Anyone still think student athletes should be paid?

[The Loaded Italian]

triblive.com/news/westmoreland/7666804-74/university-million-endowment#axzz3QJkRatse


You need to pay all undergrads then. They make FAR more money, especially the engineering and physics majors.

 

[burnie1105]

First off, your point makes no sense. Universities have big endowments, so all students should be paid? That is a stunning leap in logic, so stunning that I don't think there is any logic there.

Second, universities earn revenue off of the likeness and production of student-athletes, whether through merchandise sales, TV contracts, or ticket sales; there is no conscionable reason they shouldn't be compensated. There is no employer in America (and make no mistake about it, it's an employer-employee situation) that could get away with the 'compensation package' student-athletes get relative to their production.



http://deadspin.com/richard-sherman-and-michael-bennett-savage-the-ncaa-sc-1682752726

 

[mbe 34]

They should be paid. Yes they get scholarships - so do other kids - but the athletes are required to "work". Show up in the spring, attend practices AND expected to go to class. Giving them a monthly stipend should be no big deal.

 

[mdpitt]

It's far easier for top students getting free education then it is to be Div1

athlete on full scholarship.

Your premise is flawed because Div 1 athletes on full scholarships have unique skills that are rewarded with benefits. If you are a top student, you will go to school for free.

It is far easier to become a Doctor than it is to become a full scholarship Football player. It is far easier to become an electrical engineer than a Div 1 Football player.

I am talking statistically here.

50,000 people are going to watch a Pitt Football player against FSU. They are not going to attend a Biology class to watch a kid learn and they won't buy a hot dog.

It's just the reality and I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

 

[The Loaded Italian]

Re: It's far easier for top students getting free education then it is to be Div1

I imagine you all are joking.


First, I said they should not be paid extra to play football. Of course they get scholarships, as do top students.

Secondly, football players should get paid because people are there to watch them? How does that make sense? Thousands are watching the work of the undergrads as well, that is why businesses give universities money, and the work being done brings much more money in than revenue for football that is my point.

No, people pay to go to university, as it should be. But to say that all students athletes get paid because they bring in modest revenues (sports other than football, which face it, if football players get paid, all athletes do, they will never split that up) is ridiculous. We worked on a 100 million dollar fund from Chevron in college, and also worked very hard (I was also playing baseball on the side).

When you are in college then you work hard and you make ends meet. Those are 2 important life lessons anyways.

As for likenesses of players, that should simply be outlawed, as it has already been done. NCAA '15 did not use any likenesses of players.

My point is there are parts of the university, almost every university that makes far more money than what athletics bring in.

 

[NCanton Panther]

Re: It's far easier for top students getting free education then it is to be Div1

Loaded Italian, yes I think the posters with the quick replies weren't really understanding what you were trying to say with your original post.

And when one claims it is much easier to become a doctor than a full scholarship Div 1 FB player, I stopped reading any further on that one.

 

[mdpitt]

7812 FCS scholarships per year vs. 17,254 Doctors per year.

People just don't realize the rare commodity of a top athlete is for FCS football.

 

[mbe 34]

Re: It's far easier for top students getting free education then it is to be Div1

The poster said it was statistically easier to become a Dr than a Division one football player.
He was right.
How many Dr's does NYU, University of Chicago, CMU, and all the non Div 1 schools produce each year vs the number D1 recruits taken in?

It's not even close.

 

[NCanton Panther]

Re: It's far easier for top students getting free education then it is to be Div1


Actually, that's not exactly what the poster said, the exact words were...

It is far easier to become a Doctor than it is to become a full scholarship Football player. It is far easier to become an electrical engineer than a Div 1 Football player

He then added the clarifier after it that it was statistically speaking. And even statistically speaking, the simple number of students on scholarship doesn't tell the whole story. How many of those Doctor and/or EE scholarships are full scholarships. Let's talk about the denominator in that equation as well, not just the numerator. Unless of course you want to consider the full population of kids playing HS football the available pool of Div 1 football players.

 

[mdpitt]

You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will

get paid for 4 years in college and then 1% will get an nfl paycheck for maybe 2 years as a pro.

Being an Enginner or a Doctor pays far more in the longrun but for a very tiny window of time between 18-19 years old a University needs to take a risk on talent, keep them eligible and invest more money in their production.

I iby no means think it's right but it's just the reality of how rare a commodity it is.

What Pitt does with it's research money makes our athletic budget look like a grain of salt in our budget. All those students contributing to research are essentially completing an apprenticeship in their field of study. We don't pay most because we don't have to. They will have a much longer Arc of earning money compared to a paid football player.

This post was edited on 2/3 9:49 AM by mdpitt

 

[The Loaded Italian]

Re: You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will

That is not a strong argument.

Any football player could do an apprenticeship as well. They can study in any field they want and get approved for... just like ANY high school student.

They are afforded a chance for free schooling and the ones that dont fit into the above statement would not have been accepted into a university anyways. But guess what? many non athlete high school athletes do not get accepted either.

I make good money and I was a college student athlete. I just selected a good field of study and worked twice as hard.

 

[NCanton Panther]

Re: You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will

O'k, at this point I've lost sight of what we are even debating.

What point are you trying to make with your statement that a D1 athlete gets paid for 4 years in college and then only 1% of them will get an nfl paycheck for maybe 2 years as a pro - is that supposed to be a valid reason for why they should be getting compensated more than the full scholarship they currently receive from the schools?? I don't see the connection there??

Every Div I FB scholarship student athlete should be well aware of the above stats and should plan on taking full advantage of the full scholarship they are receiving in terms of the degree they elect to pursue with the opportunity afforded by that scholarship. That full 4-year scholarship for an out-of-state student is no small pittance to sneeze at like some seem to suggest. And let's not ignore the significant benefit that the mere availability of that full scholarship gives to that student athlete, whom in many cases would not have had any opportunity to enter school and pursue a chosen career.

And similarly, what does how much an engineer or doctor may make in the long run have to do with this either. Hey, I'm an engineer for 35+ years now and do quite well. But what I may have made over those 35+ years likely pales in comparison to what an NFL athlete makes in a few years, even those at NFL minimum. But again, what does that have to do with what we are debating in terms of what compensation student-athletes should receiver while in school.

 

[TheOldPanther]

Re: You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will

Why worry about this, Obummer will soon provide a free education at the Grad level and if you don't make the grade one will provided compliments of the Government.

 

[OakParkPanther]

I knew someone would eventually get around to disparaging Obama. But it's worth a discussion on its own, as to why we have to pay for college. "Because that's the way it is" is not an acceptable answer.

Harvard's endowment is so large that all their students could go for free with a serious hit, but yet they still charge. Why?

Imagine a system such that, if you can get in, you can go. Why should finances ever be an obstacle to kids going to the best school they can get into, without being shackled with a huge debt load after

Maybe without that debt load we would have fewer lawyers, stock brokers, and investment bankers contributing nothing of tangible value. More people could follow their dreams instead of being led around by their bills.

Unless you see value in a system that says only the rich should go to the top schools. The proletariat should be satisfied with community college, or should be willing to shoulder crippling debt?

 

[The Loaded Italian]

You do realize that very few of Harvard's students pay to go to school at Harvard right?


Other than that, you are right. But it is actually moving the other way, the degree houses that charge a fortune for worthless degrees are proving university is a big business opportunity

 

[load1079]

Originally posted by The Loaded Italian:
You do realize that very few of Harvard's students pay to go to school at Harvard right?


Other than that, you are right. But it is actually moving the other way, the degree houses that charge a fortune for worthless degrees are proving university is a big business opportunity

Not true. 80% of Harvard students (parents) pay something to go to college there, though more than half receive some kind of financial aid. Most are paying something, just not full boat.

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works

As for this thread, it is all over the place. I think a lot of folks who are against paying athletes probably were not D1 athletes themselves or maybe were in a long ago area that was a very different environment than today. The time commitment for these athletes is borderline absurd - not to mention in most cases, these kids have academic requirements and need to stay in school for at least 3 years. It's not easy to be a full time student and full time athlete.

Especially with the revenue sports, the value the schools receive from the players, especially the stars, far outweigh the value of the degree the student gets. Athletes of revenue sport teams make money for the school. The regular student does not (at least not in overtly tangible ways like athletes). It's that simple. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be paying a football staff over $5 MM.

I do like the idea of a stipend for athletes. I also think the revenue sports athletes should get paid more more than the non-revenue sports athletes (this coming from a former track athlete that would make less). If your jersey # is being sold in the Pitt store even without your name, those players should get an incremental stipend or a return on the money they are making for the school. It's not 100% equitable, but it's fair...if you make the money for the school, you get more of it back.

 

[OriginalEther]

Re: You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will

Now we've really gone off topic.

Oversimplified, my view is that the NCAA needs to quit trying this amateur student athlete concept while raking it billions of dollars. No one is falling for it anymore. Either:

1. Make it truly about being a student athlete. Their compensation is a degree that is worthwhile and actually earned. No lowering of standards to get an athlete into the university. Any compromise of academic, amateur, or civic integrity is dealt with harshly, so harshly (i.e. death penalty) that no one will even think to consider bending the rules, much less break them.

Cementheads like Jameis Winston, who don't belong near a university, much less in one, need not apply in this system. The pressure can fall on the NFL to figure out a way to take these guys who only want/are able to play football.

The NCAA will no doubt lose a lot of money in this system, and your stereotypical college fan wants nothing to do with it as well. So option two is:

2. Scrap the amateur concept and let the players play the market.

Players get a portion of merchandise sales. More so if their actual name/number is on the jersey. If some booster wants to pay a player, let him. If a player wants and can peddle autographs, let him. If the player can get an endorsement deal, let him. Don't even bother with the academic requirements, which none of us believe are being upheld anyways.

 

[TheOldPanther]

Re: You realize that a Dr or EE will get paid for 40 years where D1 will


OK so all sporting events should be free.