Recently in the news it was revealed that the Oklahoma Sooners football team must forfeit their entire 2005 season:

Sooners must vacate eight wins from 2005 campaign



Obviously this is a case of fraud that has, imo a worthy punishment. But cases like this got the gears turning and I thought about a lot of college athletes who are wrapped up in scandal for accepting gifts, or money that they weren't supposed to receive such as the New Orleans Saints star Reggie Bush. Then i wondered how far off we really are from colleges paying athletes a salary to play for their school. Hence, we have our questions:

Questions for Debate:

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage?

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports?

I think college athletes should be able to get paid if somebody wants to pay them.

Let's put sports salaries into perspective. It's unbelievable to me that Alex Rodriguez gets paid $25,000,000 a season. Or roughly $40,000 every at-bat.

But I have no problem with his or any salary that high. Think about this, say Nickelback (or any other popular band) comes to Dayton and plays at the Nutter Center. The place holds about 8,000 people. They fill it up and two days later, play to another sold out venue. Nobody complains about their pay.

Now, baseball players fill stadiums with somewhere around 50,000 people 80 times a year in 28 different places. Football players, sometimes up to 80,000 people 8 times a year in 32 places.

To top that off, most of these games are on TV and radio. Now, you add up all the merchandising, vendor sales, and whatever else they can squeeze out of the game, it's a massive amount of money generated off each game. And none of that can happen without having the people on the field that do a job worthy enough of all these sales.

Conversely, your typical Ohio State games puts 100,000 people in the seats with all this stuff surrounding that game as well. And what do the players get? The same thing somebody with a scholarship could get with no qualifications other than being a minority.

In a perfect world, a scholarship should be enough. But it's not and I don't think it's fair to punish the athletes for that.

I think athletes should be afforded the opportunity to earn money just as all other college students. I can't speak for other colleges across the country, but I do know that football and basketball players at U of A are not allowed to have any sort of employment while they are on the team. I had a few walk-on friends (two football, one basketball) and without scholarships that the other athletes are getting, it is near impossible for them to afford many daily expenses without having part-time jobs.

As DR already said, these athletes are the ones who are raking in the dough for their schools. They make millions and millions from ticket sales, TV games, etc. and are not compensated for their worth unless it's some sort of "under the table" sort of deal that will catch up with them later.

I think college athletes should at the very least be allowed to have a job if they desire. Scholarships don't cover all costs of college (maybe they do for future NBA athletes like Oden and the likes) so I think no-job restrictions would only be 'fair' if the compensation made up for the difference in some way.

If athletes knew that they were getting a "fair stake" in what's being earned for their school as a result of their hard work, I'm sure there'd be little to no reason for the sort of "under the table" deals that are currently going on.

I also agree with DR that people are always quick to moan and groan about athletes making huge amounts of money, while no one seems to care that actors, musicians, and others in the entertainment industry are doing the same thing. Why all of the focus on athletes? I'd be willing to venture a guess as to why athletes are singled out, but that's another topic altogether.

The problem really is that if they wanted to play for money, they should go straight to the pros. Sure, NCAA regs stop Division I athletes from having jobs. That could be changed. There is a sincere difference in this and having student athletes being paid for playing sports.

Most athletes can work during the summer, but can't be paid for work they didn't do. That's where Oklahoma got in trouble. The fact is that these kids got checks for work that wasn't really done...

Figure this. If a Student Athlete at a Div I school gets free room and board, a free education, exposure to professional teams, etc... how much is that worth? How much should they be paid? I'd gamble at a large school like UT or LSU these days, that education + training + free living (in the best accomodations on campus usually) would be worth about $30K annually.

I understand about playing and being a walk on. I actually played soccer at LSU (well, I made the team) in 96. I never got playing time really, couldn't work, and had student loans out the wazoo to make up the gap. Frankly, I was lucky to have parents that helped some and lucky enough to have a great summer job. What did other people do? More student loans and Ramen noodles for dinner...

What I'm trying to say is that if colleges paid football players, for instance, it would detract from the idea that they're actually there to learn. Our society has already turned college athletics into the primary focus for athletes and I think it has an impact on many young men who can catch a football but can't pass their Trig mid-term. It says "it's ok son, you average 6 yds per carry, so don't learn to conjugate the verb... LSU won't care if you can read well". So... what happens if he can't make it out of school? What if he doesn't go pro? The chances of a person like this graduating are slim. It turns them into a "has been" athlete working at Walmart unloading trucks. This happens ALOT. Don't ever think it doesn't.

College athletics used to be pure. We used to be able to count on the notion that a coach would cut a guy if he couldn't pass his English exam. Now they don't even speak English much less know about American Literary greats. It's a slippery slope.

There ARE alternatives to going to college in reference to going pro. There is Arena football, the CBA, European Basketball, and Minor League baseball. Collegiate athletes should be students first. We all like to tune in to see our favorite team, but I deplore hearing an LSU lineman that sounds like he literally just got out of the state prison.

I totally agree with you here. I think U of A does a pretty decent job (from my perspective anyway) of making sure their athletes are held accountable for their class work. I went to school with Michael Dickerson, Jason Terry, and Eugene Edgerson and all three of those guys had fantastic work ethic and attended class every single day that they were not out of state. Of course when you are playing basketball, you have a more erratic schedule than football, sometimes being gone more days than not during the week. But those guys took their education seriously and it showed. Edgerson was an education major and redshirted in 99-00 (which I believe would have been his 3rd year?) so that he could complete his studies in 4 years, to include his student teaching. I bet that would have been fun for the kids (I believe he student taught Kindergarten, but I could be mistaken)! He currently plays for the Globetrotters (apparently my four years at U of A were the years of the Globetrotter - four of the players who played some time between 95-99 played for the Globetrotters).

I do agree that many of these guys end up being has beens, but I think that is also true of non-athletes as well (inasmuch as they are working somewhere equivalent to McDonald's, that is).

I don't think it's a matter of "want" when if they play, they "will". Players are given a choice - take this scholrship that we give to many others that don't have to do anything but show up and make us an enormous amount of money, or we'll get someone else. And that "someone else" will make them enormous amounts of money for next to nothing in comparison.

The beer vendor makes more money off each game than the college players. For the "if they want to play for money" argument to work, NOBODY should be allowed to make a profit (enough to offset expenses is ok) off a college game. Fair enough?

Since I don't get to say this a whole lot, I agree wholeheartedly with Aevans.

I heard on a commercial the other day (great source huh?) that a college graduate will earn $1 more on average than a high school graduate over the course of his career.

The value gained from the extremely selective programs of college athletics is high on top of the value of that education.

This is more true every year as college education costs skyrocket.

Also these athletes get to compete in one of the most elite competition fields in the world and get to meet individuals of talent that they most likely would not otherwise get to compete against. And if they have the skills to profit from without college or that environment they have options available to skip the NCAA.

Also, these athletes get some of the best education and training provided from top level coaches.

There are situations that could be better taken care of for all college student athletes. The schools themselves could better adhere to the values of college athletics and stop cheating. Hardship cases could be handled more humanely and on a more systematic basis. If a young man or woman's departure from the workforce creates a poverty crisis at home then some accommodation should be made available to help that family make it through those years.

The star players get the benefit of being marketed and gaining a national audience with which to showcase their skills and advance to the highest paid levels of professional sports.

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

Yes I object. Although I am a huge fan of college sports (especially college basketball, which is far better than the NBA in my opinion), I don't want these guys paid cash to play.

They are already being paid in the form of scholarships, room, board, trips to places around the country, training in their hoped for career (sports) and other perks.

Yes, colleges make money off of athletes, but only in the big two:football and basketball. Most other sports don't draw crowds big enough to pay for the athletes' scholarships. This is especially true of Title IX scholarship sports (including almost all women's sports).

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage?
A living wage implies that it is enough for room and board and maybe medical care. The college scholarship athelete has these already. They are already making a living wage. On top of that, they get free tuition to college.

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports?

A huge negative. High school kids would be mercenaries comparable (but on smaller scale) to pro athletes. Parity would be dead as education leaves college athletics. Kids would no longer go to their parents' alma mater or the good in state school, they would go to the highest bidder. A worse situation would be hard to imagine for the "student" athlete community.

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

Yes, I object. It's quite sickening to see how much our universities spend on athletic departements, likely the least important aspect of education. College athletics and the revenue it brings in has nothing to do with educating people, and everything to do with making money and building prestige. If a school were going to pay any of its students it should at least pay the students studying in areas that have a greater value, like art and science.

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

Actually- I believe there should be "revenue sharing" to all sports instead. I have always been a bit peeved at Title whatever-it-is that demands equal funding for women's sports when women don't bother to attend the games, watch them or demand to watch them on TV etc. - Women's sports LOSE money- men's "big" sports make money- and some are somewhere in-between.

So- instead of totoally commercializing student athletes- I think ALL revenue should go to a central fund (at the school, with some portion going to the NCAA) to fund more students in a wider variety of money- losing sports. In other words- Universities should be forced to not see it as a cash cow for the university, while the "franchise name" players get a scholarship and a thank you. The really hard core talent in college is being more than a bit exploited for peanuts here- and it is not right that they rake in the bucks and don't have to negotiat with those that are creating that revenue- due to rules tha favor the college.

I mean- nothing prevents the U from earning big bucks off an athletes prowess- why should the student be forced to curb his earning power while the U rakes in the dough?

But I would also hate to see the U's in America turn into simply another professional team with some learning thrown in for good measure.

So I would like to see the Universities that make big revunue on games be forced to distribute that money equitably.

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage?

How much "walking around "money do you need is what hte question is saying- if you have no bills, how much dough is in your pocket?

I think that is an easy answer- about 200 per month. - I mean, after a normal, non-athlete person that holds down a job and raises a family and pays bills- how much pocket cash does the normal everyday person have? Probably about fitty a week to go to the movies or something.

We are, after all, talking about "disposable income" here- NOT life neccesities!

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports?

I am with DR AND QH on this- colleges are losing thier focus on what the mission is- to educate poeple- NOT to be a pro-football team- we have pro football teams, as much as the market allows it seems.

WE need to strike a balance somewhere between equitability for the revenue a "star athlete" draws in and the fact that these are NOT supposed to be commercial sports teams- but institutions of higher learning.

The idea that they're there to learn is already dead and gone, and has been for a long, long, long time. As you say yourself, "our society has already turned college athletics into the primary focus for athletes." So this is a moot point when discussing the impact of paying them, as it is a harm that has already occurred. Forget football...think about baseball or softball. The schedules of these games causes students to miss over 20 class-days a semester. Many schools would expel any other student who missed so many classes. Why would athletes be different? Because, to the school, they're not there primarily to learn in the first place. That's the only possible explanation. They're there to play, and whatever education they manage to squeeze in is a bonus. It's simple economics. How does a school benefit from having its athletes do better in the classroom? It doesn't. But how do they benefit from having them excel in their athletic endeavour? That is obvious. Clearly, then athletes are recruited as athletes...they are only students to comply with NCAA regulations. If schools could get away with them not taking a single class, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

That being said, let's clear up a myth that many have over all the money sports bring in for schools. Most schools lose money on their athletic programs. For those schools that have certain prominent programs that do make a substantial profit, that profit goes into the athletic department, and is used to fund the other programs, with little net profit for the athletic department as a whole. (The only department that made a profit at TAMU when I went there was the campus police, due to all the parking fines they handed out. The athletic department lost considerable money, despite the fact that the football program made a fairly significant profit). Why do schools do it then? Because they help make a name for the school, and thereby attract more students, contributors, recruiters, etc. The entire university benefits, and that's why schools do it.

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school? Again, as I said above, this is a flawed premise. Overall, there isn't money made in college sports. There is, however, a residual benefit to the colleges that can result in significant revenue.

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage? They get that already. What else is a full ride scholarship? It pays for all tuition and living expenses. By definition, that is a living wage, with tuition thrown in for good measure.

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports? The rich would get richer, and the poor would get poorer. This would benefit the rich, and sacrifice the poor. The total pie would probably get bigger, as the marketing machine would create more revenue by promoting the high profile athletes. So, overall, it would probably benefit college sports. It would probably hurt the colleges, though. As I said earlier, most sports programs lose money already. Paying more for athletes would just add to the loss. Because of this, I doubt such legislation will get passed, and even if it did, I'm not sure how much overall schools would really be willing to spend on any athletes. Sure, you'd see some high profile programs paying top dollar for a few select athletes, but overall, I suspect it would be about what they're offering now. A full ride scholarship is not an insignificant offer...it could be worth $30,000 or more at many schools. Not bad for playing a game and getting an education to boot, is it?

I feel as if i should play the devils advocate in this case in order to stir up some debate.

1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

While Hobbes, may be correct when generalizing college sports programs, the biggest programs certainly rake in the dough:

The most valuable college football teams



Millions are being made...just not by any of the people actually making the money. I do not object to students being paid for their services on the athletic field if their talents bring in so much money. In fact, I think it may be an incentive for students to stay in school and finish their education instead of going straight to the pros. Something I think we can all agree is a positive.

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage?

At the bare minimum, a living wage should be paid. Not all students who play big time sports come from wealthy families. Even if their education and room&board is paid for, there is still expenses such as books, food, clothes, and leisure expenses that they cannot afford. They bring in so much for the university, perhaps they should get a piece of the pie.

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports?

I do not think it is a positive or negative. People who want to make the big bucks will still go pro and those who want an education will play out their college career. However paying certain athletes (and I am talking top tier here) a wage for their talents and performance is not such a terrible thing. It is recognition of their importance to the university. I honestly believe that with the way that College Football and Basketball are becoming these days that paying student athletes is not so far off.

Well, if you're going to be the Devil's advocate, I'll take a shot for support of the angels.....


These student athletes, in at least Football and Basketball are already getting a full-boat scholarship! That includes, tuition, lab fees, books, room and board. How much else are we going to pay them? As was stated earlier, depending on the school, they are already being "paid" to the tune of $20,000 to $40,000 per school year, to attend this school.


So what? Let them take out a loan for these items, and pay it back after college, like almost every other student has to do. Surely the star athletes will be able to afford to repay the loans. Those that end up just reporing sports for some local paper, or working as trainers, etc., should be able to pay them back as well. Why expect less from the athlete?

Or, relax the rules, and allow these athletes to work at jobs, but under stringent employer - employee requirements. For example, prohibit jobs like the one that sparked this debate. The athletes would have to get jobs that any other student would get - fast food, retail, convenience stores, etc. - with schedules turned into the school for unannounced spot checks to make sure they were actually working those jobs, and not just being paid by some overzealous alumni member.


Look, these kids already get a much better deal than 99.9% of the general student population at any given school. Why do need to sweeten the pot any further? Because they're "special"? Horse-hockey. There are lots of special students in Universities. Future Nobel winners, in science and literature, future musicians of note, etc., etc. These future "pros" in their given vocations will also bring in prestige, and the accompanying donations to their schools. Unless of course, you want to start paying all of these kids to do what it is they do as well. I just don't get the pass folks are willing to give student athletes.

And if this is the way things are going because of professional Football and Basketball, perhaps they would do well to set up their own minor league systems like baseball has. That way, the kids with real talent can have it nurtured through a series of semi-pro and pro organizations, be they fresh out of high school, or after 4 years of college. At least then we'll know that the students in school are there more for the education than the chance to showcase their abilities for the Mets or the Knicks.

College educated people outearn high school graduates by at least ten thousand per year and it wouldn't take much effort for you to prove that to yourself.

I'm a complete outsider in this one, because not only are the really big-money sports in the USA of relatively minor importance outside the USA (and yes, I realise that the Japanese like baseball, basketball is big in some former Soviet states, ice hockey is very popular in Canada and Russia among some others, and "football" is a minority sport in most Western countries), but the central concept of "college sports" commanding any kind of audience outside of the university system, let alone enough to generate the kind of cash we're talking about here, is completely alien.

To my knowledge very few sports scholarships are on offer to universities in the UK (or elsewhere in Europe). I only know of rowing scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, and only then to potential crewmembers of the eights which compete annually in the Oxford vs Cambridge Boat Race, on the river Thames in London from Putney to Mortlake (about our miles).

So, in the two most prestigious British universities, each with 30,000 plus students, eight men in each place are sponsored to be there. Including the coxes and the squad members - let's charitably say that perhaps 60-100 sports scholars are in Oxford & Cambridge put together. Isn't that less than a full American football team? (Ok, two or three teams). As has been said, it's about the prestige and the money that can be made by the universities. But the students in question are not primarily there to be sportsmen; they still have to do their courses and if they don't work or don't pass their exams, they don't get their degrees. (Most don't really care about that - the top flight guys can make enough from sponsorship once they turn professional that they will comfrtably get by, if not become millionaires - they have to win Olympic medals for that.)

Even with this level of support, rowing is very much a minority sport (probably because the boats are so expensive, which may be why scholarships are offered in the first place).

The biggest difference here is that the bigger university sports here - rugby and cricket - are much lower profile than comparable ones in the USA. At best, they are a way of raising a profile to be noticed by professional clubs.

Football ("soccer") is different. Typically it's a more working class sport, and doesn't recruit from colleges at all. More usually, scouts will see kids play in their teens or sometimes even earlier, and then bring them under the youth wing of one of the professional teams, to be developed from scratch. The clubs will pay expenses and, as they grow older, smallish wages, and if the early promise is fulfulled, that when the big money rolls in for both player and club.



1) With the amount of money that is made in college sports, do you object to student athletes being paid for attending a school?

I went to university when all British students were paid to go - it was called a student grant, and it was (just) enough to live on. The Tories abolished it, naturally.

But if as much money is being spun as seems the case, I think I'd rather see it used by the colleges to cross-subsidise their less glamourous areas of activity. I'm not talking about minority sports, here, but Physics, Chemistry, English Literature, Humanities, Mathematics, Politics Philosophy and Economics - you know, the kind of thing colleges and universities are there for.

2) If you reject the all-out markets of professional sports, what if the student's pay were capped at a living wage?

Free tuition, free coaching in their chosen sport, & free lodgings? They're ALREADY getting special treatment.

3) Would this have a positive or negative effect on college sports?

From the perspective of sports, the only thing that matters is whether it would have a positive or negative effect on the sport itself. Would more or fewer people play football if the colleges paid professional rates? And from the colleges' perspective, the only thing that matters is the college itself. Would more or fewer people go to college X, and would the quality of education be better or worse there, if college X paid sports scholarship students professional-level wages?

I doubt there would be any long term impact on the sport either way, but I think the long term effect of turning colleges into professional sports clubs with attached colleges would seriously affect the quality of the education you'd be able to get there.

As we're constantly being told, today's students and colleges are not competing with one another, but with students and universities in India and China. I don't recall there being big money spent on football, basketball or baseball in colleges in Mumbai or Beijing - just tens of thousands of eager students getting very high quality educations at fractions of the cost paid by Westerners.

So keep treating your university system as a lower division of the NFL, and see where it gets you.

Yikes, that was suppoesed to have a lot of 0's, $1 million dollars more.

It's tough getting reprimanded on your first post, but hey, I didn't think the mistake needed more than a one line response. One thing I neglected to mention regarding this topic was the difference between pro sports in Europe and pro sports in the USA. They actually treat sports in the UK more like free market enterprises, where in the US (supposedly a nation of capitalists) we don't want our pro sports teams to actually compete like other businesses. For some reason even the most die-hard capitalist men in the US will celebrate winners in private enterprise, but think it's a bad thing in sports. I've never understood the logic.

I do object to the possibility of paying student athletes. I don't like sports to begin with and I think it does a grave disservice to the academic institution that dares to have a powerhouse football or basketball team. The "living wage" argument doesn't work in this instance. College is not a job unless you are employed as a GA, in which case, you should get a living wage for your labor. Ditto if you are a janitor or some other non-teaching staff person. An athlete is one who engages in an extra-curricular activity on their own whim. Why should we pay a football player and not an MFA dance performer? How about an artist? The slippery slope here is great, though it should be pointed out that you do those things for "free" in order to get paid for doing them later. School is for learning, not for an apprenticeship. They get scholarships and full tuition rides, their cup runneth over, at least compared to the average student.

Do student athletes provide valuable entertainment?

The Hurricanes - Sooners game coming up next Saturday is selling for $5000.00 a ticket.

The companies that sponsored Bowl Games pay millions of dollars.

So the answer is Yes, they do provide valuable entertainment and should be compensated for the same.

College sports, specifically football and basketball, are clearly a free Busch League to the NFL and NBA. They need not spend a dime on player depth, or a Triple A league (like baseball and hockey do.) Those two leagues (especially) should be giving money to the colleges. A lot of money. A crazy amount of money. However, colleges paying students directly doesn't sit well with me.

So far college sports are mostly untainted the way professional sports are. You need to only look at the Olympics to see the effect of making/replacing amateurs (with) professionals. No one watches. No one cares. It's boring.

I suspect paying college athletes outright would probably have a similar effect. Ultimately fans want to see people playing a game because they love it. If they keep it up we'll be watching teenagers playing Madden '08 instead of the real thing!

None of the debate questions had anything to do with whether or not athletes should be paid due to their entertainment value. That is an unrelated matter.

Once again, I'm not a sports fan, anything more than intramurals is a waste of time and university resources. That view is backed by Murray Sperber, who has written more than a few books about how college sports negatively impacts undergraduate education. Compared to the average student, athletes have it made. They don't have to sling pizzas or burgers in their spare time. The job of universities is to educate, it's not a temporary employment agency.

HUH?

Well, I'm certain that Mr. Sperber will come to a different conclusion when he publishes the 2nd edition:

"According to reports filed by 55 of the 56 bowl teams with the Department of Education the University of Texas is the nation's richest, and most profitable football program, with revenue of $53.2 million, and a profit of $38.7 million, during the fiscal year that ended in August, just as the current season was about to get underway.To put this into context, Texas' profit from football is more than the revenue of all but eight of the other schools in this year's bowls."

And that has what, exactly, to do with Mr. Sperbers contention that the quest for making a name for one's university in the sports arena ultimately degrades what universities are supposed to be there for - namely education?

Something else to consider when discussing this issue, as well. A recent New York Times article made the point that there are certainly world class athletes at universities in sports other than football and basketball. In baseball, soccer, swimming, track and field. And yet, in a lot of cases, these athletes not only have to practice and perform in their chosen sport, attend classes, and work part time, but spend a significant portion of their "free" time working fund-raisers and doing other things just to keep their sports programs alive.

For example, at Notre Dame this last season, the football coach had several of his players spending time scraping gum and other crap off of the bottom of the stadium seats after games, as punishment for some infraction or other. However, the women's softball program also did this after every game - not as punishment - but so that their program got money from the men's football budget, merely to keep the Softball team in enough money to buy uniforms, and make the trips necessary to compete.

Go to any college football game or basketball game, and you're likely to see college age kids hawking game programs, t-shirts, key rings, food and drinks, and other merchandise in booths, and in the stands. Many, if not most of these kids are the athletes of other programs, just trying to keep their programs from becoming extinct.

So, for all of those arguing for paying top student athletes - do we pay all of them? Or just the ones in men's football and basketball? And if we do pay all of them, shouldn't we make sure that all of the programs are funded well enough to not need to hold a bake sale just to keep them alive first?

Excuse me, is learning a marketable skill still the purpose of going to a University ? So if those individuals are raking in a 38.7 million PROFIT have they not ***learned*** a marketable skill?


Otherwise , what is the orwellian definition of learning ?!?!?

Who do you think pays for all the schemes and scams adopted by the welfare-warfare state?