Should athletes be given a stipend while in college?

• ernest_t_bass

  

  queencitybuckeye;786608 wrote:What the hell was he a year ago? Nothing. He needed one of the big time programs to acquire a name, of course he did. As did every "name" player for decades.

  
  I think Cam Newton did quite a lot for Auburn this past year. Yeah, he needed that team to display his skills, but he put them back on the map.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  ernest_t_bass;786614 wrote:I think Cam Newton did quite a lot for Auburn this past year. Yeah, he needed that team to display his skills, but he put them back on the map.

  
  you are wrong on this one. Cam is not bigger than Auburn
• FatHobbit

  

  DeyDurkie5;786616 wrote:you are wrong on this one. Cam is not bigger than Auburn

  
  But without the Cam's of the world nobody wants to watch Auburn (or any other school) play football.
• queencitybuckeye

  ernest_t_bass;786614 wrote:I think Cam Newton did quite a lot for Auburn this past year. Yeah, he needed that team to display his skills, but he put them back on the map.

  
  They were never off my map.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  DeyDurkie5;786616 wrote:you are wrong on this one. Cam is not bigger than Auburn

  FatHobbit;786617 wrote:But without the Cam's of the world nobody wants to watch Auburn (or any other school) play football.

  
  There it is.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  FatHobbit;786617 wrote:But without the Cam's of the world nobody wants to watch Auburn (or any other school) play football.

  
  Yeah, and without the schools they play for these guys have no where to go. Universities will always be bigger than the players, and the fact these guys act like thugs and pre-madonnas and want tatoos and all this bullshit is a pure reflection on their upbringing and mental status.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  queencitybuckeye;786623 wrote:They were never off my map.

  
  OK. BGSU is never off my map.
• queencitybuckeye

  FatHobbit;786617 wrote:But without the Cam's of the world nobody wants to watch Auburn (or any other school) play football.

  
  Collectively yes, individually no.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Watching the 30-for-30 on the "Fab Five" gave me a whole new perspective on this whole debate. That university made a TON off those 5 individuals.
• Al Bundy

  FatHobbit;786617 wrote:But without the Cam's of the world nobody wants to watch Auburn (or any other school) play football.

  
  If Cam didn't play a down last year, millions of people still would have watched Auburn football.
• enigmaax

  ernest_t_bass;786628 wrote:Watching the 30-for-30 on the "Fab Five" gave me a whole new perspective on this whole debate. That university made a TON off those 5 individuals.

  
  So you would prefer that the schools who can afford to pay the most or who have the best marketing machines be able to lure all the top recruits with money?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  enigmaax;786655 wrote:So you would prefer that the schools who can afford to pay the most or who have the best marketing machines be able to lure all the top recruits with money?

  
  LOL, it's already done that way.
• enigmaax

  ernest_t_bass;786657 wrote:LOL, it's already done that way.

  
  Not exactly, but not much would change as far as there being a small group of schools who dominate the top tier.
  
  I actually wouldn't care, but I understand why they don't or can't go in that direction. As soon as it becomes a profession, the NCAA loses its tax-exempt status and that changes the whole landscape. Most schools would have significantly less athletics and a lot of programs would simply go away.
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;786595 wrote:If it can be proven that the university is making money off their name/person/etc. (ie - jersey sales) then I think that part of those profits should be held until their amateur status is removed.

  
  Most university athletic departments don't turn a profit. I think out of all football programs only like 9 or something are actually in the black. Where is this money going to come from? I'd be okay with paying players, but then we need to take away the stuff they already get(free tuition, housing, food, laundry, etc..).
• dokken

  Schools should pay athletes $200 per month cash, a dime bag of dope per week, and one tattoo worth $100 per year.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Winning programs bring in money, bottom line. Jordan made the Bulls franchise millions (if not billions) more than if he weren't there. Cavs were poop without Lebron before and poop now with him gone. Many can be said about college sports. The athletes (that win) are what bring in the big bucks, not tradition. See Notre Dame... yeah, they still make bank as a school, but imagine if they were still winning...
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;786672 wrote:Winning programs bring in money, bottom line. Jordan made the Bulls franchise millions (if not billions) more than if he weren't there. Cavs were poop without Lebron before and poop now with him gone. Many can be said about college sports. The athletes (that win) are what bring in the big bucks, not tradition. See Notre Dame... yeah, they still make bank as a school, but imagine if they were still winning...

  
  So winning teams that are already struggling to stay in the black should be forced to go into debt after already paying each NCAA athlete around approximately 30,000+ per year?
  
  You're a joke.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  sleeper;786677 wrote:So winning teams that are already struggling to stay in the black should be forced to go into debt after already paying each NCAA athlete around approximately 30,000+ per year?
  
  You're a joke.

  
  LOL, no. What would you do if I paraded you around, gave you food and water and shelter, a few bucks to spend on the side... meanwhile I made bank off of your superior talents (being an OSU grad and all, obvi). And don't try to be cute, just answer the stated question.
• Al Bundy

  ernest_t_bass;786680 wrote:LOL, no. What would you do if I paraded you around, gave you food and water and shelter, a few bucks to spend on the side... meanwhile I made bank off of your superior talents (being an OSU grad and all, obvi). And don't try to be cute, just answer the stated question.

  
  When you factor in the living stipends, room and board, tuition, unlimited tutors, scheduling priority, unlimited medical treatment, etc. I think many athletes would be willing to accept the scholarship if a current athlete feels that they are being taken advantage of.
• enigmaax

  ernest_t_bass;786672 wrote:Winning programs bring in money, bottom line. Jordan made the Bulls franchise millions (if not billions) more than if he weren't there. Cavs were poop without Lebron before and poop now with him gone. Many can be said about college sports. The athletes (that win) are what bring in the big bucks, not tradition. See Notre Dame... yeah, they still make bank as a school, but imagine if they were still winning...

  
  Would be much easier to prove a value in basketball than in football because there are less players. Would you make it performance based - how would you measure performance? Would you have a pay schedule based on position? Would there be guaranteed money before they step foot on campus or is it all incentive based?
• wildcats20

  

  ernest_t_bass;786680 wrote:LOL, no. What would you do if I paraded you around, gave you food and water and shelter, a few bucks to spend on the side... meanwhile I made bank off of your superior talents (being an OSU grad and all, obvi). And don't try to be cute, just answer the stated question.

  
  They aren't getting "a few bucks on the side." The OSU players are getting $1000 a month in spending money. That is MORE than enough money to live on in Columbus, Ohio. No one is telling these idiots to spend the money on stupid shit. $1000/month is more than a normal student gets by working a job outside of going to class.
  
  Live with 3-4 other guys and that $1000 will go even further. Krenzel was on the radio the other day and said the same thing. He lived with a couple other guys in a townhome and they didn't even pay $400/month per person. But then he said there were guys on the team who lived alone, which is the most expensive way to live.
• enigmaax

  ernest_t_bass;786680 wrote:LOL, no. What would you do if I paraded you around, gave you food and water and shelter, a few bucks to spend on the side... meanwhile I made bank off of your superior talents (being an OSU grad and all, obvi). And don't try to be cute, just answer the stated question.

  
  Minus the parading around, it happens every single day in the corporate world.
• sherm03

  

  lhslep134;786546 wrote:Well, Ohio State football players are given a $1000 a month stipend so I'm not exactly sure it eliminated anything.

  
  Are you fucking serious?! So in addition to having free education, free room and board, free books, free clothing, access to the best facilities...they are also pulling down a grand a month?!
  
  I racked up close $40,000 in debt from loans for school...and my on campus job which I had to work about 25 hours a week paid me about $500 a month.
  
  These guys really want people to believe they don't have money for living expenses?! If they are blowing through a grand a month while basically having no bills or debt once they leave college, there is something seriously wrong.
• dokken

  I believe the $1000 a month is directed to those who do not live in the dorms and do not use the cafeteria on campus and a small dime bag of dope every now and then.
• Little Danny

  

  Paying these yahoos would not solve the problem, it would only raise the bar. Even if you paid these guys $35K a year (on top of tuition, books, room and board, etc.) there still would be temption from bosters in the forms of extra cash, bling, cars, etc.