should student athletes be paid? — Brooklynian

should student athletes be paid?

I think so, they are just being exploited. college scholarships big deal!! come on we all know why they play college ball not for the education for alot of them its for chance at the big leagues. and colleges make tons of money off these kids.

Here's just one more coal to the Ohio State fire.

ESPN is reporting that former Buckeyes quarterback Terrelle Pryor made thousands of dollars signing memorabilia in 2009 and 2010, according to a former friend.

The friend, who is anonymous in the story, said Pryor was paid $500 to $1,000 each time he signed mini helmets and other items for Dennis Talbott, a Columbus businessman who's denying the claim.

The friend also said the quarterback received thousands of dollars worth of free food at Columbus restaurants and stores. Pryor's lawyer, Larry James, denied the claims made by the friend.

Pryor, through his lawyer, announced today that he is forgoing his senior season at Ohio State, for which he was suspended the first five games of after the NCAA learned he and four other teammates took improper benefits from a tattoo parlor owner.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110607/SPORTS08/110607063/Report-Terrelle-Pryor-made-thousands-autographs

this is what eric cartman has to say about this


Comments

  • yes.

    why should everyone make money except the athletes?

  • They should be paid, and they should be given the option for a "voucher" to go to school at a later date if they so choose.

    Making them "go to class" while trying to play a high profile D1 sport is a joke.

    (Many players do indeed get an education while playing, which is fine)

  • no. we're already too far from the student-athlete model; the fact that the players are often disproportionately from exactly the groups we repeatedly fail to educate makes the situation even more disgusting. the players are being used, very, very few have any real chance of a sports career later, and turning them into paid mascots won't change that. the ncaa should impose some real penalties on colleges that don't educate their players. it shouldn't be the exception or a joke.

  • What if we just let the pro teams hire youth right out of high school? ....likewise, the pros could hire people who were still in college, but thought their best option was to play ball NOW, as opposed to when they graduated?

    That way, the schools wouldn't have the same ability to admit and pass them regardless of their performance.

    We are aware that an athlete who knows he is going to be passed often isn't a particularly motivated scholar, right?

    Would this return us to a student-athlete model?

    ...or would it destroy an effective college-based affirmative action program for kids who otherwise wouldn't even be considered by a college?

  • I graduated high school with Lloyd Free aka World B. Free who was the first bb player to be drafted out of high school. But really whether they're paid or not depends on the sport. Lots of sports have no "minor leagues" per se. Football's and basketball's minor league is college ball...baseball has anything from semi-pro to single A up the ladder to the majors. Tennis, skiing have no minor leagues, just minor tournaments. So, for those going to college that's their remuneration. For those doing just about anything else...they get paid by the minor league team even if it is crappy pay.

  • Yeah but millions aren't being made off minor league teams, and they're paid.

    That's no comparison to D1 football players who make their schools $100's of millions a year, and get Athletic Directors paid ungodly salaries.

  • Isn't everyone under paid vis-a-vis the value they bring to an employer? Aren't such economies of scale why humans largely work for firms, as opposed to our own?

    The kids are 18, and (as pragmatic guy points out) they were paid in free college tuition. Did they get ripped off, probably.

    Is the secret for them to own the means of production, you know, an athlete cooperative? That would be great.

    ...what if we just let the colleges run sport teams as separate enterprises?

    Because the athletes didn't attend class at the college I attended, it isn't like I rooted for them because I knew them.

    This would allow colleges to just hire anyone (whether they could spell or not) and do away with the who student-athlete myth. They could just be employees of the college. ...like the star professor who doesn't teach classes anymore, or even publish.

    Their role would be just get students to believe they would get to see them on campus, even though they never would. ...the tuition would role in.

    It would be like the all those restaurants and theaters owned by famous people, and named after them. You didn't really expect to see Michael Jordan at the Michael Jordan Loews, did you?

  • Yeah but there's underpaid, and not being paid at all.

    But yeah, as a general rule, I think we should do away with the student-athlete myth. Or at least let the players opt out of it. I think they'd get a better education if they come back after they realize they're part of the 98% of NCAA football players who never make the pros

  • Next, we will have to tell soldiers that enlist their chance of actually getting to do their MOS of choice is about 2%?

    "...don't kid yourself, you are going to be infantry."

    We live in world that prospers on the naive.

  • Boygabriel said:

    D1 football players who make their schools $100's of millions a year

    my understanding is that it's pretty rare for a team to actually make more money than the school spends on it.

    i maintain that colleges have no business having students they do not intend to educate. if pro teams want a kind of minor-minor league to develop players, let them pay for it.

  • my understanding is that it's pretty rare for a team to actually make more money than the school spends on it.

    The big-time D1 schools that have tv contracts? I'm pretty sure they are a cash cow.

    i maintain that colleges have no business having students they do not intend to educate. if pro teams want a kind of minor-minor league to develop players, let them pay for it.

    That would be fine with me too.

  • well they sorta make money :p.

    The NCAA doesn't release individual schools' revenues and expenses. But Fulks confirmed that Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas and Tennessee are among the select group that made money. So is Missouri, which reported generating $2 million in profits from campus athletics in 2009.

    NCAA interim president Jim Isch, who spent 11 years as the association's chief financial officer, called the latest numbers less a reflection of "runaway spending" in college athletics than a reality of the country's larger economic crisis.

    He noted that most schools typically plan for future expenses several years in advance, which in this case meant fiscal projections that didn't account for a prolonged recession.

    The gap between the haves and the have-nots appears to be growing. The largest reported amount of revenue generated by an athletics program was $138.5 million -- nearly three times the median of $45.9 million. The top-spending program reported $127.6 million in annual expenses, with a similarly sized gap from the median.

    "The top end ... still does not have to rely on institutional subsidies," Isch said. "But those that do are falling further behind."

    Sixty-eight FBS schools reported turning a profit on football, with a median value of $8.8 million. The 52 FBS schools that lost money on football reported median losses of $2.7 million.

    The breakdown for basketball programs at those 120 schools was nearly identical, though the median values for profitable programs ($2.9 million) and money-losing ones ($873,000) were smaller.

    The fiscal fortunes of major college athletic programs without football teams were even worse. None of the 97 schools in that category reported making money from athletics, with median losses of more than $2.8 million.

    Fulks pointed out that many schools funnel profits from football and men's basketball -- which for the top schools can mean millions in Bowl Championship Series payments and NCAA tournament payments -- into lower-profile sports that can't rely on season ticket plans, TV packages and well-heeled donors.

    More teams generally means larger subsidies from the school.

    "Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money."

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

  • According to the NCAA’s latest report (Aug. 18, 2010), only 14 programs from the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) finished last year profitably. In the other two divisions within Division I, there were no athletic programs that generated more revenues than expenses.

    Athletic programs nationally are increasingly relying on overall institutional support to balance their budgets. In other words, according to the NCAA, only 14 colleges in the entire country were able to make money on athletics.

    Cornell University economist Robert Frank contends that big-time athletics consume far more college resources than they ever contribute. Frank’s study, for the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, concludes that the growing investments colleges make on athletic programs rarely pay off, even accounting for the temporary positive spikes that follow championship years. Instead of continuing to drain America’s higher education resources, he calls for the NCAA to incent significant cuts in athletics, directing resources to starving academic programs.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/557144-ncaas-unkept-promise-should-colleges-get-out-of-the-sports-business

    ...and those 14 schools may not make money next year, despite continued large investments, often from taxpayers.

    no idea if these numbers take into account the common practice of charging some costs of athletic programs (maintenance of a stadium, for instance) to the general budget.

  • Interesting

  • If the NCAA were serious about keeping corruption out of collegiate sports all they would have to do would be to change their own rules.

    1)Prohibit mandatory practices for a sport for the six months following the last sanctioned event in that sport. Tell coaches they could not penalize students for not participating in voluntary practices during that period.

    2)Permit student to work either at their school for pay or for the entity that runs the school (so kids at Notre Dame could work for any entity run by the Catholic Church, kids at the University of Michigan could be employed by the State of Michigan, etc).

    3)Limit the value of merchandise given to students for participation in things such as Division tournaments, or provide them with those items only after they have left school for good. (College students can wait 2-3 years for their rings)

    4)Require that no more than a certain percentage of students in each class on a team hold the same major (every football player is a kinestiology major?)

    5)Any time a school violated a rule it should have to abolish a certain number of full-time staff positions related to that team in addition to loosing scholarships. Coaches would be much more likely to deal with violations if their staff was going to be fired in response.

    6)Permit schools to fund up to a certain amount of $s in "hardship" cases to students (example, a kid needs to go home because a parent dies, the school should be able to buy him a plane ticket). These hardships would have to be approved at the level of the President or Provost of the school.

    I should really be running the NCAA...

  • me too.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Pay-for-Top-14-NCAA-Executives/124358/

    Pay for Top 14 NCAA Executives Totaled Nearly $6-Million Last Year

    By Libby Sander

    As athletic departments struggled to weather the recession last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association spent nearly $6-million to compensate 14 of its highest-ranking executives, according to federal tax documents recently made public.

    The highest-paid of those officials was Myles Brand, the former NCAA president who died of cancer last September while still in office.

    Mr. Brand received $1,145,880 in total compensation for the fiscal year ending August 2009. The sum included $770,739 in salary and more than $200,000 in bonuses and incentive compensation, as well as other pay and benefits.

    Mr. Brand took home $1,710,095 in total compensation in 2007-8, including $815,000 in retirement pay that was deferred from previous years.

    Other highly paid executives last year were Thomas W. Jernstedt, the former executive vice president who announced his departure last month after 38 years at the association ($604,679); Bernard W. Franklin, executive vice president for membership and student-athlete affairs ($509,429); and James L. Isch, the former chief financial officer and NCAA interim president who was recently named its chief operating officer ($467,734).

    The $6-million set aside in 2008-9 for executive compensation is just under 12 percent of the nearly $50-million the association spent on compensation for all of its employees last year, the records show. The organization, headquartered in Indianapolis, employs more than 400 people.

    By comparison, the American Council on Education paid its president, Molly Corbett Broad, roughly $507,000 in total compensation last year, while most of its key employees earned between $200,000 and $300,000.

    Next month Mark A. Emmert, the departing president of the University of Washington, will take over as the NCAA's next chief executive. It is not known how much the association will pay Mr. Emmert, whose compensation at Washington last year exceeded $900,000.

    In all, the NCAA brought in more than $700-million in revenue last year, up from nearly $660-million the previous year. The bulk of that money—just under $590-million—came from television-rights fees. The NCAA's television contract at the time, which it replaced in April with a more-lucrative agreement, was backloaded to provide the association with greater payouts in the final years of the deal.

    Other sources of income for the NCAA included championships and ticket sales (more than $75-million), membership fees (about $12-million), and rights and royalties (just below $8-million).

    Much of the NCAA's money is doled out to its 1,200 member institutions and athletic conferences in the form of grants and scholarships. But those contributions vary greatly: Last year, for instance, the NCAA shared $32-million with the Big Ten Conference, in Division I-A; $4-million with the Sun Belt Conference, in Division I-AA; and $72,000 with the Old Dominion Athletic Conference, in Division III.

    As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA is not required to pay taxes on its income. That has rankled some critics of spending in college sports, including a few members of Congress, who have asked the association to justify its tax-exempt status.

  • And, don't forget their based in Overland Park, KS which means they have a tremedously low cost of living.

  • What many are forgetting here, especially when it comes to college basketball and football is that these potential pros would have never been able to be scouted if they weren't playing college ball. Because that's where 90% of them have been discovered. It's the coaches of the college teams who go and try and recruit these kids. And....if they're really good and get drafted early they don't have to stay the whole four years in college. They're under no obligation to graduate with the stipulation that if they don't they have to pay the money back that the equivalent education is worth. So, the exposure and tv time they get from the NCAA and the like are worth more than any money they might actually get because those things lead to the big bucks later on.

  • But I want there to be victims.

    I was told there are only oppressers and victims.

    Don't make me think.

  • PragmaticGuy said:

    What many are forgetting here, especially when it comes to college basketball and football is that these potential pros would have never been able to be scouted if they weren't playing college ball. Because that's where 90% of them have been discovered. It's the coaches of the college teams who go and try and recruit these kids. And....if they're really good and get drafted early they don't have to stay the whole four years in college. They're under no obligation to graduate with the stipulation that if they don't they have to pay the money back that the equivalent education is worth. So, the exposure and tv time they get from the NCAA and the like are worth more than any money they might actually get because those things lead to the big bucks later on.

    I don't think that anyone is forgetting this, but I think will argue the significance. The annual NBA draft is 2 rounds, 30 teams. Easy math says 60 players a year are drafted, and not all of them come from the college ranks - some come from HS and/or Europe. In any event, how many college D-1 players are there? A butt load - those drafted figure less than 2% of the D-1 players. Do you really think that it's fair to judge the system based upon those numbers?

  • The other thing to keep in mind is that the rules about students not being able to hold down jobs, or accept money from anyone other than family members, or not sell their memorabilia applies to ALL athletes in ALL sports, not just D-1 football and basketball players. Are those rules fair to a kid who is playing D-3 football at a small regional college? Or a girl doing D-2 soccer?

    I don't know that I'm all that jazzed about paying athletes, as I think that will just create more of a system of haves and have-nots. However, I do think the rules which cause athletes to feel as if they are being exploited.

This discussion has been closed.