Message Boards

Absolutely not.

Pay the parents instead.

YES.

No. That's what makes them amateurs, and I will never be convinced otherwise.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 02:25 PM ET  01.16 by Ms. G

No. That's what makes them amateurs, and I will never be convinced otherwise.

Eh, I'd say there could be a set amount that EVERY player gets in the form of a stipend, that way there is no bidding on players. I wouldn't see anything wrong with giving the players the same stipend a work-study student gets for putting in 20 hours a week at the library or the same stipend a graduate student gets for their research. The players do make money for the school, but they are getting the benefit of NFL training along the way. Therefore, I don't see them as any different then student research-assistants who help bring in grants for their departments. Give em a small stipend so they can at least have some pocket change.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:59 PM ET  01.16 by JRM74

While I don't object to this concept, IMO Title IX won't let a school restrict the stipend to revenue producing sports. You pay one varsity athlete, you gotta pay them all, prob'ly the same amount. My concern is that schools would start dropping non-revenue sports right and left.................. Although I still contend I could add women's tennis and volleyball to revenue producing sports if I could work with Victoria's Secret to re-design the uniforms. And you could make women's jello wrestling a varsity sport.

I didn't know about the revenue rule. Although, with how much money a school can bring in, maybe a smaller stipend could be worked out so all athletes could partake...$3,000 to $5,000 grand a year in addition to the tuition, room, board and books?

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 10:08 PM ET  01.16 by M.J.D.

I didn't know about the revenue rule. Although, with how much money a school can bring in, maybe a smaller stipend could be worked out so all athletes could partake...$3,000 to $5,000 grand a year in addition to the tuition, room, board and books?

not possible. we're talking about stipends for hundreds of athletes per school. it would work at approximately 20 universities. for the remaining 1000 or so, it is in no way feasible. people don't seem to realize that most of the money brought into colleges to operate athletics is because of the 20 or so high profile universities in college football either by sharing their income with their conference or scheduling lower division schools to come take a beating.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:14 PM ET  01.16 by The Ladybird

either by sharing their income with their conference or scheduling lower division schools to come take a beating.

<gasp!>

You mean the bigger schools scheduling "creampuffs" only to make sure they have more wins?

The horrors of it all....

OR...

The smaller schools intentionally scheduling their massacres to fund their athletic programs for the year?

(Road runs both ways, D...)

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 10:37 AM ET  01.17 by buck-i-O-6's-girl

OR...The smaller schools intentionally scheduling their massacres to fund their athletic programs for the year?(Road runs both ways, D...)

+1

It's a charity case....like Ohio State scheduling an Ohio team every years to keep the money on state.

And as far as paying college players, I say No. Instead, use the money to form a (paid) development league for players who are using college solely as a mechanism to gain a foot in the door of the pro machine.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 10:37 AM ET  01.17 by buck-i-O-6's-girl

OR...The smaller schools intentionally scheduling their massacres to fund their athletic programs for the year?(Road runs both ways, D...)

Of course they are scheduling those massacres....you think an OU or TU is actually going to La Tech and asking to schedule home and home?

Geez....

I say pay the college athletes if they graduate college.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 10:45 AM ET  01.17 by buck-i-O-6's-girl

And as far as paying college players, I say No. Instead, use the money to form a (paid) development league for players who are using college solely as a mechanism to gain a foot in the door of the pro machine.

One of the few areas we disagree..that and Urban Meyer as a coach at tOSU...

Different perspective, I just feel that colleges are profiting on some of these kids and those kids should be rewarded for that. Not a popular opinion on the these boards, I know. Also, I dont really care for the if one person gets it all should get it...not everyone starts, not everyone is a star.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 10:58 AM ET  01.17 by 84

Also, I dont really care for the if one person gets it all should get it...not everyone starts, not everyone is a star.

So, IMHO, that would result in High School kids shopping themselves around to get the best deal?

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 11:05 AM ET  01.17 by BackRoads

So, IMHO, that would result in High School kids shopping themselves around to get the best deal?

they aren't doing that already? My question is just that how many #2 jerseys would sell at Ohio State if Pryor wasn't wearing that number?

I know if not fair, and its could never happen, but based on my experiences, college athletes, for all the things they get for being athletes...there also a lot they dont get.

and my spelling is awful today..new keyboard. I am sorry.

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 11:09 AM ET  01.17 by 84

and my spelling is awful today..new keyboard. I am sorry.

That's the ticket....blame it on the keyboard.... :)

Agree that the colleges are making a mint off the athletes....and I guess that you could say they "shop around" to get the best program to get them to the next level (at least the ones who have that chance)...but I think putting money in the mix would be a bad idea...unless everyone got the same regardless.

I do think a stipend would be good for incidentals such as laundry, food, etc.