Paying players

#1
fade route

fade route

Just being honest
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
17,397
Likes
16,185
#1
Paying college athletes is one of those topics that I believe we"ll be hearing more and more of over the next few years, because it just seems like the momentum is going that way. It always makes for interesting thread content so I thought I'd bring it up in a new way (besides, it's June). I am firmly against it and I will lay out my reasons below. I want someone to convince me otherwise using your best argument because it seems like I am in the minority on this topic. Here are my reasons against it:

1. The athletes are already getting paid in the form of a full paid scholarship that most of the student body does not have access to. While many will be paying off student loans for years, scholarship athletes won't pay a dime.......not to mention room and board that is provided for them. It is a totally free education and if they use it the right way, it will ensure they have a decent if not great economic future regardless if sports works out for them or not.

2. If you pay one athlete, you pay them all. You cannot pay the football and basketball teams simply because they generate revenue for the university, and swimming does not. If this were tried, the discrimination lawsuits would explode nationwide in every university from the swim, lacross, rowing, tennis, and women's softball teams demanding they be paid as well and they would win in court easily.

3. You have to make the payment the same across all universities no matter what revenue they generate versus other schools, what the cost of living index is in a given area, or how big or small the school is. You simply cannot pay players a % of the total revenue generated by their sport. Otherwise, it would be used as a recruiting tool by coaches from schools who pay out more to their athletes than xyz school. Hello bigtime problems if that were the case. Also, if they were paid a %, couldn't the starters or key players make the case that they were actually the ones who generated revenue, not the 3rd string, so they should be paid at a higher rate? If that happens, you would have recruits demanding a starting spot when they arrive on campus so they could get a bigger payout....catastrophe.

4. If we paid student athletes, are they amatuers any more? Seems not to me. So, therefore are they not entitled to be represented by an agent? That would be the ultimate grease fire - can you imagine DaRick with an agent right now while playing here? Trust me, that would not end well.

Ok VN, I'd like to hear your reasons for/against paying players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
The $30,000 a year they get now seems fair to me

I had to pay, so I had a J O B and went to school too

So I don't feel sorry for them
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#3
#3
They get housed, educated, and fed for free. I'm still paying off my student loans from over 10 years ago. So no, I'm against it, however, wasn't there a thread a year ago stating that even with a full scholarship they still incur expenses?
 
#4
#4
Students that don't play sports have time to work a job, student athletes do not. From a technical standpoint they should probably be paid, it would most likely be a detriment to the game of football and basketball though...
 
#6
#6
They get a $40,000 a year (out of state) scholarship for their football skills. If they are good enough, they will make millions of dollars in the NFL, if not, they will be able to use that free education to start their lives. It's 4 years of their lives, that can determine the rest of the lives. Why should they get paid more, when the average 18 year old just makes over minimum wage starting out?? They are very privileged individuals, who are using their God given talent to further their lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7
#7
CountVolcula said:
The $30,000 a year they get now seems fair to me

I had to pay, so I had a J O B and went to school too

So I don't feel sorry for them
Click to expand...

Neither do I....especially when you factor in no student loan debt upon graduation (for those who graduate) and access to academic resources that most students don't have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
Lawrence Wright said:
Neither do I....especially when you factor in no student loan debt upon graduation (for those who graduate) and access to academic resources that most students don't have.
Click to expand...

I would have given anything to put on that Orange and White and run through that T

I know you feel the same about UF

They fail to see the great oppurtunity that they are being given
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
It is ok to pay student athletes but if I wanted to watch paid athletes I would go to Titan games and so would a lot of people thus killing their golden goose. The product would greatly diminish.
 
#11
#11
fade route said:
Paying college athletes is one of those topics that I believe we"ll be hearing more and more of over the next few years, because it just seems like the momentum is going that way. It always makes for interesting thread content so I thought I'd bring it up in a new way (besides, it's June). I am firmly against it and I will lay out my reasons below. I want someone to convince me otherwise using your best argument because it seems like I am in the minority on this topic. Here are my reasons against it:

1. The athletes are already getting paid in the form of a full paid scholarship that most of the student body does not have access to. While many will be paying off student loans for years, scholarship athletes won't pay a dime.......not to mention room and board that is provided for them. It is a totally free education and if they use it the right way, it will ensure they have a decent if not great economic future regardless if sports works out for them or not.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

2. If you pay one athlete, you pay them all. You cannot pay the football and basketball teams simply because they generate revenue for the university, and swimming does not. If this were tried, the discrimination lawsuits would explode nationwide in every university from the swim, lacross, rowing, tennis, and women's softball teams demanding they be paid as well and they would win in court easily.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however have heard an SEC coach (think it was Spurrier) state that you could pay the athletes from the revenue producing sports only. That is total BS IMO. That means a school whose FB team is in the red can't pay their FB players yet be expected to compete.

3. You have to make the payment the same across all universities no matter what revenue they generate versus other schools, what the cost of living index is in a given area, or how big or small the school is. You simply cannot pay players a % of the total revenue generated by their sport. Otherwise, it would be used as a recruiting tool by coaches from schools who pay out more to their athletes than xyz school. Hello bigtime problems if that were the case. Also, if they were paid a %, couldn't the starters or key players make the case that they were actually the ones who generated revenue, not the 3rd string, so they should be paid at a higher rate? If that happens, you would have recruits demanding a starting spot when they arrive on campus so they could get a bigger payout....catastrophe.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

4. If we paid student athletes, are they amatuers any more? Seems not to me. So, therefore are they not entitled to be represented by an agent? That would be the ultimate grease fire - can you imagine DaRick with an agent right now while playing here? Trust me, that would not end well.

Ok VN, I'd like to hear your reasons for/against paying players.
Click to expand...

Good question.

Another issue that I think is being ignored is where is the money going to come from? I think that only 3 AD's in the country last year were in the black. The UT was NOT one of them. Once again, of the 8 men's teams here at The UT, which one are you willing to give up? There are a BUNCH of kids that play on NCAA controlled club teams that pray every year that maybe this year is the year they go varsity. Good examples are Lacrosse and Rugby. The year my son was a senior, we missed going to the NC Lax tourney by one game that we should have won (kinda like losing to KY in FB). We should be looking to try and increase the number of kids that can attend school on athletic scholies not decreasing them. If that is the case, then just get rid of all sports and only play the sports that make money for the AD. The UT would have men's FB and Basketball and women's Basketball.....and may not have that in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
terrypedigo said:
:devilsmoke:If you start paying the players College Football will go to hell in a heart beat, it just wont work.
Click to expand...

All college sports will, not just FB. Fade, I am probably more passionate about this than anyone on this forum. There was one thread earlier this year that I probably wrote 5000 words in about this.
 
#15
#15
I don't think you should pay the players from the schools but they should be able to make money themselves from their sports.

For example, a student on scholarship for music can go and get paid for playing a concert or giving lessons or anything like that. A math student can go get paid for providing his/her services.

A football player who tried to do that would be said to have receieved extra benefits and be DQ'd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
phowell23 said:
They get housed, educated, and fed for free. I'm still paying off my student loans from over 10 years ago. So no, I'm against it, however, wasn't there a thread a year ago stating that even with a full scholarship they still incur expenses?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I actually made more on my academic scholarships at UT than any of the athletes.
 
#17
#17
MSUDuo said:
I don't think you should pay the players from the schools but they should be able to make money themselves from their sports.

For example, a student on scholarship for music can go and get paid for playing a concert or giving lessons or anything like that. A math student can go get paid for providing his/her services.

A football player who tried to do that would be said to have receieved extra benefits and be DQ'd.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good point, but we all know what the end result is: Players "working" for boosters and getting payed to not even show up every summer.

The problem with CFB is the same as with our politics. Too much money to be made kills the purity of any system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
We forget sometimes that most of these guys won't sniff the N.F.L. and if they do they will be lucky to play 2 or 3 years for the league minimum. Peyton is the exception, not the rule. If you pay them though you open up a huge can of worms. How much? Do you pay a reciever more than a lineman? What do you pay a backup? How long until they unionize and strike? It's impossible.
 
#22
#22
With them getting a free education and free housing for four years I feel like there is no reason for them to be paid by the university, conference, or NCAA. I do, however, feel that they should be allowed endorsement deals. Deals like these would obviously only be rewarded to elite players and in result could motivate players to try even harder to earn said endorsements.
 
#23
#23
I was personally on board with the $2000 stipend that was proposed last year. It is technically still part of the scholarship, but it goes a little beyond tuitioon, fees, room and board, and book and supplies. What students put that $2000 towards is up to them, and once it's gone, it's gone. It's isn't a perfect plan, but it's better than the current situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
I've thought about this subject and see both sides of it. While I agree that the players are compensated pretty well, there are costs they have that they can't work for to take care of.

I think it would be reasonable to setup a loan system, complete with interest and penalties. Don't do it on a school or conference basis but more as an NCAA standard. Do not let the schools control it because it opens up a whole can of worms to harm the game. Have it setup to where each play has the option/availability to loan up to $2,400/yr... but may not take anymore than 200 per month. Meaning if you don't use it, you lose it.

Make it to where it is not cash or check, but a direct deposit type of transaction that can/will be monitored. I believe if the denomination is too high it makes it easier for booster to open the wallets up and claim they had saved from the loans.

Make the policy to where all players have a password and such like we all have on our bank accounts. Also, make it to where payments start a minimum of 1 year after leaving college, be it graduation or not.

One of the reasons I believe this will help is because a % of these young men have a family they are concerned about providing for. Therefore I believe if it comes to paying, a loan system would be the way to go.
 
#25
#25
Big Ugly Vol said:
We forget sometimes that most of these guys won't sniff the N.F.L. and if they do they will be lucky to play 2 or 3 years for the league minimum. Peyton is the exception, not the rule. If you pay them though you open up a huge can of worms. How much? Do you pay a reciever more than a lineman? What do you pay a backup? How long until they unionize and strike? It's impossible.
Click to expand...

NFL minimum is about 400K. Play 5 yrs and you make 2 million. How many on here have made 2 million yet? Plus don't they have PELL grants for athletes? Isn't that basic spending $$$$?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top