University of Texas to pay athletes of revenue sports $10,000 a year.

[Ksandra]

Yeah, I don't think any women's sports bring in revenue. Texas has had really good volleyball teams, so if any women's sport had a chance of being profitable, that'd be it.

As other posters said, I think women's basketball does, but I could be biased since Uconn is my alma mater.

To get an idea:

Geno (coach) is making $1.9 mil this year.

That would put him around rank #22 for the top men coach salaries:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...s/ncaab/coach/


So maybe not as much, but for sure a lot. (He's making more than the men's head coach for Uconn).

[Plow]

This is absolutely wrong, but is the best solution to pay college athletes, or abolish these agreements?

My opinion? Paying college athletes. There are some legitimate arguments in favor of the agreements (though in the end most of them break down into multibillionaires not liking the idea of having to pay kids before they've proven themselves more), but what sucked the most is that it was really starting to detract from the college game, particularly in basketball.

Just look at college baseball, almost no pro players come from it, and nobody gives a shit about it except for a couple weeks at the end of the season.

What it really comes down to, though, is that college is the "minor league" system for these sports, and everybody except the athletes are making serious cash from it.



The cheerleaders and bands are actually a really good example of when people shouldn't be getting paid, and college baseball as well as a lot of other sports are the same way.

What those people get is great privileges, and to represent a school they love, in ways they love doing-- in ways that they probably can't just go out and make a living doing anyway. In a lot of cases they're paying their own way through school, and further paying for travel expenses and stuff, for the privilege of getting to do the things they love. What they're *not* doing is putting millions of dollars at risk to a very highly likely injury ending their chances at ever profiting from their skills.

While bands and cheerleaders are part of the atmosphere, there are very few where people actually care about it outside of the band or former cheerleader community. Sure, a few less tickets might sell for Ohio State games without the band (not any meaningful quantity, though, the tickets would still almost certainly sell, just to different people), but nobody's going to Bama games to see the band. So not only are they not putting themselves at risk, they're also not bringing in nearly the kind of benefits football and basketball players are.


A great example of opposite ends of the spectrum is this:

Darren Sproles, at Kansas State from 2001-2004, was driving an early 80's nissan sentra that was a complete piece of trash, and about as old as he was at the time. He almost single-handedly brought us our first big 12 title, putting us in a BCS game and earning the school around $15m purely on the bowl payout. That's not counting ticket sales, the increases in donations performances like that bring, or anything else at all. Just straight up "here's $15 million just for making it to this game." Sproles got $0 of that.

For reference, he had 43 carries and 285 yards from scrimmage to Mizzou's entire team's 264 in the game that got us to the championship game, and then 323 yards from scrimmage to OU's entire team's 390 in the actual title game.


A few years later, as a backup running back in the NFL, he was franchise tagged and made just below $7m for one year of play.


Why should his college have gotten a 6+ million dollar discount while putting him at a high risk to never end up making anything from his talent?


And then there's the flipside: Title IX compliance sports.

At the same time as Darren Sproles was bringing in all that money, a few women were enjoying the benefits of participating in a sport where they all pay their own way. See, if the school started, for example, a women's soccer program, they'd be responsible for transporting a couple dozen people around the country to participate in a sport that brings in no profits, as well as maintaining an entire new set of facilities.

Instead, they introduced Equestrian (for women only). In order to be competitive in Equestrian competition, you pretty much have to be raising and training your own horses. The school isn't responsible for transporting the animals around, and the "facilities" required for equestrian are... a dirt field. They may now, but at the time they didn't even maintain a stables, all the equestrian girls were either locals or paying a local business for boarding them. '


But, it gives them Title IX compliance ("equal" opportunities for both males and females) by offering them pretty much the exact same benefits as they were offering to Darren Sproles for making them millions and millions of dollars.

[Ksandra]

It should also be noted (since I don't see it mentioned) college sports can easily leave you injured/disabled or at least your body very weakened by the end of four years. I think colleges owe them something considering many could be paying for physical therapy for the rest of their lives.

[Bregor]

words words words

The actual answer is the concept of a "student-athlete" is all but dead for football and basketball. The NCAA, the conferences, and the schools make too much money to properly self-regulate so they do everything they can to get the best athletes on the field at all times. Junk classes with fake grades are just one way that a student-athlete gets used by the university for their athletic skill without giving them anything in return. They cover up on-campus incidents and oftentimes illegal activity of athletes to avoid suspension or prosecution. They let the athletes take bribes, "work" fake jobs for a salary, and their family members accept "gifts" to get around NCAA rules. All of this amounts to a really disturbing message—if you're good enough at football or basketball, you can do anything you want, and the school and the boosters will take care of the rest.

The relationship has been challenged by Northwestern University, where the football players sued for the right to form a union because they argued they were actually employees of the university, and they won. Reading up on that case is a good place to start if you're unfamiliar with the student-athlete/university relationship in the US for football and basketball.

That said, on the surface the majority of the other NCAA sports seem to encourage the actual spirit of a student-athlete, so it's not like we should nuke the whole thing.

As other posters said, I think women's basketball does, but I could be biased since Uconn is my alma mater.

To get an idea:

Geno (coach) is making $1.9 mil this year.

That would put him around rank #22 for the top men coach salaries:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...s/ncaab/coach/


So maybe not as much, but for sure a lot. (He's making more than the men's head coach for Uconn).

Universities justify the salaries of big-time coaches mostly because alumni and boosters give more money when the sports teams are good. In the 60 Minutes piece about Nick Saban making around $5.5 million (and I think it's up to $7 million now) the university president said it was the best investment he ever made, primarily because they make that money back and then some through donations, TV contracts, publicity, etc. from the football program being so successful.

[Plow]

The actual answer is the concept of a "student-athlete" is all but dead for football and basketball. The NCAA, the conferences, and the schools make too much money to properly self-regulate so they do everything they can to get the best athletes on the field at all times. Junk classes with fake grades are just one way that a student-athlete gets used by the university for their athletic skill without giving them anything in return. They cover up on-campus incidents and oftentimes illegal activity of athletes to avoid suspension or prosecution. They let the athletes take bribes, "work" fake jobs for a salary, and their family members accept "gifts" to get around NCAA rules. All of this amounts to a really disturbing message—if you're good enough at football or basketball, you can do anything you want, and the school and the boosters will take care of the rest.

This too, I mean fuck, K-State when I was there still had one of the worst men's basketball programs in the country, and even there I got paid to write papers for basketball players lol. You wouldn't believe the level of shit they were having me do for them either, we're seriously talking shit the slow kids could handle in like 5th grade.


And then there was stuff like my favorite class of all time: The Psychology of Ethnic Humor.

It was a summer school class.

The professor wrote his own textbook.

He would generally lecture us for 5-10 minutes, and then we'd watch Richard Pryor or Bill Cosby or even stuff like George Carlin for an hour and fifteen minutes.


This class had a big chunk of football players that all sat together near the front of the class, and even with such a lax class and short lecturing, they were such massive dicks and so disruptive as to do stuff like just bust out their cell phones and start talking on them louder than the teacher in the middle of his 5 minute lectures. Of course, he couldn't really do anything about it because he'd then have to answer to the football program, and that just ain't happening.

[Krandor]

To follow up on Bregs post, also go watch the South Park episode "Crack Baby Athletic Association" (Season 15 Episode 5). It perfectly explains the NCAA and it's issues.

[Tyche]

Student athletes on athletic scholarship are also the only scholarship students restricted in income. potential. If a kid on academic scholarship develops this great computer program, he can market it, sell it, and profit from it. They can go into the workplace of their desired field and earn money. If an athlete does makes an appearance at an event, he can't get paid for that. That's egregious.

[Plow]

Yeah, and the worst part about that is that it actually makes sense in terms of maintaining a standard of fairness-- the best player Florida A&M will ever have in football will have less opportunities to profit from stuff like that than anybody at Florida or Florida State, for example.

The legal argument is going to have to stem from the fact that stuff like better facilities and medical staff and food offerings etc. etc. already create an extremely uneven playing field to begin with.

[Ksandra]

Student athletes on athletic scholarship are also the only scholarship students restricted in income. potential. If a kid on academic scholarship develops this great computer program, he can market it, sell it, and profit from it. They can go into the workplace of their desired field and earn money. If an athlete does makes an appearance at an event, he can't get paid for that. That's egregious.

As well, because of the athletic workload, the chances are pretty slim Joe on the football team is going to be able to play sports + go to class + get a parttime job on the side to help pay for the rest of his tuition.


Really, I am surprised anyone would be against this, there are just so many reasons to do it.

[Tyche]

Yeah, and the worst part about that is that it actually makes sense in terms of maintaining a standard of fairness-- the best player Florida A&M will ever have in football will have less opportunities to profit from stuff like that than anybody at Florida or Florida State, for example.

The legal argument is going to have to stem from the fact that stuff like better facilities and medical staff and food offerings etc. etc. already create an extremely uneven playing field to begin with.

Yeah, that's why I said earlier that I think that the Olympic sports should have the same rights on earning as those on academic scholarships.

Also, I think this will only affect the "BCS" conference schools, so schools like Florida A&M would be unaffected by change.

[Obsidian]

Student athletes on athletic scholarship are also the only scholarship students restricted in income. potential. If a kid on academic scholarship develops this great computer program, he can market it, sell it, and profit from it. They can go into the workplace of their desired field and earn money. If an athlete does makes an appearance at an event, he can't get paid for that. That's egregious.

I don't know about all universities, but at mine, the school owns whatever I develop while at school.

[Tyche]

If its for a class project or something, sure. But in your free time they cannot legally restrict you (at least here in the states, I'd assume the same in lolcanada).

[Obsidian]

Yes, anything I develop on my own (I think even if it's conceived outside of school but worked on at any point on school property, the school retains rights to the work) is mine. Appearances at events unassociated with the school should definitely be eligible for compensation.

[Quicklet]

I'm generally against paying college athletes a salary, though I think individual earnings/royalties should be allowed. If you're a top player and you can secure sponsorships, good for you. If your jersey number sells a ton or your likeness is used in a video game, you should see some money out of that.

I don't think it should be a blanket thing, though, where SEC programs can afford to pay their players $10k each while maybe PAC-10 players might only end up getting $5k. I just see too many problems happening when you do it that way.

[Serra]

Universities justify the salaries of big-time coaches mostly because alumni and boosters give more money when the sports teams are good. In the 60 Minutes piece about Nick Saban making around $5.5 million (and I think it's up to $7 million now) the university president said it was the best investment he ever made, primarily because they make that money back and then some through donations, TV contracts, publicity, etc. from the football program being so successful.

One of my friends got a job at Bama this year, and talking with him, Saban was, without a doubt, the best investment the school has ever made. I think he said a new building is finished on campus every 90 days or something. And, just look at the enrollment at Bama before and after they started winning.

[animation8]

soosososososososososoossoso gooooooooddddddddd

[Ishido]

The more money schools can effectively (read: not wastefully) throw at sports to make a better team is probably one of the most effective ways of spending they have. Purely because there is so much revenue to be made through sports in America.

In reality full-ride scholarships should be far more valuable than these "salaries" but this will probably make more student athletes focus on getting paid and playing sports.

[Serra]

I mentioned above the boom that sports has had on Bama. So many people think all that money just helps the athletics department, but it can make a big deal for the entire university.

[Serra]

Just gonna turn this into a ridiculous NCAA news thread:

After years of making the case that the education of athletes is paramount, the NCAA now says it has no legal responsibility to make sure education is actually delivered.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/sport/...uit/index.html