"Hey guys, as colleges we are going to give you one year "contracts" we can revoke at anytime, and in return we are going to make billions off you. Also, you don't mind if we sell video games based on your abilities? No, of course we can't give you the game for free, that would be illegal."

The minute you start paying college football players....you then will have Title IX lawsuits because some lesbian women's rights group will claim that it is sexist that the women's basketball players are not getting paid the same.

This is the real reason why you have not seen college football or basketball players get paid. Their getting paid means all the women sports will expect to be paid the same. Of course, the non-revenue sports already take most of the money made by men's football....paying athletes will cost more...and put some programs under

Get sports out of schools, period.

Babwa Wawa: This is a slippery slope. If you start paying the slaves, pretty soon you're going to want to get paid for their likenesses.

It's not a slippery slope, it's a shove off a cliff. Once you're being paid more than $0 you're not an amateur anymore.

It's like the old joke about the rich old guy and the pretty girl at the bar. "We've already established what you are. Now we're merely haggling over the price."

Adolf Oliver Nipples: What, the free "education" isn't enough? Where was my stipend? That's right, it was slinging food 5 days a week when I wasn't deploying with my unit.

You make your choices and you live with the consequences. Scot-free education for playing a game or struggling to make ends meet in the real world? I know which one I'd choose.


I'd argue that free education is worth the it alone, especially considering how much tuition costs now. But the solution to the underlying problem isn't rewarding players with the greedy profits, i think they should award the students who attend the institution by lowering costs and quit spending so much god damn money on a game. Really, these are the highest paid state employees? Lower costs and allow more people to get a quality education or increase quality without adding basket weaving courses.

/a lot of my psu friends haven't found real jobs 2 years after grad. Its their fault, but the school could put more effort in to them.

nopokerface: Get sports out of schools, period.

Why?

College football players (and all NCAA varsity scholarship athletes) already make around $1,500 a month cash to go with their free tuition, free clothes, free medical insurance, etc. What's this going to do?

UCFRoadWarrior: The minute you start paying college football players....you then will have Title IX lawsuits because some lesbian women's rights group will claim that it is sexist that the women's basketball players are not getting paid the same.

This is the real reason why you have not seen college football or basketball players get paid. Their getting paid means all the women sports will expect to be paid the same. Of course, the non-revenue sports already take most of the money made by men's football....paying athletes will cost more...and put some programs under

Also - paying salaries that reflect the players' market value would mean (a) schools would have to pay disability insurance; (b) players could legally form a union. Both ideas terrify the NCAA.

Not sure if Title IX necessarily requires that women players get paid the same. It only requires that women not "be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." If all players received market value (the market determines pay, not gender), football players would get paid more than, say, women's swimmers.

//of course, that also means that women's basketball players would be paid more than men's volleyball players.

The really good players are already getting more than that. What in the fark is paying them going to do to stop that?

AliceBToklasLives: Also - paying salaries that reflect the players' market value would mean (a) schools would have to pay disability insurance workers' comp; (b) players could legally form a union. Both ideas terrify the NCAA.

Oops - anyway that's why they are "student-athletes" rather than "employees"

This whole argument is total bullshiat. I played division 1 football. The athletes DO get paid.

When I lived in an on campus apartment I got a stipend check every month for about $400 for food/expenses. When I lived in a house off campus I got almost $1200 a month for rent and food. Split rent between 3-4 guys and all of a sudden I had enough money to do whatever I wanted (buy tons of beer). I wasn't exactly the richest guy on campus but I learned to live on a budget, which comes in pretty handy in the real world. And as far as I know that goes for every athlete that was on a full scholarship regardless of the sport.

All that being said, if they want to give them more money, go ahead. The university makes a ton of money off athletics so why not throw them an extra 200 bucks a month? But don't use the lame ass argument that they don't get ANY money

Just did a little digging: In 2009, Ohio State University scholarship athletes made $1,332 a month (tax-free) in actual cash payments they actually receive. University of Wisconsin scholarship athletes made $1,009 a month (tax-free) in actual cash payments they actually receive.

That's for all scholarship athletes, regardless of sport, regardless of position, regardless of starter/backup/whatever.

This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable when you compare them to Class A baseball ($1,000 - $1,500 a month), ECHL hockey players (minimum salary of $350 or $425 a week), NBDL salaries ($12,000 - $24,000 a year), or what you make working at Subway 25 hours a week ($200-250 a week).

Harv72b: What college athletes need to do is form a union. That would solve all of their problems.

They're legally prevented from forming a union.

IAmRight: "It wouldn't be that much, but enough to allow them to live like normal student-athletes."

Giving them more money will make them worse off?

/and yes, the SEC can afford this. They pay their coaches an average of a million bucks per coach more than any other conference (numbers I calculated back in 2009 or so, it's probably changed since then, but I don't doubt that they still pay way more than everyone else). Other teams can't.

What does "allow them to live like other student-athletes" mean?
Do other student-athletes get paid?

I'm sure glad these people deserve more money from colleges. It's not like the rest of the plebes going through. I guess they must work harder than people like me, who worked two jobs and lived in crime-ridden area off-campus so that I could graduate with ONLY $30k in student loans (all while going to a relatively 'inexpensive' public university). I think most people, if you told them that they could get a free education (with nothing else) in exchange for playing a game, they wouldn't hesitate. But yes, let's continue to paint these poor football players as "victims" of a greedy corporate America. If you truly want to solve the problem, you have to take sports out of college and create minor farm leagues where people can be paid based on performance. And use the federal money going to these "student-athletes" to give more assistance to people who actually want an education.

so...they'll have to pay for the costs of schooling then, right? You'd think people would be appreciative of a free education. Most people go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get what these guys get for free and whine they don't get enough.

"We as coaches believe they are entitled to a little more than room, books, board and tuition."

REally? So, they've entitled to more than...basically...everything? THAT'S basically college debt in a nutshell. Books. Tuition. Food, shelter. What more do they need?

/sheesh...I wish. free education for being born with some athleticism. must be nice.

UCFRoadWarrior: The minute you start paying college football players....you then will have Title IX lawsuits because some women's rights group will claim that it is sexist that the women's basketball players are not getting paid the same.

solution. don't pay them, but don't restrict their outside compensation/income. no title ix problems and the players get some of wealth that they are creating for the school. there's no reason that the ncaa should restrict outside income. computer science students can earn cash using their unique skill set while in school (even if on a full scholarship), why not football and basketball players?

bborchar: I'm sure glad these people deserve more money from colleges. It's not like the rest of the plebes going through. I guess they must work harder than people like me, who worked two jobs and lived in crime-ridden area off-campus so that I could graduate with ONLY $30k in student loans (all while going to a relatively 'inexpensive' public university). I think most people, if you told them that they could get a free education (with nothing else) in exchange for playing a game, they wouldn't hesitate. But yes, let's continue to paint these poor football players as "victims" of a greedy corporate America. If you truly want to solve the problem, you have to take sports out of college and create minor farm leagues where people can be paid based on performance. And use the federal money going to these "student-athletes" to give more assistance to people who actually want an education.

Did what you do get a 9 or 10 figure TV contract for the school? It must have been very exciting.

IAmRight: Do any players do anything that does that? Nope.

Sorry, for the conference.

UCFRoadWarrior: The minute you start paying college football players....you then will have Title IX lawsuits because some lesbian women's rights group will claim that it is sexist that the women's basketball players are not getting paid the same.

This is the real reason why you have not seen college football or basketball players get paid. Their getting paid means all the women sports will expect to be paid the same. Of course, the non-revenue sports already take most of the money made by men's football....paying athletes will cost more...and put some programs under

Title IX would probably disappear if they became paid employees instead of "scholarship" recipients. As long as the schools allowed women to try out of any team they wanted and weren't passed over for males of lesser athletic ability, they'd probably be ok. Of course that's just my internet GED law degree speaking so take it for what it's worth.

$300/month/player doesn't sound like much but multiply it by 85 football players and nine months of school per year, you get a bit under a quarter of a million dollars. Not much for BCS schools but it could destroy the SunBelt Conference.

If we must mix our billion-dollar sports industries and our universities, how about this:

Each athlete, in addition to their scholarship, receives a stipend, say, $1500-2000/month. However, that money goes into an account, payable to the athlete upon graduation. Failure to graduate forfeits the money. With this system, the athletes have both a motivation to graduate and get a piece of the immense amount of money they are generating. The few that choose to drop out and go pro won't care about losing the relative pittance of ~$75,000.

ihatedumbpeople: so...they'll have to pay for the costs of schooling then, right? You'd think people would be appreciative of a free education. Most people go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get what these guys get for free and whine they don't get enough.

"We as coaches believe they are entitled to a little more than room, books, board and tuition."

REally? So, they've entitled to more than...basically...everything? THAT'S basically college debt in a nutshell. Books. Tuition. Food, shelter. What more do they need?

/sheesh...I wish. free education for being born with some athleticism. must be nice.

aj green was banned for four games for selling his own personal property (a jersey the school gave all the players after their bowl game). on the day that aj green was banned, the university of georgia had ~47 different version of his jersey for sale (including baby pink infant size). that's farking ridiculous. he sold his own personal property, while the school was selling his likeness, and he gets less than nothing. he gets a suspension.

/they aren't even supposed to accept a free sammich or beer.

bborchar: I think most people, if you told them that they could get a free education (with nothing else) in exchange for playing a game, they wouldn't hesitate.

it's not a game. it's a job. it's a different experience.

/at least some schools are finally offering four year scholarships.

PowerSlacker: meanmutton: This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable when you compare them to Class A baseball ($1,000 - $1,500 a month), ECHL hockey players (minimum salary of $350 or $425 a week), NBDL salaries ($12,000 - $24,000 a year), or what you make working at Subway 25 hours a week ($200-250 a week).

It is terribly unreasonable when you compare the amount of revenue generated by college football players relative to the other players you cited.

Sure is a lot of free market hate in here. Welcome to Fark.

Most division 1 college football programs cost more money to run than they bring in. Only 22 athletic departments made money last year. Despite that, the cash-in-pocket amounts paid out to varsity athletes is equal to what they'd make playing minor leagues in other sports PLUS they get all sorts of benefits that minor leaguers don't get -- scholarships, medical insurance, clothing, etc. -- which put their total compensation up in the $40k-60k range.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Harv72b: What college athletes need to do is form a union. That would solve all of their problems.

It would solve all of ours, too, when the colleges disband their programs rather than pay. Maybe then we can have an above-board football minor league instead of everybody trying to be slick and cheat the NCAA by paying their players while claiming that they're not actually paying their players.

/If you're in the top 20 you're better at cheating than the bottom 100, it's that simple
//The NCAA could give the death penalty to 5 schools a year if they wanted to

FTFY.

LockeOak: If we must mix our billion-dollar sports industries and our universities, how about this:

Each athlete, in addition to their scholarship, receives a stipend, say, $1500-2000/month. However, that money goes into an account, payable to the athlete upon graduation. Failure to graduate forfeits the money. With this system, the athletes have both a motivation to graduate and get a piece of the immense amount of money they are generating. The few that choose to drop out and go pro won't care about losing the relative pittance of ~$75,000.

An extra $1,500 a month on TOP OF the $1,500 a month they're currently getting paid? That's a lot of money wen 90% of division 1 athletic departments are losing money as it is.

meanmutton: PowerSlacker: meanmutton: This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable when you compare them to Class A baseball ($1,000 - $1,500 a month), ECHL hockey players (minimum salary of $350 or $425 a week), NBDL salaries ($12,000 - $24,000 a year), or what you make working at Subway 25 hours a week ($200-250 a week).

It is terribly unreasonable when you compare the amount of revenue generated by college football players relative to the other players you cited.

Sure is a lot of free market hate in here. Welcome to Fark.

Most division 1 college football programs cost more money to run than they bring in. Only 22 athletic departments made money last year. Despite that, the cash-in-pocket amounts paid out to varsity athletes is equal to what they'd make playing minor leagues in other sports PLUS they get all sorts of benefits that minor leaguers don't get -- scholarships, medical insurance, clothing, etc. -- which put their total compensation up in the $40k-60k range.

22 athletic departments. not 22 football programs. often the athletic department uses the millions the football program makes to fund all of the other sports. trust me the sec football programs are money making machines.

/the schools shouldn't pay them more, but the ncaa shouldn't limit their outside compensation.

A Fark Handle: ihatedumbpeople: so...they'll have to pay for the costs of schooling then, right? You'd think people would be appreciative of a free education. Most people go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get what these guys get for free and whine they don't get enough.

"We as coaches believe they are entitled to a little more than room, books, board and tuition."

REally? So, they've entitled to more than...basically...everything? THAT'S basically college debt in a nutshell. Books. Tuition. Food, shelter. What more do they need?

/sheesh...I wish. free education for being born with some athleticism. must be nice.

aj green was banned for four games for selling his own personal property (a jersey the school gave all the players after their bowl game). on the day that aj green was banned, the university of georgia had ~47 different version of his jersey for sale (including baby pink infant size). that's farking ridiculous. he sold his own personal property, while the school was selling his likeness, and he gets less than nothing. he gets a suspension.

/they aren't even supposed to accept a free sammich or beer.

Uhh... yeah, they are able to. It's called the "occasional meal" policy. They're absolutely allowed to have some pretty super awesome meals given to them by boosters. I don't know about alcohol, though, because colleges are pretty super Puritan when it comes to alcohol.

Let's be completely honest here -- there's a symbiotic relationship between college teams and their players. Denard Robinson playing for random minor league football team isn't going to pack 100,000 people into a stadium if he's not wearing a winged helmet. That winged helmet isn't going to be packing 100,000 people into a stadium if it wasn't on guys like Denard Robinson.

The payers are getting paid salaries about what they'd get if there was a regular minor league, plus they get scholarships, health insurance, clothing, and (at least the ones who go to bowl games not based in Detroit) awesome vacations on top of that. Sure, we can tweak the system here and there but the idea of blowing it up is in no one's interests.

meanmutton: Most division 1 college football programs cost more money to run than they bring in. Only 22 athletic departments made money last year. Despite that, the cash-in-pocket amounts paid out to varsity athletes is equal to what they'd make playing minor leagues in other sports PLUS they get all sorts of benefits that minor leaguers don't get -- scholarships, medical insurance, clothing, etc. -- which put their total compensation up in the $40k-60k range.

That's athletics departments, not football programs. I suspect -- don't know for sure, but it's an educated guess -- you'd find the number of profitable football programs is much higher than the number of profitable athletics departments, because baseball, softball, hockey, swimming, etc, aren't worth anything. I suspect there might be a few profitable basketball programs, but I doubt most make anything worth talking about.

meanmutton: That winged helmet isn't going to be packing 100,000 people into a stadium if it wasn't on guys like Denard Robinson.

How soon Tate Forcier is forgotten.

That winged helmet, or a silver one with leaves on it will pack 100k into a stadium REGARDLESS of who wears it.

Ohio State sold out against Akron when they put JOE F-Ing BAUSERMAN under center.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: meanmutton: That winged helmet isn't going to be packing 100,000 people into a stadium if it wasn't on guys like Denard Robinson.

How soon Tate Forcier is forgotten.

That winged helmet, or a silver one with leaves on it will pack 100k into a stadium REGARDLESS of who wears it.

Ohio State sold out against Akron when they put JOE F-Ing BAUSERMAN under center.

It wouldn't happen overnight, but if there was a minor league set up and all the best players were going -- college football would turn into college baseball.

meanmutton: A Fark Handle: aj green was banned for four games for selling his own personal property (a jersey the school gave all the players after their bowl game). on the day that aj green was banned, the university of georgia had ~47 different version of his jersey for sale (including baby pink infant size). that's farking ridiculous. he sold his own personal property, while the school was selling his likeness, and he gets less than nothing. he gets a suspension.

/they aren't even supposed to accept a free sammich or beer.

Uhh... yeah, they are able to. It's called the "occasional meal" policy. They're absolutely allowed to have some pretty super awesome meals given to them by boosters. I don't know about alcohol, though, because colleges are pretty super Puritan when it comes to alcohol.

i guess i shouldn't have added the slashie since you seem to have skipped over the more important point. banned for selling personal property. that's some serious bullshiat. i mean not jeremy bloom level bullshiat, but still bullshiat. fark the ncaa.

Educating Jeremy: Jeremy Bloom tells his side of a losing battle to regain his eligibility with the NCAA, which has decided to make him a one-sport star