So let a player pay his own tuition, books, board, etc. Then he could work, sign autographs, make commercials. The star athletes would make much more in income than school fees.

 

And an athlete is not taking someone's else spot at the university. The cost to a university is minimal for a student athlete.

Wouldn't work, boosters would get involved and start giving 5 star recruits $100,000 dollars to sign a helmet. Would be even more cheating than already exists.

So let a player pay his own tuition, books, board, etc. Then he could work, sign autographs, make commercials. The star athletes would make much more in income than school fees.

 

And an athlete is not taking someone's else spot at the university. The cost to a university is minimal for a student athlete.

 

 

But there really aren't that many stars that would be able to make enough to do so....although to make up the cost of tuition would take a lot of autographs. Forget endorsements....you'd only get local, maybe statewide endorsements which wouldn't pay much. And national endorsements aren't likely, because individual schools have those locked up. Plus you'd have to have somebody representing you (in other words an agent) and he's going to take a chunk of that pie. No way a 19 or 20 year old kid is going to be savvy enough to negotiate his own endorsement deals. In reality, the majority likely won't make a dime. And while the cost of ONE student athlete may be minimal (if 50-80k in tuition, room and board is minimal), the cost of all student athletes adds up pretty quickly.

When virtually every football player, basketball player (Men's and Women's), baseball player, soccer player is walking around campus with Beats, brand new Jordan's, and driving nicer cars than the average student, I don't see any need to be paying players. They are doing just fine as it is, IMO.

 

There are people (not necessarily on this board) that seem to downplay the fact that these athletes are getting FULL TUITION, that is a lot of money. On the other end of the spectrum, those same people complain about how expensive it is to go to college, and that something should be done to regulate the cost of secondary education. So which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways...

"Johnny Football, come to Alabama, we can get you $20,000 for autographs. A&M can only get you $10,000."

 

Jimmy, "EMC can you pay you $40,000/year while you finish your degree. We, here at IBM, can pay you $65,000." If you have a special skill set, why can't you strike while the iron is hot. Other college students can.

When virtually every football player, basketball player (Men's and Women's), baseball player, soccer player is walking around campus with Beats, brand new Jordan's, and driving nicer cars than the average student, I don't see any need to be paying players. They are doing just fine as it is, IMO.

 

There are people (not necessarily on this board) that seem to downplay the fact that these athletes are getting FULL TUITION, that is a lot of money. On the other end of the spectrum, those same people complain about how expensive it is to go to college, and that something should be done to regulate the cost of secondary education. So which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways...

 

You get paid for what you are worth in the real world. You should be able to do it now. For many of those college athletes, this is as hot as they'll ever be. Why can't they make as much money as possible now? You wouldn't stop a music major on scholarship from going on tour w/ his rock band, correct?

You wouldn't stop a music major on scholarship from going on tour w/ his rock band, correct?

 

Music majors don't get free housing (in the best dorms), three meals a day PLUS a meal card, free clothes, etc. While music majors can get schollys, they aren't anywhere close to those of athletes.

Athletes from major sports at a major college are doing just fine. Very few go without a necessity.

 

Pay the D-III and D-II kids, or athletes from non-revenue generating sports. The boosters have the others covered.

Jimmy, "EMC can you pay you $40,000/year while you finish your degree. We, here at IBM, can pay you $65,000." If you have a special skill set, why can't you strike while the iron is hot. Other college students can.

 

Because if Jimmy works at IBM while going to school it has zero effect on other schools. Imagine if schools were allowed to buy their teams every year? You think it's tough for the non BCS teams to compete now, you can forget about a TCU making any noise. While they aren't getting top 5 now, they would fall off the face of the earth if we start allowing teams to pay players.

Athletes from major sports at a major college are doing just fine. Very few go without a necessity.

 

Pay the D-III and D-II kids, or athletes from non-revenue generating sports. The boosters have the others covered.

 

When I was at Hanover, I couldn't have given my autograph away. If people are willing to pay players to sign their own names and their own jerseys selling at the bookstore, they should be able to profit. Their abilities put them into that position.

Music majors don't get free housing (in the best dorms), three meals a day PLUS a meal card, free clothes, etc. While music majors can get schollys, they aren't anywhere close to those of athletes.

 

And they don't bring in near the money that football and basketball players do. You get paid what you are worth. I don't get why everyone is opposed to people making as much money as they can, while they can. Why? Because other students can't? Tough luck, man. The 1st year associate from Harvard Law is going to have more opportunities at prestigous firms than the 1st year associate from Chase. That is just the way it is. When you are in demand, you can demand more money. 99.9% of these players won't be able to make money off of their likeness again. Even when they are playing, we are talking about 10% of athletes that will profit from their memorabilia. Who would have bought a Michael Porter jersey, or paid for his autograph?

Because if Jimmy works at IBM while going to school it has zero effect on other schools. Imagine if schools were allowed to buy their teams every year? You think it's tough for the non BCS teams to compete now, you can forget about a TCU making any noise. While they aren't getting top 5 now, they would fall off the face of the earth if we start allowing teams to pay players.

You still have scholarship restrictions. TCU would hardly be impacted. Kids aren't choosing TCU over Texas right now.

When I was at Hanover, I couldn't have given my autograph away. If people are willing to pay players to sign their own names and their own jerseys selling at the bookstore, they should be able to profit. Their abilities put them into that position.

 

You also didn't go to tuition, room and board for free for that same ability.

You also didn't go to tuition, room and board for free for that same ability.

 

No, I didn't. I wasn't good enough. I didn't win a genetic lottery, tough luck for me. Yet, I'm the only one defending this? Why, bc it seems that everyone is saying either A. it's always been done this way and changing it will totally kill the system (it won't), or B. it's not fair b/c I didn't get the same opportunity to go to college for free, so that's all that these guys should get (if you are top 5% of sales in your company, your perks will be much different than the girl in HR. That's just the way the world works.)

 

How much money does UK basketball bring in annually? Who are the workers? Should they not be able to earn some of that beyond their crap stipend? I don't get how people are ok w/ telling kids that, and only because, they have an athletic scholarship, that they shouldn't make as much as their value dictates they make. How does that compromise, or change, anything? All it does is top the Academics and Administrators from making a complete killing.

No, I didn't. I wasn't good enough. I didn't win a genetic lottery, tough luck for me. Yet, I'm the only one defending this? Why, bc it seems that everyone is saying either A. it's always been done this way and changing it will totally kill the system (it won't), or B. it's not fair b/c I didn't get the same opportunity to go to college for free, so that's all that these guys should get (if you are top 5% of sales in your company, your perks will be much different than the girl in HR. That's just the way the world works.)

 

How much money does UK basketball bring in annually? Who are the workers? Should they not be able to earn some of that beyond their crap stipend? I don't get how people are ok w/ telling kids that, and only because, they have an athletic scholarship, that they shouldn't make as much as their value dictates they make. How does that compromise, or change, anything? All it does is top the Academics and Administrators from making a complete killing.

 

I don't totally disagree that they should make money off of their abilities. However, if you get into a bidding war you turn in into the NFL without a salary cap.

 

Maybe you make a rule that, when you graduate with your degree, you get a royalty check. That may keep some from leaving college early and takes care of guys like a Derek Abney who was big for UK football but wasn't good enough to make a lot of money in the NFL.

 

I just don't think it's right to simply pay them based on jersey sales while they are playing. The large boosters will start buying up the best player's jerseys left and right to make sure they "get theirs".

I hear both sides of the argument. I still get back to it being an antiquated system. There is a reason we are one of the few countries in the world that has a collegiate system acting as a minor league. The concept is dumb when you think about it. I tried explaining college athletics when I lived in Britain and they thought it was the stupidest thing they have ever heard of. Then again, they like mushy peas and curry sauce on french fries so take their opinion with a grain of salt.

 

This was a bad week for the NCAA: NCAA won't sell player jerseys anymore, says president Mark Emmert - College Football News | FOX Sports on MSN