In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1110
Online now 246 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
UTEX1983 says that a football players deserves more than a kid playing tennis. So my question is, what about a tennis player, or swimmer, or golfer, or any other non-revenue producing sport athlete who wins a conference championship or an NCAA championship or goes to the Olympics compared to the football player that never made on the field during the season? Granted, football brings in the main money, but that is due to people wanting to see the star players. Would it be fair to pay based on the amount of work/time put in? Before the NCAA limited the practice hours, I know that back in my day at UT, the swimmers put in way more practice hours than Jim Bertelson did. But he was responsible for a whole lot more money coming in. Hell, I had a hard time getting my parents to drive to Austin to see me, but football, no problem. So, what is "fair"? Football brings in the most money due to a society valuing it as a spectator sport. Maybe, the only truly fair method would be to dismantle the whole thing and put the money sports into the same system as MLB does with minor league professional teams, but I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen.
Looking at the amount of money students take out in student loans today, that scholarship (tuition, books, room and board) is worth quite a bundle even at a state-supported school like UT. Should they receive more compensation, I honestly don't know. Again, do we base it on performance, revenue produced by their particular sport, or on the economic status of the athlete's family? Many the various arguments/questions raised by the posters here are quite valid. It is a mess and I'm not sure if it can be "fairly" settled and I worry that the "cheaters" will only get worse, especially at schools that have patrons/alumni with deep pockets. I personally had a friend on the basketball team that got "money hand-shakes" all the time, way back in my time. I can only imagine the amount of under-the-counter offers/payments being made now, and what would happen if some of these proposals go through.
This post was edited by UT71 11 months ago
If an athlete is given a free ride to get a college degree, tell me why the parent/s can come up with the rest? I put two through out-of-state colleges (no scholarships involved) and it was most difficult financially but I did it. You start paying college kids to go to college and it will be the biggest mistake ever made. At least now, although not 100% good, universities can be monitored. You start paying them and the flood gates will blow open!
I have thought you could simply put 1% of the revenue generated in a trust for the players. In Texas's case that would result in about 1.65mm. Lets make it 1.7mm to simplify the numbers. That would work out to 10k a player. Maybe scale it. 5k for freshmen, 8k for soph, 12k for Juniors, and 15k for seniors. Each would be given a 0% forgivable loan. Those leaving early for the NFL would have to pay it back. Players that graduate will have their loan forgiven. Players transferring or fail out will need to pay it back. This is the capitalist solution. It will widen the gap between the have and have nots. Some will have serious issues with that, but I have given up on the idea that college athletics is fair. I also think her are far too many schools playing at the FBS level. I would also add that using a players name or image should result in a 2% royalty stream
This post was edited by Codaxx 11 months ago
so no other athletes get a stipend?
Only eight athletics programs at public universities broke even or had net operating income on athletics each year from 2005-2009, according to data provided by USA Today to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. That being said, if the schools have to pay players, where does the money come from?
How does La Monroe, which brings in about $11M, keep the gates open when they have to start paying players? It's easy, they shut down the soccer team, or the field hockey team, etc...
I guess the next question is do we pay Div II & III players too? Maybe we should start by giving Div III players scholarships?
If we are going to start paying players, I propose we break off the haves into their own pay for play league and the have nots into a play for scholarship league.
We haven't even touched on players amateur status and how that is affected by paying them.
Next topic up for debate, corporate sponsors on college uniforms. Because if they start paying players it will be the next big thing.
By the way, nice article below that describes how some of the programs are even surviving.
Myth: College Sports Are a Cash Cow
Most colleges subsidize their athletics programs, sometimes to startling degrees.
Only sports that bring in revenue. It is fair. After school kids will realize that certain jobs just pay more. It is life
this is the exact unintentional outcome. should this lawsuit be successful, there will be tragic consequences to college athletics.
the idea that you can pay only the rev sports players is ridiculous on several levels. from a competitive balance standpoint, first and foremost. from an equality standpoint, especially w/ government backed entities, you can't pay men and not women, or football players but not cross-country runners.
the rev sports are only rev sports at about 20% of schools to begin w/. people think college sports is what they see on cbs and espn on saturdays and during march madness, but that's literally the tip of the iceberg. the vast majority of college athletics doesn't turn a profit, as shown by that report.
I think paying athletes is just a really bad idea. Perhaps creating a trust fund for athletes with designed protection that helps them in the future with things like education if they need it and living expenses.
As a father of two grown men, my oldest son is almost 30, I believe in the depths of the soul that a good education is the best gift to a young person. It is better than wealth and riches. In fact, a good education is equal to both along with knowing God.
We should be talking about the marginalization of the educational aspect of a college athlete and how, infact, to re-energize that aspect of their experience as athletes. People worry about the short-term aspect of a college, and if they are lucky, professional life of an athlete. But they have half of their lives still to experience when all of that is gone. What happens to that part of it? How about we focus a little more on that part instead of what we get from it, the glory of their success on the field of play, what ever that field may, in fact, be.
Let someone do a detailed study of all professional athletes after they retire and give us a percentage breakdown of those that actually experience fulfillment post athletic careers. We have the case of the fastest athlete to play for Texas--in any sports--to look towards as a cautionary tale. Some of the older people on this board know to whom I am referring. What happened after his pro-days were spent?
College sports should be working on building the whole person through: education, discipline, basic values structures, financial management, life strategies, prioritizing, and yes, becoming the best athlete they can be. Just MO.
This post was edited by horn4life1 11 months ago
First off a dont believe there is much of a competive balance. The history of college football agrees with me. The vast majority of people playing sports in college do so without scholarships. Many sports are club sports. First off I am not paying just men. My idea was simply based on economics. If a women's program makes money they have access to the same forgivable loans. There is no discrimination. If you want other sports to be eligible send the same 10k or so for season tickets to women's field hockey. If not, then do not claim their value to be equal. I thought of this plan for several reasons:
1. It discourages poor academics. You fail out, you may end up owing money
2. Discourages transfers. School should be protected
3. Helps athletes get a larger cut of the pie. Gives them some spending money, since they can not get jobs
4. Discourages early entry into the NFL or NBA. That protects the Universities investment and the player
5. If a kid is wise and thrifty, he may end up with a nice little check to start his life.
It doesn't agree with the idea of fairness or equality, but those are not things found in life. Many people work hard. Only a few of them are paid like it. If anyone wants to claim that Texas State and Texas are playing on the same level field hen they start their FBS season, I would love to hear it.
did you just try to lump club sports in with varsity sports as a valid point to your argument? holy hell.
Would you like to take on the post? You said most sports do not make money. I was simply pting out that many students athletes are given 0 benefit for their hard work. That goes to D3 players and to club. It is a simple fact.
I do not believe that the universities should be paying the athletes because they are already providing full ride scholarships. I do believe that the rule preventing athletes from shopping their image should disappear. If EA wants to pay them so as to be able to use their avatar on a video game or subway wants to use them in a commercial, they should be able to
it applies to plenty of d1 players too. simple fact. that also has zero to do w/ anything.
you can't pay one player and not pay all. if you pay the star qb because the university sells a bunch of jerseys w/ his number on them, you have to pay the cross country runner and the gymnast too. not just at the d1 level, but all the way down to the last women's lacrosse player in d3.
you cannot create a situation of haves/have nots in terms of financial enrichment. not between divisions, not between schools, and certainly not on the same team.
Why? You keep saying you have to pay all of them, but you have failed to supply a reason why this is necessary. I derived a formula based on their value. There is some logical reason behind that, whether you agree with it or not. You have simply said you need to pay them all, because you say so. Why does paying a football player mandate a school to pay a gymnast or a cross country runner?
you can not implement a system where one group benefits and one does not. you certainly can not implement a system where only 1% benefits and 99% does not.
That is simply your belief. In theory paying a percentage of revenue benefits all. Every single scholarship sport has the opportunity to get their 1% of revenue. There is no discrimination. You are looking at as if football and cross country are the same. That is completely illogical. You are making the argument that paying 1% of the revenue to 85 kids that bring it in, is unfair to the players that cost the school money. Lets assume it is 170mm that the football team brings in. That means on average 2mm in revenue comes into the school per football player. Now lets say 10 kids run cross country. Cross country losses 300k a year. Means those kids have a value of negative 30k per runner. To make each sport have equal value to the school, Texas would need to payout 172.255 million to football players. If UT paid each player 2.026 million than both the football player and the cross country runner would cost the school 30k. That is equality. I doubt that is what you really want
in the eyes of the ncaa, they are.
Based on that flawed thought process every other program should shut down since they are money losers. Glad you aren't in charge.
That is a great story. It happens to be incorrect. In 2010 the NCAA reported 68 football programs making money. Few athletic departments make many. There is a difference. That is because of non-revenue sports. I apologize if you find my views offensive, but I view academics to be very important. Texas AD gives 5 million back to academics. I wonder what that number would be without unnecessary sports programs. Before you think about that I would like you to consider that the football program brings in somewhere around 70 million dollars in net profits, while the athletic department produced about 25 million in profits. That is 45 million going to non-revenue sports. Imagine what half of that money could do if it went to the academic side. Where would tuitions be? Where would Texas rank acadmically?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Codaxx 11 months ago
you miss the point but thats ok. Texas is a vast minority when it comes to revenues. Its not that your views are offensive they are just self serving. This isn't a professional sports franchise. Its a University. Its not a corporation. Its a institution of higher education.
Looking at football as anything other than an opportunity for young people to represent their university of choice while getting a free education along the way is a mistake. I'd say the same for any sport the university chooses to offer. To suggest only revenue producing sports should have players receive a stipend is silly and ripe for lawsuits not too mention very few sports out there are net positive so lets just shut them down. The beauty of what the schools do is use revenues, all revenues, to support money losing sports so those athletes have an opportunity to receive an education. I see that as a positive for the university and for society.
Now if I were running a business theres little chance I would use profits to support money losers with some exceptions. But this to me isnt a business. Its a university. thats not to say i am oppose to a stipend of some sort but that stipend should be available to all students in some form. Does it have to be the same amount for everyone? No. Scholarship money isn't the same for everyone. But to say a kid that represents your school shouldn't get that stipend because he plays a sport that is not as popular as another one is selfish IMO.
Texas is in the vast minority of schools in terms of revenue. They can actually afford non-revenue sports. It is a much bigger issue when you are talking about one of the approximately 70 FBS schools that do make a profit from football, but lose money as an athletic department.
I actually understand that it is not a corporation and that it is a center for higher learning. I just realize that the additional 45 million spent on academics would be a greater use of the money than a water polo team. That money used on research, professors, or to offer tuition at a lower cost would be a far greater benefit to society. Much of the spending on non-revenue sports is a net negative to society. It increases the cost of education. Giving scholarships for those sports is nice. Just realize that for each 1 you give out to the needy golf team (low blow) you could be giving a multiple scholarships to poor kids. So in the end you are correct the goal of a university should be to educate. Arguing to divert money away from that goal seems odd to me..
Why are we discussing something that is never going to happen?
BusinessInsider is about as respected as BleacherReport is. It's garbage and 90% of their content is copied/pasted from other sites with little to no attribution.
Visit http://40AcresSports.com and download my Texas FanGuide iPhone/iPad app: http://bit.ly/TexasFanApp
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports