why not pay college players?

That's basically against the Alumni Associations Policy. Originally Posted by acp5762

and the NCAA

my two went to ut (may mack rest in peace) and it was $100,000 a piece 10 years ago, given ut is one of the most expensive public schools

I would say $100,000 to $400,000 across the country

You brother IS getting paid. If he is on scholarship, he entered into a contract with the university whereby his athletic participation would be compensated for with tuition, room, board, health care, tutoring. All tax free, I might add.

Not sure where your brother attends, but 5 years at Stanford would cost ~250,000. Again, tax free.

I understand the problem of not being able to transfer his compensation into current cash for spending money... but he is always free to terminate his contract and get a job at McD's.

My brother plays football for a very large university. They are very good and on espn all time. They had a big win this weekend and a couple of hours after the game, my brother called me for money. Now while I don't mind helping my brother, I just think with all the money the schools get from TV, ticket sales, food and donations, why couldn't they give more back to the student athletes. If he gets anything form anyone but me, they investigate, so what are they supposed to do? He gets a small amount from the NCAA, but that's not enough. They should figure something out. Paying for two college students is a pain. Lol Originally Posted by ladylove12

That's basically against the Alumni Associations Policy. Originally Posted by acp5762

I'm pretty sure that obstacle can be overcome. Rich guys like their football team to win.

I'm pretty sure that obstacle can be overcome. Rich guys like their football team to win. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

It shouldn't have to be overcome. It should be abided by. It dilutes the athlete as a student and places to much pressure on him that he may not live up to.

If I had a full scholarship, I could get gifts and people could give me money if they wanted to help me out. NCAA players can't get anything not given to them by the NCAA. That's fair? No it's not.

You brother IS getting paid. If he is on scholarship, he entered into a contract with the university whereby his athletic participation would be compensated for with tuition, room, board, health care, tutoring. All tax free, I might add.

Not sure where your brother attends, but 5 years at Stanford would cost ~250,000. Again, tax free.

I understand the problem of not being able to transfer his compensation into current cash for spending money... but he is always free to terminate his contract and get a job at McD's. Originally Posted by Submodo

Not being able to get anything but what they give you is the problem.

I agree completely. It is time to let them earn money. A college degree is almost worthless these days, anyway, might as well let them make some money because very few go pro.
In a way, it is somewhat amusing - you make more money with an audience of one than he makes with an audience of millions!! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Ain't that the truth. Lol

if you start paying one student athlete, you will have to pay all of the student athletes. Originally Posted by JCM800

I don't see why, not all the athletes are on scholarship, so why do they all have to be paid. I could see if the whole team was on scholarship, but only the best get their school paid for. Is that fair then?

It shouldn't have to be overcome. It should be abided by. It dilutes the athlete as a student and places to much pressure on him that he may not live up to. Originally Posted by acp5762

The student athlete paradigm is a joke. Last I checked most S/As who did graduate majored in something akin to P.E. I don't see how college basketball players even attend classes from January thru March.

Letting the alumns pay them takes the financial burden off the University. Of course, some may see their alumni contributions decline. But the coaches in top 50 Div I schools in football and basketball are making easy $300K+ plus shoe deals plus other revenue streams. Many are making millions.

and the NCAA

my two went to ut (may mack rest in peace) and it was $100,000 a piece 10 years ago, given ut is one of the most expensive public schools

I would say $100,000 to $400,000 across the country Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

When I went to UT, it cost 4 dollars per semester hour, I lived in a rented room at 200 per month, bills paid, and served lunch and dinner at the AZD house for free chow. I still remember it quite fondly.
Probably whipped up on Assup Rider in pickup basketball at Gregory Gym, too.

The student athlete paradigm is a joke. Last I checked most S/As who did graduate majored in something akin to P.E. I don't see how college basketball players even attend classes from January thru March.

Letting the alumns pay them takes the financial burden off the University. Of course, some may see their alumni contributions decline. But the coaches in top 50 Div I schools in football and basketball are making easy $300K+ plus shoe deals plus other revenue streams. Many are making millions. Originally Posted by gnadfly

It doesn't matter, the schools primary premise is for education. Many good College Athletes that are even pro worthy tote some pretty good degrees. Paying College Athletes is almost like throwing education out the window. Ya can't play any sport forever and there is never any guarantees. Education is something you'll always have.

If you pay the student athletes shouldn't you pay the other students for their meaningful but less flashy contributions? What is worth more? A cure for cancer or someone who can catch anything throw his way.

You brother IS getting paid. If he is on scholarship, he entered into a contract with the university whereby his athletic participation would be compensated for with tuition, room, board, health care, tutoring. All tax free, I might add.

Not sure where your brother attends, but 5 years at Stanford would cost ~250,000. Again, tax free.

I understand the problem of not being able to transfer his compensation into current cash for spending money... but he is always free to terminate his contract and get a job at McD's. Originally Posted by Submodo

+1

Not being able to get anything but what they give you is the problem. Originally Posted by ladylove12

Like Submodo posted above: "They are getting paid." Housing, food, education and very good health care: that's fundamentally why most people work. Yet, student athletes often receive more than many working stiffs get for their daily efforts, and some student athletes ungraciously do not think they are being justly rewarded.

To imagine that student athletes should be paid now for what they are foregoing in the professional realm is to turn the whole system on its head. As JD pointed out, all students are foregoing immediate earning potential for the sake of gaining an education. It's called "delayed gratification," but it takes maturity to accept that reality.

I don't see why, not all the athletes are on scholarship, so why do they all have to be paid. I could see if the whole team was on scholarship, but only the best get their school paid for. Is that fair then? Originally Posted by ladylove12

there are student athletes playing other sports other than football or basketball that are also on full scholarships. even though they don't necessarily bring in revenue for the school (cause who really cares about the bowling team) those athletes will also want the same payouts.

It doesn't matter, the schools primary premise is for education. Many good College Athletes that are even pro worthy tote some pretty good degrees. Paying College Athletes is almost like throwing education out the window. Ya can't play any sport forever and there is never any guarantees. Education is something you'll always have. Originally Posted by acp5762

We are talking about "letting the market decide" when, for the most part concerning football, we are talking about a monopoly enforced by the NCAA dedicated to keeping cost low. Again, nobody has come up with a decent counter argument to letting the alumni augment the price. Its happening whether you like it or not. Some of you sound like subscribers to the "Longhorn network."

If you pay the student athletes shouldn't you pay the other students for their meaningful but less flashy contributions? What is worth more? A cure for cancer or someone who can catch anything throw his way. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Are 80,000 people willing to pay $75 a pop minimum to watch their "contribution?" What are "research grants" for?

there are student athletes playing other sports other than football or basketball that are also on full scholarships. even though they don't necessarily bring in revenue for the school (cause who really cares about the bowling team) those athletes will also want the same payouts. Originally Posted by JCM800

You talking about section 9 programs? Have you seen how much wrestling programs have dwindled in the last 20 years?