profit on football. and the money they do profit is used to support academics and other athletic events, why is that so wrong? college athletics is not a free market, nor will it ever be or should be (good luck paying college football but no other sports, as i said in the other thread, that will be fun to settle in court). title IX and equality have come a long way.

im a college football fan, but being a teacher right now i realize the purpose of college is a degree first and foremost, and these guys are getting one for free. they also get the experience and growth that comes from a college sporting event. but i think everyone who says "just pay them" forgets that these kids are college students, they go to class and have finals like everyone else. they are not professional athletes, yet. when they are, they have the door open to them for whatever money they can make.

any publicly funded university is not going to pay their college football players and no one else, its really that simple. legally, i dont see any way they COULD, even if i did support it. and with that, im going to bed.

robbieopperude
08-17-2011, 08:51 PM
I think the players should be able to sell there jerseys, autographs, do photo sessions or whatever else they want and get paid. Also if they want to work at Taco Johns part time and can fit that in then they should be able to do that too. As long as they aren't allowing student athletes that right then the education is not enough.

Willynowei
08-17-2011, 08:56 PM
i think you missed the part where we talked about how most universities do not profit on football. and the money they do profit is used to support academics and other athletic events, why is that so wrong? college athletics is not a free market, nor will it ever be or should be (good luck paying college football but no other sports, as i said in the other thread, that will be fun to settle in court). title IX and equality have come a long way.

im a college football fan, but being a teacher right now i realize the purpose of college is a degree first and foremost, and these guys are getting one for free. they also get the experience and growth that comes from a college sporting event. but i think everyone who says "just pay them" forgets that these kids are college students, they go to class and have finals like everyone else. they are not professional athletes, yet. when they are, they have the door open to them for whatever money they can make.

any publicly funded university is not going to pay their college football players and no one else, its really that simple. legally, i dont see any way they COULD, even if i did support it. and with that, im going to bed.

1.) (excluding state schools) Colleges are for the most part, private institutions that provide a service (higher education) for revenue in a for-profit business model. They are a business, and they are getting discounted labor, its that simple. There's nothing "wrong" with investing a portion of their net income into expansion, and there is nothing "wrong" with compensating the people that allow them to do that either.

2.) Being a student doesn't affect the product they deliver on the field. We have already attached a value to the tuition - its 240k over 4 years. Some of these players bring in so much revenue for the school that if the institution were to compete for their services, they might be paid 2.4 million over the same period of time. In that case, why not deduct the tuition value and pay the difference?

3.) Some programs break even or are in the red, that is irrelevant. The employee is paid by how much revenue he/she generates, not by how healthy the firm's bottom line is looking (bonus aside).

4.) If other college athletes are generating revenue comparable to these football players, then they should be paid too. In either case, this will simply alter the flow of expenses for the schools current football program. 2.5 million less will go to the stadium, and into the pocket of players.

Mogulseeker
08-17-2011, 09:04 PM
I think they should be given something like 500 a month, in college football you have no other time for a job, they should be given a little something.... Have it similar to a work study job

^

Mogulseeker
08-17-2011, 09:05 PM
1.) (excluding state schools) Colleges are for the most part, private institutions that provide a service (higher education) for revenue in a for-profit business model. They are a business, and they are getting discounted labor, its that simple. There's nothing "wrong" with investing a portion of their net income into expansion, and there is nothing "wrong" with compensating the people that allow them to do that either.

2.) Being a student doesn't affect the product they deliver on the field. We have already attached a value to the tuition - its 240k over 4 years. Some of these players bring in so much revenue for the school that if the institution were to compete for their services, they might be paid 2.4 million over the same period of time. In that case, why not deduct the tuition value and pay the difference?

3.) Some programs break even or are in the red, that is irrelevant. The employee is paid by how much revenue he/she generates, not by how healthy the firm's bottom line is looking (bonus aside).

4.) If other college athletes are generating revenue comparable to these football players, then they should be paid too. In either case, this will simply alter the flow of expenses for the schools current football program. 2.5 million less will go to the stadium, and into the pocket of players.

There is a difference between private and for-profit schools.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
08-17-2011, 09:07 PM
No it isn't. These players make most of the money for these schools, and they got to play for room, board and tution?

Archer81
08-17-2011, 09:07 PM
Pay the players. Pull their scholarships. Why spend 60k a year to house and feed a guy making a salary?

:Broncos:

yerner
08-17-2011, 09:17 PM
Alabama's football program brought in something like 60 million in revenue last year. They sell jersey's with the kids names on the back of them and get nothing. They are getting pimped.

Most of these dudes don't want anything more than money to go out to eat and drink with. Give them some spending money and alot of this bull**** goes away. Not to mention the fact that us watching the whole thing aren't blatantly participating in the corruption and turning a blind eye. I used to think it was possible to enforce the rules, it isn't, so things need to change.

Kaylore
08-17-2011, 09:20 PM
The answer is no because they aren't allowed to have jobs which is a bunch of crap.

DBroncos4life
08-17-2011, 09:20 PM
It will take money away from some programs athletics. Why would Duke keep a football team when it can focus its money on paying basketball plaers. Samething with NU and its basketball team.

ludo21
08-17-2011, 09:22 PM
A stipend for weekend expenses (food, bills) is fine with me.

House for parents, cars, time on yacths and hotels and all that garbage no way.

HAT
08-17-2011, 09:23 PM
Is room, board and an education enough for college football athletes?

No....But add in the exposure that the universities are providing these kids and then it becomes enough.

I don't agree with pay for play but I'm down with guys being able to market their own name & image while in school like opperdude suggested.

extralife
08-17-2011, 09:23 PM
They absolutely should not get paid. Schools all over the country are cutting entire departments left and right, the professor market is a racket, everything that isn't "in" at the moment is underfunded, and tuition keeps going up and up for actual students. and you want to pay the idiot football players that are going to take thousands from boosters and end up in the news for all the wrong reasons anyway? and if you do pay them, what do you say to the basketball players, who also "don't have the time for a job"? and heaven forbid, what do you say to the women's volleyball players? "sorry, grow a dick"?

here's the change that should be made: allow players to capitalize off of their fame. they want to sell autographs, they should be able to (maybe the school should get a cut, I don't know). they should be free to sign deals with advertisers. they should get a cut of jersey sales. it would be quickly apparent that of all the football players in schools in America, only like 1% would make any money from this. it just happens to be that 1% that is complaining (because most of them have no desire to be in school anyway--they went to be a football player. the whole system is broken and idiotic, but I can't blame players with NFL dreams and prospects for going to school to get a football degree. it's the only option).

epicSocialism4tw
08-17-2011, 09:24 PM
Here is a breakdown on attending USC in Los Angeles

Estimate of Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Costs for Undergraduate Students
The estimate of costs in the table below would be for a USC undergraduate who:

is full-time (taking 12-18 units during both fall and spring semesters)
is living in university housing
has a meal plan
has season football tickets
has a transportation allowance
(Fall / Spring academic year)

$42,162 Tuition
1,109 Student Health Insurance (may be waived with proof of sufficient coverage)
488 Student Health Service fee (mandatory)
155 Student Season Football Tickets (optional)
656 Mandatory fees: Student Programming, Student Services, and Topping Aid (see Other Costs* below...)
12,078 Room and board (rent & meal plans)
1,500 Books and supplies
1,825 Personal / Miscellaneous
828

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (parking permit) or $796 - Housing (parking permit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$60,801 Total (add $150 USC Orientation Fee for your first semester)

60,000 a year is not enough of a "Payment"... I sure call that being paid, just ask anyone that is paying the 60K or taking out student loans to cover it. That is $240,000 over a 4 year period.

Tuition, housing, and university-related fees are not of cost to the university and should not in any way be considered payment. Maybe as part of a larger compensation package, but not on its own. Its more egregious than the old "buy it at the company store" bit.

sgbfan
08-17-2011, 09:27 PM
They are getting a free education and plenty of resources to live off of while trying out for a job where they can make millions. The University sets them of with 2 options for a career path, one being extremely lucrative.

houghtam
08-17-2011, 09:31 PM
It will take money away from some programs athletics. Why would Duke keep a football team when it can focus its money on paying basketball plaers. Samething with NU and its basketball team.

Duke's basketball team actually lost money last year, according to Cowherd. Don't have the source he used in front of me, but the point is that football makes more money at nearly every university.

DBroncos4life
08-17-2011, 09:37 PM
Duke's basketball team actually lost money last year, according to Cowherd. Don't have the source he used in front of me, but the point is that football makes more money at nearly every university.

I doubt it....

Duke University is the top revenue generating men’s basketball program in the country, generating over 160% more revenue than the national average among other BCS basketball programs
Rank Team MBB Rev Index
1 Duke $26,667,056 2.64
2 Louisville $25,890,003 2.57
3 North Carolina $20,551,168 2.04

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/03/07/duke-louisville-north-carolina-generate-the-most-college-basketball-revenue/

DBroncos4life
08-17-2011, 09:44 PM
I'm sure this is what you are talking about...

It's the only numbers us reporters get to see out in the open: The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. It requires all athletic institutions, both public and private to file an annual report to the Department of Education so that schools can be checked on how they are complying with rules of gender equity (Title IX).

The reports, on the surface, appear to be fairly detailed.

For a school like Duke, the latest report—filed for the 2008-09 season—will tell you that the athletic department spent $13.3 million on student aid, slightly more than $1 million on recruiting and nearly $4 million on assistant coaches salaries.

Photo: Streeter Lecka | Getty Images
Duke Head coach Mike Krzyzewski directs his team during last year's NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But the school also told the government that its basketball program had $13.87 million in expenses and only pulled in $11.84 million in revenue. That's good for a loss of more than $2 million.

First, let's put this all in context.

Rarely does any tournament team report that its basketball team lost money and Duke's filing certainly suggests that the team did spend more than others in expenses. Duke says it spent $394,068 per basketball player for the 2008-09 season. I couldn't find any of this year's tournament teams that spent more than $175,000 per player. It's ACC counterpart Maryland, for example, said it spent $45,000 per player. Why a Duke player costs more than eight times more, I'm still not sure.

Slideshow: The Most Profitable March Madness Teams
The next guess is that the salary of the head coach Mike Krzyzewski is bogging down the numbers. Well, that's not really it either. Remember, plenty of his salary does come from outside the university and Duke, in the same report, said it spent only $6.5 million on all its men's sports head coaches last year.

The real answer is that, while Duke's spending per player does seem to be extraordinarily high when compared to the rest of college basketball, the program in reality did not lose $2 million last year. We have good sources that say the team was fairly well into the green.

The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act is useful because it's all we have, but it's not a complete accounting of an athletic department's budget. Its purpose is to make sure schools are balancing out their commitment to men's and women's sports. The government does not ask for a breakdown, for example, of fundraising from boosters or a breakdown of licensing royalties in per program (you can bet that more than 80% of Duke athletics licensing royalties would be attributed to basketball alone).

That all being said, it's still hard to figure out how the Blue Devils could even be in a position to show a loss. Even East Tennessee State said it pulled in $298,000 last year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35861926/Did_Duke_Basketball_Really_Lose_2_Million

If East Tennessee State made money Duke made money lol.

OBF1
08-17-2011, 10:33 PM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

Apples to apples.... Not even close, your Smart son will show up to class, not get involved in some sort of scandle and spend 4 years getting high marks to become something in life, The other... pick your University of Miami football player, he will be involved in some sort of scandle, use performance enhancing drugs, score an 8-10 on his wonderlic test and want to leave school early.

Yep, not the same thing at all.

BroncoMan4ever
08-17-2011, 10:41 PM
student athletes aren't allowed to work jobs, add in that even if they were they wouldn't have the time with the commitment to classes, practices and games.

these guys are bringing in millions for their schools, the least the schools could do is toss them a few hundred bucks a month so they can live.

houghtam
08-17-2011, 10:43 PM
Apples to apples.... Not even close, your Smart son will show up to class, not get involved in some sort of scandle and spend 4 years getting high marks to become something in life, The other... pick your University of Miami football player, he will be involved in some sort of scandle, use performance enhancing drugs, score an 8-10 on his wonderlic test and want to leave school early.

Yep, not the same thing at all.

Wow, dodge the entire conversation much? I can play too! My smart son will get some chick knocked up and drop out of school becaus e he parties too much, while my football player son wins the Heisman, gets drafted 1st overall, and makes millions of dollars.

Meanwhile the university he played for still makes money years after the fact simply through association.

Arguments are easy to win if you play them in fantasyland.

Fedaykin
08-17-2011, 10:45 PM
They are often (not always) wasting a spot that should go to someone more deserving and more likely to actually make good use of of the educational opportunities. I see no need to also pay them to do so.

serious hops
08-17-2011, 10:51 PM
In terms of monetary value, yes, I think it's enough. But the unfortunate truth is that the majority of these guys probably don't end up getting much value out of the education. Which is on them, no doubt-- but quite frankly, a LOT of college ballers probably would never have gone to college in the first place if not for athletics. If a guy's just not bright enough to handle the upper-level class work, the education doesn't present much real, usable value to him.

And I'm pretty sure there is no simple answer. I do like the idea of creating a more specialized track for "student"-athletes who are only there to play sports. Allow them to earn an Associates degree while still maintaining their four years of eligibility, which in turn allows them to attend fewer classes-- then pay them the difference in tuition. I don't know, something along those lines. I truly don't think there is a perfect solution, but there certainly has to be something better than the current model.

Mogulseeker
08-17-2011, 11:00 PM
Tuition, housing, and university-related fees are not of cost to the university and should not in any way be considered payment. Maybe as part of a larger compensation package, but not on its own. Its more egregious than the old "buy it at the company store" bit.

Drrrr.... They're absolutely of cost to the University.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 12:08 AM
Drrrr.... They're absolutely of cost to the University.

A seat in four different 100-400 seat lecture halls doesn't cost a dadgum penny.

Bronco Boy
08-18-2011, 12:15 AM
A seat in four different 100-400 seat lecture halls doesn't cost a dadgum penny.

Classroom costs are more than just a seat in a room derpshyte.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 12:26 AM
Classroom costs are more than just a seat in a room derpshyte.

Oh, you must mean that pittance that the TA gets to grade the athlete's paper for 10-15 minutes. Or the 1/100th of the cost that it takes for the prof to go over the power point slides that McMurray/Fay send as a companion to the text that they send the prof for free. Or maybe the 1/100th of the cost that it takes for a prof (or the TA) to come in and talk about themselves for 50 minutes three times a week. Or maybe the cost is incurred when the prof walks from his office to the lecture hall. Oh yeah, I forgot the energy cost for that room in that building that is utilized by the one player.\

I added them all together, and I'm now convinced of the expense. The player is incurring at least 0.0001571 dollars per semester worth of expenses. I apologize for even daring to question the value of a seat in a giant lecture hall.

Orange&BlueMohawk
08-18-2011, 12:34 AM
The thing is: it should be enough.

Once they start getting a stipend, how long will it be before they start claiming it isn't enough? Then it keeps going up and up and up, before you know it, they are getting paid to play football and everything else is for free.

It's like Von said, when replying to a comment about how much money he missed out on by not getting in a year before the lockout, "I have been playing football for free my whole life, etc."

Once they do it for football, they will also have to do it for every other sport the college that has kids on scholarships.

Only my opinion though.

Bronco Boy
08-18-2011, 12:47 AM
Oh, you must mean that pittance that the TA gets to grade the athlete's paper for 10-15 minutes. Or the 1/100th of the cost that it takes for the prof to go over the power point slides that McMurray/Fay send as a companion to the text that they send the prof for free. Or maybe the 1/100th of the cost that it takes for a prof (or the TA) to come in and talk about themselves for 50 minutes three times a week. Or maybe the cost is incurred when the prof walks from his office to the lecture hall. Oh yeah, I forgot the energy cost for that room in that building that is utilized by the one player.\

I added them all together, and I'm now convinced of the expense. The player is incurring at least 0.0001571 dollars per semester worth of expenses. I apologize for even daring to question the value of a seat in a giant lecture hall.

Wow, your crazy anti-education rant has me convinced. Well done. Please puke some more on your keyboard for us to lick up. Thanks!

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 01:07 AM
Wow, your crazy anti-education rant has me convinced. Well done. Please puke some more on your keyboard for us to lick up. Thanks!

That's a sweet response, brohimes! I just added an Increased Electron Displacement Fee and a Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide Diffuse Gas Gradient Disruption Fee on your account. Be sure to check with the registrars office. You'll need to come up with the full $17,324.25 before the census date or we'll drop you from Intro to Underwater Basketweaving, Anti-Religion Art in Venezuela, Speech, and the 4000 level Male Feminism class.

extralife
08-18-2011, 01:26 AM
A seat in four different 100-400 seat lecture halls doesn't cost a dadgum penny.

well, it could be the part where if that seat didn't go to Football McIdiot, it would go to some one that was actually paying the school for the spot. we call this phenomenon "economics." but you probably would have had to attend one of those "rooms" to have heard of it.

serious hops
08-18-2011, 01:35 AM
well, it could be the part where if that seat didn't go to Football McIdiot, it would go to some one that was actually paying the school for the spot. we call this phenomenon "economics." but you probably would have had to attend one of those "rooms" to have heard of it.

Lies and propoganda!

extralife
08-18-2011, 01:46 AM
of course, the other person paying would also be an idiot with no interest in an education for its own sake, and epic is right to criticize schools for completely sucking, but that's not the argument. he's doing something that is common among retards and people on TV: he's using one argument as a spring board for a talking point. the question: should we be paying college football players? epic's answer: universities are empty bastions of ineffectual liberal intelligentsia. does one have anything to do with the other? of ****ing course not. the implication: pay the athlete because the school blows and at least the ****er with the ball is good at something (unconscious further implication: at least the football player's vote is still up for grabs). which is true, but it's pretty hard to argue in the tangential-negative without looking like an idiot.

Ratboy
08-18-2011, 04:37 AM
Here is a breakdown on attending USC in Los Angeles

Estimate of Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Costs for Undergraduate Students
The estimate of costs in the table below would be for a USC undergraduate who:

is full-time (taking 12-18 units during both fall and spring semesters)
is living in university housing
has a meal plan
has season football tickets
has a transportation allowance
(Fall / Spring academic year)

$42,162 Tuition
1,109 Student Health Insurance (may be waived with proof of sufficient coverage)
488 Student Health Service fee (mandatory)
155 Student Season Football Tickets (optional)
656 Mandatory fees: Student Programming, Student Services, and Topping Aid (see Other Costs* below...)
12,078 Room and board (rent & meal plans)
1,500 Books and supplies
1,825 Personal / Miscellaneous
828

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (parking permit) or $796 - Housing (parking permit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$60,801 Total (add $150 USC Orientation Fee for your first semester)

60,000 a year is not enough of a "Payment"... I sure call that being paid, just ask anyone that is paying the 60K or taking out student loans to cover it. That is $240,000 over a 4 year period.

Will you have no problem doing that? No extra spending money?

Enjoy that ****ty life.

Atwater His Ass
08-18-2011, 04:52 AM
These guys aren't at college for the education. It's a platform to the NFL.

NFL teams should just start running acadamies, much like how professional soccer leagues do. Let the teams scout young talent, bring them in, pay them, educate them, and groom them for the pros.

Get rid of the smoke screen of a higher education, and leave college sports to those that aren't good enough to get picked up by an NFL academy and those that are actually there for the education.

There's no reason the schools, the coaches, and the people running it should be able to make millions off the labor of kids that can't make ****.

v2micca
08-18-2011, 05:12 AM
I'm kind of divided on this issue. I guess, the main issue I have is restrictions on the Athlete being allowed to market his own name. I think it is silly that an NCAA athlete is not allowed to sell his signature, or sign endorsement deals. Certainly some guidelines would need to be in place, but I think it is ridiculous that a student athlete is not allowed to monetize his own name.

tsiguy96
08-18-2011, 05:54 AM
there is two camps of people here, there is the camp of people that realize universities do not have the money sitting around to just pay football players (at which point you need to pay every athlete, womens volleyball spends as much time practicing as football does), and that a college is actually designed to be a learning institution, not a football factory. and there is the college football fans, that want the players to get everything they could ask for to keep them happy and hopefully drive the talent level up and decrease distractions like infractions etc...

there is a perception around here that college football players are broke and have no money and sit at home on weekends cuz they cant afford to drive across the street. not true, at all. my question is, how many would support cutting out an academic department at a college in order to pay the players $5k a semester?

Beantown Bronco
08-18-2011, 07:02 AM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

But your son also isn't using valuable resources that the athlete is. Individualized coaching? NFL preparation? Network coverage that serves as his resume?

A ton more goes into this than just tuition, room and board. That's probably only half of the real money these guys in essence receive. When all is said and done, each player could easily face around $1,000,000 in expenses if they stay in all four or (for most of them who redshirt) five years.

Garcia Bronco
08-18-2011, 07:14 AM
Not every school could afford what some of your are proposing. Not even 3/4ths of them.

tsiguy96
08-18-2011, 07:17 AM
Not every school could afford what some of your are proposing. Not even 3/4ths of them.

thats why you should cut out academic programs and other sports that are losing money, duh.

cmhargrove
08-18-2011, 07:25 AM
First, I don't agree with spoiling "amateur" athletics. Give them support, give them training, treat them to a nice lifestyle, but there is no need to pay them.

Where does this argument end? I know there are large high school programs here in Oklahoma (and Texas) that make more money than many colleges do. Does the argument continue there as well?

Person eligible to work + making money for organization = right to get paid?

I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be for a college coaching staff to start introducing money into the current equation. Keep amateurs the way they are, it helps the spirit of the game. Earning 20k to 80k per year is a good enough benefit, and a massive building block for their future. Don't tell me they aren't getting paid, that is just silly.

You play football, you get 20k-80k per year. Call it what you want, but it is payment for services, and it is fair. I don't know what salary an NFL practice squad player gets, but it probably isn't much more than 100k per year is it? Somebody may need to correct me on this.

DrFate
08-18-2011, 07:32 AM
Yes, it's enough - it's tens of thousands of dollars a year

GoBroncos DownUnder
08-18-2011, 08:57 AM
Based off the numbers I read on Wikopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_programs) FBS schools are allowed to give out 85 full ride scholarships for football (I'll round that down to 80), multiplied by 115 schools...

So about 8000-9000 football scholarships are being given out, FREE ... so we should screw with this system by paying the top 300-400 of these kids... WTF!?!

DBroncos4life
08-18-2011, 09:03 AM
Based off the numbers I read on Wikopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_programs) FBS schools are allowed to give out 85 full ride scholarships for football (I'll round that down to 80), multiplied by 115 schools...

So about 8000-9000 football scholarships are being given out, FREE ... so we should screw with this system by paying the top 300-400 of these kids... WTF!?!

Like I said in another post 1% of all student athletes end up going pro. Thats basketball, baseball, and football combined. I guess the other 99% might need college.

gyldenlove
08-18-2011, 09:15 AM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

They are contributing the exact same. If you had to be paid by how much you contributed, the university would have to have a plan to reward those who later provide endowment donations.

On average the child of wealthy parents will contribute more monetarily than a football player to the university they attend, in endowments, legacy donations etc. The upkeep of football players especially is far from free, you cost the university a lot of money in practice and training facilities, coaches, therapists, medical staff, emergency staff, equipment etc - all of these costs are not incurred by regular students.

Requiem
08-18-2011, 10:47 AM
It is absolutely more than enough for those who get scholarships which cover all those things.

Mediator12
08-18-2011, 11:18 AM
Yes, it is enough. However, the people who feel entitled are certainly going to argue that its not enough, because they DESERVE it. Whatever. Same people probably think the debt crisis is going to fix itself with spending more :hitself:

This is not an apples to apples comparison either. If the guy gets paid its no longer amateur athletics and it can no longer be under the NCAA purview. The colleges do make some money off of sports, but its revenues MINUS expenses. Most universities lose money on their entire athletic budget. They have already cut sports and women's sports is now constitutionally protected against changing the women's programs! That Certainly is not enough of an economic model to support paying players anything.

This whole argument is about making something out of nothing. I hate it that a player can not borrow money or just take $300 bucks to go home from school. The reason that is illegal, is because it affects a fair playing field to recruiting violations though. Stupid, overzealous boosters got the universities in trouble well before most of us were even born.

However, just because they play a sport that generates revenues and adds prestige to a school does not even come close to being a solid reason to pay them. Every business has profit/Loss leaders. They are not being exploited, they are using their abilities to benefit the university. None of these guys are going to get paid if the university and their HUGE fanbase does not exist.

chanesaw
08-18-2011, 11:19 AM
This issue is much more complicated than the thread title. Personally I think that the university should not have to pay players, a free ride is more than enough. The average college graduate will make $1 million more over his or her lifetime than somebody with no degree, and this is what the vast majority of student athletes are working toward. But I disagree with them not allowing players to make a little cash on their own. The university shouldn't have to pay for play, but allow the very small percentage of players that actually can make some spending money from things such as autographs or selling their own property to do so.

As a side note, the players aren't as broke as we think. Once they live off campus they can get a stipend for around $1400 per month.

Bahshay
08-18-2011, 11:50 AM
So let's compare apples to apples...

If my son gets a full tuition scholarship for academics, and my other son gets a full tuition scholarship for football, which one is contributing more (monetarily speaking) to the university?

Are you saying it's fair for them both to be "paid" the same, when one is responsible, at least in part, for filling the stadium every Saturday with tens of thousands of screaming fans, and the other gets good grades?

My take on this:

Football players are given scholarships because they make money for the school. They make money for the school immediately.

Smart kids are given scholarships because, many times, these kids go on to get good jobs and give back to the school as alumni. They make money for the school eventually, its just not immediate and no sure thing they give back. (though you could argue that for athletes as well).

So to take your example: you have two kids. One of them is on the football team that fills the stands every week, but is only a back-up (the football stadium would surely be filled without him). The other kid gets good grades, and then many years later owns a business and gives back to the school, hires kids primarily from the school, and builds and airport for the school (all things my current boss did for my school). Is it fair for them both to be paid the same?

Not every smart kid that graduates from the school will give back, but not every football player will actually be good enough to drive in fans. They give the scholarships to lots of kids hoping that a few of them pan out and improve the school, whether immediately or in the long run.

Fedaykin
08-18-2011, 11:59 AM
well, it could be the part where if that seat didn't go to Football McIdiot, it would go to some one that was actually paying the school for the spot. we call this phenomenon "economics." but you probably would have had to attend one of those "rooms" to have heard of it.

Apparently the term "opportunity cost" is completely lost on EpicFail.

Fedaykin
08-18-2011, 12:13 PM
Will you have no problem doing that? No extra spending money?

Enjoy that ****ty life.

LMAO having all your expenses paid for, including a free education (often at a very high quality university) AND exposure to the NFL is a ****ty life?

As for spending money, while they can't have a job during semesters they are not restricted from getting summer or winter break jobs -- just like any other student.

Even modest seasonal work during the summer and winter breaks can net 5 grand or more of spending money -- more than enough considering it'd be 100% expendable income.

GoBroncos DownUnder
08-18-2011, 12:27 PM
I DO NOT think the students should be PAID, but here's my best offer:
We'll give you $200 a week, yes that's right $200 all for you ... but here's the catch: we're going to treat this like it's the REAL WORLD. Your $200 comes in the form of a card, NO CASH, we'd like to see where you spend it and at the end of every month we're going to go over your "expenditures" to make sure they were all things that you needed.
There it is, plain and simple.

Last thing we want is to fund the next Feral Pryor...
http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/terrelle-pryor-charger.jpg

Peoples Champ
08-18-2011, 12:40 PM
Here is a breakdown on attending USC in Los Angeles

Estimate of Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Costs for Undergraduate Students
The estimate of costs in the table below would be for a USC undergraduate who:

is full-time (taking 12-18 units during both fall and spring semesters)
is living in university housing
has a meal plan
has season football tickets
has a transportation allowance
(Fall / Spring academic year)

$42,162 Tuition
1,109 Student Health Insurance (may be waived with proof of sufficient coverage)
488 Student Health Service fee (mandatory)
155 Student Season Football Tickets (optional)
656 Mandatory fees: Student Programming, Student Services, and Topping Aid (see Other Costs* below...)
12,078 Room and board (rent & meal plans)
1,500 Books and supplies
1,825 Personal / Miscellaneous
828

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation (parking permit) or $796 - Housing (parking permit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$60,801 Total (add $150 USC Orientation Fee for your first semester)

60,000 a year is not enough of a "Payment"... I sure call that being paid, just ask anyone that is paying the 60K or taking out student loans to cover it. That is $240,000 over a 4 year period.

agreed,

I would do anything to get rid of my student loans

Pony Boy
08-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Develop a program for college athletes similar to the GI Bill. Let an athlete compete for up to 4 years and not worrying about attending classes and include some compensation. He can then return to the university at the end of his athletic career and concentrate on getting an education. This should carry over to NFL players at the end of their careers also.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 12:58 PM
These guys aren't at college for the education. It's a platform to the NFL.

NFL teams should just start running acadamies, much like how professional soccer leagues do. Let the teams scout young talent, bring them in, pay them, educate them, and groom them for the pros.

Get rid of the smoke screen of a higher education, and leave college sports to those that aren't good enough to get picked up by an NFL academy and those that are actually there for the education.

There's no reason the schools, the coaches, and the people running it should be able to make millions off the labor of kids that can't make ****.

:strong:

Fedaykin
08-18-2011, 01:00 PM
Develop a program for college athletes similar to the GI Bill. Let an athlete compete for up to 4 years and not worrying about attending classes and include some compensation. He can then return to the university at the end of his athletic career and concentrate on getting an education. This should carry over to NFL players at the end of their careers also.

So free living for four years, and another four years of free education?

Let's be real here. 80% of those meat heads would never be able to set foot in a university based on academic merit. The only reason the school lets them in is because they make the school money. They should just drop the pretense and create vocational tracks for them and pay them -- while providing the capable students (those that could be accepted based purely on academic merit) the option of actually attending the university but not being paid as well.

tsiguy96
08-18-2011, 01:02 PM
cant believe there has been multiple people here that want college football to basically have its own free agency. so college football teams would sign, cut and trade players that didnt ACTUALLY represent that school, right? why not do it with high school kids too, or hell middle school?

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 01:02 PM
well, it could be the part where if that seat didn't go to Football McIdiot, it would go to some one that was actually paying the school for the spot. we call this phenomenon "economics." but you probably would have had to attend one of those "rooms" to have heard of it.

Yeah, that sounds plausible because you know that every class is at 100% capacity at the census date.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 01:04 PM
cant believe there has been multiple people here that want college football to basically have its own free agency. so college football teams would sign, cut and trade players that didnt ACTUALLY represent that school, right? why not do it with high school kids too, or hell middle school?

It doesn't matter.

There is no reason to force your morals and values on football players simply because it has been done in the past.

Pony Boy
08-18-2011, 01:19 PM
So free living for four years, and another four years of free education?

Let's be real here. 80% of those meat heads would never be able to set foot in a university based on academic merit. The only reason the school lets them in is because they make the school money. They should just drop the pretense and create vocational tracks for them and pay them -- while providing the capable students (those that could be accepted based purely on academic merit) the option of actually attending the university but not being paid as well.

I think the real percentage is about 45% and that's why a GI bill type system would work, some would take advantage and some would never return for an education. The first 4 years would not be living for free they generate tons of money for the school while preparing for the NFL and the ones that don't get in the NFL can go back to school.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 01:30 PM
So free living for four years, and another four years of free education?

Let's be real here. 80% of those meat heads would never be able to set foot in a university based on academic merit. The only reason the school lets them in is because they make the school money. They should just drop the pretense and create vocational tracks for them and pay them -- while providing the capable students (those that could be accepted based purely on academic merit) the option of actually attending the university but not being paid as well.

You act as if academic merit is all that gets you into a university.

Have you ever been to a university?

peacepipe
08-18-2011, 01:33 PM
IDK if this has been posted but here we go:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

this is from 07-08 season of the top schools. texas raked in a whopping 120 million+ that yr. they're making plenty of profit.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 01:42 PM
IDK if this has been posted but here we go:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

this is from 07-08 season of the top schools. texas raked in a whopping 120 million+ that yr. they're making plenty of profit.

Texas also owns a bunch of oil fields in the state.

peacepipe
08-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Texas also owns a bunch of oil fields in the state.must be a bunch of morons running that school if they could only muster up 2 million more than ohio state who pulled in just under 118 million that yr.

gyldenlove
08-18-2011, 01:52 PM
IDK if this has been posted but here we go:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

this is from 07-08 season of the top schools. texas raked in a whopping 120 million+ that yr. they're making plenty of profit.

In this case in that "revenue" is included the often significant fees other students pay that are funneled into varsity programs. You need to look strictly at external revenue such as advertising, sponsorships, media and ticket sales.

Fedaykin
08-18-2011, 01:56 PM
You act as if academic merit is all that gets you into a university.

Have you ever been to a university?

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it should.

Being able to toss around a pig skin or an accident of birth are not things that should get you into a university.

Beantown Bronco
08-18-2011, 02:00 PM
Total revenue figures mean NOTHING without the total expense figures.

maher_tyler
08-18-2011, 02:06 PM
I chose no but i'm split. If you can afford to go to a school like Stanford or pretty much any big time college/university, you can afford the basics like food. You don't NEED to drive around in a Cadillac or Benz etc. At the same time there is hardly enough time for a part time job. I guess it's all about time managment and how much sleep you want.

DBroncos4life
08-18-2011, 02:09 PM
Total revenue figures mean NOTHING without the total expense figures.

According to the figures I posted in the other college thread NU's football team revenue was 93 million dollars with a total profit of 49 million dollars. I think that was in 09 or 10. Then I posted another article saying the that NU football program also covers the 750,000 dollar rent for the guys and girls BB team. According to Osborne they break even.

Lord knows how many other sports at NU don't break even. I'm sure the volleyball team holds it own but, the track and field teams and etc... don't.

I think when it is all said and done the profit from sports isn't there like some people want to believe.

Hercules Rockefeller
08-18-2011, 02:29 PM
Total revenue figures mean NOTHING without the total expense figures.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

Updated to the '09-10 school year

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 02:32 PM
must be a bunch of morons running that school if they could only muster up 2 million more than ohio state who pulled in just under 118 million that yr.

Nah, Texas' oil money is a source of revenue of its own and it fuels the massive and growing University of Texas system.

epicSocialism4tw
08-18-2011, 02:33 PM
I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it should.

Being able to toss around a pig skin or an accident of birth are not things that should get you into a university.

Just like everything else in life, who you know gets you where you want to go.