It's no secret that the NCAA (and Universities) profits big time off of college athletics, yet collegiate athletes are not paid.

--Sure, they get full-ride scholarships, but those are scholarships. A lot of athletes are dead broke for the entire time they are in college and have to take out loans for housing, food, clothes, etc. Compare that with a student whom receives a scholarship for academic reasons and has time to work a job in addition to studies. College athletes can't work a job in addition to attending college and being an athlete. Definitely not Division 1. It is also shameful how easy it is for an athlete's scholarship to be stripped away from different injuries or other reasons (one year 'merit-based' awards - hah).

--Yes, the money brought in by big-name sporting events like March Madness helps fund a lot of the other, less popular sports. That is good. I contend that there are still large profit margins available in which everyone can make money and athletes can be paid at least a living wage - enough that they do not have to take out loans for housing, food, clothes, etc.

--Something like eighty percent of NFL players declare bankruptcy within two years of leaving the league, and sixty or more percent of NBA players declare bankruptcy within five years of leaving the league. I believe that the bankruptcy rates will decrease if collegiate athletes were paid. That didactic measure would teach collegiate athletes to be more financially wily and control their money better. A lot of these kids are money starved for years - a lot of these kids come from impoverished backgrounds - and then a number of them are given large rookie contracts with a big signing bonuses (bonusi?) upon hitting the pros? Recipe for financial ruin.

--It may help retain more collegiate athletes rather then almost everyone bolting to the pros after one season (for college hoops anyways) and make for potentially better collegiate sports.

You mean the NCAA should allow the Universities to pay the athletes. And maybe establish a salary cap

No. I think that would be a very poor decision. Facilities, coaches and staff, the academic background of the University, school pedigree and history, recruiting classes... those should be what draws in students to schools as it has. Getting big-named recruits because a school can pony up more cash isn't the way it should be. The draft isn't done that way either.

This post was edited by Interesting on Aug 5 2013 12:54pm

Well how much do you want them to pay? I have friends (I go to an SEC university) on the football team. I've asked them the same question. While they acknowledged it would be cool to get paid, they consider the full-ride as their means of getting paid. My university is roughly $80,000 for all four years (including transportation / food etc.) in-state and probably $115+ out-of-state. Now you take into consideration my university puts them in the nicest dorms (newest, best placement on campus - closest to the practice field and classes - while most dorms are a 15+ minute walk to your classes). Now upperclassmen get apartments right next to the stadium etc.. And my school is fairly cheap, look at the more expensive schools (Florida / Texas / USC etc.) now you're looking at even more cost of attendance.

They also get top-notch personal trainers (which would cost people thousands to have someone train them at that caliber), nutritionist, strength trainers, sports doctors, travel affair + hotels + food are covered... The list continues.

The way my friends look at it, it's a blessing/miracle they even got to where they're at, and they have the opportunity to dedicate themselves to becoming an even better player, and all the tools/utility are in place for them to do so. And the out-come could be professional sports.

I usually tend to agree with allowing individuals more freedom and rights (supporting financial compensation of collegiate athletes in the US), but I actually don't think that colleges should "pay" athletes. There are just so many things to touch on with that subject, though.

What does need to be changed, however, is the NBA and NFL placing restrictions on the age or how many years removed from HS an individual is before entering the professional sport (i.e. the "one and dones" in NCAA basketball and the rule prohibiting football players to play in the NFL until 3 years out of HS.)

The NBA, NFL, and NCAA alike will each argue that it's for the sake of player maturity, and etc. And there is a little of that going on, but really it's a way to make sure that college athletics can profit off of stars that would otherwise leave early or not be in the NCAA at all, and additionally, market those players into more valuable commodities prior to them entering professional sports.

I think that is the real issue with all of this.

the ncaa should help with the necessities (cost of living, housing, food, etc)..but secondary education is there to teach you how to make money..not give you money.

The NCAA alreayd does this if you are good enough......Also, wont the price of tuition go up for every non athlete if all the athletes start getting a big increase in their scholarships?

This post was edited by MoneysHc2 on Aug 5 2013 09:13pm

Billion dollar industry. Doesn't have to pay it's employees (student-athletes). Greatest business model ever. Oh wait...wasn't that slavery?

These athletes are getting a free education, sure. But what value does that have for a player that doesn't value education? Value is relative.

Giving someone something valuable that they don't value at all is not really giving them anything. Also, your tuition is going to go up anyways with all the free rides being given out recently to non-athletes.

/e with this being said I value the hell out of my education and degrees. Just saying the typical player probably does not, so that argument is rather void.

This post was edited by TkM on Aug 6 2013 10:34am

In an ideal world, I'd say pay college athletes. But there are just so many things that people probably don't think about with this. It would be so hard to manage.

First of all, it would probably only be agreed on that all athletes in the NCAA receive the same amount of financial compensation. In other words, even though Basketball and Football obviously bring in the most money to the NCAA and their schools, track athletes, lacrosse athletes, divers, and etc, would have to get paid the same amount as a football or basketball player.

Secondly, the NCAA would probably place an identical salary cap on universities of the same division. For example, all D1 schools have a maximum salary of 20,000,000 to pay their athletes, and no school could pay one athlete of differently then an athlete of a different school (for example: all players of all sports would be paid $23,000 in that particular division - regardless of sport or university). This would be to ensure more fair competition. Each school could pay an athlete a certain amount, and some schools would be more willing to shell out that set amount of money, but they could not go beyond a certain amount.

And then you also get into distinguishing private universities from public ones. Public universities are partially funded by their state, whereas private are not, so that creates another regulatory issue that the NCAA would have to manage.

Just a few things to ponder. My point is that while it sounds justified and ideal, paying students athletes would be very complicated and almost impossible to manage, and will probably never happen in our lifetime. As corrupt as it is, it's going to stay that way.

They should at least give them money for beer and weed, imo.