NCAA D1 Players receiving monetary compensation

[ChitownPuck91 0]

There has been a lot of debate lately about whether or not NCAA athletes deserve to be compensated. In the past it was believed that athletes were fairly compensated with a free college education. The argument can be made that instead of receiving money from the school they should take out loans, or work a part time job.

After playing college hockey myself it easy for me to sympathize and say that the money is deserved, but where do you guys stand on the issue? Do you believe that this is a good idea or not? Will it catch on and spread throughout the NCAA? Is there anyone here that actually played NCAA D1 that can weigh in?

Here is the link to article from The Hockey News that sparked my interest:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ncaa-players-can-get-paid-now-but-will-they/

[IPv6Freely 2082]

I'm fine with paying them if it means the schools are no longer giving them free rides. They shouldn't get both, though.

[leftwinger37 43]

There has been a lot of debate lately about whether or not NCAA athletes deserve to be compensated. In the past it was believed that athletes were fairly compensated with a free college education. The argument can be made that instead of receiving money from the school they should take out loans, or work a part time job.

After playing college hockey myself it easy for me to sympathize and say that the money is deserved, but where do you guys stand on the issue? Do you believe that this is a good idea or not? Will it catch on and spread throughout the NCAA? Is there anyone here that actually played NCAA D1 that can weigh in?

Here is the link to article from The Hockey News that sparked my interest:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ncaa-players-can-get-paid-now-but-will-they/

I love the college game and have a lot of respect for student athletes such as yourself. There is no doubt that balancing your training, practices, games, team travel, and team events with your academic schedule is a grind. However, I take issue with the compensation angle. I did not play college hockey, but I did go to college and had to work full time and get financial aid to pay for it. As I got further along and credit hours became more expensive, I had to take semesters off so that I could work more to have money for tuition, books, rent, food, etc. I'm not out to prove that I had it rough or that I worked any harder than the next person; my point is that to afford the privelage of a college education, I had to make sacrifices.

For a scholarship athelete, I think compensation should be out of the question. Not only do you get a once in a lifetime opportunity (for most of us anyway) to play at the highest level of amateur athletics, but you also get the privelage of a college education, without the cost of tuition. I know all schools and scholarships are different, but even if you are responsible for the expense of books, housing, meals, etc., that is still a really good deal. Trust me. Even though you have to find a way to pay those expenses in the short-term, you still win in the long-term because (assuming you earn your degree) you're not stuck with the crushing debt of tuition for years upon years.

Do institutions profit off of the atheltes at the gate, with lucrative TV deals, apparel contracts, merchandise sales, etc. ? Absolutely. But again, they offer the athelte the privelage of playing a D1 sport and free college education. Not only do you get the coaching, the training, and the opportunity to take your game to the next level (which significantly increases your earning potential if you go pro), but if you stay in school, you also get a college degree that gives you the opportunity to explore a different path in life while also increasing your future earning potential. It's a win-win. Look at the guys that play club hockey; most have to pay for school (unless they get financial aid), books, housing, food/living expenses, and have to pay to play hockey on top of that. If that doesn't underscore the privelidge of the scholarship athelete, I don't know what does.

I really don't understand how an athlete that may not have the want or the means to go college without an athletic scholarship can argue about fairness. I don't agree with compensating scholarship atheletes, but if things do swing that way, I believe it should be mandatory for the student to attend until their degree is complete and if they do sign a pro contract that exceeds the cost of their tuition, they should have to pay it back. That would make things "fair."

[EJB 488]

Never a D1 athlete. Was a low level college athlete(football) that did have school/housing paid for while I played(chased a girl to another school, never played football again).

I don’t have strong feelings either way. I think decent arguments can be made on either side.

It’s going to be a can of worms and the halves will have more, the don’t haves will have less. Teams with HUGE athletic budgets will thrive in recruiting with the ability to offer full cost of attendance, while schools with smaller budgets will have to adjust. I am assuming that if a school is paying one scholarship athlete, every scholarship athlete at the school will be getting the same compensation, which is really where that is going to drain budgets. MANY schools are struggling with athletic budgets already.

Look at the guys that play club hockey; most have to pay for school (unless they get financial aid), books, housing, food/living expenses, and have to pay to play hockey on top of that. If that doesn't underscore the privelidge of the scholarship athelete, I don't know what does.

My son resembles that statement....

[leftwinger37 43]

It’s going to be a can of worms and the halves will have more, the don’t haves will have less. Teams with HUGE athletic budgets will thrive in recruiting with the ability to offer full cost of attendance, while schools with smaller budgets will have to adjust. I am assuming that if a school is paying one scholarship athlete, every scholarship athlete at the school will be getting the same compensation, which is really where that is going to drain budgets. MANY schools are struggling with athletic budgets already.

Good point. The other can of worms it opens is if the majority of the revenue at a particular school is generated by one or two sports, do the athletes participating in those one or two sports get more compensation? It's a real slippery slope...

[EJB 488]

Good point. The other can of worms it opens is if the majority of the revenue at a particular school is generated by one or two sports, do the athletes participating in those one or two sports get more compensation? It's a real slippery slope...

No, it is my understanding that what is offered to one athlete will be every athlete(talking about scholarship athletes) at the school. I am under the impression that this is already happening at the University of Utah, meaning kids are now getting full cost of attendance(extra checks every month).

[leftwinger37 43]

No, it is my understanding that what is offered to one athlete will be every athlete(talking about scholarship athletes) at the school. I am under the impression that this is already happening at the University of Utah, meaning kids are now getting full cost of attendance(extra checks every month).

I was speaking more along the lines of this general conversation about "fairness." If athletes can successfully lobby to obtain compensation for cost of attendence, why wouldn't they lobby for a portion of the revenue? I'm sure if football players at Alabama and basketball players at Kentucky were paid (legally), they would not be satisfied getting the same compensation as the volleyball team.

[EJB 488]

I was speaking more along the lines of this general conversation about "fairness." If athletes can successfully lobby to obtain compensation for cost of attendence, why wouldn't they lobby for a portion of the revenue? I'm sure if football players at Alabama and basketball players at Kentucky were paid (legally), they would not be satisfied getting the same compensation as the volleyball team.

I think you'd be dangerously close to then making them professional athletes. I think that is why the every athlete concept comes in, revenue generating sports as well as non-revenue sports. Not to mention I assume it would violate Title IX.

[leftwinger37 43]

I think you'd be dangerously close to then making them professional athletes. I think that is why the every athlete concept comes in, revenue generating sports as well as non-revenue sports. Not to mention I assume it would violate Title IX.

I agree with you on all points, but the fight over revenue was what paved the way for compensation of any kind. I believe the decision in the O'Bannon vs. NCAA suit already calls for some form of revenue sharing, so there is already some provision for it.

[chippa13 1844]

They get "meal money"for home games, they're making a couple bucks.

[fcalog 58]

There has been a lot of debate lately about whether or not NCAA athletes deserve to be compensated. In the past it was believed that athletes were fairly compensated with a free college education. The argument can be made that instead of receiving money from the school they should take out loans, or work a part time job.

After playing college hockey myself it easy for me to sympathize and say that the money is deserved, but where do you guys stand on the issue? Do you believe that this is a good idea or not? Will it catch on and spread throughout the NCAA? Is there anyone here that actually played NCAA D1 that can weigh in?

Here is the link to article from The Hockey News that sparked my interest:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ncaa-players-can-get-paid-now-but-will-they/

Very few athletes actually receive full athletic hockey scholarships. Under NCCA rules you are allowed 18 full scholarships, most teams carry 27 players and can theoretically give 27 players a 2/3 scholarship and still meet the limit of 18 per school, this is rarely done. Many are given partial scholarships depending on need after scrutinizing the family's financial/tax situation and 4-5 receive no compensation whatsoever. Most of the money is spread around.

Ivy League schools offer no athletic scholarships, only financial aid/academic scholarships.

[MR MIZUN0 0]

I played club hockey.....we had to pay to play, but what I did get out of it were a group of friends that will last a lifetime. Granted club hockey is no D1 NCAA program, we were still away on weekends and had to miss an occasional class to make it to some games. Everyone on the team played for the love of the game.

With this in mind, I'm not sure why people want to pay NCAA D1 Athletes. I mean how many D1 hockey players end up going on to play in a paid league and make a career of the game? I'm sure all those guys out there playing D1 are having the absolute times of their lives playing great hockey while getting a heavily discounted education. If they are god enough - they will eventually get paid.

[EJB 488]

I played club hockey.....we had to pay to play, but what I did get out of it were a group of friends that will last a lifetime. Granted club hockey is no D1 NCAA program, we were still away on weekends and had to miss an occasional class to make it to some games. Everyone on the team played for the love of the game.

With this in mind, I'm not sure why people want to pay NCAA D1 Athletes. I mean how many D1 hockey players end up going on to play in a paid league and make a career of the game? I'm sure all those guys out there playing D1 are having the absolute times of their lives playing great hockey while getting a heavily discounted education. If they are god enough - they will eventually get paid.

Not sure this has anything to do with "wanting" to pay athletes, ESPECIALLY non-revenue generating sport athletes. It has to do with the cash cow that is NCAA revenue generating sports and that billion dollar industry and keeping it in the hands of the NCAA and conferences.

I am of the opinion, if you didn't have CFB conferences signing hundreds of millions of dollar television contracts every year, CBB selling rights to regular season games + the tourney for huge deals, nobody would be talking about paying any athletes. Think the BIG10 just signed a 1B dollar deal for their next television contract, starting in '18.

Again, teams with the means will thrive in this. The BIG10 paid each of their schools 27ish million last year in television contract money. That would probably be more than UND's entire athletic budget. That's just TV contract money.....

[badger_14 601]

I don't know about compensating athletes directly, but sometimes I wonder about the trade-offs and what life looks like post-college.

What is the quality of the education that a player (particularly in a high profile sport) is getting? Athletic schedules are demanding (practices daily, travel many weekends during the season, off-ice training). Academic schedules can also be demanding (study time, out of class work, class time, labs). If the sport makes a significant amount of money for the school, is there an implicit message that athletic performance is valued over academics? Are student-athletes steered toward "rocks for jocks"-style courses that will earn them credit but not necessarily prepare them for a career?

What happens to an athlete who suffers a major injury and can't play for a season, or worse, ever again? What happens to his or her academic future then? (particularly for an injury that requires lengthy rehabilitation and might affect cognition, like a head or neck injury)? Insurance in the US is kind of a crapshoot, and it's easy to rack up medical costs for even a relatively minor injury, even if you're on a parents' insurance or use a student health plan. Large schools could probably absorb the cost, but not for a long-term injury.

For high-profile sports (football, basketball, hockey) the players' performances earn revenue for their school. I don't think an individual stipend is the answer, but perhaps some re-distribution of revenue toward improving outcomes for all student athletes.

[ChitownPuck91 0]

I played club myself, but I was lucky enough to play for a school that offered a grant for their athletes. It wasn't technically a scholarship, but it was money for playing hockey at their school. From my understanding, there is a very small percentage of NCAA athletes that actually receive a 100% scholarship in exchange for participation in athletics. The rest receive partial scholarship at 40-50%. So I don't really see the argument that "They don't deserve money because they get a free education" valid. I received some money, yes its true, but I also had to take out 40K in loans and work two jobs in addition to my coursework, workouts, and practice. $1800 for a year, or $40-$50 per week depending on where you go to school, would have been welcomed and from an athletes' perspective it would have made life a hell of a lot easier.

For high-profile sports (football, basketball, hockey) the players' performances earn revenue for their school. I don't think an individual stipend is the answer, but perhaps some re-distribution of revenue toward improving outcomes for all student athletes.

I think this could be the start of a conversation leading to serious reform of NCAA athletics. As long as athletes are performing and physically healthy the school keeps them around. The second they sustain a serious injury the thought of losing their scholarship becomes a reality.

[EJB 488]

I played club myself, but I was lucky enough to play for a school that offered a grant for their athletes. It wasn't technically a scholarship, but it was money for playing hockey at their school. From my understanding, there is a very small percentage of NCAA athletes that actually receive a 100% scholarship in exchange for participation in athletics. The rest receive partial scholarship at 40-50%. So I don't really see the argument that "They don't deserve money because they get a free education" valid. I received some money, yes its true, but I also had to take out 40K in loans and work two jobs in addition to my coursework, workouts, and practice. $1800 for a year, or $40-$50 per week depending on where you go to school, would have been welcomed and from an athletes' perspective it would have made life a hell of a lot easier.

I think this could be the start of a conversation leading to serious reform of NCAA athletics. As long as athletes are performing and physically healthy the school keeps them around. The second they sustain a serious injury the thought of losing their scholarship becomes a reality.

Besides revenue generating sports(football, some basketball and popular sports at individual schools), the kids are lucky to get a ride or any scholarship money for that matter. The fact is, they are costing the University money, not bringing it into the University. So their ability to continue to play a sport they hopefully love and get anything for it, is lucky. I find it amusing to think some college athletes out there, besides those that are generating revenue, thinking they are somehow entitled to something because they are playing a sport at the school. The majority of non-football playing NCAA college athletes on scholarship are costing the university money, not generating it.

Remember, there are VERY FEW sports teams are bringing in money to universities. I'd be interested to see the financial numbers of the 59 NCAA D1 hockey programs.

[EJB 488]

^^^add to this, even football programs are not guaranteed to make money. Power 5 conference schools will make it, but smaller schools in smaller conferences may break even or even lose money. Guess my point is, again, most college athletes are lucky to get some financial aid to continue to play their sport. They are not the kid who's getting their jersey sold at the bookstore. They don't have to continue to play, I stopped, gave up my financial aid and never played again(was fortunate enough to have the means to have school paid anyway). They have total autonomy to walk away and take the "athlete" off student-athlete.

[ChitownPuck91 0]

Besides revenue generating sports(football, some basketball and popular sports at individual schools), the kids are lucky to get a ride or any scholarship money for that matter. The fact is, they are costing the University money, not bringing it into the University. So their ability to continue to play a sport they hopefully love and get anything for it, is lucky. I find it amusing to think some college athletes out there, besides those that are generating revenue, thinking they are somehow entitled to something because they are playing a sport at the school. The majority of non-football playing NCAA college athletes on scholarship are costing the university money, not generating it.

Remember, there are VERY FEW sports teams are bringing in money to universities. I'd be interested to see the financial numbers of the 59 NCAA D1 hockey programs.

In those non-revenue generating sports you see far fewer scholarships given because of that very reason. I agree with you, they are extremely lucky, but I am in no way saying or insinuating they are entitled to it. I don't believe many of those athletes feel entitled to it either. The reason that this is a topic of discussion is because with the demands placed on these athletes it is near impossible for them to work during the season. Not all sports are like hockey and have seasons that run nearly the entire duration of the school year. I see nothing wrong with a small stipend paid to athletes during their season just to ensure their athletes are taken care of. Do they have to do this? No, of course not.

Providence College is a school of just over 5K students. How can a school that small afford to be the first college to provide their athletes with $1800 a year?

[chippa13 1844]

$1,800 a year is chump change after the free tuition/room/board they are giving the athletes.

[EJB 488]

^^^ That's a good question, wouldn't be hard to just bump the 44K tuition $500 and that'd cover it...

Remember, I'm not against the stipend, I don't really have strong feelings either way. Just kind of expressing a side of it.

[flyers10 57]

Most college sports are money losers, even D1 hockey. If not for the football and/or basketball program at many D1 schools they wouldn't be able to offer the other 20,50,80,etc other varsity or club sports. Getting a 40K, 80K free education is a pretty good offer. I don't think more money should be thrown to them but maybe change the rules where they are allowed to earn money through a job and still retain amateur status.

[chk hrd 164]

Except some of the jobs would be grass watching, video game reviewer, etc. The top players would get jobs provided by benefactors for do nothing at. It would be another way to let these athletes walk around with undeserved entitlements, kind of like giving them BS classes. This would just legalize what many are already doing.

[ArrogantOwl 7]

Most college sports are money losers, even D1 hockey. If not for the football and/or basketball program at many D1 schools they wouldn't be able to offer the other 20,50,80,etc other varsity or club sports. Getting a 40K, 80K free education is a pretty good offer. I don't think more money should be thrown to them but maybe change the rules where they are allowed to earn money through a job and still retain amateur status.

I go to tOSU, and this pretty damn accurate. Football and Basketball pays for all of the other athletics. I'm pretty sure the Athletics department is it's own separate entity at this point.

I think one of the underlying issues is the rising cost of tuition. If I didn't receive any scholarships or loans, I'd be on the hook for 43k a year while some of those guys get it all paid for. They get special housing, access to better food, nutrition, and academic resources that most of us students don't have access to. tOSU is pretty rigorous with their academics and AFAIK the athletes get special tutoring, but they basically get away with doing the minimum amount of work. Thankfully they have attendance watchers...

[chippa13 1844]

And with all those advantages, a good number of the big sport athletes at high profile schools (football, basketball, hockey) graduate as functional morons.

[Chadd 916]

I go to tOSU, and this pretty damn accurate. Football and Basketball pays for all of the other athletics. I'm pretty sure the Athletics department is it's own separate entity at this point.

I think one of the underlying issues is the rising cost of tuition. If I didn't receive any scholarships or loans, I'd be on the hook for 43k a year while some of those guys get it all paid for. They get special housing, access to better food, nutrition, and academic resources that most of us students don't have access to. tOSU is pretty rigorous with their academics and AFAIK the athletes get special tutoring, but they basically get away with doing the minimum amount of work. Thankfully they have attendance watchers...

It has been said many times over around here that Penn State football covered the bills for the entire athletic department. I don't know if that changed after the scandals or not, but it would be hard to justify paying players when the programs are essentially losing money from the start.

I'm not a fan of the NCAA being used as a minor league sports system. There are a lot of guys, usually playing basketball or football, that have no desire to study or get a degree. They're just at school until they get drafted by the NBA or NFL and are abusing the system more often than not.