Paying Players

Sort of depends on the perspective you're looking at this from..

If you look at it as what they get "paid" (in form of tuiton, room/board, etc), then yes, they're fine as is.

But on the other hand, you see how much they generate in revenue, and it does seem like they should be paid something extra. This is definitely a consideration in a capitalist society. Just imagine if you and a team were paid X amount a year to put out a product that your company charged consumers 20X your combined salaries.. You'd want a pay raise too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azn4cy

Sort of depends on the perspective you're looking at this from..

If you look at it as what they get "paid" (in form of tuiton, room/board, etc), then yes, they're fine as is.

But on the other hand, you see how much they generate in revenue, and it does seem like they should be paid something extra. This is definitely a consideration in a capitalist society. Just imagine if you and a team were paid X amount a year to put out a product that your company charged consumers 20X your combined salaries.. You'd want a pay raise too.

---

I don't know, it sounds like real world business to me. The peons do all the work and the executives get paid. :jimlad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jl112481

I don't know, it sounds like real world business to me. The peons do all the work and the executives get paid. :jimlad:

---

Ha, exactly, but the peons want (and probably deserve) more money as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IcSyU

Honest question: How many people on this board had the money to buy whatever they wanted in college? How many of you actually worked if you wanted to buy something? How many of you had loans if you wanted something?

---

Yup, in college, I worked 15-20 hours a week, full time job (or 2) during the summer, at times counting nickels for a soda. Worked 4 semesters without going to school to make money (2 sem of 'jobs', 2 of internships), ended up with 25K of debt. Admittedly, always had money for beer, somehow...When I tell people I only went to one football game and no basketball games while in college, a lot of people are amazed. The reason: Games are on nights/weekends. I was working. I had to take a day off to make that football game, decided I couldn't graduate without going to any. The only 'spring break' I had was a long weekend junket to Elko, NV (which is a hole). Am I whining...no, I'm proud of what I did and it made me a stronger person. However, I also don't have much room for listening to 'athletes don't get enough for what they do.' Yes, athletes brought in much more money for the university than I did, but like others said, you never get close to what you make for someone in the real world. Job, pro sports, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azn4cy

Sort of depends on the perspective you're looking at this from..

If you look at it as what they get "paid" (in form of tuiton, room/board, etc), then yes, they're fine as is.

But on the other hand, you see how much they generate in revenue, and it does seem like they should be paid something extra. This is definitely a consideration in a capitalist society. Just imagine if you and a team were paid X amount a year to put out a product that your company charged consumers 20X your combined salaries.. You'd want a pay raise too.

---

But if you're eminently replaceable, like college football players are, your boss probably isn't going to give you that raise, he'll find someone else to do the job for less money.

There are some college football players who single handedly bring in tons of money to the university, but these guys are very rare (Cam Newton, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, guys like that who are huge stars in college). Outside of that you could replace pretty much anyone on most teams with a random juco player and that won't affect the money brought into the university. Why does a back up who never plays, doesn't bring in fans, doesn't bring in money deserve to get paid?

The problem with the pay idea is that the second it is enacted, there will be lawsuits because you can't say that a women's tennis player doesn't work just as hard as a FB player. Just because their sport doesn't produce income doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be compensated. So right off the bat, you're looking at every single scholarship athlete being paid the same. And then, the NCAA would have to make sure that every school or conference was on board and paying the same. Otherwise, you'd have teams and conferences upping the ante...why couldn't the SEC give playes an extra $15k a year instead of $10k? And then why couldn't the Big 11 give players an extra $20k the following year?

If the amount is set and required all through FBS, then how many programs flat out will not be able to afford it and be forced to drop down to 1AA? I'd say quite a few non-BCS teams. And how does that help the student athlete, giving them less opportunities to play D1 FB (1AA has 20 less scholarships).

I understand that these players help universities bring in a bunch of money. But, most of their expenses are paid for. They have not only their school and books, but rent and endless food on campus. What's not paid for is going to the bar, getting tattoos, buying clothes at the mall and electronics at Best Buy. I'm not going to say that the players shouldn't have those things, but they do get some stipend money for that. What I would suggest is upping the stipend an extra $100 a month DURING THE SEASON when they can't have jobs. Say FB season is 6 months, that's $600x85 players = $51k. That seems reasonable and affordable. I would guess that most schools have less than 200 scholarship athletes, that would put the money around $120k. That kind of money would not force any schools to drop sports or drop down to 1AA. It would give athletes a little bit of pocket money to spend when they can't have jobs. But if you don't make it across the board for all of D1, you open up a Pandora's Box that will destroy college sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyJack13

(Cam Newton, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush...

---

Maybe that was intentionally picked, but them sons-a-b****es all GOT paid.
:twitcy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00clone

Maybe that was intentionally picked, but them sons-a-b****es all GOT paid.
:twitcy:

---

Wasn't intentional and Leinart never got paid, but those were just the first three examples of guys who were stars, and not just among college football fans but among the general public, that popped into my mind.

I found a database for athletic department revenues and expenses on the USA Today website.
Say that we do start paying the athletes- a school such as..... lets say.... Iowa State..... WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM?

The 2009-2010 school year ISU took $46,871,554 in revenue- they paid out $46,656,014 in expenses- which leaves $215,540 left for the bank.

The 2008-2009 school year ISU took $45,813,189 in revenue- they paid out $45,768,048 in expenses- which leaves $45,141 left for the bank.

The 2007-2008 school year ISU took $38,621,346 in revenue- they paid out $38,642,012 in expenses- which leaves a deficit of $20,666.

The 2006-2007 school year ISU took $32,675,180.61 in revenue- they paid out $42,123,352.78 in expenses- which leaves a deficit of $9,448,172.17.

The 2005-2006 school year ISU took $32,437,040 in revenue- they paid out $33,341,962 in expenses- which leave a deficit of $904,922.

The 2004-2005 school year ISU took $28,913,009.56 in revenue- they paid out $28,227,581.54 in expenses- which leaves $685,428.02 left for the bank.

The total for the 6 years that are listed in the database, at the end of all those years ISU has a DEFICIT of $9,427,651.15. Who is going to fund the extra pay for these players?!?

Many other schools are better off than ISU is and can fund paying athletes, but if we all want ISU to succeed and be equal and win national titles and preform the way that we want to paying athletes cannot happen!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...a-finances.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyinne

I found a database for athletic department revenues and expenses on the USA Today website.
Say that we do start paying the athletes- a school such as..... lets say.... Iowa State..... WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM?

The 2009-2010 school year ISU took $46,871,554 in revenue- they paid out $46,656,014 in expenses- which leaves $215,540 left for the bank.

The 2008-2009 school year ISU took $45,813,189 in revenue- they paid out $45,768,048 in expenses- which leaves $45,141 left for the bank.

The 2007-2008 school year ISU took $38,621,346 in revenue- they paid out $38,642,012 in expenses- which leaves a deficit of $20,666.

The 2006-2007 school year ISU took $32,675,180.61 in revenue- they paid out $42,123,352.78 in expenses- which leaves a deficit of $9,448,172.17.

The 2005-2006 school year ISU took $32,437,040 in revenue- they paid out $33,341,962 in expenses- which leave a deficit of $904,922.

The 2004-2005 school year ISU took $28,913,009.56 in revenue- they paid out $28,227,581.54 in expenses- which leaves $685,428.02 left for the bank.

The total for the 6 years that are listed in the database, at the end of all those years ISU has a DEFICIT of $9,427,651.15. Who is going to fund the extra pay for these players?!?

Many other schools are better off than ISU is and can fund paying athletes, but if we all want ISU to succeed and be equal and win national titles and preform the way that we want to paying athletes cannot happen!!!

USA TODAY database: What NCAA schools spend on athletics - USATODAY.com

---

Where did the $10M jump in expenses in 06-07 come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iahawkhunter

Where did the $10M jump in expenses in 06-07 come from?

---

Depends on how the projects in Hilton/Jack Trice were put on the books. Would we also have started paying coaches who had been fired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IcSyU

It sounds to me like you're advocating paying players. They're making over $40,000 in "income" per year. Most of them don't pay squat for their "education."

---

Obviously you don't know the definition of an advocate. Let me help you, " to speak or write in favor of; support by urge or argument; recommend publicly". I did not do or say any if that. I simply said if the people making the money wants to pay the money, so be it. There seems to be a lot of jealousy storming around what these guys get. I could care less about what they get. It doesn't affect me one bit. Also, I'm still yet to see or hear a college athlete come on CF or any other publication demanding to be paid. This comes from mainstream media.....not the athletes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iahawkhunter

Where did the $10M jump in expenses in 06-07 come from?

---

Comparing the 2006-2007 year to the previous 2005-2006 year-

The areas that had increases are-
Student Aid- $433,015.78
Guarantees- $430,201.45
Coaching salaries, benefits, and bonuses paid by the university and related entities- $179,965
Support staff/administrative salaries, benefits and bonuses paid by the university and related entities- $823,287.08
Severence payments- $2,507,669.78
Recruiting- $1,081.61
Equipment, uniforms and supplies- $737,908.82
Game expenses- $524,036.64
Fund raising, marketing and promotion- $335,593.43
Direct facilities, maintenance, and rental- $2,945,300.34
Spirit groups $80,234.82
Medical expenses and medical insurance- $76,660.92
Memberships and dues- $264,741.45
Other operating expenses- $86,010.90

The areas that had decreases are-
Coaching other compensation and benefits paid by a third party- $12,159
Support staff/administrative other compensation and benefits paid by a third party- $13,148
Team Travel- $492,048.52
Sports camps expenses- $126,961.95

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IcSyU

Depends on how the projects in Hilton/Jack Trice were put on the books. Would we also have started paying coaches who had been fired?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyinne

Comparing the 2006-2007 year to the previous 2005-2006 year-

The areas that had increases are-
Student Aid- $433,015.78
Guarantees- $430,201.45
Coaching salaries, benefits, and bonuses paid by the university and related entities- $179,965
Support staff/administrative salaries, benefits and bonuses paid by the university and related entities- $823,287.08
Severence payments- $2,507,669.78
Recruiting- $1,081.61
Equipment, uniforms and supplies- $737,908.82
Game expenses- $524,036.64
Fund raising, marketing and promotion- $335,593.43
Direct facilities, maintenance, and rental- $2,945,300.34
Spirit groups $80,234.82
Medical expenses and medical insurance- $76,660.92
Memberships and dues- $264,741.45
Other operating expenses- $86,010.90

The areas that had decreases are-
Coaching other compensation and benefits paid by a third party- $12,159
Support staff/administrative other compensation and benefits paid by a third party- $13,148
Team Travel- $492,048.52
Sports camps expenses- $126,961.95

---

Thanks!

It doesn't fix anything (to pay football players). I think it's funny how many people think that (at least BCS level) football athletes somehow have any expenses without getting a (in my opinion) beyond reasonable stipend.

Besides -- as I heard on the radio the other day -- it'll be virtually impossible to do anything special just for football and not be equal for every other sport.