If you want any insight into what the players get, you need look no further than the Ball situation. Those kids are going to play in Lithuania on a team with nobody that speaks English. They are going to make a max of $500 a month. They will receive no education, no stipends, and will not receive any of the creature comforts of being on a college campus in America. They are going to play for a tiny team, and although they will get some attention because of who they are, none of the spotlight and coaching provided by a college. I am perfectly fine with bigger stipends for spending, but I am against outright paying kids to play. If that means losing the best high school kids to another avenue, so be it.
Paying college players
- Thread starter StickPurdue
- Start date
what's more, you're only speaking of today's dollars.
In your commentary, there's no factoring in the value of the perks they receive while playing B1G college BB, nor the lifetime value of the degree to which they're provided. And, it doesn't stop there.
nobody's saying there isn't value in those other things, but when college coaches and administrators are making multi million dollar salaries, hard to deny some sort of unfair disparity exists.
The issue that I have with not paying players is that the coaches are making millions a year. If the free market applies to the coaches, why doesn’t it apply to the players? If the players can’t make money because they are students, why shouldn’t the coaches’ salaries be in line with the faculty? It just seems like a double standard.
I don’t think so. Coaches are paid the going rate in the market. They have a huge responsibility and Are generally good or better at what they do than the average professor at any institution. One may put more value on a grat professor but you have to ask if the Are running a business that makes the university millions?
True, but athletes are prohibited from being paid the going rate. Why doesn’t the going rate apply to them as well?
IMHO, major college basketball players are paid. Anyone who has had to pay their own -- or their kid's -- way through school knows exactly what I'm talking about. Tuition, books, meals, room & board, tutors, and all-expense-paid trips to play in place most people can only dream about visiting. And if they don't become a professional player, there are many, many companies willing to pay top dollar for someone who has shown the discipline it takes to get a degree while playing major college athletics.
If the disparity between that and the pay for coaches is out of whack, then fix the coaches salaries. Don't compound the problem by piling on more benefits for the athletes.
I don’t disagree. I think they should get paid something. They get a lot but it also prohibits them from having a job.
My son is most likely going to play D2 or maybe D1 soccer. Will probably get a bunch of offers to schools that I can’t afford. Of the schools that I can afford we will be lucky to get a 30% scholarship. I am great full because I know that 30 percent is comeing from football and basketball. If you are in my position i don’t mind the coaches making what they make to ensure others have a chance to play.
I'm a free-market believer, so I like this argument. But how do you fairly establish a going rate for players? Does Swanigan make more than Cline? How do you decide? Minutes/game? Productivity? Does a 5-star earn more than a 3-star? Or is the pay rate based on seniority, like in a union? Seniors make more than juniors make more than... That would send the free market approach out the window.
No matter what you pay them, it will still be negligible compared to what the coach is making. The argument that they don't make nearly as much as the coach will always be true.
That's a whole different wrinkle. One side of the argument is that the players in the revenue sports are making all of the money for the coaches pay, university, conference, and NCAA. But what about the athletes in non-revenue sports. They work just as hard and many of them receive partial scholarships or none at all. Should they be paid? Should an athlete in a non-revenue sport who is good enough to play pro baseball or dive in the Olympics get paid the same as an All-American football player?
Rather than pay out more to the revenue sports athletes, I would rather see non-revenue sports athletes receive more assistance with tuition, books, housing, and meals.
It’s not going to happen now, but if college sports being amateur means anything, I would limit coaches salaries to maybe $200-300k per year. If we say that it isn’t really an amateur sport, I don’t see why the players shouldn’t be paid whatever the schools are willing to pay them.
I don’t know if I completely believe what I am arguing, but I am trying to be logically consistent. I guess what I really want to understand is why it is wrong to pay players and then to the apply that reasoning to coaches who get paid several million dollars/year. If there is a logical argument for the disparity, I am open to being persuaded that the status quo makes logical sense.
Which players get paid, and how much? Are you including non-revenue sports? I don't see it working in college.
Contract negotiations and player holdouts in College Sports? No thanks. The better players would want more money, so this wouldn't solve any of the illegal activity.
Contract negotiations and player holdouts in College Sports? No thanks. The better players would want more money, so this wouldn't solve any of the illegal activity.
Interesting. Do you also feel this way about every facet of the American economy? Because that's pretty much how it works in America.
If they start paying the players, I will stop going and watching.
In my mind they are paid in the sense of the scholarship, the top notch education they will receive and an opportunity to showcase both academic and athletic abilities to go pro overseas, NBA or be successful in business and life.
Remember not everyone gets the opportunity to showcase their abilities at the college level.
Young athletes are invited to join Purdue to first get an education and second showcase and grow their athletic ability.
A scholarship to Purdue is priceless.......keep it that way.
Boiler Up!
In my mind they are paid in the sense of the scholarship, the top notch education they will receive and an opportunity to showcase both academic and athletic abilities to go pro overseas, NBA or be successful in business and life.
Remember not everyone gets the opportunity to showcase their abilities at the college level.
Young athletes are invited to join Purdue to first get an education and second showcase and grow their athletic ability.
A scholarship to Purdue is priceless.......keep it that way.
Boiler Up!
Completely agree. They get many things for free that others have to go in to debt for. If they say they need more money for things, what things are those? Room, board and education are all paid for. Going out to the club isn't a requirement, nor should donors and other students be asked to pay that bill as it isn't a necessity.
If they want more money, then they should have to list their expenses and prove they do. Or, get them a financial advisor to help them manage their spending. You start paying them, it simply will not stop there and non-athletes and families will pick up the tab.
Pay them what a 5 yr Scholarship is worth and have them pay for their 5 year Degree in full.
If they leave early, their pay ends accordingly. After Taxes they will come out on the short end of this deal. What is a 5 year program worth to a student who has to pay their own way. Trips oversea's.....they get to see the Country/World..what is that worth
Some one tell me what is this worth over 5 years.....I am sick of this crap......
If they leave early, their pay ends accordingly. After Taxes they will come out on the short end of this deal. What is a 5 year program worth to a student who has to pay their own way. Trips oversea's.....they get to see the Country/World..what is that worth
Some one tell me what is this worth over 5 years.....I am sick of this crap......
Of course, there are similarities, but the American economy is much more multi faceted, wouldn't you say? Not really an apples to apples comparison.
and you act as if these athletes were just handed the opportunity to play in college. You don't think the majority of them earned that right with hard work and dedication?
So did every other student that is admitted to Purdue or a quality university. Especially those that get an academic scholarship.
How they get to college is unique in that they got in through sports, but let's not act like they are the only ones that put in hard work and dedication in order to attend college. Sentiment like that only cheapens how the rest of us got to Purdue.
I never said that wasn't the case for the rest of us.
Unfortunately, we (those of us who were not college athletes, like myself) do not bring in millions and millions and millions of dollars to the University. That's the entire point.
And each of those college athletes get 'paid' quite a bit each year in the terms of free education, room and board, etc. And not all of those athletes go on to pro careers so they get a great education to get a great job on all for free.
So in theory they are already being paid so in my opinion they don't deserve more as they have more than the rest of us that also give back to the university through donates/JPC/etc.
Like I said, if they are having problems now with what they are given, assign them a financial advisor to help straighten it out.
In most states, the major university college coaches are the highest paid government employees. Back in the day it used to be the sherif in the major counties in each state. They put a cap on what they could make so they went from making over a million to closer to 100k. The government needs to pass something for the public schools and then the NCAA should pass something to cover the private universities. The coaches get paid far too much. I would like to see that money go towards title 9 and providing scholarships and opportunities for the other sports, facilities, or back to the actual school to provide scholarships for non athletes. Put the school and the students first. It will never happen, but that's how I feel.
Here IMO is the flaw in the argument for paying players. Do the players themselves actually bring in millions of dollars to the Universities? Or is it the organizations in which they participate that bring in those millions of dollars? And if you say the players are responsible then which players? Just the stars? All starters? Bench players, too? P5 teams or all D1 teams? Why not the athletic trainers and band and cheer members also? They are all part of the machine. Which of them add value to the product?
As soon as you can identify which individuals are responsible for what money coming in, then you can start to parse out which ones deserve a piece of the pie and what size slice. But you can't. Because college athletics are more about the institution than the individual. Take any individual away and the product has the same value. The next guy up will take his place. It is more or less a zero sum game. Unlike the NBA or NFL, very few people are watching to see individual "greatness" or follow individual stars. They are watching and following their programs.
If MLB players go on strike, the replacement players come in and MLB loses at least half its audience. If D1 NCAA players were to strike, a new crop of amateurs (say from division 2) would come in, wear the colors, and alumni would be just as engaged as ever. In the end, the winning matters most. Rivalries, tradition, school affiliation, pride, and WINNING.. all these things drive college sports. Not some individual athlete who is here and gone in a couple years or less. Can Kentucky fans even keep track of who is on their team from year to year? In college, the brand is the front of the jersey. In the pro's it is the back of the jersey. That is a huuuuge fundamental difference.
In the end, getting a free education for doing something they (hopefully) enjoy, and getting 4 years experience in their craft to put on a resume (for which they can then turn into millions of dollars in their profession if that is their market value) is equitable compensation and the only way to maintain the amateur model.
Last edited:
DD summed this up by using the example of Zeller and Kaminski. Look at the jersey sales for their collegiate jerseys and then look at their developmental league jersey sales. Same player, but the value is pennies on the dollar. Get rid of the best 50 players in each class and the league still thrives. I used the top 50 as an arbitrary number, assuming those are the most likely to play professional ball, either here or overseas. The others would be less likely and more inclined to use the education provided by the universities. NCAA has a built in fan base that the lesser leagues can't possibly match. The NCAA is far bigger than the few star players that stay for a year or two. Personally would love to see the one and done rule go away. Those are the players most likely to be bribed anyway. If they are good enough to go, let them. The problem is the high school players were getting drafted and the NBA wasn't developing them like in college. They had a low success rate and a guaranteed contract. Not to mention, the NBA benefits when a kid goes to college first. Example, how many of you were Portland fans last year? Now that they have Biggie, how many became Portland fans? The NCAA just needs a commissioner, somebody to clean it up that puts the integrity of the game and universities first and money a very distant third.
Aren't they consider a student athlete? I wouldn' call a" Coach" a student Coach. Also if the word Student comes first I would refer them to just that a Student. If we thought of paying players or athletes we may have a player contesting why they should get paid more vs others. Another could be students protesting that they are at the school for higher education and should get paid for being a good student.
Perhaps, but a large income inequality exists in seemingly every industry, and college athletics is no exception. FWIW I think kids should be able to play in the NBA whenever they're able. It's stupid to make arbitrary restrictions and it contributes to this situation we're in right now with college athletics IMHO.
These big program D1 basketball and football players get enough for free from the school. I would say the basketball players get the most because of fewer numbers. No one tells them they have to do it and like others have said there is a line of players miles long to take their place if they don' feel they get enough. I think they got some money?? not sure. I would be ok if they got something small like $200-$400 a month due to the fact they can't get a job. Other than that they are fine. Education, free room, free food, help with their studies, free apparel, free trips overseas and more. The fact that there are millions of kids that will gladly take their place makes this a non issue.
The coach on the other hand should be paid whatever the market dictates.
The coach on the other hand should be paid whatever the market dictates.
As usual people can't read and misunderstand my words.....my point being not all kids get the opportunity to play sports on scholarship to advance their skillset or dreams.
I never mentioned or meant they weren't deserving or didn't work hard to achieve the opportunity, I am sure they all did and kudos to them.
So go pick a fight elsewhere Deac.......
That's not true at all. many students get involved in research. now we're going to pay the students whose work results in million$ of dollars to the university??
this is endless, once you start going down that path. Paying amateurs who are college FB/BB players is one of the all-time bad ideas.
$200-400 now. thousands-millions down the road. There's no stopping that once it starts. it will pollute college athletics and be its downfall.
this is all out of whack. I don't give to Biggie or any other player. I give to Purdue to support a scholarship or facilities or whatever. Same on the academic side. I'm not contributing free money for 18 year old kids to spend how they please. You want your free market value, then go find out what it really is without the safety net of a university backing you. It ain't shit for 99.99% of players. And those that would get more in the free market are leaving after a year anyways.
You are contributing to the contracts of Brohm and Painter. On one hand, I think that’s great because I like both coaches and their staffs, but that is where a significant percentage of the budget is going.
That’s exactly what has happened with the places where colleges can compete, such as coach’s salaries and facilities.
There is already an arms race. The players are just not permitted to participate in it.
The inequality in other industries is most driven by the market. The inequality in college sports is driven by the rules.
Correct. Nor should they be. It's irrelevant to introduce a coach's salary into the discussion of paying players. Players are student/athletes. Coaches are not. Coaches are contracted employees. Players are not.
Trying to argue for paying players by citing an 'arms race' or a 'disparity' is irrelevant. Either you're for paying players or you're not. A coach's salary isn't the issue.
I work for a company that is all about a brand as well, but I am paid for my contribution is support of that brand based on market demand for my services.
Similar threads
OFF TOPIC Peace, out
