| FTBL Paying kids?

[Guest]

This is now the topic in the news.

SHOULD WE PAY KIDS TO PLAY SPORTS?

I understand that the school they have pick to play their sport gives them a free education. And thats a huge payment when you look at how much a education is now. But a little something helps a college kid out. Maybe 500 a month. Maybe 200. Something for the kids. Then make it even all across the board. Not your QB get 1000 a month and your beachwarmer waterboy OL make 50 a month. And have all money reported. It would make life easier for the NCAA.

I want input.

Should the university or a booster be able to give a SMALL amount?

 

[Guest]

Personally, I don't care whether they get paid or not.

But I don't think it will ever happen.

Here are the 2 main reasons.

1st and most important reason. Smaller schools could not afford it. Sure, your Alabama's and UGA's and UT's wouldn't have a problem. They make enough money that at least small amount could be paid. But then you have your schools like UAB and So. Miss who are in the red, they couldn't do it. So there's a recruiting advantage for the big time schools. Heck, the NCAA made the big time programs shrink their media guides because the smaller schools couldn't afford put out but a small one. So they sure would never allow something like paying players.

2nd almost as important. This would also open up the door to big time payments from boosters. If kids are getting money legally, then it would be much easier to hide getting money from boosters.

 

[kudzu]

I know these kids give a lot to the schools and the schools in return make a lot of money off of them but, they are getting an education that if they use it wisely, will serve them well throughout their life. I think it's a fair trade off. It isn't easy for the kids trying to juggle sports and college life but that is what it's about.

 

[Guest]

The "scholar athlete " concept is hopelessly outmoded at the BCS level. When the NCAA and its members established its framework no one dreamed of the millions in $ that would be involved for college athletes in football and basketball. The professional leagues in these sports love this set up, as they don't have to go to the extent that MLB goes to with their large farm systems. I say pay them, and levy the NBA and NFL to help those schools not overgrown with $ to pay their athletes.

While I enjoy watching these super athletes perform, when I see the "one and done" guy come through, part of me longs for the days when the typical college player enrolled in school without the idea of playing a game for a living after college.

 

[Guest]

Free education, and a chance to play football at a major university. I think that would be payment enough to some kids, but to some it's not. They need to make a rule to were it's go if you want to, and if the NFL thinks your ready then they can make that decision. But as for paying kids to play college football, i say HELL NO.

 

[jocephus8179]

IMHO, it's just plain crazy to even think about paying college players. What happened to someone working their way up and EARNING the right to get paid to play? I know they're good players and deserve something, that's why they get this thing called a SCHOLARSHIP, a free ride, or whatever you want to call it. Hasn't anyone noticed how much trouble players are getting into lately? Some of them already think they're s**t don't stink. Paying them to play would just make those matters worse. They go to college to prepare them for the rest of their life, on and off the field. They play school level sports to learn to love the game, to work their way up that ladder. Now, I'm only 28 years old, and I know there's some of you on here way older than me probably thinking, what the hell is this kid talking about? He doesn't know anything. I was raised with good old fashion values and I can't stand spoiled kids. Start paying college players, and that's what you'll have. Once you give them a dollar, before long they'll want more. Then more, and more. I've got an idea. If they're gonna pay athletes, then pay the students in law school and med school, and any other course. Don't they sometimes work as an intern for free, just to learn about the career they're persuing? It's only fair. PBB is probably rolling in his grave right now at the thought of this. RTR

 

[Wiseace615]

The "scholar athlete " concept is hopelessly outmoded at the BCS level. When the NCAA and its members established its framework no one dreamed of the millions in $ that would be involved for college athletes in football and basketball. The professional leagues in these sports love this set up, as they don't have to go to the extent that MLB goes to with their large farm systems. I say pay them, and levy the NBA and NFL to help those schools not overgrown with $ to pay their athletes.

While I enjoy watching these super athletes perform, when I see the "one and done" guy come through, part of me longs for the days when the typical college player enrolled in school without the idea of playing a game for a living after college.

I'm afraid that those days vanished with the days that Pros held day jobs just so they could afford to play.

Still, I can't get comfortable with the idea of paying college players a salary. I guess I'm still a little too old school for that one.

 

[rtauburnsucks]

This is now the topic in the news.

SHOULD WE PAY KIDS TO PLAY SPORTS?

I understand that the school they have pick to play their sport gives them a free education. And thats a huge payment when you look at how much a education is now. But a little something helps a college kid out. Maybe 500 a month. Maybe 200. Something for the kids. Then make it even all across the board. Not your QB get 1000 a month and your beachwarmer waterboy OL make 50 a month. And have all money reported. It would make life easier for the NCAA.

I want input.

Should the university or a booster be able to give a SMALL amount?

First off, scholarship athletes (regardless of sport) get a living stipend. I think its around $200 a month....second.....paying college athletes takes away the amature (sp?) meaning and makes them professionals. College athletes are not professionals. So in my opinion.....No. They should not be paid......a free education, books, food, room, and board is enough.


Olympic Athletes, besides soccer and basketball are also considered amatures.

 

[Guest]

This issue is so much more complicated than most of us comprehend. We tend to think of Million dollar TV and Bowl payouts to football and the "why are the players not getting the cut?" follow-on question.

Within football, the gameday experience is multi-faceted.

Question: Should the Band, the Cheerleaders, the hostesses, Big Al himself get a cut as well? If not, how do you justify that acceptably?

Question: What about the non-student-athletes and non-students? Should ticket taker Carl from Brookwood get in on the payday? Yes, he is already being compensated, but then so are the players. SO how do we cut out Carl?

Slipper Slop Questions: If we increase money to the players, how do we address the next question which is how much? Can Bama pay more than Vandy? Yes. So should Vandy and Bama pay the same or do we introduce the "to the highest bidder" concept into the mix? Does anyone really want to get into a bidding war with Notre Dame?

Question: Should the payment to a female long jumper going to school in Troy, Alabama be the same as the starting quarterback at USC? Do you think that there is a cost of living difference between the two locations? What about significants of the sports, their value to the sport and team, the income of the athletic department?

This can easily go on and on, but the point of a short story made long is that there are complicated questions that require subjective decisions and in the end there will be no agreeable formula.

I me, at least for right now, as long as the kids are not living in poverty I am happy with the spirit of the Student-Athlete.

 

[Guest]

This issue is so much more complicated than most of us comprehend. We tend to think of Million dollar TV and Bowl payouts to football and the "why are the players not getting the cut?" follow-on question.

Within football, the gameday experience is multi-faceted.

Question: Should the Band, the Cheerleaders, the hostesses, Big Al himself get a cut as well? If not, how do you justify that acceptably?

Question: What about the non-student-athletes and non-students? Should ticket taker Carl from Brookwood get in on the payday? Yes, he is already being compensated, but then so are the players. SO how do we cut out Carl?

Slipper Slop Questions: If we increase money to the players, how do we address the next question which is how much? Can Bama pay more than Vandy? Yes. So should Vandy and Bama pay the same or do we introduce the "to the highest bidder" concept into the mix? Does anyone really want to get into a bidding war with Notre Dame?

Question: Should the payment to a female long jumper going to school in Troy, Alabama be the same as the starting quarterback at USC? Do you think that there is a cost of living difference between the two locations? What about significants of the sports, their value to the sport and team, the income of the athletic department?

This can easily go on and on, but the point of a short story made long is that there are complicated questions that require subjective decisions and in the end there will be no agreeable formula.

I me, at least for right now, as long as the kids are not living in poverty I am happy with the spirit of the Student-Athlete.

case closed!! ha
i agree. we shouldnt pay them and LBS just made the case against it, GREAT POST!!!!