Pay College Athletes?

[Anonymous]

Where do you stand on paying college football and basketball players? (Or any other sport with market demand?)

Personally, I’m against it and I actually wish the NCAA would force schools to reduce practice hours so that student-athletes would have enough time to go to class and get their schoolwork done. If the quality of play on the field or court diminishes a little bit, who cares? Fans don’t show up because they want to see football/basketball played at the highest level. (They have the NFL/NBA for that.) They show up because they have something in common with the players: They lived in the same dorms and went to classes in the same buildings etc.

I think paid student-athletes will quickly lose *any* connection to the school. They won’t ever go to class or graduate and “college” football/basketball will inevitably become another professional league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA. Fans will eventually realize that they’re rooting for the Georgia Bulldogs or the Alabama Crimson Tide for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever. The players will *only* set foot on campus to play in the games and that’s it. They will have no other connection to the school at all.

[Anonymous]

So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

People don’t watch college football and basketball to see the athletes or to see the game played at the highest level. They watch because the players represent the school and the community. They live on campus, they attend classes on campus, they share the campus experience. The fans love the campus, not the players. When that is lost—and it will be once student-athletes are paid—“college” sports will become just another professional sports league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA.

[Anonymous]

I admit I have not followed as closely but I thought the new rule was going to allow athletes to get paid for their name and likeness? Not just straight up paid because they’re playing a revenue generating sport on a college team? In other words, only the very best athletes who are potentially marketable will see any money. The majority of college football and basketball players do not fit that category. I guess I’m not seeing what really changes for the non-superstars.

[Anonymous]

I think they should be paid, of course.

And I also think they should not get preferential treatment in college admissions.

Maybe implementing the former will take care of the latter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where do you stand on paying college football and basketball players? (Or any other sport with market demand?)

Personally, I’m against it and I actually wish the NCAA would force schools to reduce practice hours so that student-athletes would have enough time to go to class and get their schoolwork done. If the quality of play on the field or court diminishes a little bit, who cares? Fans don’t show up because they want to see football/basketball played at the highest level. (They have the NFL/NBA for that.) They show up because they have something in common with the players: They lived in the same dorms and went to classes in the same buildings etc.

I think paid student-athletes will quickly lose *any* connection to the school. They won’t ever go to class or graduate and “college” football/basketball will inevitably become another professional league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA. Fans will eventually realize that they’re rooting for the Georgia Bulldogs or the Alabama Crimson Tide for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever. The players will *only* set foot on campus to play in the games and that’s it. They will have no other connection to the school at all.

Analysts have predicted that the Big Ten could command up to $1 billion combined from all its media deals after adding USC and UCLA starting in 2024.[/quote]

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-news-realignment-big-ten-espn-tv-network


College sport is big money, the athletes are not valued by the schools, NCAA or coaches. At the minimum every athlete should get work study. The revenues sports athletes should be bid on by the schools.

[Anonymous]

It’s entertainment. We watch college sports for that. The favorite teams in my house are not colleges we attended. They are teams from our hometowns and we grew up rooting for those teams so we still do. I don’t have a personal connection with the campus, it’s more my childhood memories and same with DH. I have no issues with them getting paid just like any other entertainers get paid.

[Anonymous]

Opposed. Jordan Addison should not have been allowed to leave Pitt for USC because USC boosters can raise millions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

People don’t watch college football and basketball to see the athletes or to see the game played at the highest level. They watch because the players represent the school and the community. They live on campus, they attend classes on campus, they share the campus experience. The fans love the campus, not the players. When that is lost—and it will be once student-athletes are paid—“college” sports will become just another professional sports league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA.

You are insane

[Anonymous]

Yes, if reasonable limits can be imposed on both amount paid to individual athletes as well salary cap limits for teams so that one team cannot buy all the top players as was done in the Bear Bryant era with scholarships.

Any individual limit should be in excess of career ending injury insurance policy premiums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

People don’t watch college football and basketball to see the athletes or to see the game played at the highest level. They watch because the players represent the school and the community. They live on campus, they attend classes on campus, they share the campus experience. The fans love the campus, not the players. When that is lost—and it will be once student-athletes are paid—“college” sports will become just another professional sports league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA.

You are insane

The BCS Championship this year featured the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama. Approximately 23 million people watched it on tv. If, say, the game was played with the exact same players but the teams were called the “Athens Bears” and the “Tuscaloosa Tigers”—and they were part of a professional second-tier football league like the XFL—think 23 million people would have tuned in? No way in hell. No professional football league besides the NFL has survived long-term. There is *no market* for football played at the second-highest level. That’s obvious. So why are so many people watching the BCS Championship? The schools. If the QBs for Georgia and Alabama could only throw the ball 10 yards, the game would still get super-high ratings. The fans care about the schools, the traditions, the states, the rivalries. They don’t care about the players.

[Anonymous]

It will mean the end of women’s college sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will mean the end of women’s college sports.

I think some women athletes have done quite well with NIL.

And Title 9 would still apply wouldn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will mean the end of women’s college sports.

I think some women athletes have done quite well with NIL.

And Title 9 would still apply wouldn't it?

Like it or not, colleges are able to pay for womens sports(and lesser valued mens sports) because of the revenue generated by mens sports. If they had to pay players, the revenue would be much lower. Something’s got to give. That said, I’m not sure the idea is that players would be paid. It sounds like players can profit off their name? I’m not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

People don’t watch college football and basketball to see the athletes or to see the game played at the highest level. They watch because the players represent the school and the community. They live on campus, they attend classes on campus, they share the campus experience. The fans love the campus, not the players. When that is lost—and it will be once student-athletes are paid—“college” sports will become just another professional sports league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA.

Schools comfortable in that belief can opt out of paying. Those fans can enjoy rooting for the laundry.