I assumed Pell Grants were to cover expenses not already covered by other scholarships. Guess I was wrong.
College football players are paid (indirectly), and that's the way it should be
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
I assumed Pell Grants were to cover expenses not already covered by other scholarships. Guess I was wrong.
An athlete doesn't have to site out a year of school if he transfers, he has to site out a year of athletics.
Or for that matter an athlete can just transfer to another school and become a regular student anytime he likes. A regular student can't become an athlete anytime he likes though.
ETA: When an athlete transfers I"m pretty sure he gets a scholarship for that year of school when he's not playing athletics, assuming of course he inquires of the coaches first and asks them if they'll put him on scholarship if he transfers to that school.
I don't know. And I don't think guys should have to attend college just because they want to play football. But that said, anyone anytime can start a minor league football league and try to attract those players that don't want to attend school by paying them cash instead of compensating them with education.
"Need" is established with a baseline of total cost of attendance - - - - which is WAY over the amount for Tuition/Room/Board/Books
The new "stipends" will likely reduce that unmet "need" for most kids...... not sure how much.
In any event:
Even if a kid gets a full athletic scholarship AND the new NCAA stipend - - - they still get PELL money if they qualify.
With the PELL grants, PRIOR to the new NCAA allowance, I expect a lot of kids were effectively getting that allowance (more or less) all along - - via PELL grants
Now -many of the kids from "lesser means" will be putting about $10,000 - $11,000 per year into their pockets with the combination of PELL and "stipend" - - - - over and above what is covered by their scholarship (tuition, room, board, books)
Obviously - that is still a pittance compared to the benefits reaped by the:
Coaches
Assistant Coaches
Athletic Directors
Assitant Athletic Directors
Associate Athletic Directors
Assistant Associate Athletic Directors
Quality Control Personnel
Player Development Personnel
Strength and Conditioning Personnel
Etc etc etc
Last edited:
But...... they don't ( for a million reasons)
My response was to your comment that they are not "indentured servants" unless they are only there to play football
My point is that IS the overwhelming reason, maybe the ONLY reason, many (if not most) of them are there.
And that is exactly how most Coaches want (demand) it.
Last edited:
I think a lot of them are there only to play football and part of the problem is that they were stars in high school and they're just certain they're going to be the next big thing in the NFL someday and all this business attending class is only getting in their way. That's why I think it would be a good idea if they were given some kind of lifetime tuition. I think then we'd see a lot of 25 year old former college football players that never made it in the NFL coming back to school and going to class and being serious about it.
"Need" is established with a baseline of total cost of attendance - - - - which is WAY over the amount for Tuition/Room/Board/Books
The new "stipends" will likely reduce that unmet "need" for most kids...... not sure how much.
In any event:
Even if a kid gets a full athletic scholarship AND the new NCAA stipend - - - they still get PELL money if they qualify.
With the PELL grants, PRIOR to the new NCAA allowance, I expect a lot of kids were effectively getting that allowance (more or less) all along - - via PELL grants
Now -many of the kids from "lesser means" will be putting about $10,000 - $11,000 per year into their pockets with the combination of PELL and "stipend" - - - - over and above whatvis covered by their scholarship (tuition, room, board, books)
Obviously - that is still a pittance compared to the benfeits reaped by the:
Coaches
Assistant Coaches
Athletic Directors
Assitant Athletic Directors
Associate Athletic Directors
Assistant Associate Athletic Directors
Quality Control Personnel
Player Development Personnel
Strength and Conditioning Personnel
Etc etc etc
Have you calculated how much money each scholarship kid could receive in lieu of Delaney's $20MM bonus? And that's just Delaney's bonus.
It's a good idea. The only problem with it is that a lot of these kids aren't adequately prepared for college and wouidn't survive without the kind of support they are provided when eligible. Do you believe the same level of support would be available when they aren't performing for Dear Old Whatever? I'm skeptical.
FWIW, Big Ten schools ostensibly committed to do this. I'd like to see one example of a successful outcome. To be fair, it's probably too early to be asking that.
They don't have to play at all. That way they can avoid this horrible thing that so many train all through middle school and high school to do. It generates a lot of money, but it's still a game that they get a free education to play.
And maybe colleges should field teams of students drawn from those that matriculate through the normal admissions process..That'll fill stadiums across the country.
It would...people go to watch the school and the team regardless of the players. We all love Barkley but what will happen once he leaves? We will watch and cheer for the next guy. If the talent level dropped across the board because all teams played by the same rules, people would still fill the stadium.
My buddy's son in law would have been a case in point--had he not been smart. He spent two seasons in the A's organization and never made it out of Rookie League. But before that, he went to college on scholarship and graduated from there--as I recall in accounting and now has a decent job and a kid.
Only for the bonus kids. Again, I refer you to the book "Prophet of the Sandlots" which goes into how it really works in the minors. In the lower ranks of the minors there isn't much money to go around--for the majority.
A lot of schools are doing that now. I seem to recall that tOSU does. You do see some of those players coming back for degrees later in life. There's usually an article or two about it during graduation season. Of course that's likely only for football and basketball.
Link
Ok--not lifetime, but they do something and have done it for many years. Here's where the NCAA could get out in front of the issue.
It's a business. The schools aren't losing money with these TV deals and they certainly don't seem to be getting smaller either. I know it's cute to pretend it isn't a business and that everything is good and pure, but coaches are now making over 10 million a year and most at least make 2-3 million a year at P5 schools. Yes the students do get a degree in return, but even with all of that money spent on their degrees by the schoool, how much is the school taking home? The NCAA and NFL have a great thing going here. One gets a free farm system and the other gets to pretend it's doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. It does provide a great number of kids an opportunity they may never had had even without pro ball, but those kids earned it with their unique athleticism and talents.
Soccer has lower leagues, but they are generally not a minor league system as we know it in the US. That's because the foundation of the system is clubs in the true sense of the word (places with a clubhouse and membership beyond the pro team) as opposed to the franchise system used in the US. Clubs tend to operate their own youth systems. Mind you, as the money gets bigger and bigger, the big pro teams don't look at that different from US team--to the point where the pro team is often split off from the main club as a separate company (though still tied to the club) so that if the pro team goes bankrupt, the club will still exist. Movement of clubs to different cities is thus rare (though sometimes a club will sell its pro license to another club in another city).
So you're telling me if all of D-1 football dropped to the talent level of D-2 and Penn State was winning Big championships and playing for national titles, people wouldn't follow them and turn out for the games? If everyone was at a similar level and your team had the best QB or the best RB in the nation, fans would still cheer for the guy even if he's not at the level of Barkley. It's the relativity that matters. If the talent level fell and the Ivy League schools were competing for national championships, their attendance would sky rocket.
Well, yes, more or less, that's exactly what I am saying. Sure, people will turn out, even the Ivies still get 8K per game, however, I'd be shocked if attendance would be more than 20K at Beaver for that level of football. Student apathy would almost certainly creep in and very, very few - except for you, maybe - would spend thousands of dollars on a trip to see Division 2. The old alums who remember the "good ol' days" will die out and will not be replaced, which, I think, is going to happen to PSU anyway but that's a different topic.
I disagree because if the team is still winning and competing and every other team is in the same boat, how is it any different than now? The average fan doesn't know the difference between a good player and a great player except in terms of how they do against the competition. If our QB is better than the other team's QB, then the average fan sees that. They don't see that their footwork isn't up to a D-1 level, or they don't read defenses at a D-1 level. If the stands were filled with football experts, then maybe they would stop coming due to quality of play. But the stands aren't filled with experts, they're filled with people there to have a good time, tail gate, and cheer on their team. And as younger people come up through, they would never know there was ever a difference so it wouldn't affect them at all.
Here's some news: the Yale Bowl seats 64K, Franklin Field 52.5K. Total 2016 home attendance for Yale and Penn could be accommodated at one time at each of those fields with plenty of room to stretch out.
Makes no difference, the Ivy League schools are not competing on a national level. They're not trying to get in the CFP or make a bowl game. That's why there's low interest. If, however, suddenly all the teams were playing at the same level and the Ivy League teams were competing on a national level, it would be a different scenario. That's exactly my point.
Neither will PSU or most of the Big Ten for that matter. If the football team has to be drawn from regularly admitted students the national championship trophy will never make it north of the Mason*Dixon line.
No school is going to do it. They admit kids who they otherwise never would to make money. They pay coaches millions of dollars to make money College sports might be the only money-making enterprise in the US where the major participants have no say in how much they get paid or how they get paid.
Again, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them. My son played D-1 baseball and believe me, they get paid. And if my son got as much as he did for baseball, I can't imagine what football and basketball players get. And my son was a walk on, not even a scholarship player. With free room and board, free tuition, stipends, apparel, free tutoring, etc. they aren't wanting for much. And when they go on the road and get their stipend, they have food provided for them as well so they keep their stipend and use it for spending money. I'm not sure how much people think they should get paid beyond that. I didn't know college was supposed to be a lucrative career for a student.
When the average student can raise tens of millions of dollars a year for the University, you can compare them to the a player like Barkley. The school isn't just handing out free money to these kids as they get a lot of $$$ in return or a 107k seat stadium wouldn't exist along with the $20+ million in TV money.
Last edited:
So in three more years PSU won't be making any money because the guys that are playing now won't be there anymore? You're telling me it's the players that bring in that money and not the school? I guess Bama just started making money when this group of players got there.
If you have a business that makes millions of dollars and all of your employees leave every three to four years, is it really your employees that is leading to your success or is it your brand? In that scenario would you pay your employees a lot or a little knowing they will be leaving no matter what?
This thought that Universities are making millions off the backs of poor, helpless indentured servants is ridiculous. The players have a choice, play or don't play. No one is forcing them and if someone chooses not to play, someone else will willingly do it for them and the fans will continue to support the team.
Actually with the current setup in football they don't have a real choice as the NFL uses the NCAA as a free farm system. The schools don't say boo about it because they are making millions of dollars off of the main revenue grabbing sports. I get people are jealous that these guys get free education, but guess what in the real world the best people make more money and get better things. That is what we call life. It's not always fair and if the kids every did really unionize, they really would get some money on the side. I guess those that will be upset whey then finally do start getting some extra "legal" cash can always jump to the IVY league or D3 since it would bother them so much.
It's ok for Nick Saban to make 11 million a year, but give some kids 2-3k a semester and college football as we know it will change. If anything I wish they would do that and actually crack down on the loaner car, pre paid credit card/phones, and cash on the side that has been going on forever.
Try this: what is the primary purpose of members of the football team, palying football or getting an education? of what other group of students can it be said that the primary purpose for them to be on campus isn't education?
Look at it another way. How would you feel if every employer in your field fixed the compensation level for your job. Doesn't matter who you go to work for, you're going to make the same thing. Of course you don't have to work in the field that you're good at, in which you've spent long hours developing skill and expertise. You can always bag groceries.
Going to college is not a job, it's to prepare you to get a job. If the NFL is in their future, then they are preparing to get a job like everyone else. If they don't go to the NFL then their education is preparing them to get a job. This has nothing to do with or should it be compared to a job.
I'm not jealous of their free education, I get upset when people act like that free education is not a lot of money. As someone who has put two kids through college with one getting through grad school I can tell you it's a butt ton of money. And instead of being pissed about Saban making $11 million, you should be pissed he doesn't make more. Using the same argument you're making for the players, compared to what Saban brings into the school, $11 million is a pittance.
So who's going to police the paying of these players? How much are they going to get? How will it not be abused? How much do other sports get? All of these things are what concern me.
It's a business and eventually they will get compensation on top of the scholly. You may not like it, but it seems like it is heading there IMO. People with exceptional talents get more things in life.
So what exactly is the main difference between college football and this illegal practice?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
Similar threads
