unions coming to college ball

[4Corners]

It is college, not the minor leagues.  If a player does not like the deal, make some church league you tube videos.

 

Colleges are not profiteering owners.  They use every dime they make to support athletics, scholarships, facilities, etc.  Nobody is getting rich off the kids playing ball for the college, but the money that is created benefits a lot of people.

 

Keep Greed out of college sports. It is already an issue with the coaches.  There is no intelligent reason Coach K makes 10 times more than the president of Duke University.

 

 

I mean....Mike Krzyzewski is personally responsible for two mid major coaches receiving raises. #Lehigh #Mercer

[MHS831]

That's not an answer for how it's "wrong" and you just said nobody is getting rich off the kids while citing people who get rich off the kids.  There IS an intelligent reason coaches make so much money though, it's because their programs generate so much money.

 

Do you think high school players should get paid if the program generates money?

 

Middle School?

 

Here was my point about the coaches' salary:

 

Don't you think the spirit of college athletics has been distorted by greed already?  Players who can't spell the college they play for are given scholarships to play games and take watered-down courses.  Is that really what a college program should be about?  You do not question it because that is the way it has been, but if you start paying players a little now and they get unions and, eventually, agents, to turn colleges into professional leagues. 

 

College sports began when Harvard challenged Yale to a crewing match.  Then came TV contracts, scholarships, recruiting, etc. What role do sports have in the grand scheme of things on the university level?  Aside from promoting the name of the university, college basketball, for example, has no higher educational value.  It is fluff, so beloved that nobody ever questions why it has gotten so out of hand. 

 

Think about it--what does Duke pay a basketball player $200K worth of tuition to do?  Go to med school and try to cure cancer?  Write a NY Times best-selling novel?  Become a civic leader?  Lawyer?  Psychiatrist?  That is what the other students do there.  The answer:  They give some athletes $200k worth of tuition to throw a ball through a hoop that is a bit larger than the circumference of said ball.  They pay coach K $10 million per year to help all 10 of them.  They pay the president $850, 000 to run the entire university.  And now we think the solution is to pay the players? 

[BlackCnqstdr]

Do you think high school players should get paid if the program generates money?

 

Middle School?

 

Here was my point about the coaches' salary:

 

Don't you think the spirit of college athletics has been distorted by greed already?  Players who can't spell the college they play for are given scholarships to play games and take watered-down courses.  Is that really what a college program should be about?  You do not question it because that is the way it has been, but if you start paying players a little now and they get unions and, eventually, agents, to turn colleges into professional leagues. 

 

College sports began when Harvard challenged Yale to a crewing match.  Then came TV contracts, scholarships, recruiting, etc. What role do sports have in the grand scheme of things on the university level?  Aside from promoting the name of the university, college basketball, for example, has no higher educational value.  It is fluff, so beloved that nobody ever questions why it has gotten so out of hand. 

 

 

No I don't think high schoolers should be paid, but high school football hasn't been turned into a billion dollar industry either so the question isn't really relevant.  I don't care about the spirit of college athletics much like the people running college athletics don't care about the spirit of it.  As far as how it started:

 

Athletes during the early and mid-1900’s were routinely recruited and paid to play; and there were several instances where individuals representing the schools were not enrolled as students. For example, there is one report of a Midwestern university using seven members of its team that included the town blacksmith, a lawyer, a livery man, and four railroad employees (5). Other athletes at colleges were given high paying jobs for which they did little or no work. In 1948, the NCAA adopted a “Sanity Code” that limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees, and required that aid otherwise be given based on need (5). In the early 1950’s, with the threat of several southern schools bolting from the NCAA, the code was revised to allow athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and a living stipend.

 

http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/

 

 

Other than athletes being paid what are the real differences between college and pro sports right now?  Just more games?

 

Those athletes generate money for the university, what do the other students do?

[MHS831]

No I don't think high schoolers should be paid, but high school football hasn't been turned into a billion dollar industry either so the question isn't really relevant.  I don't care about the spirit of college athletics much like the people running college athletics don't care about the spirit of it.  As far as how it started:

 

Athletes during the early and mid-1900’s were routinely recruited and paid to play; and there were several instances where individuals representing the schools were not enrolled as students. For example, there is one report of a Midwestern university using seven members of its team that included the town blacksmith, a lawyer, a livery man, and four railroad employees (5). Other athletes at colleges were given high paying jobs for which they did little or no work. In 1948, the NCAA adopted a “Sanity Code” that limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees, and required that aid otherwise be given based on need (5). In the early 1950’s, with the threat of several southern schools bolting from the NCAA, the code was revised to allow athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and a living stipend.

 

http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/

 

 

Other than athletes being paid what are the real differences between college and pro sports right now?  Just more games?

 

I am just saying that college athletes should not be paid. It is already out of hand.  They get promoted, educated, and coached up by the college.  Making a bad situation worse is not the answer.  Hey, if you want contract holdouts, agent negotiations, and union strikes in college sports, open this door and see where the corridor takes you. 

[Brooklyn Bully]

From a comment section on LinkedIn about this very subject ...

 

 

 

Once again the issue of “should Universities compensate student athletes?” surfaces. In my opinion, the answer to this question is no. You’re more than welcome to disagree but here is my reasoning:

 

1. The average compensated tuition ranges between $20,000 for low-end Division I schools and can surpass $50,000 for your most prodigious private schools. However, what about all of the other amenities that these individuals receive? Meals, housing, transportation, state-of-the-art equipment and training, and oh yeah… let’s not forget publicity. Provide me of an estimation of that value and get back to me once you figure out what the annual cost of a football or basketball athlete is.

 

2. If you were to pay athletes, there is no economically sustainable and fair way to do so. And when I say “athletes” I mean everyone. Why should a football or basketball player be paid more than a baseball or track athlete? Also since America prides itself on equality, the female athletes should be paid in the same amount. Try that one on for size. And don’t tell me that just because they attract TV ratings that football or basketball athletes should be paid more. That is ludicrous.

 

3. Going further down the line of economics, paying players would absolutely ruin college athletics. How is a school from the MAC or some second-tier University going to be able to recruit? The only thing involved in recruiting would be waving around the largest check.

 

4. Let us not forget what the main thing about College is: education. These are STUDENT athletes. If they do not want to pay without pay then my recommendation is find an overseas or semi-pro league and have the NCAA get rid of requirements to stay at a school for sports like football.

 

Sincerely yours, A non-Student Athlete Collegiate Student

 

Look, these children ... yes, children, are not employees of the NCAA. Their "job" is to go to school. If the NCAA makes money off of them, oh well. Such is life. They'll be fine. Someone or something is making money off each and every one of us every single day. The best thing anyone can do is to drop any and all rules and let high school kids turn pro (or go to paid semipro) after high school. If they need to learn how to manage the new money that they're coming into? Take a class somewhere. These athletes who want to turn pro have zero interest in education. They want money. Let them turn pro and go get it. Currently they get a free ride with their tuition, get a lot of perks, and live a great college life. Seems pretty great if you ask me.

 

But you argue they're modern day slaves? They work their asses off and people are getting rich off of them? First off, no. They choose to be athletes. They aren't being forced to do anything. If you want to learn AND play? It'll be tough. Guess what? Life is tough. It'll be a great experience.

 

Ok, so what if we do pay athletes? Do the basketball players and football players get paid more than the golf team and swimmers? Can of worms opened! Those "lesser" sports have kids who are paying tuition, who train just as hard, who have to balance school and games. But the union will make everything fair? Ok, so now a two-star athlete gets paid the same as a five-star athlete? Or, will the five-star get paid more? Can of worms opened! Now, those five-star kids will get recruited harder in high school and whomever waves the biggest check will win out. As the quote above says, small schools can't afford the best talent. Can of worms opened!

 

The whole thing is a disaster waiting to happen. The unions will claim everything will be fair, but where is all that money going to come from?  It's sick. Children don't need money in college. They need to learn how to live in the real world. Once they graduate, feel free to go and get as much money as you possibly can. And to the people who drastically support this, stop being a crybaby about the big, bad, rich 1% who is making money off these kids. The kids are doing just fine.

 

 

 

[SmokinwithWilly]

Hate to say it, but if college football players start getting paid, a lot of college sports programs will take the fall because they aren't making money. 

 

I for one would hate to see this go away.

 

[QCkilla]

This is years and years away from happening. It will be stayed and go all the way to the Supreme Court. And before that happens, Congress could potentially pass legislation declaring that student-athletes cannot be considered employees and cannot unionize. Don't ever see it happening.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[UpstatePanther]

...and football programs will drop like flies all over the country.

 

that might not be such a bad thing. it will pool the talent into fewer schools, makes it less likely that draft picks bust

[carolinarolls]

Yep

This is the end.

You can pay them, sure. Now you don't have to struggle to give them an education they don't qualify to earn on the same basis as non-athletes.

If a kid qualifies per everyday standards, we can talk compensation being a combination of tuition, room, board and stipend.

If not, the kid is a paid employee and there is no reason for him to attend classes for which he is not even qualified. What would be the point? He can get compensation through room and board if he wishes or take a check and live however he wishes.

Unions who fight for wages represent employees, not students.

When we start paying them and the final veil is lifted I will be done with it. At least now there is the facade that these kids compete on an even playing field across the divisions in the NCAA. But with paychecks and unions and contracts, and a whole slew of slimy new agents hanging around middle school playgrounds I really don't think I will be able to stomach it. It's already a really big stretch.

[pstall]

Are there college athletes going hungry or failing in school? Guess which one is happening more?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[Brooklyn Bully]

Yes, we can say that if college ball unionizes we'll be opening the door for other unscrupulous activities but the NCAA is and shall always be the precursor to these issues. If they didn't want to pay their student athletes, then they should have let them seek employment like every other college student. This isn't the 80s and 90s anymore. The cost of living here has disgustingly increased. I mean, you can't even eat healthy without spending 20 bucks in one sitting. Student athletes need to make a living too and it has nothing to do with living within your means because they don't have a revenue stream. If the NCAA truly cared, they would have set up a program for their athletes to get three square meals a day, medical expenses, car insurance, etc with all the money they've been profiting off their names in the first place.

 

You're joking, right?

 

Star athletes can get free room and board in a dorm, free meals, the best training facility to use for free, a free education, free trips all over the country, free publicity, free access to the team doctor, a free rise in popularity on campus, etc. Just what the hell do they need any money for? Beer? Condoms? If you mean the athletes on the golf team, the swim team, the track stars, etc. then yes ... they don't get the same swag. Which is why paying them all can't work, because they'll want just as much as a star basketball player gets.

 

What about a genius who gets a free ride in the physics department? What if his work gives the school grants and attracts other genius students to the school which can give them more money. It can bring it better professors if the school gets a rep as the place to learn. Those kids study their ASS off. Should they get some money?

[BlackCnqstdr]

You're joking, right?

 

Star athletes can get free room and board in a dorm, free meals, the best training facility to use for free, a free education, free trips all over the country, free publicity, free access to the team doctor, a free rise in popularity on campus, etc. Just what the hell do they need any money for? Beer? Condoms? If you mean the athletes on the golf team, the swim team, the track stars, etc. then yes ... they don't get the same swag. Which is why paying them all can't work, because they'll want just as much as a star basketball player gets.

 

What about a genius who gets a free ride in the physics department? What if his work gives the school grants and attracts other genius students to the school which can give them more money. It can bring it better professors if the school gets a rep as the place to learn. Those kids study their ASS off. Should they get some money?

 

the education isn't free, the "trips" all over the country are for games they're not a perk. Free publicity and popularity? I bet Cade Foster was loving it when he was getting death threats for losing an "amateur" sporting event.  Free access to the doctor for injuries sustained playing their sport which is again not optional.  They need money to buy things, the same reason you need money.  Or do you work for education and meals in your workplace cafeteria?

 

Those genius kids can get money when and where they want, athletes can't. 

[SIGCHI222]

NO...it is not.

[Kevin Greene]

OK, pay them as they bring in cash to the school which other students don't and give medical benefits related to football injuries etc.

But to get that scholarship they also have to meet the same eligibility requirements as all the other students getting scholarships at that school academically.

Level playing field right?

 

/sarcasm

 

Long term I think the only people who will get hurt on this is kids from middle to lower class families who could never afford to send their kids to a 75k or even a 35k per year University. There most likely will be fewer programs if this becomes the norm and consequently fewer opportunities.

The rich won't be effected of course. What a shame someone like the son of former NFL QB Joe Montanna is given a football scholarship when his father could easily pay for the tuition and leaving one less scholalrship for a kid who's parents couldn't. Then let's pay the kid as well.