Paying Players

**jl112481** · 06-02-2011, 04:47 PM

I looked to see if I could find a thread on this topic and did not. As I was reading the roundup that Chris wrote I wondered; do you think a system could survive that allows the players to choose between pay or scholarship? Here is my idea for a system. Let me know what you think. I don't necessarily agree with paying players, but if it could cut down on corruption and temptation then that would be a good thing.

If the NCAA could set up a system that allows a player to choose whether they would want a scholarship or payment, I think that it could work in their favor. If a player chooses a scholarship then it acts the same as it would normally, but if a player chooses to get paid then there would be a specific amount that every school would pay that is equal to the average cost of a scholarship ($20-$30K per year). The player would receive that amount as long as they are still on the team, but the catch is that since they do not have a "scholarship" the amount would have to be paid back to the university like you would if you were paying off school loans. This would benefit students who's family do not have a lot of money and cannot support their child's living expenses. It would allow the player the chance to either enter the NFL or get a job after college before they have to pay those expenses back.

The idea is very top line, but I think it could work. What do you think?

**Knownothing** · 06-02-2011, 04:48 PM

I think they should get money per game during the season. They can't work or make any money during the season. I would probably include spring training as well.

**IcSyU** · 06-02-2011, 04:49 PM

The system is fine right now. If players want that extra spending money they can join the rest of college students and apply for a student loan...or get a job and make some money on the side.

**Aclone** · 06-02-2011, 04:55 PM

You should have looked harder. It was under something like "Big Ten looks at paying players". And it's a stupid idea.

**jl112481** · 06-02-2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

The system is fine right now. If players want that extra spending money they can join the rest of college students and apply for a student loan...or get a job and make some money on the side.

Maybe and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as a student I had time to make money with a job. I took out a loan for tuition, but living expenses were paid through my working through college. I've never played college sports, but what they are doing would be, in my opinion, the same as working.

On the other hand athletes have never been paid so why change now. The issue that always seems to crop up and cause the down fall of a university is that many of the students come from lower income families and the allure (or need) of additional money is too much for them. I would think that paying them would prevent this from happening. I dislike USC and so I'm not sad that they are paying the piper, but I love college football and this seems to be one of it's bigger problems (among several).

**pyrocyz** · 06-02-2011, 04:59 PM

My issue is this. A full athletic scholarship includes tuition, fees, housing allowance, an on-campus dining plan, books (I think), etc.

What more do they need? Do we need to start giving them a stipend so that they can go out to the bars and get tatoos?

And since when was giving a 4 year athlete over 100k not enough. Its a pretty good deal if you ask me.

**pyrocyz** · 06-02-2011, 05:00 PM

I also think that once you start giving them some money...they are always going to want more. Instead of $10,000 a year they are going to want 20 or 30. And then someone is going to make that happen for them same as now.

**IcSyU** · 06-02-2011, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by jl112481

Maybe and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as a student I had time to make money with a job. I took out a loan for tuition, but living expenses were paid through my working through college. I've never played college sports, but what they are doing would be, in my opinion, the same as working.

And they're compensated with $30,000+ in "salary". Out of state tuition at Iowa State is about $20,000. Their meal plans are unlimited ($4,000). Housing is paid for ($5,000). They get a TON of clothes. I spend all year working and I don't even get close to making that kind of money. If they want to have extra to spend they can either a) get a job during the summer or b) take a small student loan.

**ruxCYtable** · 06-02-2011, 05:24 PM

The idea that college athletes are poor or can't afford a decent meal or winter coat is a complete and utter lie.

First, they get stipends, much like grad students get. When I was in college it was $800 per month.

Second, they are eligible for Pell Grants. I worked with a guy who dated a Cyclone women's basketball player. Her Pell Grant paid her $4500 per semester, right into her pocket.

That's $18,600 per year, and this information is FOURTEEN YEARS OLD.

Then you have the ones who work the system on top of that. They sign up for 18 credits, the athletic dept. pays the bill, then they drop 6-9 credit hours and pocket the refund.

Did you make $18,600 per year when you were in college and have ZERO EXPENSES? Neither did I.

Athletes are the richest students on campus, period.

**FootballinTexas** · 06-02-2011, 06:37 PM

I would go out on a limb and say that most of the people commenting on this thread have never endured the type of rigor that a student-athlete endures.....especially football players. Many if them do receive Pell grants but so does every non-athletic student that completes a FAFSA. The only players receiving a stipend are the ones who live off-campus but it is to cover housing costs. I understand that a full scholarship is a lot of money but I disagree that it "free money". Those guys work their ***** off! The students receiving full academic scholarships work hard too. But, they do not produce the immediate financial returns to the university on their scholarships like an athlete does. I'm not advocating paying the players but I'm not against it either. Especially if they want to provide an additional small monthly stipend during the season.

These student-athletes are an investment by the university.

**cycfan1** · 06-02-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by FootballinTexas

I would go out on a limb and say that most of the people commenting on this thread have never endured the type of rigor that a student-athlete endures.....especially football players. Many if them do receive Pell grants but so does every non-athletic student that completes a FAFSA. The only players receiving a stipend are the ones who live off-campus but it is to cover housing costs. I understand that a full scholarship is a lot of money but I disagree that it "free money". Those guys work their ***** off! The students receiving full academic scholarships work hard too. But, they do not produce the immediate financial returns to the university on their scholarships like an athlete does. I'm not advocating paying the players but I'm not against it either. Especially if they want to provide an additional small monthly stipend during the season.

These student-athletes are an investment by the university.

Cry my a river. Student athletes never work 50-60 hours during the summer and then another 25 hours during the school year doing jobs they don't like. They get paid 30k a year to do something the (should) love. If they have it so hard, quit and go through college the way the rest of the kids do it and take out 50k in loans.

If you offer the kids a payment instead of scholarship with the implications that the money needs paid back, you are asking for trouble. First check these guys get will go towards a 30k car and in four years they will most likely be unemployed if they don't make it to the NFL. (Speaking about the general football athlete, not relevant to student-athletes) How is this money going to be repaid?

**CRcyclone6** · 06-02-2011, 07:13 PM

Where would the money come from? ISU couldn't afford to pay as much as Ohio St, USC, Iowa, and many other big schools. Wouldn't this hurt the "little" schools? I can make more money playing for Iowa, why go to ISU?

**CyCrazy** · 06-02-2011, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by CRcyclone6

Where would the money come from? ISU couldn't afford to pay as much as Ohio St, USC, Iowa, and many other big schools. Wouldn't this hurt the "little" schools? I can make more money playing for Iowa, why go to ISU?

This along with Title 9 shoot a huge hole in paying College athletes.

**icecreamclone34** · 06-02-2011, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by cycfan1

Cry my a river. Student athletes never work 50-60 hours during the summer and then another 25 hours during the school year doing jobs they don't like. They get paid 30k a year to do something the (should) love. If they have it so hard, quit and go through college the way the rest of the kids do it and take out 50k in loans.

If you offer the kids a payment instead of scholarship with the implications that the money needs paid back, you are asking for trouble. First check these guys get will go towards a 30k car and in four years they will most likely be unemployed if they don't make it to the NFL. (Speaking about the general football athlete, not relevant to student-athletes) How is this money going to be repaid?

**mred** · 06-02-2011, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by ruxCYtable

Second, they are eligible for Pell Grants. I worked with a guy who dated a Cyclone women's basketball player. Her Pell Grant paid her $4500 per semester, right into her pocket.

Fourteen years ago, the maximum Pell Grant award was $2700 per year and the average award was $1700. It's never been higher than it is right now ($5500 per year max).