Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/5/14 at 6:28 am to pivey14
That already do get stipends. However, I'm in favor of the players getting whatever they can from whoever they can get it from. I don't care if they get a $50,000 car from someone. They go out to eat and a guy at another table wants to pay for it? Sure. Most of these athletes aren't going pro and a good percentage of them come from poor families. Let them get what they can while they can.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:18 am to pivey14
This is the issue that is going to cause the power conferences to break away from the NCAA.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 4:59 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
to they guy claiming his friend was only on 20% scholly and an all american... I can't say I don't have huge doubts with some of the facts there
You'll just have to take my word then. I lived with him for 3 years and was the best man at my wedding; I know what his situation was. It had more to do with what our head coach's priorities were. I don't post much, but when I do, it's not to share BS.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:33 pm to pivey14
After many years of deliberation and consultation, the debate to pay or not to pay collegiate athletes for their play has reached an all time high. Collegiate athletics impact just about everyone in some form or fashion, whether it be a fan, family member, or the student-athlete themselves. The debate on whether or not student-athletes should be paid for play has become national news in the last couple of years. People have taken sides and continue to argue for their beliefs; however, an answer to this quandary has yet to appear. There are many specific factors among this detailed and elaborate dispute regarding fairness, obstacles, and other binding legal issues. That being said, it all boils down to whether or not student-athletes should receive compensation for their talents.
Many studies have taken place concerning the payment of student-athletes. Nearly every study for each individual perspective preaches the same explanation. Certain studies look briefly into the legal complications for the payment of players. Some articles use specific examples of student-athletes to enhance certain opinions. Other sources use factual evidence from coaches, professors, and even college students to elucidate the perspective on paying student-athletes. Most of the compiled research focusses on the reasons why players should be paid to play, why paying players is unneeded and problematic, and alternatives to paying players for their talents.
Much of the research that was conducted supporting the payment of players discusses factors such as student-athletes not receiving money for personal complications, the motivation to earn scholarship stipend money, and the current lack of organization in money dispersal among all collegiate programs. In Krikor Meshefejian’s article, “Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?,” the arguments for the payment of players are factual and relative to the problems most student-athletes face on a day-to-day basis. In Meshefejian’s article, he points out that some student-athletes leave their university early to receive payment in a professional career because of the lack of funding they received in college (17). Meshefejian believes that student-athletes should be paid so they can continue their education, graduate, and then explore a chance at a career in professional sports (17). Many refutations presented in other perspectives involve the argument that student-athletes receive scholarships. Meshefejian reveals that most scholarships do not fully cover tuition, so students are forced to obtain loans (18). However, some student-athletes can not afford loans, which leads schools to provide them with illegal benefits (Meshefejian 18). Many people believe that creating some type of payment for players would eliminate the need for student loans and illegal reimbursements. Raymond G. Schneider conducted an experiment to observe the opinions of college students. Schneider found that the majority of college students believe that student-athletes should receive stipends to reduce illegal benefits and cheating (5). As is evident in student-athletes today, scholarships funds do not always meet the cost of tuition. Meshefejian believes that “[t]he gap between a full scholarship and the cost of attendance should be covered by the academic institution” (20). By implementing Meshefejian’s proposed idea, student-athletes would receive new payments not covered by scholarship, which could eliminate illegal benefits all together. Tom Paliama, Professor of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin, believes that student-athletes should be paid for other circumstantial reasons. Much of Paliama’s opinion on the debate to pay players is based solely on academic issues and early departures among student-athletes. Paliama cites Ramonce Taylor, a star football player for the University of Texas, informing the reader that Taylor left the football team due to academic problems that he had faced earlier in the year (Paliama 34). Many of the academic problems Taylor encountered could have been corrected with Paliama’s belief in “[c]ollege athletes work[ing] for scholarship stipend money” (36). However, that is not the extent of Paliama’s argument to pay college athletes. Paliama also mentions P.J. Tucker, a junior basketball player at the University of Texas, for leaving his university during his spring semester for the NBA Draft (34). Paliama believes that students-athletes who work for and receive money will feel more compelled to stay in school and graduate with a degree (34). In Richard E. Lapchick’s book, New Game Plan For College Sports, representatives from many different institutions were asked a question regarding the most important issues for student-athletes. Damone Jones from Penn State University revealed that most money that supports personal funds comes from privileged families who have the ability to send money to their children; however, not all families are well off enough to have this advantage (Lapchick 274). When asked the same question, Brian O’Leary, from the University of Kentucky, states that while some student-athletes receive money from family, it is not enough to get by, so they are forced to get a job that conflicts with their over-scheduled, athletic lives (Lapchick 274). Lastly, Charece Williams, from North Carolina State University, believes that “it is only fair that student-athletes are compensated for their many sacrifices” (Lapchick 274). Williams also indicates that student-athletes practice for roughly three hours a day, leaving less time for studying and other personal advantages including money for movies or vacations (Lapchick 274). These same predicaments are discussed in Kenneth J. Cooper’s article where two law professors at Michigan State University, Robert and Amy McCormick, are convinced that football and basketball is a job for student-athletes at Division I schools (1). Rodney D. Fort, a professor of economics at Washington State University, believes there is a solution to the lack of funds an underprivileged student-athlete might encounter. Fort is convinced that “paying athletes makes sense and would make the college sports system more efficient in the way it distributes money” (10). Strangely enough, it is evident that the arguments for paying college athletes are almost directly comparable, regarding the lack of personal funding for student-athletes. Most studies show significant strategies to economically compensate student-athletes without drastically changing the NCAA’s definition of the amateur student-athlete.
Many studies have taken place concerning the payment of student-athletes. Nearly every study for each individual perspective preaches the same explanation. Certain studies look briefly into the legal complications for the payment of players. Some articles use specific examples of student-athletes to enhance certain opinions. Other sources use factual evidence from coaches, professors, and even college students to elucidate the perspective on paying student-athletes. Most of the compiled research focusses on the reasons why players should be paid to play, why paying players is unneeded and problematic, and alternatives to paying players for their talents.
Much of the research that was conducted supporting the payment of players discusses factors such as student-athletes not receiving money for personal complications, the motivation to earn scholarship stipend money, and the current lack of organization in money dispersal among all collegiate programs. In Krikor Meshefejian’s article, “Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?,” the arguments for the payment of players are factual and relative to the problems most student-athletes face on a day-to-day basis. In Meshefejian’s article, he points out that some student-athletes leave their university early to receive payment in a professional career because of the lack of funding they received in college (17). Meshefejian believes that student-athletes should be paid so they can continue their education, graduate, and then explore a chance at a career in professional sports (17). Many refutations presented in other perspectives involve the argument that student-athletes receive scholarships. Meshefejian reveals that most scholarships do not fully cover tuition, so students are forced to obtain loans (18). However, some student-athletes can not afford loans, which leads schools to provide them with illegal benefits (Meshefejian 18). Many people believe that creating some type of payment for players would eliminate the need for student loans and illegal reimbursements. Raymond G. Schneider conducted an experiment to observe the opinions of college students. Schneider found that the majority of college students believe that student-athletes should receive stipends to reduce illegal benefits and cheating (5). As is evident in student-athletes today, scholarships funds do not always meet the cost of tuition. Meshefejian believes that “[t]he gap between a full scholarship and the cost of attendance should be covered by the academic institution” (20). By implementing Meshefejian’s proposed idea, student-athletes would receive new payments not covered by scholarship, which could eliminate illegal benefits all together. Tom Paliama, Professor of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin, believes that student-athletes should be paid for other circumstantial reasons. Much of Paliama’s opinion on the debate to pay players is based solely on academic issues and early departures among student-athletes. Paliama cites Ramonce Taylor, a star football player for the University of Texas, informing the reader that Taylor left the football team due to academic problems that he had faced earlier in the year (Paliama 34). Many of the academic problems Taylor encountered could have been corrected with Paliama’s belief in “[c]ollege athletes work[ing] for scholarship stipend money” (36). However, that is not the extent of Paliama’s argument to pay college athletes. Paliama also mentions P.J. Tucker, a junior basketball player at the University of Texas, for leaving his university during his spring semester for the NBA Draft (34). Paliama believes that students-athletes who work for and receive money will feel more compelled to stay in school and graduate with a degree (34). In Richard E. Lapchick’s book, New Game Plan For College Sports, representatives from many different institutions were asked a question regarding the most important issues for student-athletes. Damone Jones from Penn State University revealed that most money that supports personal funds comes from privileged families who have the ability to send money to their children; however, not all families are well off enough to have this advantage (Lapchick 274). When asked the same question, Brian O’Leary, from the University of Kentucky, states that while some student-athletes receive money from family, it is not enough to get by, so they are forced to get a job that conflicts with their over-scheduled, athletic lives (Lapchick 274). Lastly, Charece Williams, from North Carolina State University, believes that “it is only fair that student-athletes are compensated for their many sacrifices” (Lapchick 274). Williams also indicates that student-athletes practice for roughly three hours a day, leaving less time for studying and other personal advantages including money for movies or vacations (Lapchick 274). These same predicaments are discussed in Kenneth J. Cooper’s article where two law professors at Michigan State University, Robert and Amy McCormick, are convinced that football and basketball is a job for student-athletes at Division I schools (1). Rodney D. Fort, a professor of economics at Washington State University, believes there is a solution to the lack of funds an underprivileged student-athlete might encounter. Fort is convinced that “paying athletes makes sense and would make the college sports system more efficient in the way it distributes money” (10). Strangely enough, it is evident that the arguments for paying college athletes are almost directly comparable, regarding the lack of personal funding for student-athletes. Most studies show significant strategies to economically compensate student-athletes without drastically changing the NCAA’s definition of the amateur student-athlete.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:33 pm to pivey14
Although the research that supports paying players is credible, studies and public perceptions have shown that the majority of the people involved in this dilemma are against the pay for play system involving student-athletes due to the problems and illegal actions they generate. In Jon Saraceno’s article, “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Because They Are Not Exploited,” he discusses the meaning of the word exploit and how it relates to the student-athlete. Saraceno doesn’t believe that the word exploit is fitting to a student-athlete who might be receiving upwards of $100,000 worth of free education (Saraceno 39). He believes that they are not being exploited because, “[y]oung men are being plugged into an existing economic system that gives them, in essence, the chance to build their brand” (Saraceno 39). Saraceno notes that all the large institutions would have the ability to pay their players, but smaller institutions could not possibly sacrifice to do the same (40). Arguments found in James L. Shulman and William G. Bowen’s article, “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Because a College Education Is Valuable,” are similar to those of Saraceno’s. Shulman and Bowen believe that certain student-athletes should not be paid because they are nearly taking advantage of the educational experience (47). They mention how some student-athletes view an education in college as just a stepping stone into a professional sports career (Shulman, Bowen 47). In the book, College Sports Inc. How Commercialism Influences Intercollegiate Athletics, Frank P. Jozsa Jr. provides in-depth analysis on why paying for players would be detrimental for an institution’s longevity. Jozsa states that paying players would lead them to remain eligible by taking bogus classes and cheating on exams (59). Jozsa refers to NCAA President Mark Emmert as he states that it would be wrong to pay student-athletes to play because it would lead to agents and bookies illegally paying them to fix games (59). According to Jay Paterno in his article, “Pay Student-Athletes? They’re Already Getting a Great Deal,” student-athletes need to understand the extent of what they are truly receiving (1). Paterno compares NCAA-mandated time limits for student-athletes to a normal working job in which an in-state player on full scholarship would receive nearly $60 per hour (1). Paterno also mentions “the hundreds of thousands of extra earnings you can realize over your lifetime with a college degree that you wouldn’t make without one” (1). Paterno is referring to the benefits that a college degree will give a student-athlete after they graduate. John R. Gerdy writes in his book, The Successful College Athletic Program, that the job of an institution is to give student-athletes the skills they need to be successful for the rest of their lives (Gerdy 59). Other research has come to the conclusion that student-athletes receive unfair advantages already, so there is no need to pay for their talents. In The Money Game, it states that student-athletes often acquire financial aid, due to their athletic title, without truly needing it (Atwell, Grimes, and Lupiano 39). Nearly the entirety of the arguments for those against paying for players discusses the fact that student-athletes are already receiving a great amount of money through scholarships and financial aid. Student-athletes are working less than a full time job, yet get paid nearly four times as more.
Lastly, research has shown that many public perceptions believe that paying student-athletes is wrong; however, many believe that student-athletes should share in the revenue generated by their name, images, and likenesses. In Erin Cronk’s article, “Unlawful Encroachment: Why The NCAA Must Compensate Student-Athletes For The Use Of Their Names, Images, And Likenesses,” she exposes the NCAA of exploiting players on multiple occasions. Much of the NCAA’s corruption is due to the revenue generated by jersey sales. Cronk explains that the use of a student’s likeness on a jersey takes advantage of the hard work and personal brand without payment to the student-athlete (1). Cronk blatantly states that not even student-athletes get the choice on how the NCAA uses their name, nor do they get the opportunity to use it themselves (1). Cronk cites Joel Bauman, a wrestler at the University of Minnesota, “who lost his athletic eligibility because Bauman created an inspirational song and placed it for sale on iTunes under his name” (1). These rules and regulations leave student-athletes unaware of the NCAA’s intentions on the use of their own names. In Mathew Matzkin’s article titled, “Gettin' Played: How the Video Game Industry Violates College Athletes' Rights of Publicity by Not Paying for Their Likenesses,” he explains that the likenesses of each video game player including their height, weight, and face are directly associated with their respective student-athlete (240). Matzkin goes on to explain how the NCAA gives institutions the right to use the likenesses of a certain athlete, but refuses to allow businesses to do the same (246). Much of this debate involves whether or not the video game portrayal of a student-athlete is breaking the right of publicity of all players represented (246). Shelly Anderson, a sports columnist for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, states that the “NCAA’s rules on endorsements are rooted in its athletes being amateurs (31).” Although this is technically correct, Anderson lambastes the NCAA for being hypocritical because it allows athletes to pursue a pro career in one sport, while at the same time, competing another collegiate sport (31). This seems to be the most common perspective among those fighting in the pay for play argument. All the sources that were explored were logical and legal circumstances that provided intellectual proof on why a student-athlete should receive revenue that is gained by his likenesses.
In conclusion, it can be confirmed by multiple reports that a decision on this matter is nowhere near fruition. It will be a while before the NCAA and other Division Commissioners can meet at a compromise to give student-athletes what they truly deserve. From here, one can go beyond the argument of reasons to pay a student-athlete. A student-athletes lifestyles and stresses compared to that of a normal college student could be examined to give a better perspective on how much harder life really is for student-athletes. There are many complications to paying a student-athletes. Including factors, such as scholarships and financial aid, it can be hard to argue for the payment of players. Student-athletes already receive so much. However, their right to privacy is clearly breached by the NCAA and other video gaming production companies. It’s hard not to argue for the final perspective, which states that student-athletes should share in the revenue generated by their name, images, and likenesses. It contains the most logical and beneficial platform to conjure up a respected argument that can be taken serious, but at the same time inform the audience of this important problem.
Lastly, research has shown that many public perceptions believe that paying student-athletes is wrong; however, many believe that student-athletes should share in the revenue generated by their name, images, and likenesses. In Erin Cronk’s article, “Unlawful Encroachment: Why The NCAA Must Compensate Student-Athletes For The Use Of Their Names, Images, And Likenesses,” she exposes the NCAA of exploiting players on multiple occasions. Much of the NCAA’s corruption is due to the revenue generated by jersey sales. Cronk explains that the use of a student’s likeness on a jersey takes advantage of the hard work and personal brand without payment to the student-athlete (1). Cronk blatantly states that not even student-athletes get the choice on how the NCAA uses their name, nor do they get the opportunity to use it themselves (1). Cronk cites Joel Bauman, a wrestler at the University of Minnesota, “who lost his athletic eligibility because Bauman created an inspirational song and placed it for sale on iTunes under his name” (1). These rules and regulations leave student-athletes unaware of the NCAA’s intentions on the use of their own names. In Mathew Matzkin’s article titled, “Gettin' Played: How the Video Game Industry Violates College Athletes' Rights of Publicity by Not Paying for Their Likenesses,” he explains that the likenesses of each video game player including their height, weight, and face are directly associated with their respective student-athlete (240). Matzkin goes on to explain how the NCAA gives institutions the right to use the likenesses of a certain athlete, but refuses to allow businesses to do the same (246). Much of this debate involves whether or not the video game portrayal of a student-athlete is breaking the right of publicity of all players represented (246). Shelly Anderson, a sports columnist for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, states that the “NCAA’s rules on endorsements are rooted in its athletes being amateurs (31).” Although this is technically correct, Anderson lambastes the NCAA for being hypocritical because it allows athletes to pursue a pro career in one sport, while at the same time, competing another collegiate sport (31). This seems to be the most common perspective among those fighting in the pay for play argument. All the sources that were explored were logical and legal circumstances that provided intellectual proof on why a student-athlete should receive revenue that is gained by his likenesses.
In conclusion, it can be confirmed by multiple reports that a decision on this matter is nowhere near fruition. It will be a while before the NCAA and other Division Commissioners can meet at a compromise to give student-athletes what they truly deserve. From here, one can go beyond the argument of reasons to pay a student-athlete. A student-athletes lifestyles and stresses compared to that of a normal college student could be examined to give a better perspective on how much harder life really is for student-athletes. There are many complications to paying a student-athletes. Including factors, such as scholarships and financial aid, it can be hard to argue for the payment of players. Student-athletes already receive so much. However, their right to privacy is clearly breached by the NCAA and other video gaming production companies. It’s hard not to argue for the final perspective, which states that student-athletes should share in the revenue generated by their name, images, and likenesses. It contains the most logical and beneficial platform to conjure up a respected argument that can be taken serious, but at the same time inform the audience of this important problem.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:34 pm to pivey14
I know it's a wall of text, but its the best I could do.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 5:04 pm to pivey14
Athletes should get a portion of merchandising and monies made off their names in the name of the NCAA. And I wouldn't have a problem with non- Big 2 (FB/BB) sports who don't get a full allotment of scholarships to have something to offset costs.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 5:32 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Athletes should get a portion of merchandising and monies made off their names in the name of the NCAA. And I wouldn't have a problem with non- Big 2 (FB/BB) sports who don't get a full allotment of scholarships to have something to offset costs.
did you read the essay? Just curious about others thoughts on it.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 5:33 pm to pivey14
Short answer: yes.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:07 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
I think they are pretty well compensated for being part time "employees" as it is.
I'm a fan of the Crimson Tide, I'm a fan of CFB, I'd still go to games in Tuscaloosa if ....AJ McCarron/Trent Richardson/CJ Moseley etc had gone to other schools. .
I'm a fan of the Crimson Tide, I'm a fan of CFB, I'd still go to games in Tuscaloosa if ....AJ McCarron/Trent Richardson/CJ Moseley etc had gone to other schools. .
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:52 pm to pivey14
No. They receive enough as is.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News