Why should their work for the athletic program be any different than other work study programs?
My cousin plays at OU and he said they get a stipend of somewhere around $600 monthly and he said other players at "lesser" schools get larger stipends. Compared to the amount of money the school brings in w/ the program I believe they should get a larger stipend.
EVEN THOUGH school and some other things are paid having $600 to live off of is not fun especially when your organization is the face of the school and the heart of the state. Paying them too much has its down sides as well but OU could (if they wanted) do better.
EVEN THOUGH school and some other things are paid having $600 to live off of is not fun especially when your organization is the face of the school and the heart of the state. Paying them too much has its down sides as well but OU could (if they wanted) do better.
Umm, we only send NBA players to the Olympics, and Football doesn't even get played in the Olympics.
If we begin paying college athletes, then it just becomes a lower level of pro ball. The university willing to offer the most money to athlete A gets him and the college game then becomes "all about the money" just like the pro game. Kids will play for a university one year and then want to "hold out" for a better contract for the next. If they are good enough at what they do, the "payday" for these athletes should come after college, just like it does for the regular student. If not, then at least they have a degree (paid for by someone else BTW) to fall back on.
Another thing to consider, if universities begin using the money generated by their sports programs to pay the athletes, then only those sports that create great amounts of revenue will be kept, women's sports will, of course, suffer the most, and tuition cost will skyrocket because someone has to pay for new construction on campus, upkeep, staff, and the millions of operational dollars spent yearly. Who will pay for that? The answer: taxpayers and the average student. Sorry, but I would rather see them do away with college athletics than begin paying players, and I've sent several kids on to college on scholarships.
Another thing to consider, if universities begin using the money generated by their sports programs to pay the athletes, then only those sports that create great amounts of revenue will be kept, women's sports will, of course, suffer the most, and tuition cost will skyrocket because someone has to pay for new construction on campus, upkeep, staff, and the millions of operational dollars spent yearly. Who will pay for that? The answer: taxpayers and the average student. Sorry, but I would rather see them do away with college athletics than begin paying players, and I've sent several kids on to college on scholarships.
I am really mixed about this. However I am mixed about allot of things sports related. I personally think they should unionize..lol...cap salaries of the coaches across the board, and lower the prices of tickets for college. For Pro they all ready have a union, they should cap the players, coaches, etc salaries and then cheapen the tickets. The only person(s) that get more money would be the owners. Why should these players get paid Millions upon millions of dollars??
I think the scholarships are the payoff
Its a slippery slope. If you pay one athlete you have to pay them all. Softball, tennis, baseball, football, wrestling, etc.
Alot of schools don't make money on sports but lose. They wouldn't be able to afford it and then all big names would only go to the schools that paid them.
Just my thoughts
Its a slippery slope. If you pay one athlete you have to pay them all. Softball, tennis, baseball, football, wrestling, etc.
Alot of schools don't make money on sports but lose. They wouldn't be able to afford it and then all big names would only go to the schools that paid them.
Just my thoughts
Again, treat it like workstudy. Pay em $7.50/hr across the board.
Red Grange slept on a cot in a boiler room basement at U of Illinois for 4 years... What's your point?
The workstudy deal might work. However, workstudy is a federal program and students have to qualify financially to receive workstudy benefits. What if an athlete doesn't qualify financially? Do we allow workstudy pay just because he is an athlete and take those workstudy dollars away from or lessen what's available to a student there for academics who did qualify financially? Do that with all the athletes (baseball, tennis, volleyball, swimming, etc) and soon there are no workstudy dollars for the academic students or anyone who isn't an athlete. I could perhaps see setting an amount to pay athletes, but again, if you do it for all athletes in all sports, you are talking about millions of additional dollars that have to be made up somewhere. I just think it's a bad idea.
The good news would be that since they would no longer be considered amateurs, high school athletes could accept money/gifts without affecting their college eligibility. That sure would make recruiting more interesting. Maybe even an old high school coach could get a little "incentive" to get a kid to attend a certain school.
The good news would be that since they would no longer be considered amateurs, high school athletes could accept money/gifts without affecting their college eligibility. That sure would make recruiting more interesting. Maybe even an old high school coach could get a little "incentive" to get a kid to attend a certain school.
If he doesn't qualify, he doesn't qualify. Easy as that.
Similar threads
