Should student athletes be paid?

[muwarrior87]

They already are getting paid with what marqptm mentioned....not to mention a free education.  I think everything they get is good enough compensation.

and the coach gets all of that, plus the 6-7 figure salary which doesn't even approach what the University rakes in on the backs, time, effort, and pressure the players face. I don't see any way someone can reasonable argue they should not get a piece of the action.

The coach gets a free education and the best housing on campus Naivin?? that's news to me

[StillAWarrior]

Calling college basketball and football awash with money is an understatement.  In a decade, it'll be triple, and the pressure to win/compete will only go up from here, putting pressure on getting talent in and not caring so much about the game that is education. 

So .. with that in mind, I'm not sure I care if guys are paid.  Their value to the industry is high now, and going much, much higher.

Your comment raises the same question I posed earlier because it's a generalization.  Some college basketball and football is awash in money.     If you think college athletes should be paid because the schools are making a lot of money off of them, consider these things:

• I suspect (but don't have the data -- if anyone does, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong) that very few Division II or III (or I-AA football) programs turn a profit on a regular basis.  So, I guess those kids wouldn't get paid.
• I suspect (same disclaimer) that many, maybe even a majority, Division I basketball  and football programs lose money.  So, those kids don't get paid either.
• I suspect the vast majority of women's basketball programs lose money, so they won't get paid either.

If colleges were allowed to pay players, I think the number of schools that could afford to do so would be very limited.  In essence, it would create a new super division in football and basketball and most schools (including Marquette, in my opinion) could not compete.

When you get right down to it, for the few schools that are fortunate enough to make a bit of money on basketball or football, most of them are plugging that money back into other programs.  Granted, Tom Crean is paid a fortune and the program has nice facilities and vehicles, but without the income generated by the men's basketball team, I shudder to think what would happen to Marquette's soccer, tennis, cross country, etc., etc.  Is it fair that Marquette's basketball team subsidizes the other athletic programs?  Maybe not.  Would it be fair to the other Marquette athletes to cancel their sports in order to pay the men's basketball team?  I don't think so.

These athletes are very gifted and work very hard.  In exchange for that, they get to go to college for free and get some other perks.  I think they should be entitled to some sort of stipend, and I suspect that they might get one ( see Novak's comments near bottom).  Maybe it could be a little bigger.  But, I really don't have a problem with colleges and universities making money on these sports and then using the money to support other programs.

A couple questions for those of you who think players should get paid:  if Marquette (or any other school) paid players, would Mike Kinsella be paid as much as Dominique James?  Would DJ have gotten a raise after his freshman season?  Would he get a pay cut after this last year?  I'm not trolling.  I'm genuinely interested in how people think this would work.

Does anyone have a link to any reliable source of data showing which universities make money on their sports programs?

[NavinRJohnson]

A couple questions for those of you who think players should get paid:  if Marquette (or any other school) paid players, would Mike Kinsella be paid as much as Dominique James?  Would DJ have gotten a raise after his freshman season?  Would he get a pay cut after this last year?  I'm not trolling.  I'm genuinely interested in how people think this would work.

All very good questions, and things that would needto be dealt with. While I don't necessarily have answers sitting here today, I am reasonably sure good answers exist and could be found. As I said earlier, there would have to be some sort of regulations, limitations, and probably some sort of set formula. For instance, maybe Kinsella should be paid more by virtue of being a senior, and perhaps James should have gotten a raise after his first year because Sophomores should make more than a Freshman. Not sure about all of that, as I think the specific dollars we are talking about would have to be a factor. I am not suggesting they get pro-style contracts, and this would obviously have to be done in conjunction with adjustments to other rules like transfers, recruiting, etc. But, in the end a schools ability to pay, should be allowed to impact what they pay (I am comfortable with maximums as well to keep the footing at least somewhat even.), but in the end if Kentucky is able to or chooses to pay more than MU (within the rules), so be it. They are able to get better recruits than we can right now anyway, but I readily admit the divide would likley widen. Something along the lines of a stipend is what I envision, but I assume the amounts I am talking about would be higher than most others are suggesting (I am talking thousands, not hundreds).

I know that revenue sports funding non-revenue sports is a reality and perhaps a necessity, but then again I kind of have a problem with Dominic James and someone on the Women's soccer team being treated the same financially. One makes a direct contribution to the bottom line while one takes away from it. Fr. Wilde, Bill Cords etc. have made no secret of how important the basketball team is to the University - it goes well beyond funding the minor sports. Just as I would argue that Tom Crean is MU's most important employee and deserves to be paid as such, I just believe that if the players are in fact that important, they deserve more as well.

[mu_hilltopper]

Yup, good points all.  Quick reply .. I think we're all only talking about the top, say 100, D1 schools .  All the others are much closer to the "student-athelete" concept.   -- And at the moment, the men's sports are where the money is.

That being said, if only ~100 teams are "big time" or "profitting" right now.. many many more schools are looking to do exactly that, if and when they have the chance.  Every year, there's a couple more schools that inch their way up.  Schools look better, alumni like it, ESPN has more content to sell.

On the point of who-gets-what .. excellent point.  At first, I'd suspect we're talking about a stipend for spending cash, but when we're talking millions to spread around, if there's ever a giant disconnect between education and big money college sports, look for a College Athlete Union to spring up and organize and demand their piece of the pie.

[MUsoxfan]

No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?


Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

[NavinRJohnson]

No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

Those are questions...you haven't actually told me anything, but let's take them one at a time...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

No.

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

Depends on what the formula is, but  in my world, probably yes.

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

No. I'd like to get paid for sleeping, but you don't always get what you want. More often than not in th ereal world you get paid based on your value.

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

See above.

Beyond that, why would the mistake that is/was Title XI provide defense of another. Here's a better answer, Title IX hurt women more than it helped them - get rid of Title IX. 

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

If they bring in as much money as the teams at bigger schools, absolutely yes, but they don't. So in answer to your question, no.

The all things being equal argument simply doesn't work, because in no way are all things equal. Swimmers and track athletes who get scholarships have the best deal going. Basketball players who receive virtually the same financial benefits as that swimmer or track athlete, don't. One translates into millions for the University, the other does not. For those who want to argue fairness, and that everyone would need to be paid (the same), etc., please first explain to me how the current system is fair.

[NavinRJohnson]

If anyone saw scum bag Miles Brand on The Road to the Final Four just now, I rest my case.

His name isn't on the jersey?

If they're that good they'll get a pro contract?

Very few coaches are making that much money.

Those are your answers? Are you kidding me?!?!?!??!?!

This guy has unbelievable nerve to cry poor when it comes to this issue. The reality of the situation is that guys like him and others who don't feel these athletes should be paid just think it is the responsibility of basketball and football players to fund the athletic department (I have no problem with that) and their coaches contract (I have no problem with that either), and receive nothing more in return than do those other athletes taking advantage of the very scholarships, facilities, perks, etc. that they fund.

[MUsoxfan]

No, and I'll tell you why...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

- Does a guy like Craig Kuphall get paid the same as Dominic James?

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

Paying athletes would make most schools go broke.   There would undoubtedly be some NCAA regulations about uniformity of payments.    Otherwise these kids would be recruited by pro-type contracts. 

Those are questions...you haven't actually told me anything, but let's take them one at a time...

- Do all athletes get paid the same?

No.

- Does the starting QB get the same as a 3rd string RB?

Depends on what the formula is, but  in my world, probably yes.

- What about non-profitable sports like swimming and track?   Those athletes will undoubtedly want to get paid as well.   Do they make as much as revenue generating athletes?

No. I'd like to get paid for sleeping, but you don't always get what you want. More often than not in th ereal world you get paid based on your value.

-  Then there's the question of women.  With the whole Title IX thing, women will want to get paid the same as men

See above.

Beyond that, why would the mistake that is/was Title XI provide defense of another. Here's a better answer, Title IX hurt women more than it helped them - get rid of Title IX. 

- What about small schools?   They play sports at UW-Whitewater too.  Do they deserve to get paid the same as Madison and Marquette athletes?

If they bring in as much money as the teams at bigger schools, absolutely yes, but they don't. So in answer to your question, no.

The all things being equal argument simply doesn't work, because in no way are all things equal. Swimmers and track athletes who get scholarships have the best deal going. Basketball players who receive virtually the same financial benefits as that swimmer or track athlete, don't. One translates into millions for the University, the other does not. For those who want to argue fairness, and that everyone would need to be paid (the same), etc., please first explain to me how the current system is fair.

So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   That will never fly.  There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

[NavinRJohnson]

So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

So you're saying the NCAA should not do the right thing and the fair thing because they might get sued?

They gave to law suits on Title IX and look how well that turned out.

[MUsoxfan]

So you're saying that if a football or basketball player is lucky enough to get a scholarship to a top-line school, then he should also get paid?   

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There will be tons of class-action lawsuits that will clog the system and cost the NCAA and individual schools TONS of money

So you're saying the NCAA should not do the right thing and the fair thing because they might get sued?

They gave to law suits on Title IX and look how well that turned out.

In a perfect world, I'd have it the way you want it.   I'd also eliminate Title IX and have maybe two women's "sports".    However, in the world we live in it's impossible.    Women, bad major conference revenue generating athletes, all mid-low major athletes and all non-Div 1 athletes would sue and they'd probably win.   The end result of the lawsuits would be either every athlete on every level in any sport be paid the same....including women.   Or, just live with the scholarship system.     The latter would prevent most programs from going broke.