7 ms·

the worst argument I've heard from skeptics associated with the NCAA is "THE COLLEGE PLAYERS ARE ALREADY PAID!". As if forcing young student athletes who are of

the worst argument I've heard from skeptics associated with the NCAA is "THE COLLEGE PLAYERS ARE ALREADY PAID!". As if forcing young student athletes who are often from very low income families to resort to illegal bribes is a better solution than regulated endorsements for something they're absolutely entitled to.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
They're paid with a free education. That doesn't balance out the inequity of profits made off their labor but it isn't nothing.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Yes and no. Some, not all, are given full or partial scholarships. And of those that are given full scholarships, many have a very difficult time balancing their studies and their athletics. Athletes are generally limited in which majors they can choose due to study time requirements and class, practice time conflicts. I once inadvertently enrolled in a "business calculus" class that was apparently hand selected by the football coaches. Almost the entire class was the football team. We barely got through the first 5 chapters of the book and that was the easiest A I ever got. So while the free education and room and board have some value, they don't have nearly as much as people think. I have known student athletes that quit playing and got a full time job just so they could afford to pay their own way and have time for classes.
- butterfi 7y ago
  The average cost of 1 year of University is approx. 35k a year for private colleges according to collegedata.com. The average salary of 1 first year NBA player is 3 million. The lowest paid NBA player makes approx 500k. That doesn't sound like a "free" education to me. Players would be better off going straight to the NBA and going to college later, if they were still inclined.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Or forgoing college and play professionally in another country.
  - pitt1980 7y ago
    a tiny tiny sliver of college athletes will play professionally, a good way to think about it, is that college athletics is sort of communist society in action where the future professionals athletes subsidize benefits for the athletes that won't be future professionals. Relative to most minor league athletes or aspiring Olympians, 35K isn't a bad salary.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    The NBA tries to educate college players or prospects to focus on their education as much as possible. I think the numbers are that even if you're a Div 1 college player, you only have a 6% chance of being drafted to the NBA.
    - 8note 7y ago
      yeah, so why wouldn't you try joining the NBA first, then go to college to actually study when you don't get in?
- roland35 7y ago
  In theory they get a free education, but in reality the huge majority of a student-athlete's focus is on sports (at least football and basketball). Just look at the majors for athletes on the teams - almost never anything too difficult. There are also plenty of examples of "classes" that athletes have taken in the news, i.e. University of North Carolina, and more
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    If they aren't interested in academics they don't belong in college.
    - altoidaltoid 7y ago
      but if college ball is the path to the pros... look at Basketball and Football vs. Hockey. Hockey has a well established Junior/Major Junior feeder system. NBA/NFL benefit from an unpaid sorting mechanism via the NCAA.
      - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        It isn't college's responsibility to serve as a farm league for professional sports. Particularly those with money to fund their own.
    - apendleton 7y ago
      This is backwards. The system is set up to make it impossible for players to both be successful students and successful athletes -- they're expected to spend most of their time on sport. That that's the case is absurd, but placing the onus on the students to rectify the situation bizarre; they have the least power of anyone involved. The onus should be on the schools. Universities' principal missions should be pedagogy and research. If college sports as they now exist require hampering students' ability to learn (or, I suppose, do research), having those sports teams and operating them the way they do is in conflict with what should be their mission, and they should stop having sports teams.
Agustus 7y ago
We have an interesting societal conundrum here. Student athletes are below college material for specific sports (college football being a great example). If we do not allow the footballers in, then they would not be at the college, however, by allowing these sub par students into the college based on a need from the college, they are effectively subsidizing their educational capabilities to maintain NCAA eligibility (athletes at colleges have a different support system than us “normies.” With dedicated staff for tutoring, transportation, food, and housing). There can be a case made for the NCAA paying out more than living wages to these athletes while they are there. What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable: looking at you water polo. The athletes are playing and doing similar workout regimens as the football, yet no pay... what do you do with this. What about Title IX discrimination when the men’s football gets monies while the ladies do not.
- gopalv 7y ago
  > What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable The law does not require the sport to pay anything more, this removes the "you may not use your own likeness" rule as being bad for the players. The new change does not apply to anything they do on-field and it only starts in 2023, so it will definitely change decisions for college admissions. This does not add any significant burden to the sport organizers, except they lost their captive monopoly on the athletes appearing in a commercial. Right to negotiate for yourself is a big one.
RandallBrown 7y ago
NCAA college athletes are paid in completely allowable ways. They just aren't paid based on the value they generate for the school. When I was in school all the scholarship athletes had food, clothing, and housing stipends that were considerably more than they needed for any of those three things. Not to mention that the free education they receive. I understand that the "education" most top tier football players receive isn't quite the same as the other students (football is a full time job). I just don't know how you can start paying players without causing some really sweeping side-effects that change the reason that so many people love college football. With the proper regulation, I suppose you could probably give the players money that they deserve, while still keeping some of that amateur sports magic. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into the pre-NFL where only schools with money have football teams. I'm also a little interested what could happen with Title IX. As far as I know, all athletes in a school have to get the same benefits and if you start paying college football players (the only ones that typically make any money for the school) what do you do about the girls on the gymnastics team or the guys on the lacrosse team?
- jcranberry 7y ago
  I knew some athletes at OSU. They get lots of free stuff, like backpacks, ipads, etc.
- beerandt 7y ago
  If players are getting paid they should also be disqualified from receiving scholarships and ALL the other "free" benefits student athletes receive, while still maintaining academic progress. No more free "tutors," athlete-only[0] meal-plans and dining halls, and even access to trainers, PT's, etc. Are top performing student-athletes being exploited? Maybe, but people seriously underestimate the value of benefits they receive on campus beyond scholarship amount. And there need to be substantial consequences for both students and universities if athletes fail to graduate. [0] These dining halls might technically be open to all students, but non-athletes have to pay steakhouse prices for slightly better cafeteria food, while athletes eat for free. These are the ways universities get around NCAA rules today.
  - 7y ago
JackFr 7y ago
> forcing young student athletes who are often from very low income families to resort to illegal bribes No one is forced to do anything here, as if children from low income families somehow have less agency than others. You can complain about a system where children from low income families make a rational calculation to skirt the rules to better their position. No one is talking about regulating endorsements. The law simply says you can’t keep a player off a team for being paid.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

They're paid with a free education. That doesn't balance out the inequity of profits made off their labor but it isn't nothing.

jjeaff 7y ago
Yes and no. Some, not all, are given full or partial scholarships. And of those that are given full scholarships, many have a very difficult time balancing their studies and their athletics. Athletes are generally limited in which majors they can choose due to study time requirements and class, practice time conflicts. I once inadvertently enrolled in a "business calculus" class that was apparently hand selected by the football coaches. Almost the entire class was the football team. We barely got through the first 5 chapters of the book and that was the easiest A I ever got. So while the free education and room and board have some value, they don't have nearly as much as people think. I have known student athletes that quit playing and got a full time job just so they could afford to pay their own way and have time for classes.
butterfi 7y ago
The average cost of 1 year of University is approx. 35k a year for private colleges according to collegedata.com. The average salary of 1 first year NBA player is 3 million. The lowest paid NBA player makes approx 500k. That doesn't sound like a "free" education to me. Players would be better off going straight to the NBA and going to college later, if they were still inclined.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Or forgoing college and play professionally in another country.
- pitt1980 7y ago
  a tiny tiny sliver of college athletes will play professionally, a good way to think about it, is that college athletics is sort of communist society in action where the future professionals athletes subsidize benefits for the athletes that won't be future professionals. Relative to most minor league athletes or aspiring Olympians, 35K isn't a bad salary.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  The NBA tries to educate college players or prospects to focus on their education as much as possible. I think the numbers are that even if you're a Div 1 college player, you only have a 6% chance of being drafted to the NBA.
  - 8note 7y ago
    yeah, so why wouldn't you try joining the NBA first, then go to college to actually study when you don't get in?
roland35 7y ago
In theory they get a free education, but in reality the huge majority of a student-athlete's focus is on sports (at least football and basketball). Just look at the majors for athletes on the teams - almost never anything too difficult. There are also plenty of examples of "classes" that athletes have taken in the news, i.e. University of North Carolina, and more
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  If they aren't interested in academics they don't belong in college.
  - altoidaltoid 7y ago
    but if college ball is the path to the pros... look at Basketball and Football vs. Hockey. Hockey has a well established Junior/Major Junior feeder system. NBA/NFL benefit from an unpaid sorting mechanism via the NCAA.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      It isn't college's responsibility to serve as a farm league for professional sports. Particularly those with money to fund their own.
  - apendleton 7y ago
    This is backwards. The system is set up to make it impossible for players to both be successful students and successful athletes -- they're expected to spend most of their time on sport. That that's the case is absurd, but placing the onus on the students to rectify the situation bizarre; they have the least power of anyone involved. The onus should be on the schools. Universities' principal missions should be pedagogy and research. If college sports as they now exist require hampering students' ability to learn (or, I suppose, do research), having those sports teams and operating them the way they do is in conflict with what should be their mission, and they should stop having sports teams.

Agustus 7y ago

We have an interesting societal conundrum here. Student athletes are below college material for specific sports (college football being a great example). If we do not allow the footballers in, then they would not be at the college, however, by allowing these sub par students into the college based on a need from the college, they are effectively subsidizing their educational capabilities to maintain NCAA eligibility (athletes at colleges have a different support system than us “normies.” With dedicated staff for tutoring, transportation, food, and housing). There can be a case made for the NCAA paying out more than living wages to these athletes while they are there. What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable: looking at you water polo. The athletes are playing and doing similar workout regimens as the football, yet no pay... what do you do with this. What about Title IX discrimination when the men’s football gets monies while the ladies do not.

gopalv 7y ago
> What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable The law does not require the sport to pay anything more, this removes the "you may not use your own likeness" rule as being bad for the players. The new change does not apply to anything they do on-field and it only starts in 2023, so it will definitely change decisions for college admissions. This does not add any significant burden to the sport organizers, except they lost their captive monopoly on the athletes appearing in a commercial. Right to negotiate for yourself is a big one.

RandallBrown 7y ago

NCAA college athletes are paid in completely allowable ways. They just aren't paid based on the value they generate for the school. When I was in school all the scholarship athletes had food, clothing, and housing stipends that were considerably more than they needed for any of those three things. Not to mention that the free education they receive. I understand that the "education" most top tier football players receive isn't quite the same as the other students (football is a full time job). I just don't know how you can start paying players without causing some really sweeping side-effects that change the reason that so many people love college football. With the proper regulation, I suppose you could probably give the players money that they deserve, while still keeping some of that amateur sports magic. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into the pre-NFL where only schools with money have football teams. I'm also a little interested what could happen with Title IX. As far as I know, all athletes in a school have to get the same benefits and if you start paying college football players (the only ones that typically make any money for the school) what do you do about the girls on the gymnastics team or the guys on the lacrosse team?

jcranberry 7y ago
I knew some athletes at OSU. They get lots of free stuff, like backpacks, ipads, etc.
beerandt 7y ago
If players are getting paid they should also be disqualified from receiving scholarships and ALL the other "free" benefits student athletes receive, while still maintaining academic progress. No more free "tutors," athlete-only[0] meal-plans and dining halls, and even access to trainers, PT's, etc. Are top performing student-athletes being exploited? Maybe, but people seriously underestimate the value of benefits they receive on campus beyond scholarship amount. And there need to be substantial consequences for both students and universities if athletes fail to graduate. [0] These dining halls might technically be open to all students, but non-athletes have to pay steakhouse prices for slightly better cafeteria food, while athletes eat for free. These are the ways universities get around NCAA rules today.
- 7y ago

JackFr 7y ago

> forcing young student athletes who are often from very low income families to resort to illegal bribes No one is forced to do anything here, as if children from low income families somehow have less agency than others. You can complain about a system where children from low income families make a rational calculation to skirt the rules to better their position. No one is talking about regulating endorsements. The law simply says you can’t keep a player off a team for being paid.