Is the trade off "fair"/equivalent? (Money side of College Football)

I wasn't looking at it from colleges that do not generate the revenue but from the viewpoint of big market teams. The NCAA would never allow this to happen because it would create an unfair competitive advantage to the colleges that did not generate the 70 million dollars a year.

I was just saying that players in these big market schools that generate all the millions that many are becoming millionaires over by having their hand in the pot should have more guranteed benefits than what they do.

 

What did Jimbo Fisher make as an OC/Assistant Coach? Right at half a million?

Isn't Les Miles making over a million dollars a year?

What does Skip make per year?


I wonder if you take away the $$$ generated by the football program could assistant coaches make six figure salaries and head coaches make over a million/yr?

Somebody's making a "profit". :thumb:

 

The NCAA would have to fund all the schools not making a profit. How much would that cost and where would the money come from? It sounds good, if it could work. I pretty much agree with everything else you've said.

 

What is largely overlooked is the free promotional time a player receives.

They are offered much, much more than free tuition. Following their "intern" period with a university, they are then in a position to cash in the reputation they have developed courtesy of the university.

Consider this, no other student receives the kind of individual promotional support an athlete might. Put a dollar value on that. 3 years at a school then the possibility of a $40 million contract? I'd say they got a fair deal. Name one other program outside of athletics producing such results.

What I could possibly consider, however, might be some form of insurance in case of career altering injury. Also, some sort of work opportunity would be helpful.

 

Only a very small number have the opportunity to play in the NFL. Those players have it made while in college because someone is always giving them money and stuff ... yes, even at LSU.

It's the other 99% that I feel for. College football has become a year round sport nowadays. They are always practicing or working out. Even during the summer months they have "volunteer" workouts. Leaves little time to get a part-time job.

I've always thought they should get a little spending money, but I have yet to see how this can be done at every school. Most schools can't afford it.

 

Finally I agree. Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see why a student/athlete should walk away with a diploma AND a guaranteed income. As seniors in high school these kids make decisions about what school to attend based on many factors including the national exposure, the relative coaching experience, the sucess/potential success of the program, and others. It's a mutually, not necessarily equally rewarding decision.

A full ride scholarship at a private school is upwards of $40k a year in some cases. Over the 4 years, that's a $160k education. Consider that these athletes also have access to tutors, separate training facilities, trainers, meals, and medical personnel.

Do coaches and assistants sometimes make a ton of money? Clearly they do and yet it's nearly impossible to calculate the monetary value some of them create for their school. Les Miles is working wonders for LSU and no doubt some of that is translating into greater TV ad $$ and merchandise sales. The LSU logo is becoming more valuable by the day and so Les Miles should make good money.

If an athlete isn't going to make it into the NFL but they have a diploma, what's to stop them from sending out their resume, interviewing, and doing what everyone else does to land a job? They already have a leg up in terms of experience, contacts, reputation, and support. Furthering their dependence by providing even a minimal income doesn't help them understand the realities of their future.

 

This is true to an extent. Not only in the national media but also in the local media and local market.

Insurance sounds like an interesting proposition.

I'd still like to consider paying college football players (only). Most other sports are not revenue producing, especially on average. Perhaps men's basketball? Maybe the NCAA could raise funds from sponsors in addition to their regular income sources. I think giving players a small income would help to keep things on the up and up. I think it's also probably deserved.

 

FWIW, I agree with your notion here, but it is important to note that players do receive a stipend much like grad students do. It's a very small amount, but never-the-less, they do receive a little money. And, the NCAA does allow athletes to have jobs now. It's almost an impossibility, time-wise, in the season though.

One of our players took part of the summer off last year so he could earn some extra money that he wouldn't have received because of not attending summer II. (It didn't matter that he was so close to graduation the classes would have meant little, or nothing.)

You are starting to lose me here a bit. You say you are looking at it from the perspective of bigger market schools, not from the other colleges?

It's funny looking at this idea from a political standpoint, no offense intended. It reminds me of the "spreading the wealth" concept of a Socialist government. (of course, the NCAA does have a bit of a socialist mentality as it is)

You are right. But, it's not just somebody, it's the whole system involved. Taxes for the state during game days, increased tuition dollars for the school due to success on the football field (USC, as example, had a 20% increase in freshmen applications/class with the Spurrier announcement alone), more monies for the general education fund...the list goes on.

A few things to keep in mind...in short story form.

The REC center on campus in Tuscaloosa...a great deal of the funding for that came from the Ath. Dept.

You mention the 70 million dollar operation. Take the real world, and show me a situation where a CEO of that company and its board aren't making monies comparable to the "bigger market football programs."

After school is over, the point of "playing on a certain team" opens a lot of doors that regular students don't even get in the shadow...I could tell you story after story about ex-players that have outstanding careers today, but didn't play a down at the NFL/professional level.

Thoughts/ideals like this are interesting. But, I don't see a lot of action on these fronts until the other schools aren't such a burden on the state system as it is today. Take B-ham and UAB as example. Millions lost there, but the talk in the town is building a domed stadium for them?!? OK, that may increase their attendance from 1500 to 3000 on the weekends.

 

I don't understand how we can be so bias as to say (if we did go along with the idea that the money could be paid to players) that the players that WOULD make it to the NFL are not eligible for a paycheck. Who is generating the money? ...not the student riding the pine with his nose in a biology book. Every one of those players are there for a reason. Whether it be for national recognition (big school, big tv, big time) or the student with the free ride scholarship knowing he wants to be doctor.

Just my opinion. Please take no offense, Tigerwins. Just a response.

Have a good one guys!