Big Ten Players Demands Out Now
- Thread starter HumbleP1e
- Start date
Again, if people think college athletes are not underpaid (or only a few are slightly underpaid), then why are people arguing so hard to keep in place a rule that prevents colleges from paying the athletes in more than just a scholarship?
I'm not saying any college should be forced to pay players.
I'm saying colleges should be allowed to pay players.
Do you have any idea what the impact on amateur athletics would be if you allowed the member institutions to pay their players through individual negotiations? You might as well have some schools join the NFL or the NBA, Would you be okay with professional teams joining the Big Ten and having Iowa compete with the Bulls, The Cavs or any of the NFL teams?
Then go after the NFL - this is college sports. It's the NFL that won't let them enter until a certain period of time.
Simple answer: paying players is not mutually exclusive with requiring that they are academically eligible. None of the players for the Bulls, Cavs, or any NFL team are academically eligible and thus cannot compete in college athletics.
So the only justification for not allowing a school to pay a player is because it's college sports. Not a whole lot of substance behind that argument, but appreciate your honesty.
Can they pay them all? Do you want all of the other sports to just go away? Again, do you not understand what funds the other sports that don't produce revenue. And you are calling me obtuse?
Maybe some of those other sports should go away. How beloved can they possibly be? They don't come close to making any money. Even Iowa wrestling loses a ton of money. I have nothing against college athletics (I played them for a team that did not make money) but I'm not sure the average college football or basketball player is going to be swayed by the notion that it's their responsibility to pay for non-revenue sports.
The easiest way to “pay” players is have year end “bonuses” for all-conference, all-American and awards, that the conference pays out. Those are the only players who outvalue their scholarships with results. That would also save schools from being too stupid with money that would cause bankruptcy. Many departments struggle to be smart right now, let alone putting another 85+ contracts on them.
So you would rather pay a football or basketball player to play a COLLEGE sport and let all of the others just go away? They can already make money from outside sources now. They can make money at autograph shows. If they are good enough they can make money by going professional. Do you know they already get money monthly? But yet you want them subsidized more so other actual COLLEGE sports may be cut? That's plain selfish.
The thing that is missed is that no one is forcing a player to play in college. There is a free market and high school seniors are welcome to explore that market to see what their skills will bring. Once they do that analysis, in football, almost 100% of them realize the best, most lucrative offer they have is to accept the college scholarship, as the NFL will not consider employing them for 3 years.
This is the rub, if there was a minor league system set up to pay the high school senior an equivalent (or greater) wage than the scholarship provides there would be an argument that college players are not paid their fair market value. This is not the case, in fact the case could be made that the college players are being over compensated with a $50,000 a year scholarship as the open market in football would pay them $0 a year and working a minimum wage job (as they only have a high school degree) would only pay about $30,000 a year.
The real issue is once eligible for the NFL are the players being underpaid. You could say yes but at that point the player has chosen, willfully, to keep playing college football. No one is forcing them or suppressing their wages. No different than after working in a job for 3 years and having another company offer a big raise you have a choice to jump ship or stay and hopefully get a better offer a year or two down the road.
This is the rub, if there was a minor league system set up to pay the high school senior an equivalent (or greater) wage than the scholarship provides there would be an argument that college players are not paid their fair market value. This is not the case, in fact the case could be made that the college players are being over compensated with a $50,000 a year scholarship as the open market in football would pay them $0 a year and working a minimum wage job (as they only have a high school degree) would only pay about $30,000 a year.
The real issue is once eligible for the NFL are the players being underpaid. You could say yes but at that point the player has chosen, willfully, to keep playing college football. No one is forcing them or suppressing their wages. No different than after working in a job for 3 years and having another company offer a big raise you have a choice to jump ship or stay and hopefully get a better offer a year or two down the road.
That's for the universities to decide. If the players really aren't worth any additional compensation, then nothing would happen if we remove current restrictions. Realistically, some would get paid and others would continue to only get a scholarship. If the restriction were removed immediately, it likely would take a couple years before universities would be able to pay any significant additional benefits to athletes given short-term budget constraints. But long-term, revenue would likely be more evenly split between administrators, coaches, facilities, and athletes.
No I don't want all other sports to go away, and they don't need to go away. As you note, schools already pay for a number of other sports that don't produce revenue. Allowing schools more freedom on how they spend their revenue does not require that they stop spending money on non-revenue sports.
I don't think you are realizing who's subsidizing who. Hint: the college football and college basketball athletes aren't the ones being subsidized.
If people want to be honest and say that they don't want to let colleges pay players because they prefer the socialist platform, that's fine. Just be honest that you're choosing socialism over free markets.
Now imagine if you paid them that way and you’d see a lot of underprivileged athletes have to drop out of school.
I think many people forget the purpose of college and what’s scholarship represents.
How are you getting $1000 per player for free BTN? A quick Google search shows that BTN+ runs you about $120/year are you really assuming each player is going to ask for at least 8 passes? These schools probably cost themselves more money setting aside free tickets for families each year, then it would cost to give free BTN+ subscriptions.
FBS college football is a socialist dream. All the players get paid the same
except for walkons of course.
College athletics serve to give STUDENTS a better life through a free education. If you don’t want to be a student don’t go to college. The best change colleges could make would be to subsidize walk one loan interest while they are in school.
A
