Help with paying players info...
by Nedryerson (2013-07-22 22:20:01)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Back Room ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

 



There have been some conversations on the board regarding arguments for and against paying players.

In a discussion now and need specific support for why this is a bad idea....


400 and 600 athletes per school >>variable costs.
by southshoredawg  (2013-07-23 09:34:23)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Given title IX etc at $300 a month you end up with close to $2mil a year in expenses.

For ND that's okay maybe but for those marginally or unprofitable schools then that will come from student fees which is $100 a head for the general population. Will students pay that? is it fair on top of free everything?

Assuming variable cost per athlete is already $18,000(basically meals but marginal housing and tuition) then each student is already subsidizing student athletes to a tune of $500 a year.


where do you draw the line?
by jaygamble  (2013-07-23 08:25:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Pay all sports (male/female) at every school? What level or division does it end? It just will not work. The way I see it is they already get paid, the athletes get to use the best gyms to workout in, free health insurance for injuries, transportation, food, equipment and most importantly free tuition.


Correct.
by vitadulcedospes  (2013-07-23 16:08:32)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The NCAA already has programs to provide spending money to the truly indigent student-athletes.

The rest of 'em? Tell them to call Mom and Dad to borrow money. Or may take out a few loans like the rest of us did.


Depends on what "paying players" means.
by baloo88  (2013-07-22 23:38:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If it means changing the athletic scholarship from tuition, room, and board only to full cost of attendance, I can't think of many downsides. The additional money is meant to cover things like transportation, clothing, personal hygiene, and entertainment. I think a $2,500-3,500 annual stipend paid out monthly or biweekly probably would cover those expenses. I think any more than that would begin to compromise amateur status.


Where do you think funds would come from. Most schools
by IrishJoeinnc  (2013-07-23 08:38:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

don't break even since those Title laws came into play.

ND could pay but perhaps most couldn't. Many would simply drop all but the least expenses sports; if they didn't produce revenue, they would be dropped, too.


They'll drop some sports and/or raise tuition.
by Queensman  (2013-07-23 10:03:01)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Its just like any other business that has additional fixed cost forced upon them without a corresponding revenue source. They deal with it in one of three ways:

1- Increase revenue. In this case raise tuition for all the other non-scholarship students or find some "benefactor" to set up funding for it.

2 - Decrease expenses. Most likely, they cannot cut expenses in non-athletic activities to make up the gap without significant backlash. So they'l just cut some other sports. In the north, it probably means baseball and softball go away (regardless whether they are winning programs or not).

3 - Suck it up and let it hit the bottom line. Ain't happening.

As always, the greed of the few (successful football and men's basketball programs) will come at the cost of the many (every non-revenue sport athlete and regular student). And as always, the few will force feed it into the media as "the right thing to do for our struggling student athlete". Of course, all the jock sniffers across the country will eat it up.

Finally, it will do nothing to stop cheating or wannabe hangers on from dousing players with gifts.


In case it helps your math, football is exempt from Title IX
by cujays96  (2013-07-23 09:54:13)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There would be nothing wrong with dropping certain sports to club level. No, the goal of college athletics should not necessarily be revenue generation but the sports should be self-sustaining.


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.