Is Room, Board and an Education Enough?

[houghtam]

Simple Question. Simple choices.

[Schism]

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]

Magnum condoms should also be gratis.

[Inkana7]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

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]

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.

[CBF1]

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]

Originally Posted by CBF1

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]

Originally Posted by houghtam

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]

Originally Posted by Schism

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]

Originally Posted by houghtam

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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]

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]

Originally Posted by houghtam

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]

Originally Posted by houghtam

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by schaaf

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

^

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

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]

No it isn't. These players make most of the money for these schools, and they got to play for room, board and tution?

[sirhcyennek81]

Pay the players. Pull their scholarships. Why spend 60k a year to house and feed a guy making a salary?

[yerner]

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]

The answer is no because they aren't allowed to have jobs which is a bunch of crap.