Spurrier: Pay players '$3,500 to $4,000' a year

[Chrispy]

DESTIN, Fla. -- Steve Spurrier's idea to give football players an extra stipend had little traction at last year's SEC spring meetings, but that didn't stop him from bringing it up again this go round.
"It's very similar to last year," South Carolina's coach said of his stipend plan Wednesday. "We're trying to get extra money for living expense, academic expense, game-related expense to our players because of the tremendous amount of money -- billions -- they're bringing (in)."


Spurrier said he proposed giving more than the $2,000 stipend the NCAA is still mulling over. He'd like to give football players and other athletes in revenue-producing sports, such as men's basketball, "approximately $3,500 to $4,000" for the entire year to cover most college expenses.


"We as coaches believe they're entitled to a little more than room, books, board and tuition," Spurrier said. "Again, we as coaches would be willing to pay it if they were to approve it to where our guys could get approximately get three-, four-thousand bucks a year. It wouldn't be that much, but enough to allow them to live like normal student-athletes.


"We think they need more and deserve more. It's as simple as that."


Like Spurrier's proposal last year, in which he wanted to pay players a $300 stipend for each game, there would still be hurdles his idea would have to leap over and it's unlikely that it will get much further than talks during spring meetings. For starters, there would be obvious Title IX implications and not every school nationally would be able to pay student-athletes as much. Plus, football and basketball couldn't be the only sports to pay student-athletes. It would have to be a national plan and it would have to be a plan for all collegiate sports.


SEC coaches seem to understand the issues surrounding the idea, but Spurrier said all 14 SEC coaches agree with the idea.


"We recognize that the income producers are both the football and basketball programs, period," LSU coach Les Miles said. "So there's a want to say with this extra income we would like to provide cost of education and cost of expense stipends to those players. We recognize that it's going to be difficult for every team on every campus -- volleyball, gymnastics, baseball, etc. -- to come up with the same number.


"What we're saying is the revenue-income sports, certainly football, would need in a possibility of sharing the income that's being produced, paying it back to those guys.


"It would be a difficult task putting it to work, but I think it's something we all want to push forward."


And it likely will strike up even more debate when it comes to paying student-athletes.


Vanderbilt coach James Franklin said he's for the philosophy of helping players out financially, but he understands the difficulty that will come with it, especially with a proposal that only pays athletes in revenue-producing sports.


"It's one of those things as coaches that we're constantly fighting for kids and doing everything we can to help them," he said. "And I really appreciate that. I'm the same way, but on the same hand, I also know it's more complex than we maybe think it is and there's a lot of things that go into it. You have to be aware of that.


"Yeah, it's easy to just talk about football doing it, but if you're going to do it, you can't just do it for football and basketball. You have to do it for all the sports and it can't just be for schools in the SEC. It has to be all over the country."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ach-steve-spurrier-wants-pay-football-players

 

[Len B]

USC out of state tuition: $44,000 a year
Notre Dame out of state tuition: $43,000
Florida out of state tuition: $41,000

Needless to say, I think the $150,000+ they get in tuition reimbursements is as good a deal as you can get. Or, they could be like me and millions of other students who owe $25,000+ after college.

 

[JeremyHight]

The problem is the obvious legal issues with only giving it to revenue producing sports. Colleges are able to have football teams because of non-revenue producing sports like women's volleyball due to the Title IX issues. Without those sports to abide by Title IX, the college would be unable to provide any scholarships to male athletes. Ya, I don't like the law either, but it is the law and the schools are forced to follow it.

The other obvious issue is that a lot of schools may make a small profit from basketball and football, but take major losses on everything else. Giving away some of the very little profit they make from those sports to the players would only make the athletic departments go further into the red. Sure, there are big schools in big conferences that can make the payment, but there are over 300 D1 basketball schools and over 100 FBS teams. They aren't all Texas and Ohio State.

If it were up to me, Title IX wouldn't include football, which would help a lot of colleges save a huge amount of money through scholarships. Once that happens and a majority of the schools are turning a profit in athletics, then I would be fine with a small stipend per month for ALL student athletes. However, limiting it to just certain sports or forcing schools who aren't making money in athletics already to do it is just going to create a huge divide between schools that can afford to do that and those that cannot.

 

[ralaw]

For reasons that Len B, JH mentioned I really don't think the schools should pay student athletes. However, I do believe that the amateurism rules should be changed to allow players to earn money through endorsements. If a local business is willing to pay a kid a few thousand dollars to make an appearance, sign some autographs and take some pictures they should be able to do that. In reality every kid doesn’t need assistance, but others do. The athletes that can earn money off of the field/court should be able to do so.

 

[Senser81]

Schools should pay athletes in the revenue-producing sports of football and men's basketball. Its only fair. All the arguments against this are tangential, usually involving the other sports in the athletic department or bogus NCAA guidelines. The first order of business should be the abolition of the NCAA. Its a self-governing body anyways, with no real authority except the authority that is granted to it by its member institutions. Go back to the days when we had the CFA separate from the NCAA, and create a new legislative body solely for men's basketball.

I'm not really up to date on how many football scholarships a team has, but lets say its 70 (based on my knowledge of NCAA 2007). If the athletic department pays all its players $3500 - $4000, it will cost a total of about $250,000. So you are basically paying your entire team the same amount three assistant coaches make. I don't understand how this relatively miniscule amount would result in a huge "economic drain" on the athletic department.

 

[Senser81]

USC out of state tuition: $44,000 a year
Notre Dame out of state tuition: $43,000
Florida out of state tuition: $41,000

Needless to say, I think the $150,000+ they get in tuition reimbursements is as good a deal as you can get. Or, they could be like me and millions of other students who owe $25,000+ after college.

But the athletes provide a service to the school. They are essentially employed by the school to play sports. Let me know when 85,000 people cough up $55 each to watch you fail your Sociology 100 midterm.

 

[JeremyHight]

But the athletes provide a service to the school. They are essentially employed by the school to play sports. Let me know when 85,000 people cough up $55 each to watch you fail your Sociology 100 midterm.

Where do colleges make more money? From athletics and/or former athletes or from academics and/or alumni? Athletics are just there to make the actual moneymakers for the college happy.

 

[Senser81]

Where do colleges make more money? From athletics and/or former athletes or from academics and/or alumni? Athletics are just there to make the actual moneymakers for the college happy.

I don't understand your point. What does that have to do with the discussion? So the colleges should pay students to attend their university, because they make more money from alumni?

 

[ralaw]

IF you start paying the players I wonder how long it will take before a "star" player demands that he get paid more than some average role player. Does a backup offensive lineman deserve as much as the star QB? Do you pay the #1 recruit in the nation more than your other recruits? Does USC offer more than Georgia? Eventually these will become a topics of discussion. This is part of the reason why I say the schools should just stay out of it and let the kids take in endorsements.

 

[Senser81]

IF you start paying the players I wonder how long it will take before a "star" player demands that he get paid more than some average role player. Does a backup offensive lineman deserve as much as the star QB? Do you pay the #1 recruit in the nation more than your other recruits? Does USC offer more than Georgia? Eventually these will become a topics of discussion. This is part of the reason why I say the schools should just stay out of it and let the kids take in endorsements.

I don't disagree, but what if that does happen? Should that possible scenario eliminate the opportunity for the revenue-producing athletes to see any money aside from tuition cost?

I would say cross that bridge when you get there. I think it would be easier to "regulate" the payments to players if the schools are the ones doing the paying, as opposed to the athletes getting endorsements on their own.

 

[Len B]

But the athletes provide a service to the school. They are essentially employed by the school to play sports. Let me know when 85,000 people cough up $55 each to watch you fail your Sociology 100 midterm.

... which is why they get a free $150,000 education while I would owe $150,000. What part of that is tough to understand? I didn't say they should have to pay for school or should be equal to me. I'm perfectly fine paying my loans while they got their free ride, they earned it the same way I would have if I got an academic scholarship.


If a player doesn't like being exploited for a free education and possible future in the NFL, they can go to school like I did and pay their own way in a normal career. Not like anyone is holding a gun to their head to play football.

Also, I didn't take sociology :lesmug:

 

[jms493]

NO! Don't fucking pay them......

What about college Softball, College Baseball, Tennis, Volleyball....ect....all these sports are on some form of TV with commercials. This is crazy talk.

College is a place for education and getting ready for your next step in life....not a play to be paid like a professional athlete.

 

[NAHSTE]

USC out of state tuition: $44,000 a year
Notre Dame out of state tuition: $43,000
Florida out of state tuition: $41,000

Needless to say, I think the $150,000+ they get in tuition reimbursements is as good a deal as you can get. Or, they could be like me and millions of other students who owe $25,000+ after college.

Something tells me if you were working 80 hours a week for the university's biggest cash cow, you would feel entitled to some compensation as well. Last I checked, you can't eat tuition or use it to score babes.

 

[jms493]

Use all that fucking money they make on lowering damn tuition for the 99% of the other college students.

 

[Len B]

Something tells me if you were working 80 hours a week for the university's biggest cash cow, you would feel entitled to some compensation as well. Last I checked, you can't eat tuition or use it to score babes.

Pretty sure they get laid more than those who pay tuition, lol.

Does the scholarship not come with room/board/food? If it doesn't, then that's a disgrace. I'm under the impression that all their necessities are covered under the scholarship. If they aren't, then add that to the plan. I don't feel bad that they can't eat McDonalds if they have a full pass to the cafeteria hall.

At the end of the day, they know what they are signing up for. It's not like they are promised payment and then don't receive it.

 

[JeremyHight]

Something tells me if you were working 80 hours a week for the university's biggest cash cow, you would feel entitled to some compensation as well. Last I checked, you can't eat tuition or use it to score babes.

You honestly think that a universities biggest cash cow is athletics or even just football and basketball? Seriously? Look at how much money academics bring in from grants, investments, endowments, and donations before you make such a ridiculous claim.

 

[Senser81]

... which is why they get a free $150,000 education while I would owe $150,000. What part of that is tough to understand? I didn't say they should have to pay for school or should be equal to me. I'm perfectly fine paying my loans while they got their free ride, they earned it the same way I would have if I got an academic scholarship.

Not singling you out, but I've always found this arguing tact to be humorous. You spend the first part of your argument making it seem as if college tuition is this huge cost, and then you say this huge cost savings is reward enough for the player performing "athletic services". So, essentially, you have no problem with the football player getting a $150,000 education for "free", but you have a massive problem with them getting an additional $3500 a year in spending money?

Sounds like the idiots I work with, who have no problems with an underperforming slack-ass being allowed to continue working his $250,000/year BS managerial job...but when they find out he charged an $85 glass of wine to his company credit card, they go through the roof.

Pardon my skepticism with your argument. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

[Senser81]

You honestly think that a universities biggest cash cow is athletics or even just football and basketball? Seriously? Look at how much money academics bring in from grants, investments, endowments, and donations before you make such a ridiculous claim.

By the same token, do you honestly think paying football/basketball players $3500 is going to bring down the University as a whole? Look at how much money athletics brings in from donations before you make such a ridiculous claim.

 

[JeremyHight]

By the same token, do you honestly think paying football/basketball players $3500 is going to bring down the University as a whole? Look at how much money athletics brings in from donations before you make such a ridiculous claim.

I don't think it will, but I know plenty of universities have Athletic Departments already in the red, so making them throw even more money at it isn't going to help anything. In fact, it may reduce the number of teams willing to field D1 sports teams.

And again, even donations for sports is minuscule in comparison to the overall academic budget that is brought in. In 2010-11, Texas made about 150 million dollars through sports. On the other hand, they have a total income of about 2.1 billion for JUST academics, without sports included at all. This is an oddity as Texas actually makes money in athletics, but if you think any school believes athletics are the cash cow, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Len B]

Not singling you out, but I've always found this arguing tact to be humorous. You spend the first part of your argument making it seem as if college tuition is this huge cost, and then you say this huge cost savings is reward enough for the player performing "athletic services". So, essentially, you have no problem with the football player getting a $150,000 education for "free", but you have a massive problem with them getting an additional $3500 a year in spending money?

Sounds like the idiots I work with, who have no problems with an underperforming slack-ass being allowed to continue working his $250,000/year BS managerial job...but when they find out he charged an $85 glass of wine to his company credit card, they go through the roof.

Pardon my skepticism with your argument. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

No worries, I don't take it personally. I just don't see why they need to get paid when they are already getting a huge service. You're right, in the grand scheme of things the school wouldn't miss the $3,000-$4,000 per player.

That said, if the athletes get $3,000-$4,000 shouldn't all students in academic programs who promote high GPA also be getting $3,000-$4,000? They are the ones raising the quality of the program of the school, allowing the school to charge a higher rate. If all the students got C's and D's, the school would not be as attractive. They are working just as much, by studying and working on essays/exams/etc, and represent a much larger portion of the university.

It's not sour grapes, I love college sports and at the same time love my life. I just don't see why only football players need to be paid and prioritized over regular students. The schools really have no reason to pay anyone.

However, if you want to talk about lowering tuition for all, I'm on board.