The Lions' Pride

Agree 100% that these problems exist soley because the central governing body refuses to enforce its own laws and instead of doing so, they draft these amnesty type laws that reward cheaters and rule breakers (Wow, sounds a lot like a more important hot button issue). Obviously giving everyone a stipend does nothing because the Cam Newton's of the world will just ask for even more money from Mississippi State (but not from Auburn of course). Also if you want to give these kids $10,000 annual stipends that's $850,000 a year. So long to the Boise State's of the world.

They get get a free education (worth around $25K per year for out-of-state students), free room and board, free meals, free on-the-job training (for the ones good enough to be future hall of famers), free tutoring, and generally have a leg up from the common student in regards to the social life. Then, when they get out of school, they have a degree that will set them up for the rest of their lives and ZERO student debt.

And let's be honest... how many of these kids ever complain about the money issue? Very, very few.

Several questions arise whenever talk of paying athletes comes around:

1) How much should student-athletes receive? Are they paid monthly? Per semester on campus? Should SAs attending Miami receive more than SAs attending Penn State? $2500 could sustain a SA for an entire school year in State College, yet it wouldn't last more than a few months in Miami. In other words, does cost of living enter into the equation?

2) Which SAs receive money? We all know that this is a slippery slope type of question. Is it only SAs on scholarship? Full scholarship? Most sports don't give full scholarships. Is it only revenue generating sports? Those would be different at every school. Is it only football and men's basketball? Give money to one SA, give money to all SAs.

3) Do some quick math. Lets assume that a run of the mill school has 500 SAs. Lets also assume that the SAs receive $100 per month. $100 x 12 months x 500 SAs = $600,000. Now, how many ADs are currently self sustaining?

I realize that there is a lot of money floating around college athletics. However, instituting payments to SAs can only hurt Intercollegiate Athletics in the long run, mainly by way of schools cutting sports, and the total number of D1A SAs decreasing. Neither of those scenarios is a win-win.

I concur with this.

I agree that students should not be paid to play. However, the biggest hypocrisy of college football is that these kids are, in fact, playing for financial rewards. Teams that play well get invited to bowl games which then pay the schools. While some conferences share the bowl revenue, others do not. While it's true some schools have some inherent advantages, the bowl system perpetuates the differences between the "haves" and the "have nots".

IMO, the NCAA should take over the CFB post-season and split the profits between all the schools in the FBS division. After all, the NCAA is supposed to represent ALL universities not just the BCS schools. This would also eliminate the pay-for-play situation that the NCAA is supposedly against.

You know/realize things like this happen at PSU, right?

I believe there is a way to do it, but NO WAY is it to have a flat rate / monthly rate / or bulk amount.
These kids are 18-22 year old kids, I think any of us who are old enough to look back with an open mind can say we may not have spent our money wisely in college. And the Terrell Pryor's of the world do nothing but prove, we live in a society that is based TOO MUCH on the "here and now" and I believe if "I have money, I'm gonna spend it" (like on tattoos).

GOD KNOWS I DID!!! :-) (just not on tattoos)

I believe there has got to be some way that the universities can be given funding or use existing funding, and have a review process, that includes the SA's parents or legal guardians, and if there is some type of realistic need then they should be able to be approved to get some type of assistance. But solely based on need and situation. And have it monitored by the NCAA. If these kids are struggling to get home to see their families on Holidays and sitting around while the rest of the team or majority of the team is gone and home, and need money for a Bus or plane ticket, or something. Send it to the "review board" and something like that better get approved, and they can buy them the ticket. Don't give them $750.00 and say "there you go, see you after break". Cause somebody like TP would probably just come back with a new "tat" and new watch, after pulled back into campus in the 'Vette. Take into account things like whether the kid has a regular means of travel, etc, in those situations. This isn't an Equal Opportunity Lending type of thing, it is a board of review determing need of Student Athletes. It is dicey, but I think it can be worked out somehow.
I agree that there are alot of these kids that need help. Guys like TP are not them. Like the Derek Moye story when he was asked about the TP thing, that he could understand why someone might do it, he remembers having to try and live on twenty-some dollars for the month at some times.
But again IMO you can't just start writing checks to these kids, because there are way too many that would not know how to handle it properly. Again JMO.

But to re-iterate; I DO NOT believe players should be given cash for playing football. So maybe my solution is not the answer to the question asked.

These guys are already paid. What is the value of a free education----a four or five year free ride? Quite a bit. And, frankly, if a kid goes to college, isn't academically qualified and/or uses college as a stepping stone to the pros, he shouldn't be there in the first place. For example, Cam Newton just used a year in college to audition for the pros. That is not what colleges are for. There should be a minor pro league where these guys can go, get paid and then go to the NFL. But it should not be in college.

no.

This is a good idea in theory, but in practice it would never work.

If all the BCS conferences were to split their winnings with the rest of the D1A world, their athletic programs would suffer dramatically. Plus, the BCS conferences are the ones bringing in all of the money during the season anyway. Everybody tunes in to the Oklahoma-Texas rivalry, or the OSU-Michigan game. Nobody cares about the MAC, WAC, or Mountain West. If those schools would bring in their own revenue to help the bowl series, then it'd probably go a lot further in pushing the idea through. However, the conferences with the money (Big Ten, SEC, Big Twelve, etc.) want to keep their money.

Do I think this BCS system is fair? Absolutely not. I agree that the little guys should get some financial help here and there, and that it could really help college football. But the BCS conferences will never allow this to happen, as they're the ones with the huge TV contracts and all the political pull in college football.

As an example, the horrid University of Texas just signed a contract with ESPN for 20 years, and around $300 million dollars. I couldn't find the numbers for earnings of any non-BCS conference, but since that number is 9x more than the Big East made last year, I'm assuming it is at least 12 or 13x more than the leading non-BCS conference. And this is just one school were talking about here. Based on the near decimation of the Big 12 (now 10) this past summer, Texas has shown they have a lot of political weight in college football. Why in the world would they want to share any of their earnings with some small-town, low-profile, low-revenue football team from a conference they have nothing to do with?

It's not fair, but the system is still set up for teams like Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and yes even Penn State, to rule supreme over everybody else.

Great topic for discussion by the way, it's interesting to hear everybody's opinions.

After spending a great portion of my life working for collegiate athletic departments, the answer IMO is NO WAY. First, not too many schools make money in athletics, so paying these athletes would put more departments in the hole. Secondly, not onyl would you have to pay the football players and men's hoopsters, but the cross country runners and the women's softball players. You can't give a stipend to a portion of the athletes without paying everyone. Then, you have to figure out what is fair and I'm talking fair for everyone. Bama can pay more than Radford; PSU can pay more than Charleston Southern by virtue of money. It has to be equal throughout. You can't give larger stipend to football over volleyball. That defeats the purpose. Are you going to give a stipend to the walk-on that works in many cases harder than the scholarshipped athlete?

Finally, student-athletes on scholarship gets ALOT of perks by going to school. It gets a free education - food and shelter, which could be upwards to $40,000 per year. It gets training tables; in most cases preferential treatment as far as getting classes. It gets clothing. It gets coaching and use of equipment. Also, they get EXPOSURE to the pros. Maybe this doesn't matter to softball, or volleyball, tennis or crew athletes, but certainly to football, hoops, baseball and hockey. It's this exposure that gives them a chance to get drafted and make some cash.

I can see the people's reasoning that are for it. But, society today makes this impossible.

I'm not sure about college but I know when Lebron had his Hummer in high school they ruled it was ok because it was a loan based on future earnings.