Report: Top-tier college athletes worth 6 figures

[Hasselbeck]

Just think how much they're worth in the pros.

If these players are good enough to pay professionally, they'll get theirs. If they aren't, they got a free education.

I don't see why this isn't any clearer to people?

 

[Villain]

Not all players get scholarships and not all athletic scholarships cover all educational costs. It's hardly a "free education" - discounted would be a better word. I'm not trying to make a case that student-atheletes should be paid, I'm just pointing out that "they all get a free education" is a lazy argument. Besides, many of the athletes pursue bullshit easy-A degrees anyways (that's not the schools' fault though).

 

[ram29jackson]

they should just start allowing boosters to donate money over the table to players, it wont make anything on the playing field more dishonest and they have been doing it for 60 years anyway. its been obvious lately that you cant be a top 10 school without being willing to grease a few palms to get them to go to your school.

 

[Villain]

they should just start allowing boosters to donate money over the table to players, it wont make anything on the playing field more dishonest and they have been doing it for 60 years anyway. its been obvious lately that you cant be a top 10 school without being willing to grease a few palms to get them to go to your school.

Therefore making smaller programs less relevant than they are already?

 

[Sportsbuck]

they should just start allowing boosters to donate money over the table to players, it wont make anything on the playing field more dishonest and they have been doing it for 60 years anyway. its been obvious lately that you cant be a top 10 school without being willing to grease a few palms to get them to go to your school.

I realize today players get paid under the table, and there's a lot of dirty stuff going on (Although not on as large of a scale as some make it out to be), but the day the NCAA sanctions the paying of players is the day I stop watching college sports.

 

[ram29jackson]

Therefore making smaller programs less relevant than they are already?

that wont change anyway. The reason they arent relavent is because good players dont go there. Money over the table doesnt change that.

 

[G-men]

Not all players get scholarships and not all athletic scholarships cover all educational costs. It's hardly a "free education" - discounted would be a better word.

Well, they could do what all the other kids do in their situation who aren't good at football and not go to college at all...

They should consider themselves lucky.

 

[St. Francisco]

Just think how much they're worth in the pros.

If these players are good enough to pay professionally, they'll get theirs. If they aren't, they got a free education.

I don't see why this isn't any clearer to people?

Instead of getting what they're worth, the players receive athletic scholarships that don't cover the full cost of attending school, leaving many of them living below the poverty line, says the report, "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport."

 

[Villain]

Well, they could do what all the other kids do in their situation who aren't good at football and not go to college at all...

They should consider themselves lucky.

On the first part - The sheer volume of grants-in-aid and subsidies available to those who come from low-income families have rendered "not going to college" a choice. I know that in California at least, if you come from a low0income family then you can get your tuition and enrollment fees waived at state schools. Student loans can fund your books. The only true barriers are distance (if you lack transportation), time, and family responsibilities.

As for considering themselves lucky, I agree. You should be grateful that you were born with natural physical abilities, be happy for your health, and that you are talented enough to be able to play sports at a high level. That being said, gratefulness for ones situation is one thing when a school is profitting from your existence on said teams while simultaneously charging you money to be there.

I'm not on the side that thinks student-athletes should be raking in cash and spending money all over the place, but I do think that these institutions ought to be kicking in cash for living expenses and such. I do like the idea of FBS-wide revenue sharing in regards to TV coverage (yes, the Alabamas brings in more TV cash than the Washingtons, but without those Washington in the system Alabama doesn't have anyone to be better than) to cover the cost of Student-Athletes. The schools can still profit!

Why can't every athlete (in all the sports - Football, Basketball, Track, Swimming, etc - but you don't get double for being in two sports) get a small piece of the pie? No more cash than they might make having a full-time $10/hour job outside of school. More money than that if the school can't provide food and dorms. Considering that's essentially the time commitment they are making, I think that's fair. Schools still rake in cash, student-athletes get a greater incentive for going out for sports and staying in school, and the players aren't suddenly turning into kids with too much cash or millionaires.