June 9, 2007
College Players Should be Paid
The disparity between what the scholarships are worth and the amount of money that these student athletes bring to their universities is appalling. These students are taking the time that most students work part time at near minimum wage and laying it all on the line for their university varsity team. Everyone agrees that most universities have been less than stellar at graduating high profile student athletes. Why not tie the two together to achieve a common goal?
While college athletes are by no means entitled to 5 digit incomes for their participation, colleges in good academic standing should be allowed to offer modest stipends to players who are succeeding academically. While I don’t want to start a name calling war, many have observed that some of the universities with the worst student athlete academic record are considered the elite teams in college football.
By rewarding teams with a history of academic success for its athletes with a stipend for their student athletes, the smaller universities can gain on the recruiting gap between themselves and other universities with a big name but no academic record to back it up.
In the wide audience varsity sports scholarships are par for the course. Scholarships are revoked if schools fall under a certain bar, set by the NCAA. Instead of focusing on the worst offenders, this concept focuses on the best achievers.
The ability to offer stipends should be reviewed regularly, and the standards need to be kept nearly as high as the standards for revoking scholarships is low. The burden of proof to take away a scholarship is on the NCAA; to prove the university does not deserve its regular allotment of scholarships. The burden of proof for the stipends should be on the teams; to prove they have the academic record to merit them.
This is what I think. I am done ranting for now; it has been too long without a game…
Please point out my fallacies below.
Ben Prather
Comments:
Bo Knows Auburn sucks said:
posted on June 9, 2007 4:11 PM — 68.190.54.215 — link — abuse?
So I guess the free education, books, food, and housing are not enough now? It costs me somewhere in the neighborhood of $9,000 a year to go to Georgia, not including food or housing. I think getting a free ride to play a game is pretty fair.
By giving money to the football players, tilte IX would require that an allowance also be issed to the all of the members of the school's other sports teams. Therefore women's basketball, women's soccer, women's knitting...etc. would have to be given the same dollars, which would only add to their financial drain on the school.
And BTW, you said you didn't want to name names of the schools that leave the academic out of college football...but I do. How about Auburn and Tennessee. They would find some way to use the stipend as a tool to cheat more. Yes, I did say more.
Regan said:
posted on June 9, 2007 4:26 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Arms Race. Recruiting Tools. Slippery Slope. Free Education. Investment in NFL millions. Taxpayer Money.
I understand the intentions, and they make sense. But if any payment to players is made, it must be a non-monetary regulated system, or else, the arms race WILL eventually begin...
Diggs the Mountie said:
posted on June 9, 2007 4:59 PM — 68.48.90.248 — link — abuse?
Didn't ESPN have a show devoted to showing "The top ten reasons you can't blame the NCAA for not playing College Players"? I caught the a$$ end of it but........from what I saw of that episode......I think I have to side with the NCAA on this subject.
Tomcat said:
posted on June 9, 2007 5:46 PM — 68.93.142.91 — link — abuse?
No monetarty payment should be made period. I for one beleive that the Alumm organizations should be allowed to assist the student atheletes more freely.For example if a kid gets a job at a car dealer and pads his time sheet, if its okay with the boss, then I dont see any problem with it.Or if a kids parents get a nice place to live rent free so what.Some individual wants to furnish the kid with a new vehicle so what. Im against any form of payment to the kids after all they are getting a very expensive education that will benefit their family for generations.
Hookem-Horns
Viva Los Spurs
Does Mitches Mom have a cool crib on the west coast? Did Craig James and Eric Dickerson drive used pintos at SMU? or new Firebirdsgoodolnuma5 said:
posted on June 9, 2007 7:45 PM — 65.24.221.145 — link — abuse?
Hell, I should be paid for my time in college!
Look, I used to walk across the place where the football players used to eat. I smelled steak. STEAK! I wasn't getting steak! And I was on the track team!
Puhleeeeez Ben. Maybe in 1960. Maybe if their girlfriends were ugly. Maybe if they had to buy their own books.
BTW, book-buying is the REAL sham.
Playin college ball is an OPPORTUNITY, you do with it what you want. There will always be guys who piss it away, that's not good or bad, its the way it is. Don't like it? Then don't sign that letter of intent.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on June 9, 2007 8:24 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Honestly, I dont think student athletes should get paid any amount of money at all.
Couple points here.
Yes, student athletes dedicate just as much time as a student with a part-time job. Yet, most students with a part time job have one to help pay for their education - something athletes dont have to worry about at all so it evens out in that sense.
A college education is EXTREMELY expensive, so that's all the payment they need. Some tuitions these kids don't have to pay are upwards of 40 grand a year (Duke, Miami, Vandy, ND, ect ect).
Yes, the schools make a lot of money off athletic program but in comparison not much of it is PROFIT. In fact, MOST athletic programs are NOT profitable as it is.
Lets be real here though, the student athletes make just as much money in the short/long term as the university does. They get maximum exposure to the NFL or NBA. Because of their college careers they will go on to make MILLIONS. If not, they'll have a quality education to have a career.
It's a nice idea "rewarding" kids for graduating but I think tens of thousands of dollars in college education is plenty of "payment."
hokie4life said:
posted on June 9, 2007 9:37 PM — 67.72.98.108 — link — abuse?
BULLSHIT!!! Start paying kids to play ball I'm sure I wont be the only one to say goodbye college football. A lot of these kids are getting a quality education in return for their dedication to the schools athletic teams. Besides a lot of these players have great chances at going pro where they can be paid. Does anyone think theres a chance a kid could get recognized to play at the next level if it weren't for the college they play for? The kids need the college as much as the college needs them!!! Hell if your a USC player your already getting paid hahaha!!! USC is as corrupt as the town it resides. But that's beside the point.
Zac said:
posted on June 10, 2007 12:41 AM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
How much is tuition and fees at VA Tech, or GA Tech, or Wake, or Duke? It's pretty hefty, I'd imagine. A non-resident pays almost $50,000.00/yr to attend Syracuse. Christ, people, isn't that enough? Yes, a college football player has to work hard. Tell me, do gymnasts, swimmers, those who run track, wrestle, play soccer or tennis work any less hard for their scholarships? Nobody's offering to pay them. You do for one, you have to do for all. I'm with Tomcat, Hokie4life, and the rest of you guys; enough is already being done, and enough is enough!!!
hrposon said:
posted on June 10, 2007 1:22 AM — 70.116.117.177 — link — abuse?
If the school that is giving their football and basketball student athlete a free education, preparing them for the rest of their life and then has to pay them, does that mean the Title IX student athlete should pay the school for the right to play their money losing sport?
Dman said:
posted on June 10, 2007 2:38 AM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
To Hokie4life
Yes USC is corrupt. And yes, You are from a state
where keeping it in the Family really means some-
thing. USC pays it's players and men in your state
pay child support to thier sisters. So in the end who really cares, you are what others think you are, regardless of what the truth is. You just keep thinking USC pays it's players and I'll just keep thinking your wife is also your Aunt.
posted on June 10, 2007 8:52 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
I couldn't disagree more. Ben's post equates the college experience to indentured servitude. In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's take a look at the numbers. Rather than look at a small to mid-level school (where I think most would presume that money isn't flowing hand over fist - ie Utah, Bowling Green, Marshall, etc), let's take a look at one of the biggies. Here goes:
LSU
Reporting Year: 7/1/2005-6/30/2006
Number of Full-time Undergraduates: 25,709
276 Unduplicated male athletes on scholarship
171 Unduplicated female athletes on scholarship
----------------------
447 Scholarship athletes
$64,899,170 Total Revenues
$62,672,793 Total Expenses
----------------------
$2,226,377 Gross Athletic Profits
So LSU has an gross operating profit. Since we don't have the numbers for capital funds, A&G expenses, debt services, etc.... let's just work with that gross profit number. Fair? More than fair, I'd say.So, if 447 athletes split $2.26 million, then each student would get $4,980, or roughly five grand.
Now comes the fun parts that Ben either chose to ignore, or is simply ignorant of the facts and thus failed to consider.
For example, does the university have a right to use any of its gross profits towards further expenses (the capital, A&G, debt, etc that I mentioned earlier)? If so, how much?
Should the university set aside some percentage of money so that it could pay athletes in years that the school doesn't turn a gross profit? If so, how much?
Should the university expect to keep some percentage of the gross profits, given that the school has built the "brand" (if you will) that makes the revenues possible, as well as the facilities, and is assuming all of the financial risk? If so, how much?
While you chew on those questions, let's look at what each student *is* receiving.
Nonresident Tuition $6,445.50* (12hrs)
Housing $3250/semester (campus apartment)
Dining $1,478/semester (5-day unlimited)
Books $500/semester (Estimate by LSU)*One note above, *many* universities pay the out-of-state rate to the university for *all* scholarships because it is the athletic departments discretion to provide a scholarship in-state/out-of-state.
So, that works up to $11,673.5 per semester or $23,347 per year. (Of course, athletes can attend summer session, too, so I guess we should make that three semester terms/year).
$35,020.5 TOTAL SCHOLARSHIP BENEFIT PER YEAR
And now, let's consider the intangibles, such as... what is the value of the leadership component taught by athletics to the student-athlete? What is the value of athletics on the professional resume? What is the value of future career opportunities because of their participation in athletics?Ben is 100% dead wrong. Just because athletes are not getting cash-in-hand does not mean they are slaves to the system. Forget the long-term benefits of a college education (or even the long-term benefits of a pro sports career!), and let's just look at the numbers as we know them.
Ben's plan --using this example-- would pay every athlete $5,000/year for a whopping total of $20K over four years.
The reality --using this example-- is that schools provide $140,082 to athletes over four years.
Student athletes receive the most valuable item our education system has to offer - a full-ride college diploma. The opportunity that athletes have can set them (and their families!) up for life.
If you want to argue what percentage of each 4"x6" ad in the gameday magazine should every athlete get - your missing the entire forest, every tree, and only seeing acorns.
Grow up, Peter Pan.
gatorhippy said:
posted on June 10, 2007 10:19 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Even further along that line that K-Hue brought up...
What about those students that are research intensive and bring funds into the school through that route...
Wouldn't they to deserve a part of the revenue generated through their "services" provided to the university...
Of course not...
As their payoff will come post graduation, so should all SA's...
MrGamecockFan said:
posted on June 10, 2007 10:20 AM — 63.167.255.206 — link — abuse?
How come the point has not been made yet that not every athlete in college is on scholorship? There are many athletes out there who pay those costs of a higher education, while at the same time devoting much of their days pursuing a sport in which they may never make it to the pros, or to those bigger paychecks as many of you presume. How can you possibly argue the point that thes athletes in particular are not entitled to some means of compensation? And, this stupid argument that keeps rearing its ugly head as to the fact that athletes should be in college for an education...GET REAL! These athletes are only in college because the NFL (not the NBA) dictate that in their policies. It's a step that has to be taken and cannot be circumvented. In the words of the late Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Back to School, "When's the last time you saw people come to watch a kid take a test?" I'm not sure of the exact quote, but hopefully you get my point.
Tomcat said:
posted on June 10, 2007 11:06 AM — 68.93.142.91 — link — abuse?
# 13 Kevin Ditto, ditto, ditto, Thanks well put.
In addition to tuition, books, meals & housing student atheletes also benifit from little perks that other students do not have.
I know one guy that played baseball for a major state funded school, there was always a party after a home win, food, drinks etc. etc. His friends and family always had tickets to home games. These types of things dont sound like much and the University is probably not directly involved, however these things add up and these type of things do occur in addition to being given a full ride , the opportunity that most folks cant afford.
Viva Los Spurs
Hookem-Hornsgatorhippy said:
posted on June 10, 2007 12:02 PM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
MGCF (#16):
Any SA that walks on at a D-1 school has done so by choice...
Walk-ons usually would have the option to pick up a scholarship at a lower level of play but want to prove themselves by opting to attempt a walk on at a higher level...
This is their choice topay their way rather than accepting a scholarship where their education, housing, meals, etc would be paid for...
Horn4Life said:
posted on June 10, 2007 12:40 PM — 70.122.217.67 — link — abuse?
no no no they should NOT get paid...they dont have to worry about the 20,000$ fees and on top of that u wanna pay them..and once u start paying them some college football players will lose their desire to win a national championship..leave it how it is now
Tom Blogical said:
posted on June 10, 2007 4:25 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
Fine, pay them. But if they're paid, then their major is the sport they're participating in. Set it up for accreditation anyway it has to be. If they want a degree in another field, say Marketing, Management, Psychology, or anything else, they have to pay for it.
If that's not something that's an acceptable alternative, then I say tough. If athletes want to get paid because it's so "unfair" that universities are making all the money and the athletes aren't, then they have the option to go pro.
Nobody ever said life was fair. If it was, then I (and everybody else, for that matter) would dominate at the sport I love and I would have the option of being a college player or gazillionaire, too.
Guess what? I don't get that option...and you know what? That's just tough. Sucks to be me.
Zac said:
posted on June 10, 2007 10:27 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
GatorH (Post 15) brings up a good point. How many of you have had to write research papers for your professors? How many of you have heard of others writing research papers for professors, and the professors used that information in their research, giving no credit to the student, what-so-ever? The prof gets the credit, the notoriety, sometimes award recognition, and all the money and grants that go with it. The student gets the A or the extra credit they need to get the A, and is never heard from again. So, if an institute of higher learning gains something through the acts of its students, athletes or not, said students should get a percentage? Sorry folks, rightly or wrongly, it's not gonna happen.
On another note, Hokie4 life, geeeze, just because I caught you on that "choke" thing…
gatorhippy said:
posted on June 11, 2007 9:57 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Ultimately, the idea that is lost in major college athletics such as football is that they are extracurricular activities of which participation is a privilege...
These SA's are at any time able to quit, get a job and pay their own way through school...
It just might not be the particular school of their choice without a scholarship to back it up...
IBleedOrange said:
posted on June 11, 2007 11:05 AM — 65.107.56.104 — link — abuse?
The thing that makes college sports so great is that the players aren't getting paid (in the traditional sense) to play. Most of them go out there and pour their heart and soul into the sport that they play because it is what they love to do, even though there is no multi-million dollar deal waiting for the majority of them once their college days are over. They know before they sign the letter of intent or step onto the field for the 1st time to try to walk on to the team that they won't be paid for thier efforts, and THEY make the CHOICE to play the sport. I think the opportunity to play the sport that they love at the next level is payment enough.
IrishJT said:
posted on June 11, 2007 11:39 AM — 65.83.54.4 — link — abuse?
Some players already do get paid...just not by the schools themselves. Alums love to put envelopes in sportcoats for their favorite athletes. It happens everywhere, even at my beloved. But these kids get an education that is priceless. I think that if a kid leaves early from college he should have to reimburse the school for his scholarship. They should do it just like the service academies: finish your commitment or pay us back for loss in investment.
What communist pig wants to pay college football players? For what? Agreeing to play? Agreeing to see the whole country, different schools, be on TV, have some sort of local celebrity? Pay them because the university makes money off of their labors? We should then pay everyone that makes a dime for the universities, from the editor of the student newspaper who sells ad space to the Doctoral candidate who helps win the school MILLIONS in grant/research money each year.
Gimme a break. Please don't let communism invade sport. It is already prevalent in our own Congress.
Maurice said:
posted on June 11, 2007 12:13 PM — 204.117.78.97 — link — abuse?
Hell no College players should not get paid. You know what will happen if you start paying players. NCAA football will turn into the MLB. Certain teams will be like the Yankees of MLB. Kids get a free eduacation and free trips from 5 up to 7 different citie, what else do they need. If you start paying players only couple of teams can compete the National title. The BCS is bad enough, but paying player would be worse.
TampaGator said:
posted on June 11, 2007 12:23 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
IrishJT/#26:
Paying players...and everyone else involved would be capitalism run amok; not communism. Communism would be more like....well, what we have now.
We (the Univ) put all the money collected in one big pot; you take what we give you; we tell you what we can and can't do...sounds like communism to me.
...and all this time I was opposed to paying student athletes...I think I'm going to have to re-evaluate my position....
...the hell with that; student athletes get plenty of consideration for their participation in sports. If they want more, they can get it in the NFL or NBA or MLB....
...but if they want to attempt to hold us hostage for more $$$--we'll just replace them with able boddied STUDENTS who will play for scholly's--or simply watch the real pros in the NFL etc...
GO GATORS!!
TampaGator said:
posted on June 11, 2007 12:26 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Supplement to #28:
We (the Univ) put all the money collected in one big pot; WE OWN EVERYTHING, YOU OWN NOTHING, you take what we give you; we tell you what we can and can't do...sounds like communism to me.
GO GATORS!!
TampaGator said:
posted on June 11, 2007 1:06 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Gentlemen:
Let me be perfectly clear here; I despise communism; I'm a proud capitalist pig to the core.
I was simply pointing out that the system we now have resembles communism more than it does capitalism (in reply to IrishJT's comment), and that Prather's proposal would frankly be more consistent with capitalism.
However, I think playing CFB players is patently absurd. It's like suggesting:
"...hey, can we please be forced to pay WAY MORE than what we're currently paying now for the same product...please?"
And THAT offends my capitalist sensibilities.
GO GATORS!!
FanoftheGame said:
posted on June 11, 2007 2:31 PM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
This article is absurd. Any attempt to justify it ir its purpose is equally absurd. No two schools are the same, neither academically nor athletically. The only fair way to reward scholarship athletes is already implemented at every school. A scholarship is worth an education and good grades are worth a diploma. No one is forced to accept a scholarship and no one is forced to attend college. These are the terms and conditions a scholarship athlete accepts when they sign on. If they want to get paid then they should sit at home until they are eligible to try out for a professional team and roll the dice.
Now, I do think the NCAA should be sympathetic to certain circumstances regarding athletes and do their best to look out for the athletes best interest and well being(which is not always the case). But putting them on the payroll would be the start of the end for college athletics.Zac said:
posted on June 11, 2007 5:15 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Hey, Maurice, if the players were paid, and it became MLB, we wouldn't need scholarships We wouldn't even need recruiting. The NCAA, God luv em, could institute a draft. Just think, FL would have the last pick of all the blue chippers; Duke would be among those with the 1st picks. Oh my GOD!!! In 5 or 6 years, Duke could win the National Championship.
AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
Ahem…hope it happens, Duke winning a NC, that is; Otherwise, I still say scholarship athletes get more than enough, thank you very much.
'Cane Mutiny said:
posted on June 11, 2007 5:35 PM — 65.9.216.157 — link — abuse?
IrishJT - How the hell would paying college football players be in any way like communism? That makes very little sense, and you obviously have some sort of diluted understanding of the world. And also, I'm sure that those 'under the table transactions' to college athletes occur a lot more at high-and-mighty Notre Dame than anywhere else...
posted on June 11, 2007 5:47 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse?
The problem with not being afraid to run with an opinion is that sometimes you are wrong. This appears to be one of those cases.
I do wish to rebut comment #15 by gator hippy. While attending the Universirty of Utah I recieved a work study that was reasearch grant funded and knew several graduate students who earned a stipend beyond the tuiition and books.
These opportunities are available to all students. This route is already available to colleges to reward triving students, who happen to be athletes.
Ok, paying college athletes is a bad idea. I still believe that punishing the bad programs by revoking scholorships is not the way to improve the academic performance of student athletes.
One only needs to look at the NCAA graduation rate reports to see that student athletes are not performing as well as thier non athlete peers.
This was a first draft idea to shift the focus to rewarding the schools who succeed in making students out of thier athletes.
I am interested in what other ideas exist to make this possible.
posted on June 11, 2007 6:51 PM — link — abuse?
@Ben (#37) - Your last statement is intriguing, and you might be on to something. I wonder if you are willing to pose the hypothetical as "should you pay college athletes who EXCEL in the classroom"? I still don't like the idea (just in principle), but I like it better than the former notion of just paying outright.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on June 11, 2007 7:59 PM — 66.174.92.166 — link — abuse?
Again:
Why should athletes get better incentives to excel in school?
Some students work full time to pay for their education along with going to school full time - are you going to reward them with a $$$$ reward???
Zac said:
posted on June 11, 2007 10:13 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Ben, I was a graduate assistant for a short stint at WVU. I wasn't paid tuition or fees, only a base hourly, which helped me to pay for tuition & fees. My son is involved with undergraduate research at the School of Mines in Rapid City, SD. Over the summer, he'll not be attending classes, but he'll get his room & board paid for, plus an equivalent hourly salary, which is his to do as he chooses. As for what you described, I guess it depends upon the grant and what it allows; i.e. the classes the student attends are paid for (books, fees, etc.), and the hours put into research are paid for (some hourly salary). I don't know if that's quite what you're describing, but it sounds logical to me, and apples and oranges (perhaps not even the same food group) to what we're discussing here. If nothing else, let's keep things in perspective. There's a big difference between self fulfilling recreation (playing games while keeping oneself in shape) and working a part time job which involves something that could benefit man-kind. On the surface it sounds the same; I don't see it that way.
You do raise an interesting point, regarding punishment. Taking SMU as an example, essentially, the entire team was punished, when the violations only involved a few players, members of the coaching staff, etc. My attitude is this. Perform the investigation. When the smoke clears, punish only those who are found guilty. If that means firing the head coach, members of his coaching staff, the AD, members of that school's board, who ever was found to be directly involved with the violations, so be it. As for the players involved, they loose a year of eligibility; they have to transfer to another school; sit out a year non-scholarship, before the coach of that school may utilize them. The team only has to suffer through the turmoil of, at worst, a major coaching change, and that's only after the investigation is concluded and the guilty revealed. What say you and Kev on that score? What say the rest of you?
TampaGator said:
posted on June 12, 2007 11:24 AM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Zac/#44:
Punishing only the guilty--sounds like our (US) policy against terrorism pre-9/11. Being proactive makes for a more effective deterent against future violations.
If you single out only the guilty, you make scapegoats for sacrifice--and the programs get to enjoy the ill-gotten fruits of dishonesty--essentially, with impugnity.
My $.02.
GO GATORS!!
posted on June 12, 2007 12:15 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Here are the overall football graduation rates for SEC schools for the last 4 years ended in 2006. Thanks for the updated stats, Ben Prather. I couldn't find these latest ones when I was looking for them recently.
I crunched the numbers so you won't have to. Teams ranked in order, followed by overall graduation rate of football players only.
1) VAN 92%
2) FL 80%
3) SC 64%
4) AUB 63%
5) MS 58%
5) TN 58%
7) MSU 57%
8) KY 55%
8) ARK 55%
10) LSU 49%
11) AL 44%
12) UGA 41%UGA bringing up the rear again. Where's Bo Knows to explain all this? Is UGA still accredited?
Zac said:
posted on June 12, 2007 1:42 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
TG: I disagree with your argument. To make certain I haven’t misunderstood you, we’ll use recent recruit, Noel Devine, as an example (I just know Diggs & GH will love this.). Purely hypothetical now; I don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression. Suppose WVU’s AD, Ed Pastilong, had heard of this phenomenal FL RB through a booster he has in his pocket. Having heard Rodriguez whine about what to do after Slaton departs the program, Pastilong, his booster buddy, a member of Rodriguez’s staff, and a couple of WVU players from FL, go to work on Devine. They pull out all the stops: plane tickets, cab fare, jobs for mom & dad, t-shirts, you name it. Somehow, the NCAA gets wind of the possible goings-on with this kid, determines an investigation is warranted, and invades Morgantown. Their investigation reveals said booster, Pastilong, an assistant coach, and a couple of players as the bad-ole-putty-tats involved. The results: Pastilong & the assistant coach are among the unemployed; Devine automatically looses his scholarship, a year of eligibility, has to attend another school w/o scholarship, and sit out for a year, and the two players each loose their scholarship, a year of eligibility, have to transfer to another school w/o scholarship, and sit out for a year. The bad news: WVU has to find an AD; Rodriguez is still whining because he doesn’t know what to do when Slaton leaves, and he has to find an assistant coach; his recruiting coordinator will have to find replacements for the players lost, in addition to Devine. The good news: His recruiting coordinator has one or more scholarships to work with; occasionally the nation will still see Slaton & White on TV, including what ever bowl they might attend. How is this unfair? In what way would this be an injustice? How has the school benefited in this scenario? I eagerly await your venerable council. Go Gators!!! (Hey, if I can say Hookem Horns once in a while…)
Po said:
posted on June 12, 2007 2:41 PM — 69.69.248.15 — link — abuse?
You can forget the argument that scholarship athletes get a 'free' education. They have to work their asses off year round AND go to school.
True, some allow themselves to be used by the schools, programs, boosters, etc. and major in 'Underwater Basketweaving' to gain credits, but many hardly live the lives as college students and enjoy the social aspects of college life. They are forebidden to take a part-time job during summers and many come from backgrounds which allow them to have extra spending money.
Pay them some allowance so when they do have free-time they can at least go out some weekends.gatorhippy said:
posted on June 12, 2007 4:23 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
Ben (#43):
Or the others fields of study which you stated received a stipend equal to housing and meals for the semester?
Also...
Could this work study be repeated for four - five consecutive years or essentially a "normal" college career?
Bo Knows Auburn suck said:
posted on June 12, 2007 5:29 PM — 68.190.54.215 — link — abuse?
War Eagle, I could care less about a schools graduation rate among athletes. I think we both know that Georgia is a much, much, much, much better school than Auburn. I don't know if you are from Atlanta, but if you are and you went to Auburn, it is more than likely because you could not get into UGA. Trust me, I know plenty of kids that did just that with high school GPAs ranging from 2.1-3.5.
Georgia is not lucky enough to have a Sociology department as esteemed as Auburns to manufacture players grades. When players come to a school under scholarship they are given every opportunity to earn a degree. If a player does not take advantage of that, I don't see how that becomes a reflection of the school academic quality. In fact, they now have a policy at UGA that requires student athletes to pay $10 for every class that they miss, greater that 2 or 3 I think. That seems like pretty good incentive to leave in itself.
If bragging about graduation rates at a school where class credits are earned with every fill up at the Exxon on the corner, than by all means, be my guest. But as long as Stafford's graduation rate is 100%, then to hell with the rest...and Georiga Tech.
TampaGator said:
posted on June 12, 2007 5:37 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Zac/#48:
I couldn't follow your example....took a few too many turns, and I had a busy day...
I'll just say this; if you can effectively isolate the violators and punish'em without leaving an unfair advantage, fine.
If a violating program starts playing shell games and handing over convenient scapegoats to cover up institutional corruption....then the NCAA needs to have the authority to kick the program in the shins.
GO GATORS!!....AND HOOK'EM HORNS
(No problem; Texas cleared the way for UF's first NC; I remain eternally grateful).
TampaGator said:
posted on June 12, 2007 5:47 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Zac:
Sorry about the "hook'em horns" thing (not for posting it, but for directing it to you)--brain flatulance...long day....
I remember you're a Big East fan, but I never picked up on which one. Please enlighten me.
GO GATORS!!
posted on June 12, 2007 6:14 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Ben: Where would you place the cutoff percentage of players graduated to receive this stipend? 70%? 75%? 80%?
It's interesting that your idea has morphed from initially basing it on a player's academic success to now the football program's as a whole. Either way has it's pluses and minuses, but I think the only way it truly presents a recruiting advantage is if the football program as a whole's graduation rate is the measure. Recruits who like the idea of a stipend would only consider those schools whose program qualifies. But then those schools may want the ability to cut certain players whose academic prowess brings the program down. And we know how that would go over.
Opens up quite the can of worms, but it's interesting. I would never consider a general stipend, but I like this angle. Thoughts, anyone?
posted on June 12, 2007 6:22 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Bo Knows #2: If you weren't such a dumbass, you would have qualified for the Hope scholarship in GA and had a free ride courtesy of the lottery. Then daddy could spend that money on something you really need--like therapy.
You might get a better bargain down at Valdosta state...
TrojanHorse said:
posted on June 9, 2007 3:13 PM — 75.75.86.11 — link — abuse?geez.. this thread has been up how long and no comments on how USC is already paying their players!!!!