College football players getting paid?
 

I just read an article where Nebraska players maybe some of the first to get paid to play football. What does everyone think about that? Should college players get paid?


http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?s...v=ap&type=lgns

Before that could happen the NCAA would have to make some pretty big changes. As for that happen, don't count on it. I personally think that it's VERY unfair that they aren't paid (except for their scholarship). I mean honestly, they earn literally millions of $ for the school, especially in Big 12 schools like Nebraska, Oklahoma, A&M, etc. They are entitled to a little $ for their work. Hell, I work for the college TV news station and I at least get minimum wage:D

They have scholarships already and if they are good enough, they are destined for millions.

Actually at Nebraska, the Athletic Department budget it completely separate from the rest of the university. The money the AD makes stays in the AD. This makes the AD completely self sufficient and allows them to finance many womens sports as well as the men's sports that aren't self sufficient.

Now being here in NE, I'm getting a lot more info on the arguements. 1st the law would be on the books if it passes, but would not go into effect until at least three other states with Big 12 Schools pass similar laws. 2nd I personally think that a little stipend is acceptable, so that they can get by month to month. However in order to keep things fair the checks need to come directly from the NCAA which has the money ($6 billion from CBS to broadcast March Madness, $535 million from ABC just to broadcast the 4 BCS bowls). I think this is the only way to make sure that each school gives the same amount and that small schools are not punished by not being able to pay as much as the bigger schools. Plus football schools won't be hurt compared basketball schools (it obviously is way different to pay the 95 guys on the football team than the 14 on the basketball team.)

Also having the NCAA pay doesn't penalize the big schools who have a much larger number of athletes than a smaller school. (The comparison between Nebraska and Creighton is good example.)

How much should the stipend be? I say no more than $75 a month. I could easily stretch that particularly if I had training table meals for free all week.

I feel for a lot of them. They gotta wake up at the butt crack of dawn, practice, go work out, go to class, practice, then sleep. Many of these guys barely have enough money to support themselves day by day. They have to go to class and do their football thing, plus all the school time they miss on roadies. I think a monthly check in the amount that's enough for them to get by (not a huge wad of cache) should be ok for them.

orignally posted by Betarulz

The AD at Oklahoma is also independent of the rest of the university. I think that arrangement is pretty commonplace among large D-1 schools.

I disagree that players recieving scholarships are already being paid -- some of those players wouldn't even be in college were they not on scholarship. I think it is completely fair for players to receive a small stipend for playing -- nothing exorbitant, but enough to allow them to live like most other students. Players aren't allowed to work during their season, and the rules governing them can make it hard to work during the off-season too. I've seen guys hoard their per diem on road trips so they can actually have some money when they return to Norman. They are so limited in terms of what they can and cannot do and accept that sometimes a simple favor from a friend can endanger their playing eligibility. (Buying them dinner, loaning them money...even allowing them to make long-distance phone calls from your phone can all break NCAA regulations under certain circumstances.)

I think the Nebraska law is a step in the right direction. I also think that if if passes there, passage of similar laws in OK and TX wouldn't be that far behind.

Of course, getting the NCAA to listen would be a completely different story.

Football players DO get paid. Believe it. At my school, they drive around in Escalades, Hummers, whatever and wear platinum jewlery, latest namebrands, etc. If it doesn't come from their huge scholarships, it comes from Booster kickbacks. It happens.

I think our athletes get paid in things other than $$$$.
I lived with a bunch of them in my co-ed dorm freshman year. They all have note-takers assigned to them through the Office of Disablilities so that they can miss class and and still pass the tests. Even when they do get crappy grades they're usually given A's and B's. At our school its more the basketball players than football, but even football guys enjoy the perks of whatever Mizzou and the alumni want to give them.

Dude, they should pay the people who don't get booster kickbacks...I just left my D3 track team (for a variety of reasons, not the fact that I'm not getting paid) and it take such dedication and no reward to be an athlete at my school - two a day practices, missing classes for away meets, giving up your weekend - and there is NO REWARD, hardly anybody comes to your meets and my profs rode my ass about it all the time.

Paying your athletes a FAIR amount and I'd shoot for much higher than $75 a month would help to eliminate corruption. I'm sure that most Big 12 and other major schools players recieve lots of money from boosters as it is. They get caught doing it every once in awhile but the people doing it aren't dumb and are unlikely to get caught.

Oklahoma actually became what it is today through the OU Touchdown Club paying players as much as $50,000 per year (this was documented back in the 1950's). That's when they put together that 42 game winning streak.

Old traditions die hard. The only way to bring it under control is to give players enough money to make them see these handouts as something that is not worth the risk of accepting. As it is, many of them come from poor families that can hardly afford to feed them.

Same thing happens at LSU. I lived in the on-campus apartments, which were built because the NCAA doesn't allow "athlete housing" but if they are given preference in getting in...who's to say anything. I was super-lucky to actually get in the complex. The football players who lived there did whatever they wanted, were loud as all hell all day and night, TRASHED their apartments (which they were getting for free, when they cost everyone else $2K a semester).

These guys also got super-preferential treatement in scheduling classes, there was a big ole' scandal last year about NCAA violations because student tutors were writing papers/taking tests for them...and if all else failed, they paid off people. I know of one football player to pay off people he was doing a group project with, just so he wouldn't have to work.

Maybe at Podunksville U, the players need a stipend to live decently, but down in the SEC, they're doing just fine.

I think the SEC/ACC (and that's my home conference) are exceptions. A few weeks ago, there was a story about a player who couldn't afford to go home to his best friend's funeral--where was the Touchdown Club then? :confused:

I think there should be a stipend, if the student is on work-study and obviously can't work in-season, to make up for that so at least they can have some financial support. It's probably worse at more expensive schools. Even though only 40% of students at my school (DI, Ivy League) are on financial assistance, 75% of students work to support themselves in some form. The Ivy League prohibits athletic scholarships, so there's really not that much money to go around. I was on an athletic team my first year--many of the students, even recruits, had to quit the team because they had to work to make ends meet.

I have heard of things like this. Nebraska lost a great player last year because of the same kind of trouble. Thunder Collins (an excellent TB) had to leave school and try to find work I believe to take care of his little brother. The current rules are mostly damaging to players of lower socioeconomic status. They perhaps unintentionally doom some kids with enough talent to play in the NFL to settle for real world jobs to make ends meet.

I know I just said football, but I meant every sport. My friend on the girls basketball team barely gets by, and she can't get a job because she's in season.

I don't understand why they'd be *entitled* to money that they didn't earn. The real world doesn't pay NBA and WNBA players the same (for obvious reasons) why should a university give stipends to players in sports that earn no money?

It's simple.. one sport earns money and should pay players at least a part of it. The other sport looses money. Why should it have to lose more? The way the real world works (or SHOULD work) is that you only get paid if you produce.

It's not from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.

GIVE ME A BREAK!
 

Since when does the college or university have to be the parent? And how many athletes rebel when they make rules like one? Let their families give up a little for them to live and spend money at college---just like any other college student!

The poor football players----they get a scholarship to earn an education, free room and board, travel to their "work" (games out of town), a paid vacation if they do well (bowl games) and the opportunity to make mllions the rest of their lives.

I agree that there may be some stupid rules that punish unfairly such as times when travel is wanted for funerals---but every other student has to find a way to make ends meet too. If they don't like the rules or the life, don't go to college, stay home, and work at your local conveince store!

Re: GIVE ME A BREAK!
 

Actually the NCAA does provide for players to travel in emergencies. As I recall there was a bit of a scandal when Maurice Clarett (Ohio St. RB) had to attend a funeral and was denied funding by the NCAA because he had failed to fill out all his paperwork.

A lot of that stuff is provided though.

Governor supports bill to pay college football players
 

Governor supports bill to pay college football players
Feb. 12, 2003
SportsLine.com wire reports

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Gov. Mike Johanns backs a legislative proposal to pay Nebraska football players.

"Paying the players would be above board and straightforward," Johanns said Wednesday. "College football has become a multimillion-dollar industry that should do much better for its athletes."

A bill introduced by state Sen. Ernie Chambers would require football players to be paid a stipend. It would take effect only if three other states that have teams in the Big 12 Conference pass similar laws.

Chambers contends football players are exploited, unable to capitalize on work that generates millions of dollars. He said NCAA rules governing money players can earn are too complex and easy to violate for small infractions.

The Business and Labor Committee held a hearing on the proposal Monday, but has not taken any action.

Johanns said if the bill were to pass the Legislature he would sign it into law. The Legislature passed a similar bill in 1988 but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Kay Orr.

Johanns' wife, Stephanie, was a state senator at that time who supported the bill vetoed by Orr.



AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2003, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

Bill to pay Nebraska players advances

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press


LINCOLN, Neb. -- A proposal to pay Nebraska's football players cleared a legislative hurdle Tuesday.


The Business and Labor Committee voted unanimously to advance the measure for debate before the full Legislature.


State Sen. Ernie Chambers' bill would require Nebraska football players be paid a stipend if three other states with schools in the Big 12 Conference pass similar laws. Other states with schools in the conference are Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Texas and Iowa.


NCAA spokesman Wally Renfro said the proposal was flawed.


''I don't think there are many, if any, college presidents who believe it's the right thing to do to pay their students to play sports,'' Renfro said. ''If you tried to do this, I think you would take first-rate college programs and turn them into third-rate professional programs.''


Renfro said the bill would be vulnerable to legal action from players in other sports who also want to be paid.


Chambers said he introduced the bill because NCAA rules governing money players can earn are too complex. Chambers also said he believes football players are exploited because they draw no financial benefit from work that generates millions of dollars for the universities.


Current NCAA rules afford students flexibility to earn money in addition to scholarships, or tap into a special assistance fund, Renfro said.


''A student athlete who is on full scholarship can work any time during the year, except for when they are actually playing their sport,'' he said.


Gov. Mike Johanns has said he would sign the bill into law if passed. The Legislature passed a similar bill in 1988, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Kay Orr.


The proposal is attracting attention outside the ranks of college football.


Iowa State basketball coach Larry Eustachy said Monday he supports paying college athletes and would contribute some of is own salary to do it.


''I think it's great,'' Eustachy said during the Big 12 teleconference. ''For some of them with their (economic) background, they hardly have enough money to eat properly. So I think they should (be paid).


''They create a lot of revenue. A lot of people get rich off them, including the coaches. To take a stipend out of a coach's check to do something like that, I don't think there would be a coach in the world that would be opposed to it. I know I wouldn't.''


Eustachy suggested $100 a week would ''go a long way'' toward helping athletes meet everyday living expenses.


''They're not a normal student,'' he said. ''They're asked to do a lot of stuff outside the classroom.''

College athletes who are on a scholarship ARE being paid. Don't believe me? Ask the IRS. Scholarships are taxable.

It is also interesting to me that the "highly selective" schools, that give scholarships on a "need only" basis MUST give full athletic scholarships (which are clearly merit based) to retain Division 1 standing. That's an NCAA rule.

And to parrot what a lot of others have said above, "student" athletes at the big sports powers seem to do very well, thank you. Look at what they drive and where they live. That's not the case at smaller, less prestigious program, by the way.

And, frankly, a fair number of these students (clearly not all of them) wouldn't be in college at all if they weren't physically gifted. They either couldn't afford it, or wouldn't meet the entrance requirements.

Finally, I think that paying athletes would widen the gap between the "big time" programs and the rest of the colleges. Smaller schools (and conferences) without the reputation of the elite programs would have a much harder time recruiting and paying if they weren't in the same income category of a Nebraska, Ohio State, etc. Unless, of course, the NCAA or someone sets an absolute salary so that Miami of Ohio could compete with Miami of Florida.

Even though the term is nearly a joke these days (see NHL and NBA players on Olympic teams), I would much prefer to see amateur atletics stay that way.