Pay For Play

[ncexnyc]

It would appear that this issue is back in the news.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/05/31/spurrier-sec-pay-players.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a11&eref=sihp

Now I understand these kids at powerhouse programs bring in lots of money for their schools, but exactly what does Spurrier mean when he says, "It wouldn't be that much, but enough to allow them to live like normal student-atheletes."

[JNort]

Lots of kids in college can not afford a darn thing! I know, I was one of them so I had to get a job with the school doing laundry for the football team making minimum wage so I could get gas, food, go to the movies, have dates, car insurance, etc...

Now the point I am trying to make is that why can the school not pay the athletes (all of them not just football or basketball) minimum wage for attending practices and workouts. It would be no different than my situation that I know of. I also do not understand why people say something along the lines of "They get paid with scholarships" because that is a load of bull! The scholarship doesn't give you gas money, pay for your parking, par for shoes, clothes, etc... The scholarship is just a trade off for them gaining your services as an athlete/student and it is a 50/50 trade off.



In short: Pay them all minimum wage for attending practices/team meetings. Pay every athlete no matter what school, sport, conference, size, or how high profile they are the exact same (min wage)

[Jderf]

What if the stipend was implemented as a form of additional financial aid? In other words, a two, three, or four thousand dollar stipend could be made available to student-athletes, but only the ones who can show that they are actually in need of it. That way, the kids that really do need "movie money" could get it, without having to pay the entire roster of the football and basketball teams. It might also alleviate the issue of non-revenue sports, because it would be easier to offer those teams as well, so long as you don't have to offer it to every single student regardless of needs.

I literally thought of this five seconds ago, so I'm not sure if the idea stands up to scrutiny. But it seems worth exploring, so I figured I'd throw it out there.

[DukeWarhead]

[QUOTE=JNort;579726] The scholarship is just a trade off for them gaining your services as an athlete/student and it is a 50/50 trade off.
QUOTE]

Here we go again. Look at tuition rates today. There's no 50/50 in that. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of college scholarship athletes cost more to educate than they "bring in" to the University.

[lotusland]

What if the stipend was implemented as a form of additional financial aid? In other words, a two, three, or four thousand dollar stipend could be made available to student-athletes, but only the ones who can show that they are actually in need of it. That way, the kids that really do need "movie money" could get it, without having to pay the entire roster of the football and basketball teams. It might also alleviate the issue of non-revenue sports, because it would be easier to offer those teams as well, so long as you don't have to offer it to every single student regardless of needs.

I literally thought of this five seconds ago, so I'm not sure if the idea stands up to scrutiny. But it seems worth exploring, so I figured I'd throw it out there.

Devil's advocate:
In this scenario I can see how "needy" students would be less desirable on non revenue teams. Coaches who decide who makes the team might be swayed toward more affluent players. Schools cut non revenue sports all the time and coaches know their jobs depend on keeping costs down.

[JNort]

Here we go again. Look at tuition rates today. There's no 50/50 in that. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of college scholarship athletes cost more to educate than they "bring in" to the University.[/QUOTE]


Idk about every school but take Texas football for example. They made a PROFIT of 68 million dollars in one season. 1/68th of that would pay for the whole team to go to school.

[Jderf]

Devil's advocate:
In this scenario I can see how "needy" students would be less desirable on non revenue teams. Coaches who decide who makes the team might be swayed toward more affluent players. Schools cut non revenue sports all the time and coaches know their jobs depend on keeping costs down.

Certainly, the hypothetical system would have to be "needs-blind" in some sense, in the same way that the regular admissions process is. Otherwise, as you point out, it would be open to abuse.

How to do this is open to question, but in my conception, students would only apply for the needs-based stipend after already accepting the scholarship or signing the LOI.

[Turtleboy]

Idk about every school but take Texas football for example. They made a PROFIT of 68 million dollars in one season. 1/68th of that would pay for the whole team to go to school.Not really. Yearly costs for a student run from $25,000 - $34,000 a year. Cite. (http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics/finances) At 80 plus players you're off by a factor of two or more, without even figuring in travel expenses, equipment, training, and other expenses that regular students don't incur.

[Newton_14]

Not really. Yearly costs for a student run from $25,000 - $34,000 a year. Cite. (http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics/finances) At 80 plus players you're off by a factor of two or more, without even figuring in travel expenses, equipment, training, and other expenses that regular students don't incur.

An article came out in 2011 (it's in an old thread somewhere) that revealed that in 2010, Duke spent $330K per player on the 2010 Men's Basketball team. That included the travel, hotels, meals, etc you allude to. A lot of cash there.

[Verga3]

Certainly, the hypothetical system would have to be "needs-blind" in some sense, in the same way that the regular admissions process is. Otherwise, as you point out, it would be open to abuse.

How to do this is open to question, but in my conception, students would only apply for the needs-based stipend after already accepting the scholarship or signing the LOI.

This seems like a very reasonable approach, if we can agree the NCAA reasonable.

In any case, any lawyers here think I can make a case for back pay? With the time value of money...

[gep]

Some thoughts on this... the "needy" financial aid for regular students accepted "need-blind" (grants, student loans, etc) are for students that need such aid for basic tuition and books, not extra spending money for movies, dates, etc, correct? If so, such "aid" will be over and above what a normal student has at his disposal, especially since a lot of athletes have this basic tuition and books covered by the athletic scholarship.

I think that allowing student-athletes to work on campus in clearly defined situations should be allowed. This is what I did when I attended college (albeit many years ago, also not an athlete by any means) to get that little extra spending money that definitely helped my parents. Of course, the school is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the work situation, but schools are already responsible for maintaining integrity in the "sports" situations (recruiting, extra benefits, etc), right? Well... most schools, at least. :confused:

[Jderf]

I think that allowing student-athletes to work on campus in clearly defined situations should be allowed. This is what I did when I attended college (albeit many years ago, also not an athlete by any means) to get that little extra spending money that definitely helped my parents.

The problem is, the majority of student-athletes just don't have the time, mostly because they already are working on campus in clearly defined situations -- they just aren't getting paid for it. (... I know, I know. It's more complicated than that. But I do not want to go down that well-traveled road in this thread.)