Response to Johnny's "There's so much money going around, well, mostly"

smith5568's picture
May 15, 2013 at 7:54p
76 Comments

I started out writing a post under the actual article but found myself creating a long, thought out argument so I created this instead. 

I do not feel that players should be compensated anymore than they already are. As many have mentioned, the costs of attending a university (tuition, books, living expenses, interest on student loan debt, etc.) are extremely high and more than adequately compensate the players. 

It seems as though the majority of the opposing camp seems to hang their hat on the idea that the level of compensation a player receives from a scholarship is inequitable when compared with coaches salaries and the revenues generated by athletic departments. Well I ask, what about a med student who pays tuition to the university for the opportunity to learn their profession and refine their craft? They are stewards of The Ohio State University Medical School and the Les Wexner Medical Center. How they perform in the classroom, in academia, and as professionals (whether they work for OSU or not) directly impacts the reputation of the University and the Medical Center. The good will and reputation produced by students and doctors from the University allow the Medical School and Medical Center to achieve some of its recognition and increase funding. The Med Center and Med School revenue dwarfs the Athletic Departments. An example is the $1 billion renovations/additions being made to the Med Center, which is where the med students are trained. Do you think it is unfair that med students are not paid?

Additionally, all students add to the reputation and value proposition that a university proposes to new students and displays to the academic community. This is why admissions standards have continued to increase at OSU. A published undergraduate, graduate, or law student does not receive any money for their work (maybe they have a scholarship), yet by becoming published they have fostered a better reputation for the university. The better the academic reputation, the higher tuition a university may charge its students. Do you think published students should have the ability to be paid as well, or are their contributions to the university unworthy? I have worked on several scholarly articles in undergrad and grad school. The amount of work put in, while taking a full course load of non-gimme classes, is equal to that which a student-athlete puts in. Especially if the student also has to work part-time to make ends meet. Perhaps student-athletes have a higher perceived value because they are more visible and are given higher status than academics and academia in our society. Student-athletes work tirelessly, and should be commended for their efforts, however, so do other students who do not receive scholarships, free-rides, recognition, and fame, but still contribute significantly to the university and enable it to generate increased revenue.

Lastly, let's recognize college football for what it really is, it is mostly professional training for young men interested in joining the profession of football. Professional training does not typically come for free (I should know I just finished forking over more than I care to say for a professional education). Now, imagine your profession or what you hope your profession to be. Next, imagine that one of the pre-eminent institutions and practitioners in your profession asked you to come work for them for 4 years with no salary, even though they will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue while you are there. It will be hard work with long days and short nights, but the relationships you make and experiences you have will be life altering. In return for your hard work and dedication, they will teach you in-depth knowledge regarding the profession and all of the tools of the trade necessary to succeed in your profession and in life. Whether you succeed or not is up to you, but they are willing to give you this professional education and a path to success for free. They foot the bill for all living expenses and incidentals. Would you turn this opportunity down or say that it is unfair that they make money while you receive "nothing" in return?

Those are some of my arguments opposing the payment of players. Agree or disagree, I think the issues are much deeper than just "they make money off those poor players and the players receive nothing in return, that is unfair, players should be paid." I hope these thoughts, along with Johnny's article and others opinions, continue to spark thoughtful debate on this issue among the community.         

Comments

rdubs's picture

I think the logistics of paying players is one of the main things stopping it right now.  It is clear that the players are not being paid "enough" because there are people willing to break rules to pay them more.  Honestly anyone who believes in the free market should believe in paying players.  No one is arguing that players receive nothing in return for their play.  But I don't know how anyone could argue that they are paid enough because how is "enough" determined.
My preference would be that no coach could be paid more than the average professor and that it would have to be even less if the school is subsidizing the athletic department from the general funds.  At least that would make things a little more fair and allow the money to be spread even further.

Jonnferrell's picture

There will always be someone who will be willing to add to whatever amount the school pays to get certain players.  Always.  That will never, ever change.  Never.  Someone will always try to sweeten the pot to get that player.  If anyone thinks that people will suddenly say, "Oh they are giving them more money now, so I guess we won't try to lure them to ______ with extra money," they are living in a dream world.  

"I miss Brady Hoke."

rdubs's picture

And so why don't they deserve to have access to that money?  If someone thinks they are worth it then why do they not deserve it?

DJ Byrnes's picture

Ah yes, this is so true. This is why you read so much about scumbag agents supplimenting the incomes of youth soccer players over in Europe, or even in minor league baseball.

#ohwait

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

rdubs's picture

So you don't think if we essentially let college athletes get paid anything from anyone (like the rest of society works) that people will start paying them more?  You might be right, I just doubt that since people are willing to break the rules to do it now.

DJ Byrnes's picture

Again, why is it bad to take money from people giving it to you?

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

acBuckeye's picture

Yep. Youth football players in Miami Dade County NEVER have cash thrown their way.

Buckman's picture

They should not be paid. I think people underestimate just how much free stuff athletes get.

I like to believe that my best hits border on felonious assault.

JACK TATUM

rdubs's picture

But why shouldn't they get paid?  They are clearly not given "enough" free stuff when people are willing to pay them more.  The argument that they are already given a lot doesn't hold much weight with me.  Pro athletes are paid waaaaayyyyy too much if that is your argument because they get a lot more money and a lot more free perks along the way.

captain obvious's picture

They also underestimate how mch money is made off of them.
I was friends with an ALL ACC linebacker in the 90s. We were at the mall. I asked him if he took money. He pointed to his jersey hanging in the window of one of the stores and said I couldnt afford to buy my own jersey if I didnt.

I'm a friend of thunder is it any wonder lightning strikes me

RedStorm45's picture

Their "activity" while in college makes a profit.  You studying pre-med or engineering does not.  Big difference.

smith5568's picture

But it is the academic activity that enables the school to charge tuition. The students help create that academic activity. 

Jonnferrell's picture

And get free exposure on national tv as well as scouts who come out and look at you because you are playing at, learning football at, getting free training at, the University of whatever.  You are in position to make big money in the NFL.  Just because the university isn't handing you a fistful of cash doesn't mean you're not getting payment in exchange for you playing the sport of your choice.

"I miss Brady Hoke."

Jonnferrell's picture

I am not against stipends similar to what they already get or even expanding them for athletes.  Once you really pay, then will you pay certain athletes more than others because of their skill level? If you don't then it won't change those people who will pay more under the table.  Something that is often not mentioned is the exposure that these young football players get when they play for schools like OSU, Alabama, etc.  This is like free job training, free publicity, free travel, free education, free opportunity for some of the greatest memories ever.  To pay--actually pay salaries for hours worked, it is a slippery slope.

"I miss Brady Hoke."

RedStorm45's picture

So...the NCAA and the universities essentially get to produce and sell one of the most popular TV shows around, but don't have to pay the actors beyond providing them a trailer and some meals.

SilverBulletNYC's picture

I know I am in the minority on this one: but education should be FREE!!!! How can you expect an 18 year-old to pay $25,000-30,000 a year for education? Getting a college education has put millions of people in debt (It's actually the #3 reason for bankruptcy after healthcare and mortgage).  This system does NOT WORK!!! All education should be free!!!
So when people say, "well they're already getting paid- there education is free," I think that's a BS argument. 
Our football players are bringing in millions, probably hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the university. A science major or an English major is NOT. Our football players are risking their lives on a daily basis. Some will have life-long injuries that they have to deal with. They deserve to be compensated. As the future Rhodes scholar, Cardale Jones, once said: "we ain't come here to play school."
PAY THE PLAYERS. MAKE EDUCATION FREE (OR AT LEAST AFFORDABLE) TO THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. 
 

The South will NOT rise again!

RedStorm45's picture

Uh, yeah...if it was free how are you going to pay the professors, staff, and all other expenses?

SilverBulletNYC's picture

Easy. Taxes. Just an example: The Robin Hood Tax. Each year, it would generate $220 billion in revenue: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ftt-revenue-2009-12.pdf
Simple solutions like the Robin Hood tax, along with others (including cutting wasteful spending and other disastrous policies), could generate enough revenue to fund a fully functional education system in the United States. 
But that's just my opinion...

The South will NOT rise again!

RedStorm45's picture

So...free education K-bachelors degree?  What about Masters? Phd? Med school?

SilverBulletNYC's picture

Yep. Like I said, I am in the minority on this one. I know that. I'm not trying to start a political debate- just wanted to share my feelings on the subject matter. 
Working in healthcare, I can tell you that we have a massive shortage of doctors, nurses and secondary staff. It negatively affects patient care every year- thousands of patients die every year because of this. 
The main reason we have a shortage in these fields is due to the cost of education. People cannot afford to go to nursing/med school. I would argue it would make better policy to invest in our schools and hospitals than it would in other matters (say giving billions of dollars bailing out corrupt banks or handing bags of cash to the corrupt Karzai regime in Afghanistan- just some examples)....

The South will NOT rise again!

RedStorm45's picture

Thought you said you didn't want it to be political, and then I read your last paragraph...
 
So you're telling people for generations who paid 6 figures for med school, or for their bachelor's degree/masters/etc., took on student loans for years, that they should no contribute not just partially, but fully through their taxes for the next generation to get the same education they sacrificed for?  And the next generation essentially has no financial burden on their own education? The logistics is a nightmare.

SilverBulletNYC's picture

So is your logic: folks in the past got screwed with student debt. Therefore, the future generation must be stuck with student debt?

The South will NOT rise again!

RedStorm45's picture

My point is you're going to have a tough time telling a country that has paid for their education or earned scholarships, that they are suddenly going to finance it for EVERYONE for the rest of time through taxes.  It wouldn't pass a vote.  Legislators won't pass it because they wouldn't be re-elected.
At what point do things stop becoming free?  Like I said? Bachelor's degree? Master's? Heck, we should offer free fitness courses to cut down on our collective obesity.  Cars should be free so people can commute to work.  Food should be free so everyone can have proper nourishment.  Heck, let's just make everything free.  At some point, people need to take the initiative and responsibility.  Not everything can be free...I don't know if you've heard our country is kinda broke.

SilverBulletNYC's picture

I definitely agree with your point: "you're going to have a tough time telling a country that has paid for their education or earned scholarships, that they are suddenly going to finance it for EVERYONE for the rest of time through taxes.  It wouldn't pass a vote.  Legislators won't pass it because they wouldn't be re-elected."
You are correct. We're talking about a Congress that has a lower approval rating than King George during the Revolutionary War. So I think we can both agree that under this Congress, simple things will not get passed (example: 90% of Americans want background checks on guns, Congress does nothing. NOT THAT I AGREE or DISAGREE WITH THAT SUBJECT MATTER).
And yes, our country is broke- because of terrible policies (healthcare, bailing out the banks, subsidies to oil companies, endless wars, etc.). ----And both parties are responsible for that. 

The South will NOT rise again!

USMC11917's picture

Everybody is looking for a handout it appears. Want a free education? Join the military. Your problems solved! 

SilverBulletNYC's picture

You are correct. 

The South will NOT rise again!

USMC11917's picture

My major rebuttal for anyone thinking that paying players will make them turn down illegal exchanges---
I don't know many if any people or institutions that turn down free money even when they are wealthy themselves. Look at the report on colleges recently and acceptance of government funds. The wealthy never stop trying to make more money. One company comes to mind that does not fit that bill--Ford Motor Co.

SilverBulletNYC's picture

I would argue that exchanges like selling your championship rings to a person (as sacred as that is) for cash shouldn't be illegal in the first place. 
If a science major, who won some Science Fair award and sold his trophy for money, you wouldn't think that's illegal- so why is it not OK for an athlete to do the same? 

The South will NOT rise again!

rdubs's picture

Well why should any exchanges be illegal.  They are pretty much the only ones in the whole country who are not allowed to monetize their talents.  Well them and criminals (although you can get a book deal for being a criminal so maybe that isn't even true).

USMC11917's picture

I am speaking about boosters giving hand outs to football players. I know it was illegal for the players to sell THEIR awards but I don't agree with that either.

rdubs's picture

Why shouldn't boosters be able to give a player money?  A booster could give any other student money and it wouldn't matter to anyone other than the financial aid office.

RedStorm45's picture

While I agree that giving someone money shouldn't be a violation to play a sport, I can understand the NCAA's reluctance to just allow all boosters to pay players.  Essentially the top 10 programs based on rich boosters would get all the best players.  And you don't want kids getting involved with the wrong crowd a la Ed Riffe.

USMC11917's picture

What the guy above me said.

NW Buckeye's picture

Education should be free!  That worked out pretty well in CA!!!
Athletes generate more money for the school than other students.  Really?  Just what do you think the endowment is at OSU?  The total athletic budget is dwarfed in comparison.  President Gee would not be able to raise funds if the school had no students.  And, the research $$ are there because of the students.  Students who pay tuition and take out loans to learn in that environment. 
I am not against increasing the stipend for student athletes.  But, some of the ideas out there based around "market value" and "what ever people are willing to pay" would certainly change the game that we have all grown to love over our life times.  Ramzy's article from the other day pointed out that very few college athletic departments stand on their own.  The rest are subsidized with university funds.  In most cases the state schools are using tax dollars to fund the departments.  Every one calling for paying the athletes seems to think that there are huge amounts of money to distribute.  If that were the case, all university athletic departments would be able to stand on their own.
Once you take the student out of "student athlete" you may as well just have a minor league system like baseball.  See how many fans they draw when that happens.  Just go to any minor league baseball game and see them struggle to put 5,000 people in the seats.  
 

unknownmusketeer's picture

Yes. I was trying to write this argument earlier.
If you include tuition, tutors, books, and room and board, the current system is like a minor league system. Pro baseball players make on average $3.3M whereas minor leaguers make on average $50k (~60 to 1 ratio). Pro football players make on average $1.9M. The average college football player (per Ramzy's article) has $120k spent on them (~10 to 1 ratio). If anything, they are being relatively better compensated than baseball players, and both sports have approximately the same total annual revenue ($6B). 
In minor league baseball, you sign your rights away to the major league club and some players succeed and some players prosper. The same is true for college football. They are compensated and sign their rights away when they accept a scholarship. Some players succeed and others don't. If a player does not succeed, the school (maybe not Ohio State with four year scholarships) would have an incentive to get rid of the player that didn't perform.
College football is the de facto minor league system of pro football. Amazingly (most likely because it is associated with universities), it is incredibly more profitable than minor league baseball.

rdubs's picture

There is no doubt that the institution that benefits the most from this arrangement is the NFL.  However regardless of how much they make, many are clearly not paid enough because there are people willing to pay them more.  If someone was willing to give me more money, I could take it.  But for some reason college football players cannot.  The argument that they are paid "enough" is a very weak one because it is just not true.

smith5568's picture

But they are "paid" enough. Do you think Southwest Missouri State or some low level D1 team could afford to pay its players? Why aren't college football players compensated enough? The argument that players aren't paid enough simply because some athletic departments do very well is an even weaker one because it ignores the reality of the whole system. 

SilverBulletNYC's picture

"If you include tuition, tutors, books, and room and board, the current system is like a minor league system."  Who's setting those prices? The university...so when you say a book cost $100, that's the university gouging the students. Same thing with housing and tuition. It's kinda like when people talk about the high cost of drugs....the drug prices are high because the corrupt drug makers are setting the price and ripping off the customers. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07200822872/doctors-call-out-n...). 
 

The South will NOT rise again!

ODEEZ330's picture

Sooo this

O'Deez330
stark county football

smith5568's picture

Most book prices are set by the market not by the school. Go to Amazon. 

unknownmusketeer's picture

I believe in market economics, but creating a market for college players seems rather difficult. In particular, boosters assigning a "value" to a player is somewhat nonsensical to me. What "value" do the players provide the boosters?
I work for a salary. I got paid to do my job. The employer benefits from my working. What benefit does a player provide a booster? Would the player be required to attend booster functions as a benefit? Sign autographs? Hock wares?
Each time the "pay players" discussion arises, I always think of the Nevin Shapiro situation at Miami. He paid the players, but what service did they provide him. The ability to hang out with a college athlete? Great guy! Excellent role model for all of those young athletes.

acBuckeye's picture

Go check out the endowments of the Ivy League schools. Obviously those schools aren't sports powerhouses, but after looking at those numbers wouldn't you say their regular students are kinda important to the health of the university?
If athletes want to complain about a scholarship not being enough compensation, then foot them a student loan bill that will take them 20 years to pay off. Their tune may change. If they're so worried about harming their bodies for "nothing" as they like to say, then don't play. Nobody is forcing you to.
I concede that coaching salaries in college have gotten out of hand. That could be an entirely separate discussion, however.

rdubs's picture

I disagree, coaching salaries are an important part of this discussion.  Coaches can monetize their talents (or perceived talents in the case of Charlie Weis), but players cannot.  That doesn't seem fair to me and arguing that players receive "enough" is not a good argument because we already know that isn't true by virtue of people being willing to pay them more even when it is against the rules.

acBuckeye's picture

I agree it's an important part of the discussion. What I meant was that it's a topic that we could all get very in-depth about and would take more time, hence the "separate discussion" comment. I just didn't want to get into all of that right now.
Like I said, I think coaching salaries have gone overboard, but I also understand WHY they make so much. But back to the "making enough" discussion for the players..... Other posters have already said these players already get compensated more than many professional minor league players.... and isn't college football essentially a minor league system?
So what do you think constitutes "enough"? Each player's FMV? If we go that route, then Braxton will surely require more money than that 3rd string linebacker, right? Where will this money come from? How happy will the backup players, who are sacrificing just as much of their bodies + the time + the commitment as the star players, since that's a common argument I always hear..... how happy will they be that the more talented players are making more money than them? Or are we going to pay these players equally? If we do that, how happy will the star players be who think they're worth more? Will this even stop boosters from giving out $500 handshakes? Will players still be satisfied with what they're making?
Professional ballplayers to this day continue to hold out when there is a contract dispute despite the fact that they are still being offered millions. Bottom line, "enough" is NEVER enough.
 
 

smith5568's picture

Players have monetized their talents, it is called a full-scholarship, which value varies from university to university based on the tuition they charge. Receiving a monetary benefit in exchange for services does not have to be in the form of cash to be valid compensation. Universities with better academic credentials and reputations charge more and have larger endowments, therefore the scholarship is worth more. 

Jack Fu's picture

Go check out the endowments of the Ivy League schools. Obviously those schools aren't sports powerhouses, but after looking at those numbers wouldn't you say their regular students are kinda important to the health of the university?

Well, the thing is, people donating money to schools are giving it to the school, not individual students. They're not taking $75 every Saturday from people saying "I'm giving you this money because I want to watch Joe Schmoe the finance major crush his econ class." Nor are people purchasing specially-made lab coats that imply a connection to Jane Schmoe the molecular genetics student without actually using her name and likeness. Similarly, ESPN and other networks are not throwing money at the Big Ten Conference (money that gets passed on to the schools) so that they can televise the big psych final, Mrs. Smith's chem 102 lab, or readings from schools' drama departments.

acBuckeye's picture

I admit, this response was funny and witty. Well done.
My point about the endowments was more along the lines of how many of us, I guess, over-value student athletes..... especially football and men's Bball players (the revenue sports.) Ordinary students can provide just as much, and in many cases (Ivy schools), much more value to a university.
I don't disagree with the fact that the money in college sports has gotten ridiculously out of hand, but the argument that the "players need to get paid" and "a free scholarship isn't enough" is getting old and tired.

Jack Fu's picture

Ordinary students can provide just as much, and in many cases (Ivy schools), much more value to a university.

They provide value but they aren't actually generating revenue. Braxton Miller is. With college football and basketball generating tons and tons of money, it is gross and off-putting that the only ones not getting any of that money are the ones that we all fork over our cash to see, or wear the jersey of.

William's picture

So you're telling me that getting a free education at a Top 20 public university, plus room and board, along with books, as well as free fitness, nutritional and medical care/help isn't fair compensation for 3-4 years of college football? Give me a fucking break. 
Edit: Also don't throw out any bullshit about 'fair-market value'. There is no such thing as fair-market value in a monopsony, which is what DI sports are. The colleges set the wage rate (tuition/room & board), and the athletes accept that, no one is forcing them to sign a letter of intent.

Jack Fu's picture

So you're telling me that getting a free education at a Top 20 public university, plus room and board, along with books, as well as free fitness, nutritional and medical care/help isn't fair compensation for 3-4 years of college football?

For some it is and for some it isn't. Is that fair compensation for a backup longsnapper? Sure. For Braxton Miller? I think his presence as an Ohio State football player generates revenue for the school incommensurate with the value of his scholarship/other benefits.

Also don't throw out any bullshit about 'fair-market value'. There is no such thing as fair-market value in a monopsony, which is what DI sports are. The colleges set the wage rate (tuition/room & board), and the athletes accept that, no one is forcing them to sign a letter of intent.

Generally, I agree with you. The NCAA doesn't prevent graduating high schoolers from entering the NFL; the NFL's collective bargaining agreement does that. The NCAA has its rules and the players are not forced to agree to them, although there are problems with the NCAA's rules considering the dearth of other options for players and the blatant hypocrisy inherent in an organization (the NCAA) and its members (the schools) extolling the virtues of "amateurism" at every turn while simultaneously doing every single thing they can think of to 1.) generate more money, and 2.) find arguments for not sharing that money with its labor (the players). But hey, the O'Bannon case is going to go a long way in determining whether or not this is an appropriate model, isn't it?

Buckeye80's picture

This argument has been made before, but paying the players is a logistics nightmare and raises many questions:
How do you decide what they get paid?  Do you let schools bid for their services or is there a flat rate?
If there is a flat rate, does the starting QB get paid the same as a third string Guard?
If they are getting paid, can they create a union?
If they create a union, can they strike?
If they can strike, can the schools lock them out?
The rules need tweaked.  I'm not opposed to making sure that college athletes don't have to struggle to be able to take their girlfriends out on a date, but there has to be a line somewhere.

rdubs's picture

Absolutely, this is the only thing holding it back though.  I think if someone devised a reasonable solution and pushed it pretty hard it would get through.  The increased stipend already nearly made it since that is pretty simple.  

rdubs's picture

Somehow I totally hijacked all of the threads on this topic and became the biggest advocate of paying players.  I am actually deeply conflicted on this issue.  I think it will ruin college football as we know it, however I can't think of any real rationale for why we shouldn't do it.  I am not sure that makes any sense.  But it is how I feel.
The people arguing that players receive enough as it is are completely wrong.  Enough according to who? You?  How did you decide it was enough?  We wouldn't be having this conversation if players were actually receiving enough because no one would be trying to pay them more.
 

smith5568's picture

I would argue the exact opposite as your last paragraph. The people arguing that players do not receive enough are completely wrong. Not enough according to who? You? How did you decide it was not enough? We are only having this conversation because there is money available at some institutions for some sports. 

rdubs's picture

Or even better "at the relevant institutions in the relevant sports."  
Probably the best way of doing this is to say that the schools themselves can only offer scholarships and the other support they currently offer.  Then just deregulate the rest of the "extra benefits" and boosters.  That way if an agent wants to finance someone's lifestyle through college in hopes of winning them as a client later, go for it.  If T Boone Pickens wants to use his money to pay for a really good QB, go for it.  Coaches and universities wouldn't be allowed to facilitate those relationships, but they wouldn't have to police them either.

 

Buckeyeneer's picture

Rdubs,
We have discussed this before (and I enjoy your contribution to the debate) and I too am conflicted. I tend to be a bleeding heart who always wants to see everyone treated fairly, but on this issue I find myself being a real bastard. If I were completely honest with myself and everyone else, it come down to this simple fact: I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL. As this is something I love, I get really defensive when I see something that I perceive as a threat to that thing I love. Your line:

I think it will ruin college football as we know it

is the exact reason I am against it. I also love The Ohio State University, but OSU is probably one of only a dozen or so schools that could afford to pay players. But if none of your competitors can afford it, make no mistake, it will ruin the sport. If we can come up with a way to pay players and not ruin the sport or the university, I am all for it. While I don't think my arguments against paying players are necessarily wrong, they are self serving because again: I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL and I feel that going down this road will destroy this institution I love. That's the bottom line. I care more about continuing the the institution of college football as it is than making sure that every player gets their fair market value. 
I freely admit that a dislike a little part of myself for feeling this way. It may not be PC, it may not be pretty, but it is honest.

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes

THE Ohio State University

RedStorm45's picture

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2013/05/b1g-dwarfs-all-other-conferences
^I mean, the B1G reported $315 million in revenue for 2012.  Just saying.

smith5568's picture

The lowest endowment in the Big Ten (Rutgers) is more than twice that. Most Big Ten endowments are more than $1 billion, with Michigan and Northwestern's being the highest at over $7 billion.  

buckz4evr's picture

Between going to class, studying, cramming for exams, going to practice (20hrs right there) lifting, watching film and all the other things that go along with the college experience, these kids do not have time to get a job during the season. Come on people, these kids need some kind of stipend for all those extra hours they put in. Most athletes come from middle to lower class homes and they can not afford to go that long without some kind of income. After the season is over, the stipend stops. They can get  jobs like the rest of the college kids do. 

smith5568's picture

I am fine with an increased stipend. 

Doc's picture

Smith, I haven't read nor will I read all of the comments to this article.  So, if I repeat something from earlier sue me.  I think you hit the nail on the head.  Free tuition, room and board, books, etc... is plenty.  If it wasn't for sports a lot of these guys wouldn't be going to college at all.  I think we need to look at that for a moment.  We also don't want the tail wagging the dog.  OSU is a school first and foremost.  Not a sports complex.  We tend to forget that, at least I can admit I do.  The primary adjective is to educate people.  The sports teams allow us to show our pride for the University, but that is secondary, or even tertiary to what the University is all about.  If the guys want to get paid to play there are other avenues.
When I was in Dental School there we performed procedures on patients all of the time.  Those patients were charged for those procedures, not once was I paid for what I did.  Why should the athlete be any different?

"Say my name."

smith5568's picture

Your last paragraph is a real life example of what I was trying to convey in my post. In law school we performed all sorts of free services to clients for nothing, however the university received funds. 

rdubs's picture

The athlete already is different.  They cannot be paid any more than what they are, you could have been.  If that patient wanted to thank you by taking you to dinner or buy you a watch or just hand you 100 bucks they could have.  None of that is possible with an athlete.  
Also how did you decide that athletes already receive plenty?  There are many people who are willing to pay them more, so it seems to me that they don't receive enough or plenty.

sloopy88's picture

As another person in professional training, no, I wouldn't be able to take gifts or payment from a client.  Payment goes to the clinic where I work, and therefore, to the university.  Anything else is a breach of ethics that would jeopardize my attempt to get my license.  Seriously, I'd have to have a talk with my supervisor if I even got a plate of cookies. 
I'm not sure about this argument that we can be sure athletes don't receive enough money because there are people who want to give them money (particularly since the complement seems so silly-- if people aren't being handed money, we can be sure they have enough?). People pay for what they want, and sometimes they want to flaunt their cash, sometimes they want a connection with a rising athlete, sometimes they want control over a local celebrity.  I'm not sure it necessarily has anything to do with the athlete's level of need or any sense of fairness. 

buckz4evr's picture

Again, let me point out that the university is asking telling them that after going to class and after studying and doing your homework, you now have to get up at 5 in the morning to lift weights, watch hr after hr of film, put in community service time, give up your holidays and stay on campus, risk bodily injury, all with the slim chance that you might make money in your field after you graduate.  Then the real kicker is, they then have the balls to tell you that every penny you make has to be monitered to the point of them having access to your banking information. So in the end, when you factor in all the money they make off the student athletes back how much money does that $160,00 scholarship actually cost them?   If you don't find this troublesome, then I don't know what to say.

RunEddieRun1983's picture

If you look at it for what it is, you take a kid who is from an incredibly poor and modest background, you pluck him from that background and say OK, you're going to be #12 on the team, we want you to practice hard, stay in shape all year round, and have your head wrapped around football at all times.
You're going to workout harder than you ever have, you're also going to go to classes, and you're also going to have to work toward earning a degree while you're here.  Oh and by the way, if you do well we're going to take your #12 jersey and we're going to sell it in every store between here and California.  Then we're going to take the shoes you wear and we're going to sell those to people who admire you as well.  You see this?  It's your picture on a pregame program that we'll be selling for ten bucks a pop at every game.  People are going to pay heavy ticket prices to come see you play, we're going to sell lots of ad time on TV because people will want to watch you on TV and companies will pay top dollar to advertise during a game in which you're playing.
At the end of the day we'll probably make a few million off of your back and hard work alone, and of that, you'll see what amounts to room and board, and the costs of your education.
So let's look at it from the standpoint of the kid that's coming from a poor background.  I'm going to generate all this money for this institution, I'm going to get an education, but when it's all said and done, I'm still going to be poverty stricken because I will have no tangable assets while I'm there.  If I don't do well enough to go to the NFL, my family will still be poor, and even if I have a degree, with the way the economy and business world works now a days, there is no guarantee I'll be able to find a job that can support me and my family either.
The money the colleges make is made off the sweat, blood, and tears of these kids who only are looking for a way to better their situation.  This isn't the case with all these kids, some come from privelaged backgrounds, but speaking as someone who didn't have a lot growing up, if I get to this big juggernaut of a facility, and realize that they're going to the bank due to my hardwork, I'd have an axe to grind about that.

I don't always downvote, but I do always downvote a Michigan fan trolling the Buckeye boards.

acBuckeye's picture

So you're saying that only the kids that come from poor backgrounds should get paid. That will go over well with everyone.
I understand some people come from more difficult situations than others, but I've always believed that the individuals who go to college on an athletic scholarship for the sole purpose of playing a sport and honing their skills in order to go professional in that sport, are setting themselves up for failure more often than not.
The importance of getting a first-class education can't be understated. In sports, your body won't hold up forever, and those million dollar paychecks will eventually quit rolling in. And that is just for the tiny percentage of college athletes that actually MAKE it to the next level. Then what are you going to do? What do you have to fall back on? I'm not beating my chest saying that a degree will be an automatic paycheck in today's economy, but it will still offer you opportunities that wouldn't be available to you without it. And the fact that you got that degree for free b/c of your athletic ability, allowing you to avoid paying back loans for the next 20 years of your life, is ample compensation.

RedStorm45's picture

Pretty sure he was just comparing perspectives of the athletes coming in, not that only certain ones should get paid.

PDoggett73's picture

I don't know why everyone seems to think these universities are here just to give us an education. If that were the case then education would be free. The universities are in it to make money, just like everyone else. I think it's a poor excuse to not let the athletes try to earn money just because it would be a hard system to work out or it would ruin college football.

BoFuquel's picture

I would prefer to see one and done or none and done, so those players not interested in higher education wouldn't have to mess with the whole system.just let'em go and try to make their living and not mess with the college thing.GO BUCKS!

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

buckskin's picture

It would absolutely destroy college football as we know it if we decide to pay the players, so for that reason alone (I have others), I am against it.  The NFL should develop a minor league system similar to baseball's to end this discussion (which of course they are not going to do).  Agreed with stated above, the logistics would be a nightmare to develop accurate pay compensation for the players. 
Along with all of the stated above that players receive (which I agree strongly with), I think it is important to note that a F-ball career at OSU guarantees you a job anywhere in C-Bus making great money.  I know a former OSU punter who sold hospital beds all over the state of Ohio and he was their top salesman by far because everybody wanted to hear the OSU stories.  6-figure salary solely because he played for OSU, definitely not because he was a great salesman (it's cool, he knows it).  He is set for life.
I think if you decide to pay the football team, then the other sports will start wanting payment too.  Man, that will be a can of worms.  Tennis, Synchronized Swimming, Gymnastics - how much should they get paid?  You know darn well they will want a piece of the pie.  Can you honestly tell a student athlete that he/she can only be paid if their particular sport makes money?  This would leave Title IX in the dust. 
I think if you decide to pay the players, not only will college football be devastated, but all college athletics will suffer immensely.  The whole landscape will change and not for the better.

RedStorm45's picture

How exactly is it going to ruin college football?  The guys will still suit up and play, right?

Johnny Ginter's picture

i just wish someone would give me a straight answer as to what the current stipend situation actually is

trigg03's picture

when was the last time 100k+ and a national televised broadcast showed up and then paid to watch a class take their final exam??  My point is that the football program is what drives the budget and without the players then it is all for naught.  I have yet to hear that any of the utility companies have been accepting IOU's as payments on the promise that once the player turns pro they can then pay their bills.  And is it too much to ask that a kid be able to go out on a date & take her to a decent restaurant other then MacD's dollar menu?? Or is it perfectly fine with you that all the kids do is go to class & practice taking up the 11 or more hours of his day required to achieve success.  The narrow minded thinking that the scholarship is payment enough makes me cringe.  Until you actually try to live that life then your opinion should count for nothing.  The players should be allowed some spending money being as though they are the ones putting forth all the effort to bring all those millions in to begin with.