Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Nothing new here--just wanted to get your opinions on the age-old question. If you don't mind, please do two things when posting though:

1) In your first post, please specify either the college you attend/attended, or just identify the school's conference. If you didn't attend college, just ignore that and still post your thoughts (I ask because as a sociology major/psychology minor, I want to see if there is a pattern in who says what).

2) Please respect others' posts. Some people feel VERY strongly about it, and if you feel differently, please don't belittle someone else.

Even though it's a non-revenue generating sport, I'm a teacher and my teaching assistant was a volleyball player who told me she definitely thought college athletes shouldn't be paid because they were rewarded with so many other perks. Then again, her family was well off and she didn't need any money.[b]

Players at USC and Ohio St. already get paid! haha just kidding... In all honesty, no, I dont think college players should get paid. That would result in meaningless recruitment (whoever can dish out the most money), and meaningless performance by players (why play to your full potential if you're already getting paid). What would eventually happen is that the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, literally. The smaller schools wouldnt be able to afford the better players, and therefore not be competitive.

I attended community college.

I went to Salisbury University....I believe that College Kid's should be able to make money off their own likeness...Schools make Millions and Millions off of these kids and it seems a bit unfair....yes I have heard the they get a free education arguement....but that would be fine if they were actually bringing these fine athletes to their respective schools to get an "education". They bring these kids in, because they are good at sports and then make money off these great athletes, while the kids get meal money and a small stipend and don't have much else.

luvtotha9s wrote:....yes I have heard the they get a free education arguement....but that would be fine if they were actually bringing these fine athletes to their respective schools to get an "education". They bring these kids in, because they are good at sports and then make money off these great athletes, while the kids get meal money and a small stipend and don't have much else.

Undergrad at Oklahoma State, now at Duke for grad school.

Schools make a ton of money off some of these athletes. Football and basketball are the only programs that make money at many institutions, and sometimes not even those. So yes, the Tim Tebow's of the world are profited off of immensely. However, knowing some college athletes from various sports, they all aren't getting exploited. And, a percentage of the money these schools make is funneled back into the athletic department to fund the other sports that don't make money. Now, I think the amount of money the schools are taking off the top is unethical (or excessively capitalist at minimum). And I agree that they should make money from their own likeness, but as you already alluded to, that's what their scholarship is. And it's more than meal money and a small stipend.

But, I hung out with some of the guys on the basketball and football teams when I was an undergrad. These guys weren't hurting for money. The amount they are given covers tuition, university fees, "required textbooks", and room and board.
I personally rarely bought the book for classes and rarely needed to. I think that many classes, students can get by without them, and student-athletes are no exception. And the amount the scholarships cover for room and board is much higher than people realize. I think it covered $1600 in food alone per semester when I was a freshman. I repeat, they weren't hurting for money.

That however is not the case for all sports, obviously, with partial scholarships and things of that nature. But still, the idea that they should be paid on top of the scholarship is a bit excessive to me. The disparity in schools will only increase, leading to schools losing programs, ultimately hurting the system and it's members (the student athletes).

FWIW
http://news.yahoo.com/value-college-football-scholarship-exceeds-2-million-college-153200292.html
http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/football-players-receive-17000-annually-in-cash-all-within-ncaa-rules/

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OSU/article.aspx?subjectid=93&articleid=20110823_93_B5_CUTLIN90795

That apparel deal isn't just game-day wear either...

I graduated from an SEC school (no secret since I've posted in that team's threads) and one of my good friends went to a smaller school; I don't know if it was causation or correlation but we have two differing opinions on the subject.

Right off the bat I'm going to say that I don't think they should be "paid", however I'm not steadfast on it--my mind COULD be changed with some solid points. But here is why I think the way I do--most of the stuff a young adult would buy with money, some college athletes already get them anyway. At my school...

1) Athletes were NOTORIOUS for getting a sandwich, double fries, salad, large drink, and desert from the campus restaurants--and only being charged for the desert. Why get paid to go out to eat at The Olive Garden when you can get all that food listed above for $1.09?

2) Athletes wore the sweet team athletic apparel and shoes around campus. One of my friends transferred from an ACC school on tobacco road and told me what the basketball players would get. Why get paid to buy some clothes at the mall when you get Air Jordan Cool Greys (that the team doesn't even wear on the court) for free? That Jordan pullover I paid $65 for? You got it for free.

3) Tutors. If I wanted a REAL tutor, I had to pay for one. Athletes have REAL tutors--and they're free. One of my friends was a tutor for the football team and she was put through a pretty good screening process so they're certainly qualified.

4) Girls. C'mon guys--admit that we DO have to pay for a girl--I'm not talking about call girls, but we do need money to attract them. Athlete? Nah. You're going to get a girl simply because you're on the team! AND you're ugly! But your girl sure isn't...

5) Idk if this was because I was at a BCS conference college or not, but you do see athletes driving in nice cars with the dealership tag on it--we all know what that means. Why pay an athlete so that he can buy a 2001 Ford Tempo when he can just drive someone else's 2011 Cadillac Escalade for free?

Take the above half serious/half joking, but really...you going to pay the starting qb the same as the 3rd string qb? Do only the starters get paid? Yeah, that's going to certainly unify a locker room. Do you only pay revenue generating athletes? If you know your college sports, you know that the women's soccer team at UNC is just BEAST; there have only been 28 national championship games in women's college soccer--AND UNC HAS WON 20 OF THEM! So shouldn't they earn money, too, even though their sport doesn't earn the school that much? What if UNC's starting tail back finds out that statistically the school's midfielder for the women's soccer team is better and earns more?

I agree with Luv a bit, and I actually do think you should be able to sell your stuff. You want to sell your Rose Bowl jersey to buy a flat screen tv? Go right ahead. They should be able to make some kind of money--just not from the university or athletic department in my opinion.

Jaydub918 wrote:FWIW
http://news.yahoo.com/value-college-football-scholarship-exceeds-2-million-college-153200292.html
http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/football-players-receive-17000-annually-in-cash-all-within-ncaa-rules/

Nice.