To pay or not to pay NCAA Players

kjvogelsang

This was out in yeseterday's USA Today newspaper.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-ncaa-pay-for-play-final-four_N.htm

 

Thoughts?

rori11

I think they should get paid.  Not huge money, but at least minimum wage for the amount of time they are playing/practicing.

And yes, before anyone says it, I agree that paying for school is "pay", but that doesn't pay for clothes, entertainment, eating off of campus, etc.  You really don't have time to work while being a student athlete.  And your "off season" really entails a lot of work for the season.

FWIW, I was on an athletic scholarship in college - fortunately my parents sent me a couple of hundred dollars a month to pay for the above items.  But not all parents can afford to do that. 

roar

No.  It's much more complex than that.  How do you make it equitable?  The largest programs will have the most resources and can therefore pay the most money.  What happens to the mid-major conferences?  What about the student-athletes who participate in non-revenue sports?  Do you compensate them even though their programs are basically welfare recipients off football and basketball? What about programs that have only one revenue sport like St. John's University or Marquette or Georgetown (all in the Big East, which is a major conference)?  And not all student-athletes are full ride - the only full ride sports for men are football, basketball and hockey.  For women, it's basketball, volleyball and tennis.  Do you pay the women basketball players less than the men because men's basketball is a larger revenue generator?

There is some agreement within the NCAA compliance community that there should be some additional grant/stipend money, but then again, it's a matter of equity and affordability.  If a student-athlete participates in football at say, Columbia University (barring the fact that Ivy League sports are non-scholarship), the cost of living in Manhattan, New York is higher than if that same student-athlete went to play football at Kansas State in Manhattan, Kansas.  But by virtue of being a much larger program in a power conference, the athletic program at K-State could probably afford to pay a larger stipend than the department at Columbia.  So then does the pay become need based?  The student-athlete could apply for Pell Grants, but guess what - those are from federal funding, which has been cut dramatically.

However, I agree with the underlying issue regarding O'Bannon v. NCAA; I think that the NCAA has gone too far with the use of personal image for marketing and sales purposes and having it being exclusive to the NCAA and the represented institution.  I think it shouldn't be allowed during the eligibility of the student-athlete, but after eligibility has expired, I think it should be allowed.  There's no reason for a school like UCLA to maintain legal use of an image "forever and in perpetuity."

kjvogelsang

roar:

No.  It's much more complex than that.  How do you make it equitable?  The largest programs will have the most resources and can therefore pay the most money.  What happens to the mid-major conferences?  What about the student-athletes who participate in non-revenue sports?  Do you compensate them even though their programs are basically welfare recipients off football and basketball? What about programs that have only one revenue sport like St. John's University or Marquette or Georgetown (all in the Big East, which is a major conference)?  And not all student-athletes are full ride - the only full ride sports for men are football, basketball and hockey.  For women, it's basketball, volleyball and tennis.  Do you pay the women basketball players less than the men because men's basketball is a larger revenue generator?

There is some agreement within the NCAA compliance community that there should be some additional grant/stipend money, but then again, it's a matter of equity and affordability.  If a student-athlete participates in football at say, Columbia University (barring the fact that Ivy League sports are non-scholarship), the cost of living in Manhattan, New York is higher than if that same student-athlete went to play football at Kansas State in Manhattan, Kansas.  But by virtue of being a much larger program in a power conference, the athletic program at K-State could probably afford to pay a larger stipend than the department at Columbia.  So then does the pay become need based?  The student-athlete could apply for Pell Grants, but guess what - those are from federal funding, which has been cut dramatically.

However, I agree with the underlying issue regarding O'Bannon v. NCAA; I think that the NCAA has gone too far with the use of personal image for marketing and sales purposes and having it being exclusive to the NCAA and the represented institution.  I think it shouldn't be allowed during the eligibility of the student-athlete, but after eligibility has expired, I think it should be allowed.  There's no reason for a school like UCLA to maintain legal use of an image "forever and in perpetuity."

Nicely said! I agree with you and how complicated it would be if they did pay the athletes.

lburkey21

roar:

No.  It's much more complex than that.  How do you make it equitable?  The largest programs will have the most resources and can therefore pay the most money.  What happens to the mid-major conferences?  What about the student-athletes who participate in non-revenue sports?  Do you compensate them even though their programs are basically welfare recipients off football and basketball? What about programs that have only one revenue sport like St. John's University or Marquette or Georgetown (all in the Big East, which is a major conference)?  And not all student-athletes are full ride - the only full ride sports for men are football, basketball and hockey.  For women, it's basketball, volleyball and tennis.  Do you pay the women basketball players less than the men because men's basketball is a larger revenue generator?

There is some agreement within the NCAA compliance community that there should be some additional grant/stipend money, but then again, it's a matter of equity and affordability.  If a student-athlete participates in football at say, Columbia University (barring the fact that Ivy League sports are non-scholarship), the cost of living in Manhattan, New York is higher than if that same student-athlete went to play football at Kansas State in Manhattan, Kansas.  But by virtue of being a much larger program in a power conference, the athletic program at K-State could probably afford to pay a larger stipend than the department at Columbia.  So then does the pay become need based?  The student-athlete could apply for Pell Grants, but guess what - those are from federal funding, which has been cut dramatically.

However, I agree with the underlying issue regarding O'Bannon v. NCAA; I think that the NCAA has gone too far with the use of personal image for marketing and sales purposes and having it being exclusive to the NCAA and the represented institution.  I think it shouldn't be allowed during the eligibility of the student-athlete, but after eligibility has expired, I think it should be allowed.  There's no reason for a school like UCLA to maintain legal use of an image "forever and in perpetuity."

100% agree!!