College footballers have Christmas twice

[kstack]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/f ... index.html

There is mention of this in the new ESPN Mag. Also noted in the Mag: West Virginia's and Oklahoma's players, due to competing in the Fiesta Bowl, receive 20-inch Visio LCD HDTV's, Tourneau watches, and Oakley sunglasses.

Competitors in the Rose Bowl receive Sony Bravia surround-sound home theaters and Sony wireless headphones.

So, in addition to the free educations that most of these players receive, they are rewarded with expensive electronics that most "regular" college kids cannot afford. Why? Because many of the "regulars" have to PAY for their education, usually funded by them working (which takes away time which can be spent studying).

Amazingly, there are still people who believe college football and basketball players should also be paid on the side.

[kstack]

Are you gonna hold that against me forever?

[kstack]

Jesus Christ, the ball-busting never ends. Despite never having paid for college (call me a spoiled kid till the sun sets, I couldn't care less), I still respect the college kids who do have to work and go to school simultaneously.

The first post had nothing to do with me trying to pretend like I had rough years in college. It had everything to do with my frustration with the topic of college athletes getting paid in college. I used the example of kids who have to work and go to school as a way to support my opinion on college athletes getting paid.

Quit trying to discredit me. You can just as easily do that in a text message instead of on a public message board.

[SonomaCat]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

[catamaran]

All I am saying is you’re the last person who should be leading this charge.

How do you know that the kids that are getting "paid" to play in bowl games don't respect those who have to work their way through school.

I don't like the gifts either, but instead of blaming the kids. You should be blaming the bowl committees who are giving away these products.

How is this not a NCAA violation BTW??

The NCAA gives them a $500 allowance for athlete gifts.

[kstack]

Thanks a lot man. I guess since I didn't pay for college, then I don't get to have an opinion, huh? I think that's a very shallow way of respecting (or disrespecting) my opinion.

Who said I was blaming the kids? I don't like that the kids are getting the gift packages, but I'm not blaming them for it. I'm frustrated by the process.

[kstack]

If you want to disagree with me, fine. But don't tell me I'm "the last one who should be leading this charge."
I had plenty of friends, including you, who had to work and go to school. Many scrimped by. Despite my having college paid for, I was still observant and aware of people around me who struggled with juggling work and school.

Sorry if I made it seem like I was blaming the players, but if I had been, I would have made it very clear.

[kstack]

Dude, message boards don't tell you whether someone is being sarcastic or being a jerk. I felt like you were making sort of a personal attack on me instead of just plain disagreeing with me.
I know I was fortunate for having my college education paid, but it doesn't mean my opinon should be cheapened.

[HassFan]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

If college athletes were paid, how much would that add to the cost of a sport at this level (IAA - or whatever the current letters are)? I can see a large can of worms as there would be discrepancies between what sport an athlete is in and how much they would get paid. E.g. Football vs. cross country skier, or VB or track etc. Some sports would be able to better support the extra cost and those that are there pretty much due to Title 9 would have to have $ from elsewhere.

We may have to get Henry Kissinger involved.

GO CATS !

[SonomaCat]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

If college athletes were paid, how much would that add to the cost of a sport at this level (IAA - or whatever the current letters are)? I can see a large can of worms as there would be discrepancies between what sport an athlete is in and how much they would get paid. E.g. Football vs. cross country skier, or VB or track etc. Some sports would be able to better support the extra cost and those that are there pretty much due to Title 9 would have to have $ from elsewhere.

We may have to get Henry Kissinger involved.

GO CATS !

Oh yes, it would be a mess ... and would destroy the parity in college sports most likely ... but on a philosophical level, I think it's the right answer.

Practically speaking, I wouldn't want to have to deal with it.

[Au Blue]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

You must be sitting on the edge of your seat, just waiting for a reaction. The idea of paying college athletes is absolutely ridiculous beyond offering scholarships. The inequities between universities/colleges would result in college sports being dominated by a handful of schools that are able to "buy" championships. I can just picture college athletes all across the country hiring agents and shouting "Show me the money!"

[SonomaCat]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

You must be sitting on the edge of your seat, just waiting for a reaction. The idea of paying college athletes is absolutely ridiculous beyond offering scholarships. The inequities between universities/colleges would result in college sports being dominated by a handful of schools that are able to "buy" championships. I can just picture college athletes all across the country hiring agents and shouting "Show me the money!"

Students who work on grant-generating projects are paid above and beyond mere scholarships to cover their educational expenses. Why not athletes?

It's not rediculous -- it makes perfect sense.

But yes, it would unbalance the whole parity thing, as I already noted. When it comes to college sports, most people, including you, are socialists. That's cool, and it levels the playing field (as socialism is designed to do), but I just don't think it's the most fair system for the athletes themselves.

[Au Blue]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

You must be sitting on the edge of your seat, just waiting for a reaction. The idea of paying college athletes is absolutely ridiculous beyond offering scholarships. The inequities between universities/colleges would result in college sports being dominated by a handful of schools that are able to "buy" championships. I can just picture college athletes all across the country hiring agents and shouting "Show me the money!"

Students who work on grant-generating projects are paid above and beyond mere scholarships to cover their educational expenses. Why not athletes?

It's not rediculous -- it makes perfect sense.

But yes, it would unbalance the whole parity thing, as I already noted. When it comes to college sports, most people, including you, are socialists. That's cool, and it levels the playing field (as socialism is designed to do), but I just don't think it's the most fair system for the athletes themselves.

Fair? How is getting your schooling paid for not fair? They're not being forced to participate in athletics in addition being a full-time student. If a student-athlete doesn't appreciate the fact they're getting their schooling partially funded, I don't feel a bit sorry for them. Why stop at college athletics? Why not pay high school kids? After all, they have to juggle schoolwork with practice too. Fair? Give me a break.

[SonomaCat]

Fair? How is getting your schooling paid for not fair? They're not being forced to participate in athletics in addition being a full-time student. If a student-athlete doesn't appreciate the fact they're getting their schooling partially funded, I don't feel a bit sorry for them. Why stop at college athletics? Why not pay high school kids? After all, they have to juggle schoolwork with practice too. Fair? Give me a break.

Unless you are a philosophical socialist full-time, you really shouldn't be asking me these questions.

Questioning why paying market value for services rendered as opposed to having a mandated equal pay for everybody so that nobody comes out ahead is straight out of Marx.

I have agreed repeatedly that it would mess things up in terms of a level playing field, but philosophically, any capitalist would agree that the system isn't entirely fair to the student-athletes.

And again, there is no cap on the amount of money that can be paid to students working for the university who are NOT athletes, so why is there a cap on athletes specifically?

[theblackgecko]

Another thing to consider about athletes compensation....

Most athletes have to be on campus during the summer, for 'purely voluntary' activities such as weight training and conditioning.

I had a student who was on the football team back when I was teaching a summer class at MSU. In addition to two classes per session, he had 20+ hours of 'voluntary' training a week, and a real part time job just to be able to pay for a place to live.

I heard stories of excesses at other universities (no show / no work jobs, grant money going straight into pocket, etc.). But, from my own experiences, athletes at MSU work hard. One of the problems with the NCAA is that they make things difficult for hard workers due to Draconian rules, and still fail to crack down on the excesses.

[grizatwork]

I thought I read in Friday's GF tribune that the bowls were allowed to spend 500 dollars per player and up to 350 dollars in bling that they could give them. I assume the 500 dollars is for banquets, meals, fees for local attractions. I am not sure.

I think that an education and the connections you make as an athlete are enough of a payment for the athletes.

[whitetrashgriz]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

You must be sitting on the edge of your seat, just waiting for a reaction. The idea of paying college athletes is absolutely ridiculous beyond offering scholarships. The inequities between universities/colleges would result in college sports being dominated by a handful of schools that are able to "buy" championships. I can just picture college athletes all across the country hiring agents and shouting "Show me the money!"

Students who work on grant-generating projects are paid above and beyond mere scholarships to cover their educational expenses. Why not athletes?

It's not rediculous -- it makes perfect sense.

But yes, it would unbalance the whole parity thing, as I already noted. When it comes to college sports, most people, including you, are socialists. That's cool, and it levels the playing field (as socialism is designed to do), but I just don't think it's the most fair system for the athletes themselves.

Fair? How is getting your schooling paid for not fair? They're not being forced to participate in athletics in addition being a full-time student. If a student-athlete doesn't appreciate the fact they're getting their schooling partially funded, I don't feel a bit sorry for them. Why stop at college athletics? Why not pay high school kids? After all, they have to juggle schoolwork with practice too. Fair? Give me a break.

how about because highschool athletes don't generate millions of dollars for their school? we've had this talk a million times and BAC is right on. It's the "right" thing to do, but would create a monster mess. it will never happen, but makes for good banter. I just have never grasped how it is fair for a university to make money on players names using jerseys, bobbleheads, posters, calendars, etc., and the player themselves never see a penny.

[Au Blue]

I think college athletes should be paid. Students that work aren't limited to making only what it costs to go to school -- they are more than welcome to make as much extra cash as they can. Athletes put in the equivalent of working a full-time job in their role as revenue-generators for the school, yet their compensation is limited to that of a really poorly-paid job (especially for in-state guys). So it would seem more equitable if they were allowed to be paid a little bit extra by the school for the services provided. If nothing else, it might keep them from taking up side work in the local black market (in our immediate case, the drug trade).

There, I said it.

You must be sitting on the edge of your seat, just waiting for a reaction. The idea of paying college athletes is absolutely ridiculous beyond offering scholarships. The inequities between universities/colleges would result in college sports being dominated by a handful of schools that are able to "buy" championships. I can just picture college athletes all across the country hiring agents and shouting "Show me the money!"

Students who work on grant-generating projects are paid above and beyond mere scholarships to cover their educational expenses. Why not athletes?

It's not rediculous -- it makes perfect sense.

But yes, it would unbalance the whole parity thing, as I already noted. When it comes to college sports, most people, including you, are socialists. That's cool, and it levels the playing field (as socialism is designed to do), but I just don't think it's the most fair system for the athletes themselves.

Fair? How is getting your schooling paid for not fair? They're not being forced to participate in athletics in addition being a full-time student. If a student-athlete doesn't appreciate the fact they're getting their schooling partially funded, I don't feel a bit sorry for them. Why stop at college athletics? Why not pay high school kids? After all, they have to juggle schoolwork with practice too. Fair? Give me a break.

how about because highschool athletes don't generate millions of dollars for their school? we've had this talk a million times and BAC is right on. It's the "right" thing to do, but would create a monster mess. it will never happen, but makes for good banter. I just have never grasped how it is fair for a university to make money on players names using jerseys, bobbleheads, posters, calendars, etc., and the player themselves never see a penny.[/quote]


So, getting your schooling paid for is not enough compensation for the privilege of having your name on a college jersey or team poster? And how much money do you think MSU makes on said items?

Nobody's forcing these students to participate in athletics. College athletics is a purely voluntary decision on the student's part. If they don't like the rules that have been set out for decades, then that's their problem. College athletes should not be paid athletes, plain and simple. They should play for the love of the game. If they're good enough to make it pro or skip college altogether, then more power to them, they deserve all the money they're worth. College athletics is still an amateur sport. Definition of amateur?
Main Entry: am·a·teur
Pronunciation: \ˈa-mə-(ˌ)tər, -ˌtu̇r, -ˌtyu̇r, -ˌchu̇r, -chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin amator lover, from amare to love
Date: 1784

2 : one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession

in sports it may also suggest not so much lack of skill but avoidance of direct remuneration <remained an amateur despite lucrative offers>.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/amateur

[SonomaCat]

Yes, we all know what "amateur" means. But college athletes really aren't amateurs in a business sense ... their output is definitely a for-profit industry.

The only part of the process that is "amateur" is the fact that they aren't paid their fair market value, and they are instead paid an arbitrary amount that is limited to their educational expenses.

Nobody is saying that having your education paid for is a bad thing or that it has no value -- clearly it does. But the value they are being paid is not determined by the free market, but rather by some arbitary rules set by the NCAA.

You seem to be making an emotional argument, Au Blue, while everyone else is making a philosophical argument. Yes, we all understand how the system works and nobody is even complaining about it. We are simply saying that, in the purest sense, the system is not completely fair to the athletes, as money is being made on their efforts in excess of what they are being compensated.

And in a socialist system, that's fine. But in a capitalist system, that's normally not the way it works.

We are saying that "fair" is defined as "what the market will bear," which is how a capitalist defines the value of anything. You seem to be arguing that having a beaurocracy define how much a person is paid, regardless of how much revenue that person generates for the organization, is an example of a "fair" arrangement.

I simply can't agree with that latter argument.

[Au Blue]

You seem to be making an emotional argument, Au Blue, while everyone else is making a philosophical argument. Yes, we all understand how the system works and nobody is even complaining about it. We are simply saying that, in the purest sense, the system is not completely fair to the athletes, as money is being made on their efforts in excess of what they are being compensated.

How is my argument purely emotional rather than philosophical? It's a fact that college athletics is defined as amateur athletics, plain and simple. You can discuss "fair compensation" all you want, it doesn't matter, because it's "amateur" athletics. Someone else responded that high school athletes don't make millions for their school, yet don't they still generate revenue directly for their school? Babe Ruth baseball, Small Fry football, youth soccer... they're all revenue generating sports, whether through concessions, bake sales, coupon cards, etc. So, my "emotional" argument (as you put it) is, where do we draw the line? There needs to be an absolute defining line between amateur (unpaid) and pro sports. And where better to draw that line than the stepping stone to pro sports?

We are saying that "fair" is defined as "what the market will bear," which is how a capitalist defines the value of anything. You seem to be arguing that having a beaurocracy define how much a person is paid, regardless of how much revenue that person generates for the organization, is an example of a "fair" arrangement.

I simply can't agree with that latter argument.

Again, individuals are not REQUIRED to participate in athletics. If participation becomes a REQUIREMENT then I'd argue that they should be fairly compensated.