2WL - you don't believe in capitalism -- so why do you think athletes should profit?

It's always necessary to remember in situations like this that these student athletes do get pretty much get a free or heavily subsidized college education out of the deal. So "unfair" is probably not the right word to use. I lived on the same dorm floor and was casual friends with some basketball players at the University of Illinois, and it was pretty obvious none of those guys would have gotten into as good of a school if they were just getting there on their brains. And apart from the guy on my dorm floor (whose room reeked of weed and girls' laughter all through finals week) they put in all the effort into schoolwork any other popular communications or sports and recreation studies major would. For every story of Johnny Football possibly getting screwed there are hundreds more of things working out pretty well for student athletes.

Having said all that, this can't be the best way to run the system. I've heard a bunch of reform proposals and some sound quite good, but the fact is that the NCAA is a bureaucracy with intrenched interests just like any other. As long as the current system keeps letting universities rake in the dough then changes will just be superficial, if that.

The ncaa makes millions and millions. Think of the size of the stadiums. Not to mention apparel and other stuff. Each student athlete receives compensation In the form of education and room and board. Its not a fair deal under any circumstances.

Eh. What does fair even mean? I'm pretty sold on the idea of generous stipends (especially needs based ones since many of these players come from nothing), but we shouldn't be treating them like professional athletes either, even though some of them obviously will be.

It's a tough balance to get right and I certainly don't know how to do it.

If they will be, then the money don't make selling autographs will be made with a fat professional contract (please forgive the term fat - it was not an attack on otherly-weighted individuals...I'm a little sensitive here...)

If they do *not* make it to the pro's, then they weren't good enough to be selling their autographs anyway, and, (hopefully) they received a cheaper education than most of their fellow students and they get to go find a job like the rest of us.

Funny...when an Engineering student assists a professor in his studies which results in the marketing of billion dollar technology, I don't see anybody whining about the Academic students not getting their cut.

Sheer hypocrisy.

And if we start paying student athletes then how can universities afford to keep subsidizing English departments?

Edit...If they will become professional athletes, then the money they don't make selling autographs will be made....<and so on>

Unfortunately, I think krellin's kind of right here (except for the hypocrisy thing, learn to use that word).

Sure, it's a bit low of the NCAA, and they probably shouldn'y be punishing someone for selling autographs, but sports bring money into the universities, and the guys who are good enough to get payed are going to get payed a whole lot more money, while the rest of them still get a chance at an education.

"Funny...when an Engineering student assists a professor in his studies which results in the marketing of billion dollar technology, I don't see anybody whining about the Academic students not getting their cut."

Funny, because the professor doesn't get anything either. In most cases, intellectual property is the property of the university. Nor are grad assistants hyped on TV, video games, and merchandise purely for the profit of the NCAA and associated schools as well as the big sports companies (Nike, adidas) and video game companies. You've got no argument here, krellin.

As far as the "free college education" goes, look at big time football school graduation rates:

Texas: 57%

Oklahoma: 48%

Arkansas: 55

South Carolina: 55

And these are just three examples. Saying that half of these scholarship football players can't graduate (and this figure is for SIX years, not four) doesn't speak very highly of these football scholarships, does it?

I think that's more an indictment of the players. Shockingly, some people really good at sports are also really dumb. They got a shot at a college education, though. If they can't graduate then that's their fault.

2WL - regardless of whether a prof gets the money or the university (which then pays the professor an excessive wage....please, let's not pretend the Prof doesn't get his just reward, my good man...)....regardless of who gets the money, students do the work, but doesn't get the money.

As for graduation rates of football players - what is your point? That has nothing to do with money. That has more to do with....er....lack of intellectual rigor, a system that perverts the rules to get star athletes to play, students that don't graduate because they join the draft, students that don't graduate because they don't study, etc....but it has nothing to do with them not getting money.

It's a PROBLEM...but it's not a money problem.

For that matter, what is non-football player graduation rates? Lot's of kids drop out of school.

athletic departments should just break off from universities and form their own minor leagues and get it over with

that's what the athletic programs are, let's not kid ourselves

@Invictus even the most dimwitted of people have the intellectual capacity to graduate university. If during your university career you had expectations and commitments that took up as much time as these football players, you would probably also find it difficult to graduate. The failrate represents a failure of the universities to follow through on what the offered these athletes. They profit from them and ultimately push them aside as soon as they are not cash cows anymore.

ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. PE wins. Unfortunately nobody but the under represented athletes would benefit from that so it's not going to happen.

@ PE

Eh. That would be throwing over 100 years of tradition into the can. Sure, college sports are corrupt as anything else, but I think with the right reforms the system can still be salvaged.

Would it make sense to make some sort of rule that dictates that colleges/universities can't profit from their athletic programs i.e. all merchandise and ticket revenue must be used to continue funding the athletic program?

100 years of tradition...of what? Wringing as much cash out of these "student" athletes as possible before discarding them with no real skills or support structure or even a guarantee of a degree?

Take Kevin Ware. Broke his leg in half on national TV. Louisville obviously has an insurance policy for its athletes, but after Ware graduates, he's shit out of luck. The school and the NCAA have no obligation to continue paying for any costs related to that injury, even though it came during a school sponsored sporting event sanctioned by the NCAA. What makes this even worse is that Louisville profited off the sale of Kevin Ware t shirts worn during the championship game.

GF, keep the names and shared revenue and all that crap between NCAA and the colleges but drop the idea that the basketball players need to be amateur athletes who's payment is a college degree that they're likely getting very little out of.

Pay the athletes proportionately to what they're worth to industry instead of artificially deflating the expenses of NCAA/Colleges/NBC/etc. by putting amateurism on a pedestal.

The drop out rates show how insignificant college education is as compensation at that point in their lives.

" even the most dimwitted of people have the intellectual capacity to graduate university. If during your university career you had expectations and commitments that took up as much time as these football players, you would probably also find it difficult to graduate."

I agree with the second sentence but not the first. You obviously don't know enough stupid people. As for the commitment making it hard to graduate, that's certainly true. This may be surprising to you, but late-teens and early-twenties men who are good at sports and really in shape have access to a lot of distractions on a college campus. Add that with the practice and travel schedule (and the fact that guys often get in on scholarships without the academic skills needed to succeed) and it's not surprising graduation rates are lowish. But what else can you do?

Forming "minor leagues" is a ridiculous idea on so many levels. For one, it could only even plausibly work for certain sports at certain schools. Alabama's football program may survive detached from the school somehow, but would water polo? What about a football program at a non-powerhouse but still FBS school like the University of Akron? How much do universities depend on the money being brought in by athletics to pay for education, research, and administration?

Like I said, this is a hard thing to get right.

"Alabama's football program may survive detached from the school somehow, but would water polo? What about a football program at a non-powerhouse but still FBS school like the University of Akron?"

At a big time sports school like Alabama, football pays the budget for all varsity sports. This is the case at a lot of schools, not just big time programs. At my alma mater, Siena, basketball was the cash cow that paid the bills for all sports programs. At a school like Akron, they make their athletic dept. money off games with big programs early in the season - "cupcake" games. Alabama will pay a shitty program to travel to their home field and get trounced by 70 in exchange for $500-600K. The arrangement is mutually beneficial - 'Bama gets an easy win, Akron gets to field sports programs, and once in a while there's an upset that garners a lot of attention for the small school (Appalachian State, for example).

Who cares if unprofitable sports wouldn't survive?

I don't know about LSU, but at my school, the female volleyball players were all gorgeous...and you want to take that away from me?

I'm rarely the voice of moderation, but separating sports from schools is a bad idea. There's got to be a more moderate solution.

Like paying the athletes?

That's not exactly what I had in mind. If there was some sort of ideal fairy land where college athletes played for the love of the game and the NCAA/universities didn't rake in insane profits, would you support it?

These poor, poor student athletes. They're really good at playing games, and all they get for their trouble is a free quarter-million dollar education, national fame, the adoration of their peers, and all their living expenses paid for them. Hang on, I'm trying to force a tear for them. Wait... wait...no... nope, sorry, the tears just aren't coming.

Treat it like we do retirement. A monthly stipend that gets reduced based on other outside income then make the income allowable but requirr it be reported. Then a student has to be intentionally dodging the system rules to have broken them and he or she gets booted. The stipend would be small and fixed by the NCAA for all student athletes equally.

The education, while valuable to many of us, is not worthwhile compensation for them when you look at the industry as a whole. It is absurd how the university gets away without compensating them while racking in millions and millions for itself. The universities are not non-profit organizations with altruistic intentions. The universities and NCAA should be treated as businesses and their employees compensated appropriately.

There is no non-profit anymore. The term is not-for-profit now as they can male a profit but it isn't their statee goal and the money remains the not-for-profit's money, not something that gets transferred out to owners or shareholders.

Now the athletes also keed to realize that they lose elegibility for certain amateur sporting events if they get paid. Used to be that way with the Olympics but I guess that doesn't apply since the dream team came about.