march madness...

[limon]

ive been saying this http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2664_129/ai_65230205/pg_1 forever. along w/ the barbaric treatment of gays, illegality of drugs/prostitution, new internet gaming laws and tax free status of churches in this country its one of the few things i cannot defend to my euro-friends ...does anyone disagree?

"establish a comprehensive athletes' bill of rights to ensure a nonexploitive context. At a minimum, it should include:

* The right to transfer schools. Athletes who do should be eligible to play the next school year, not be governed by the current stipulation that they must wait a year with no athletic scholarship aid.

* The right to a four-year scholarship, not the one-year renewable scholarship at the option of the coach, as is the current NCAA policy. Those athletes who compete for three years should be given an open-ended scholarship guaranteeing that they will receive aid as long as it takes to graduate.

* The rights that other college athletes have, such as freedom of speech, protections from the physical and mental abuse of authorities, privacy rights, and the fair redress of grievances. There should be an impartial committee on each college campus, separate from the athletic department, that monitors the behavior of coaches and the rules imposed by them on athletes to ensure that individual rights are guaranteed.

* The right to consult with agents concerning sports career choices.

* The right to make money from endorsements, speeches, etc. Walter Byers, former executive director of the NCAA, under whose reign many of these abuses abounded, has stated that athletes should have the same financial opportunities as other students, arguing that "The athlete may access the marketplace just as other students exploit their own special talents, whether they are musicians playing on weekends, journalism students working piecemeal for newspapers, or announcers for the college radio station filing reports for CNN radio."

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I think about the only people who would disagree with this (and the general idea that amateurism in college sports is a joke) are the people who benefit financially from exploiting college athletics. The rest of us just stomach it because not watching college sports is hardly an option.

[Ken_AA]

I disagree. College students who get free education because they can dunk a ball and then be quoted in the paper( as Nichols a guard for SU was today) saying things like "there is not nothing we can do about it" is all they need.

I'm paying my loans, they will never half to. Go Play in Europe if you don't like the rules.

With that said I just paid 500 bucks to a scalper for Duke tickets (2 on the floor) for tomorrow's game.

Ken

[cobrakai111]

Free education... who cares compared to billion dollar tv and merchandise contracts? That's like saying your job will offer you free lunch every single day as long as you don't accept a salary.

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
Free education... who cares compared to billion dollar tv and merchandise contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a legitimate comparison for what percentage of college athletes? I'm not really sure how it affects the arguments, but the fact is that the number of college athletes who have a realistic chance of landing million dollar endorsements is extraordinarily small.

[EMc]

Regarding benefits for the athletes,

There was an article in I think maxim last year where a reporter followed several Syracuse Basketball players. To summerize quickly the athletes were pretty much treated like royality around the campus. They didnt pay for anything, did what they please, when they pleased, and pretty much had the majority of the undergrad female population throwing themselves at them. While I do agree they should be paid, its not as if being an athlete comes without benefits.

[The Ocho]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm paying my loans, they will never half to.


[/ QUOTE ]

money well spent.

[El Diablo]

limon,

I'll write something longer soon, but yeah, it's hard for any informed person to argue against the fact that big money college athletes are incredibly exploited. I have yet to hear an argument against this that isn't a total joke.

[MusashiStyle]

I think bball players should either have like 2.0 min GPA's or just not have them attend classes and get a degree at all. It seems like a sham to pass them off as "students" when in reality alot of them are only there as athletes.

[britspin]

One question from a confused Brit- Why wouldn't the NBA, or perhaps some of the big sports agencies, set up leagues to rival NCAA and use their financial muscle to offer decent contracts to students out of High school?

I know that there's a lot of support for college sports in the US, but surely if the talent pool dried up for couple of years, the NCAA would be forced to come to a deal to resecure the best talent?

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
One question from a confused Brit- Why wouldn't the NBA, or perhaps some of the big sports agencies, set up leagues to rival NCAA and use their financial muscle to offer decent contracts to students out of High school?

I know that there's a lot of support for college sports in the US, but surely if the talent pool dried up for couple of years, the NCAA would be forced to come to a deal to resecure the best talent?

[/ QUOTE ]

The major reason is the NCAA provides a completely free option for developing athletes. It's rare that an 18 year old out of high school is ready to compete in the NBA (or any major league), and 4 years at college makes a big difference.

Setting up a development league/minor league system costs a lot of money, when there's really no need for it. I also suspect that the amount of money to be made with a minor league in any sport is very small. Trying to set one up to compete with NCAA football or basketball is financial suicide.

[Slap My Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding benefits for the athletes,

There was an article in I think maxim last year where a reporter followed several Syracuse Basketball players. To summerize quickly the athletes were pretty much treated like royality around the campus. They [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is true on many campuses. I agree that they get a lot of benefits, but many of the benefits seem social in nature, and do not apply to their lives in the long run.

Low graduation rates of athletes could be cited as a problem. Being an atlete often comes at the cost of education and their career after graduation. Very few will go pro, and they can't focus on doing optional things that other students do (interviews, internships, etc.). They probably get less out of their degree than a majority of students.

They essentially get an unpaid job practicing and playing games that just gives them temporary status.

I am also don't think it is exactly fair that an athlete can get a free ride on an education, but they are delivering benefits to the university and aren't being well-compensated in the long run and that isn't fair as well.

All in all, the NCAA isn't going away so there should be some middle ground reached. If the value of their degree is hurt by the demands of sports they should receive better compensation. Degree programs could also be redesigned to make it so they can do both sports and academics, maybe count the sport as a certain amount of credits that don't contribute to their degree---basically it means they take a lighter load and still are considered full-time, while getting an extra year to fulfill graduation requirements.

[britspin]

[ QUOTE ]
The major reason is the NCAA provides a completely free option for developing athletes. It's rare that an 18 year old out of high school is ready to compete in the NBA (or any major league), and 4 years at college makes a big difference.

Setting up a development league/minor league system costs a lot of money, when there's really no need for it. I also suspect that the amount of money to be made with a minor league in any sport is very small. Trying to set one up to compete with NCAA football or basketball is financial suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, but I am really suprised at the difference in the way talent is managed in different sports.

A UK "possible" superstar will have just served a 2 year appenticeship contract with a club, then signs a pro contract based on the clubs estimation of his talent (and whether other clubs will want him). if he doesn't like it, he can walk away.

The amounts were talking about are tiny- her's John Terry, captain of Chelsea talking about his contracts..

"As a YTS player I earned £46 a week. When I was 17 I signed a contract for £250 a week. In that contract it said that when I played 20 games, whether as a sub or not, I then got a new contract. The figures were still very small - from £250 to £1,000 a week.

When I had a full season under my belt it was time to sit down and negotiate similar to what other players were earning around me."

Given that the effective cost of signing a 17yo Basketball prospect would also be effectively close to zero, and that a "reserve" team, or feeder club would have access to NBA coching, seems like a good way to go.

I suppose that's what the NBA is trying to do with the D-league, but AFAIK they target undrafted college players not high schoolers, which would surely be the people they'd do best with...

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that the effective cost of signing a 17yo Basketball prospect would also be effectively close to zero, and that a "reserve" team, or feeder club would have access to NBA coching, seems like a good way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the moment, those players get NBA calibre coaching in college, at no cost to the teams.

With the draft setup in North American sports, they're somewhat limited in what they can do in regards to young players, like the European club sports do.

[SonOfWestwood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free education... who cares compared to billion dollar tv and merchandise contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a legitimate comparison for what percentage of college athletes? I'm not really sure how it affects the arguments, but the fact is that the number of college athletes who have a realistic chance of landing million dollar endorsements is extraordinarily small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree that college athletes are exploited and that those landing the big time contracts is a super small percentage. But, don't you think that the ones that are the "most exploited", in terms of money generated for the NCAA, universities, etc., tend to be the best players, and subsequently, have a much more significant chance of landing those big time contracts? In other words, the ones that do contribute the most to the money generated have a pretty decent chance of ultimately landing some big time contracts in the pros.

[EvanJC]

[ QUOTE ]
limon,

I'll write something longer soon, but yeah, it's hard for any informed person to argue against the fact that big money college athletes are incredibly exploited. I have yet to hear an argument against this that isn't a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of those situations when I know 100% what the correct answer is, but have trouble finding the words. So I'll just say that, while college athletics are certainly explotative to a degree, they are by and large a good, positive thing, and if we start talking about paying players that goodness will cease to be.

Also, nobody forces these kids to accept their free college ride. In baseball/basketball/footbll situations, there are pro leagues amatures can seek out in leiu of college athletics. Actually, I'm no longer sure that applies to basketball kids...can 18 year olds play in europe? Anyway, I think it's a valid point.

[britspin]

[ QUOTE ]


At the moment, those players get NBA calibre coaching in college, at no cost to the teams.

With the draft setup in North American sports, they're somewhat limited in what they can do in regards to young players, like the European club sports do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but If I was an NBA head coach, and someone came to me and said "OK there's this 17 year old kid who will have a moderate chance of being an NBA player in 2 years time and we can pick him up for <$30k a year and coach him our way in our farm team- or if you prefer we can save ourselves the $ a training contract will cost us, have him trained by some other guys for four years, and then if he's really good, we'll have a shot at him in a lottery...

OK, I know nothing, but it seems like a sucky deal for everyone except the colleges.

[Green Kool Aid]

[ QUOTE ]
One question from a confused Brit- Why wouldn't the NBA, or perhaps some of the big sports agencies, set up leagues to rival NCAA and use their financial muscle to offer decent contracts to students out of High school?

I know that there's a lot of support for college sports in the US, but surely if the talent pool dried up for couple of years, the NCAA would be forced to come to a deal to resecure the best talent?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that in basketball and football, it is VERY rare for guys to come out of nowhere.

Almost all of the top NBA players were McDonald's all American players, went to the ABCD camps, were recruited by ACC/BigTen/BigEast schools, and have been on the track to NBA stardom forever.

Sure, Ben Wallace comes out of nowhere sometimes, but most NBA players have been on that path since middle school.

Baseball on the other hand has many undrafted superstars, and there is tons of reason to have a deep minor league, as you never know who is going to pan out.

Basically, college basketball is A LOT worse than the NBA, and they are counting on the energy/crowd/hustle/school pride angle to sell college basketball.

NO ONE watches the NBDL (NBA developmental league), and it basically survives off the NBA.

[idrinkcoors]

[ QUOTE ]
along w/ the barbaric treatment of gays,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, like that barbaric act of electing some to congress, and giving them hit t.v. shows and record deals. It's an outrage. In the name of tolerance, I'm moving to Saudi Arabia.

C'mon Limon. Thousands of benchwarmers over the years at numerous podunk Universities have gotten an $80k plus education for free. Hardly what I would call exploitation.

[guids]

A bunch of (mainly) spoiled athletes, getting a free education, w/o having to actually do much to get it, for playing a retarded game is not high on my list of things to give a [censored] about. Who cares if they are exploited really? They are basically in a "job" and should have to follow whatever rules that the owners of the business set forth.

[Osprey]

Not exploited. There are so many athletes who have no shot at the pros at lots of small and major schools who get a free education and get to play college sports. Hell, there are athletes on scholarship who don't even really have a real pro league to shoot for: soccer, wrestling, golf, swimming etc... The really good college basketball and football players were trying to jump to the NBA and NFL, so they made that one and two year rule because the players were flaming out and not mature- so you spend your one or two years in college and go pro if you're Mr. Wonderful- if not you do your four and get another career and see if you get drafted.

[Ribsauce]

I think the biggest issue is college athletes are not really college students. First of all, college is about learning to do stuff on your own. However these athletes have tutors for every single class who spoon feed them the information. Their entire day is structured hour by hour. They have to attend study halls every day (or every other day if they have good grades or however exactly it works.) So basically they go to college for 4 or 5 years, get spoon fed all the information they need to get that 2.5gpa for their Parks and Recreation major, and never actually learn to do stuff on their own. It is a sham to call even pretend they are anything like normal college students.

Read about the tOSU program. They have a 9 million dollar center just to help athletes stay eligible. NINE MILLION DOLLARS! The teams have traveling tutors that go with them to all the away games. The students have someone who sits in the room with them the entire time they "write" a paper if they are on the football or basketball teams. Lots of times the school will get most athletes some "disability" clearance so a helper can go to class with them and take notes for the guy so he doesn't even have to be awake. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

By the way, I'm not some academic who doesn't like college athletics and thinks the money should go to the African bird studies like those lame professors who sign petitions against them, I love college sports. I just see them for the sham they are.

Now if you will excuse me, it is time to go watch 12 straight hours of college basketball.

[RunDownHouse]

This:
[ QUOTE ]
A bunch of (mainly) spoiled athletes, getting a free education, w/o having to actually do much to get it

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't jive at all with this:

[ QUOTE ]
They are basically in a "job"

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a reason that on applications and various forms, it always lists "Student" as an occupation. As others have said, you can argue that the education they get is fair compensation for the job of being an athlete, but its pretty ludicrous to say they're getting a free education with one breath and then say they don't earn it in the very next.

[HajiShirazu]

You are right, but the reason they have to exploit these athletes is so the schools can afford to pay for their huge money-loser women's programs they are forced to have due to title IX. That is the real joke, that tons of girls get free rides to suck at sports that nobody cares about and which provide basically no promotion for the school.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, but the reason they have to exploit these athletes is so the schools can afford to pay for their huge money-loser women's programs they are forced to have due to title IX. That is the real joke, that tons of girls get free rides to suck at sports that nobody cares about and which provide basically no promotion for the school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So you think that if Title IX were revoked tomorrow the NCAA would be cutting the basketball and football players in on the big money?

[SlowHabit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are right, but the reason they have to exploit these athletes is so the schools can afford to pay for their huge money-loser women's programs they are forced to have due to title IX. That is the real joke, that tons of girls get free rides to suck at sports that nobody cares about and which provide basically no promotion for the school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So you think that if Title IX were revoked tomorrow the NCAA would be cutting the basketball and football players in on the big money?

[/ QUOTE ]
At least student-athletes would have a higher chance of getting some dough.

[SlowHabit]

I took a class about this during college. Needless to say, student-athletes are exploited for monies.

One thing I noticed was that most student-athletes tend to have bull-shiet/humanities majors (at least at my school). They also have their own computer labs; their own dorms (suites); and even their own tutors. Oh yeah, they're also getting free rides and also a small amount of cash to spend on books.

Some of the student-athletes didn't even care about school. They're often late to classes (I can't hate that much on attendance since I sucked too). But when they were in classes, their performances were consistently low. Now I understand that they weren't accepted to the college because of their academic prowess but it was embarrassing low (oh shiet, that was me too).

Nevertheless, I do feel bad for them. In a way, I want to say who cares if they use college as an amateur league and leave as soon as they have a chance of getting drafted. Who cares if they aren't as academically smart as most kids on campus. They're trying their best. They're bringing in revenue. They're making the school more well-known around the country.

But another side of me is bitter. I had to cram finals, did a bunch of extra-curricular activities, took standardized exams, stressed my brain to death and all they had to do is be good at a sport. This is fking unfair. Then I realized who cares. I am where I am because I worked hard for it and I also got lucky. They are where they are right now because they worked hard and also lucky. But if they don't continue to get lucky or if they don't take advantage of their chance at getting a great education, then they are basically slaves to the system until they're over 23 years-old and will realize that all these times, free rides meant they were getting fcked up the ass for free since junior high.

Anyway, monies to the kids, even if it means that more student-athletes will care less about their education and will sound like idiots despite graduating from prestigious colleges. I know I know. Most people with degrees are also idiots but at least they can speak in complete sentences without adding "you know" in every sentence.

Damn, lots of hate from me. I love student-athletes though because I know they have to work hard in practices and shiet and sometimes their bodies don't have enough strength to go to classes. Anyway, Go Bears.

[yad]

I agree with limon and el D and generally think that there is no sensible argument against that position.

But I also wanted to point out something else that I find a bit absurd: the draft as these kids come out of college to the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc.

These kids are told: you aren't allowed to negotiate to sell your services to the highest bidder, like everyone else in non-communist countries.

When Eli Manning snubbed the Chargers and wanted to go to the Giants, all the media were bashing him for not "paying his dues" or "respecting the system" or whatever BS. Why should Eli respect a system that is totally against his interest and that he never agreed to?

I always wanted to ask these reporters: if on graduating from journalism school, you were informed that the major newspapers and TV stations would have the opportunity to draft you, and you weren't allowed to work for whoever you want but had to take or leave whatever offer the station/paper that drafted you was offering, what would you think? Sorry kid, I know you wanted to work for ESPN, and they'd love to hire you, but you got drafted by the Des Moines Daily News. Don't worry, in seven years you'll eligible for free agency.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]

But I also wanted to point out something else that I find a bit absurd: the draft as these kids come out of college to the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc.

These kids are told: you aren't allowed to negotiate to sell your services to the highest bidder, like everyone else in non-communist countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is idiotic IMO, even though I agree college athletes are exploited. The NFL/MLB/NBA certainly have a lot of advantages they probably shouldn't (say, the MLB anti-trust exemption) but they are ultimately businesses. Nobody has a RIGHT to play professional sports. The draft is the hiring process for the leagues, and they are designed to keep the sport competitive. No one is going to watch the sport if EVERY year the same team keeps winning. It's in the interest of the pro leagues to have fans across the country, and that won't happen if your local team ALWAYS sucks. If the athlete doesn't like it, they can go play in the Arena league or Canada.

The problem of course is that there is so much local government subsidization of these billion dollar businesses - any corporation that gets so much local money (for stadiums, tax breaks, etc.) ought to be more beholden to local and public interests IMO. However, since there are a finite number of teams and there are always cities looking for pro sports the leverage is in hands of the owners. It should probably be noted that the sports leagues are clearly not alone in receiving corporate subsidies from the government, but they are certainly some of the most visible.

[yad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But I also wanted to point out something else that I find a bit absurd: the draft as these kids come out of college to the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc.

These kids are told: you aren't allowed to negotiate to sell your services to the highest bidder, like everyone else in non-communist countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is idiotic IMO, even though I agree college athletes are exploited. The NFL/MLB/NBA certainly have a lot of advantages they probably shouldn't (say, the MLB anti-trust exemption) but they are ultimately businesses. Nobody has a RIGHT to play professional sports. The draft is the hiring process for the leagues, and they are designed to keep the sport competitive. No one is going to watch the sport if EVERY year the same team keeps winning. It's in the interest of the pro leagues to have fans across the country, and that won't happen if your local team ALWAYS sucks. If the athlete doesn't like it, they can go play in the Arena league or Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are missing the point. Are you going to argue that nobody has a RIGHT to work in the computer industry, so if the various software companies band together and set up a draft, and ban people from negotiating their hiring with whoever they want to work for (who wants to hire them)? Because that would be better for the companies and the people who use software?

The point is that it is illegal for companies to set up this sort of arrangement, because it inhibits competition, violates the rights of employees, and leads to exploitation. the ONLY exception is communist countries and professional sports. Your argument is that the whole league is one company, so it can hire however it wants. But the whole league is NOT one company, so if it were not for special antitrust exemptions they could not band together like this.

[7ontheline]

You explained your point better in your last post, so I do see what you mean. Apologies for any insulting tone I may have used. However, the sports leagues are different than other industries. The computer industry analogy is not completely apt - software companies do not need other software companies to survive. I'm sure Microsoft would love other companies to disappear (and they've tried). Sports teams need to exist within a league structure to play each other. I would say that the NFL and NBA do have it set up better than MLB - salaries come out of a common pool of revenues, with each team able to make money on its own through luxury boxes, concessions, etc. MLB is much more of a free-for-all which is reflected in its salary disparity.

This also comes down to the customer. The average person benefits if there are a lot of software companies, keeping prices down and quality up in general. However, the customer wants a good sporting product on the field. This is much less likely to happen if you eliminate the draft and allow teams to sign anyone they want. The high-revenue teams are going to win a lot more often, which will eventually drive out the low-revenue teams. You'd have a league of 6-8 superteams with supremely rich corporations or owners backing them, at which point the ticket prices would be astronomical to pay for the salaries. I'd say that this probably wouldn't benefit most of the customers. The leagues overall popularit would also likely suffer. For the salary-capped sports at least, I would say that the players and owners have established a business model which, if not completely fair, at least is stable and balanced allowing the league, individual teams, and the players to profit. The league has to act as a corporation at least in some ways to ensure the survival of the sport and individual teams.

I do think that a more free market approach would eventually lead to a steady state, with less teams than there are currently. Prices would eventually be balanced by lower profits. I think the resulting intervening instability would be more detrimental for the sport/players though, with no guarantee of a better outcome in the end. Again, this is where government support of the sports teams gets dicey. This forces taxpayers who don't care about the sports team to put money in. An ideal system would have the consumers who wanted the sports team bearing the cost of fielding a team.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But I also wanted to point out something else that I find a bit absurd: the draft as these kids come out of college to the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc.

These kids are told: you aren't allowed to negotiate to sell your services to the highest bidder, like everyone else in non-communist countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is idiotic IMO, even though I agree college athletes are exploited. The NFL/MLB/NBA certainly have a lot of advantages they probably shouldn't (say, the MLB anti-trust exemption) but they are ultimately businesses. Nobody has a RIGHT to play professional sports. The draft is the hiring process for the leagues, and they are designed to keep the sport competitive. No one is going to watch the sport if EVERY year the same team keeps winning. It's in the interest of the pro leagues to have fans across the country, and that won't happen if your local team ALWAYS sucks. If the athlete doesn't like it, they can go play in the Arena league or Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are missing the point. Are you going to argue that nobody has a RIGHT to work in the computer industry, so if the various software companies band together and set up a draft, and ban people from negotiating their hiring with whoever they want to work for (who wants to hire them)? Because that would be better for the companies and the people who use software?

The point is that it is illegal for companies to set up this sort of arrangement, because it inhibits competition, violates the rights of employees, and leads to exploitation. the ONLY exception is communist countries and professional sports. Your argument is that the whole league is one company, so it can hire however it wants. But the whole league is NOT one company, so if it were not for special antitrust exemptions they could not band together like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe think of it as the leage that's the employer, not the individual teams. If you're a football player, you can apply to work at the NFL, the CFL, or the AFL, maybe somewhere else. If you want to go to the NFL, you're an employee of the NFL and your direct boss is the team that you get assigned to. If you get drafted by Buffalo, then they're saying "we have a position available for you in Buffao." Take it or leave it. If you want to move somewhere else or get a pay raise or promotion, then you work for it and get it in a few years. If you don't like it, then decline the contract they're offering you and do something else - play in another league or go lay tile or something. Hey, here's an idea! You just graduated college - go use your degree! Oh, wait...

In my line of work, there are certain places that I can expect to get a job at. When I was offered a job with the company I'm at now, they offered me a position in San Diego. My now wife and I didn't want to live in San Diego for more than a few years. I took the job and worked toward an oppportunity in Denver. It's not that dissimilar.

[mmbt0ne]

All I know is that if you want to start paying the athletes, be ready for the cost to enjoy college athletics to skyrocket. Many middle of the road programs in big-name conferences are barely meeting expenses in their athletic departments, and it's not rare to see some running at a loss.

[IggyWH]

I'm in no way defending one way or another on this issue because I don't think it's a black & white thing. However, I love how people think college atheletes don't get paid.

Those one full rides get :

* Tuition + room & board

* A meal plan that will cover them eating 3 meals a day everyday. This isn't your typical college hall spread either and is usually just for athletes.

* Meal dollars where you can buy pretty much anything you'll need from somewhere on campus and most college area restaurants/stores will also accept these meal dollars (when I was in school it was $1,500 a semester)

* A monthly stipend, which when I was in school was ~$900 but I think it's now over $1000.

==========

So you're looking at $30,000 for state school tuition and board for a year. A meal plan that you can't really put a dollar amount on but let's just say $5 a meal so $5,000 for the year. Meal dollars of ~$5000 after summer semesters and $12,000 cash per year.

You're looking at these college kids getting $50,000 a year min. This doesn't even try including all the perks they get, such as free clothes, free books and other things.

Sure, your superstars are worth more than $50,000, but on average, that doesn't seem all that bad for your average kid.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, your superstars are worth more than $50,000, but on average, that doesn't seem all that bad for your average kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they aren't your average kid, though. And in some kind of system where the stars are the ones who are actually getting paid, the value of the education itself seems like it's going to be a lot lower than the sticker price.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sure, your superstars are worth more than $50,000, but on average, that doesn't seem all that bad for your average kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they aren't your average kid, though. And in some kind of system where the stars are the ones who are actually getting paid, the value of the education itself seems like it's going to be a lot lower than the sticker price.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm looking at it in a more overall picture, such as all the women sports who get full rides and don't really generate any revenue (and for the most part lose revenue for the schools).

Sure, the superstars are getting screwed, but if you take all athletes on average at a school that are on full rides, $50,000 is decent money.

Notice that full rides also aren't just given to superstars. Your average walk-on on all these 300+ D1 basketball teams end up getting full rides after a year. Same goes with football.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Notice that full rides also aren't just given to superstars. Your average walk-on on all these 300+ D1 basketball teams end up getting full rides after a year. Same goes with football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but it's the stars that would be most likely to get paid significant amounts, and so I think those are the ones to focus on.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Notice that full rides also aren't just given to superstars. Your average walk-on on all these 300+ D1 basketball teams end up getting full rides after a year. Same goes with football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but it's the stars that would be most likely to get paid significant amounts, and so I think those are the ones to focus on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget they're also given a national stage on which to give themselves the opportunity to get into the major professional leagues and earn batrillions of dollars. I don't feel bad for them. Consider it an internship.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Notice that full rides also aren't just given to superstars. Your average walk-on on all these 300+ D1 basketball teams end up getting full rides after a year. Same goes with football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but it's the stars that would be most likely to get paid significant amounts, and so I think those are the ones to focus on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the main problem when people talk about paying college athletes. They only want to talk about the superstars, but superstars make up less than 1% of all college athletes.