Real interesting column in the LAT today:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/435947-reggie-bush-apologizes-to-usc-should-bush-have-apologized

He basically argues that Bush shouldn't apologize, but instead should man up and say he did what he did because the NCAA system is unfair and players should be paid.

I tutored Jonathan Makonnen on his thesis his senior year. His topic was whether or not athletes should be paid. His case was pretty convincing. Everyone in Berkeley gets money on game days but the players. The community gets restaurant and bar revenue, the coaches get paid, the people working the stadium get paid, the cops get overtime, and even the frats get money selling their lawns for parking.


The problem Jon's thesis exposed was these arguments only work for football and men's basketball. He never did come to a conclusion on how to deal with that -- do only profit making sports give money to players? Should there be a profit motive based on winning. Jon didn't have a solution, but he certainly proved that the current system is not fair and needs to be fixed somehow.

No they shouldn't get paid. I am tired of people making the argument they they are being exploited because the universities makes money and they dont. The universities are not for profit institutions if the athletes dont want the free education and the chance to have the most fun they will ever have by being able to experience "college life" then they dont have to go to school. The schools arent forcing them to go there. If anyone is forcing them it is the NFL for not taking players out of high school but the fact is they arent ready out of high school. But to make the claim that the players have a right to the money is ridiculous.

I for one would be against pay to play....they already get education, food etc. Who would determine the pay scale?....Would a player go to the highest bidder?.. This would open up a whole new can of worms when one university pays more thru incentives, bonuses etc.....Private schools like SC could throw more money around then public schools like Cal. I don't like the idea one bit... The motivation to play should come internal desire to make the pros, or personal development or simply the fun of playing the game....paying players would change the motivation of many guys to just "pay day". One reason I love college football much more then the pros involves money and greed...

So if we give football players an extra $5,000 a year they aren't going to talk to agents who will buy them a car or a house? Where is the extra money going to come from? Do we pay walk-ons, too? There are very, very few athletic departments who make enough money to consider this without having to cut a bunch of sports. Maybe the stipend should be raised a little bit, but I don't know that athletes need to be "paid" something above and beyond that.

Grad students are in the exact same situation. They teach for salaries below the poverty line in exchange for a graduate education and a career in academia down the road if they're lucky. That's just how life goes when you're in an entry level position.

I agree with all the above responses. What about the band, cheerleaders, performing arts students? Should they be paid too? Paying student-athletes will turn me off to college sports, just like the Olympics, where it is really an extension of the professional leagues.

joshbalt;359252 said:

---

Players are "paid" in cash, room and board, tuition, and other expenses, not to mention the lifetime return on the education/degree that many would not otherwise receive but for the opportunity provided them. Players are also have the choice to pursue any other opportunity they have instead of attending a university but do so because it is their best opportunity.

---

+1

Many athletic departments run at a deficit. Paying players should help fix that and it will definitely not create a situation where the programs that actually make money have an even bigger competitive avantage.

It's a great idea that won't desroy college football as we know it.

:sarc:

I'll be the contrarian here. I have no problem with football players getting a small stipend during football season. By stipend, I mean a fixed NCAA-determined amount, like say $200 a month to be paid from August to December. And during those months, football players are not allowed to have part time jobs. (Of course this is not related to the issue of top athletes getting huge gifts from bottom-feeding scum).

And it absolutely is exploitation. The vast majority of college football players do not make it to the NFL, but the chances are great that football players can get injuries that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Some are obvious, like knee and neck injuries, and some are not so obvious, like multiple concussions. How many Cal players are sitting out of practice right now because of concussions? They are more common and more dangerous than you want to believe. Football is a gladiator sport. I have no problem with college players being paid some extra cash for the risk.

And most of all, football is a money sport. The BCS, the television contracts, the conference re-structuringit's all about money. Why aren't you guys outraged at Tedford's $2.8M salary? Millions of dollars of private donations are poured into football programs to buy a winning team. Donors are happy to not have to be concerned about paying players, but if paying players were allowed, donors would pony up, because they donate money to buy a winning football team.

You all bring up good points about the problems associated with paying players, but you all have blinders on if you think the system is fair and the answer is simple.

:rant

TheAdvisingBear;359241 said:

---

Real interesting column in the LAT today:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/435947-reggie-bush-apologizes-to-usc-should-bush-have-apologized

He basically argues that Bush shouldn't apologize, but instead should man up and say he did what he did because the NCAA system is unfair and players should be paid.

I tutored Jonathan Makonnen on his thesis his senior year. His topic was whether or not athletes should be paid. His case was pretty convincing. Everyone in Berkeley gets money on game days but the players. The community gets restaurant and bar revenue, the coaches get paid, the people working the stadium get paid, the cops get overtime, and even the frats get money selling their lawns for parking.


The problem Jon's thesis exposed was these arguments only work for football and men's basketball. He never did come to a conclusion on how to deal with that -- do only profit making sports give money to players? Should there be a profit motive based on winning. Jon didn't have a solution, but he certainly proved that the current system is not fair and needs to be fixed somehow.

---

The current system makes no sense. Coaches and administrators can make millions. The players get paid in education and housing, which are nice, but pale in comparison to what others make. So, either no one should make big money because the sports are "amateur", that is coaches and administrators should make middle class wages, or else anything should go. Right now it is pseudo-amateur benefitting only those not playing.

Of course I am only talking about revenue-generating sports. Football is worse because there are alternative routes to a pro basketball career.

I see nothing inconsistent about revenue-generating athletes being treated differently than non-revenue-generating athletes.

Sluggo

Calguru:

I think you are looking at the situation from a very different perspective. When you say "..the chance to have the most fun they will ever have by being able to experience "college life" then they dont have to go to school.", you miss a couple of points.

First, college was obviously a great time for you, but it is not for many others. It is an obligation and chore for many. Especially if you come from poverty. I have students who work 30 hours a week to afford college and the cost of living in Berkeley and they are tired all the time -- they are not having fun. I have students who are parents and they don't have time to go get high and dance on weekends -- they have a child to take care of. Many students are not having fun; instead they are hanging in there until they get their degrees so they can then start earning money for their families.

Second, you're wrong when you say the athlete doesn't have to take the college offer. A high school athlete in football or basketball (unlike tennis or golf or or baseball or soccer) does not have the option to say no to going to college. They can't just decide not to go. They have to go if they want to go pro.


What I often see is athletes who would otherwise not go to college if they weren't forced to because the NBA and the NFL use college as their minor leagues. Not everyone should go to college. There are many fine ways to honorably earn a living and raise a family that do not require a college degree, especially the more theoretician/research oriented degrees that are offered at Cal. I was reading in ESPN recently about two bball playing brothers who got "Aviation Management" degrees at Oklahoma State. They are trying to make it as pro players but if it doesn't work, they plan to run a private jet service. At least their school offered them a training program -- Cal and many liberal arts research schools do not.

I often have frosh athletes asking me what kind of majors there are at Cal that will set them up for a career in case they don't make the pros. And the answer is none. The UC's do not offer pre-professional degree programs. So while some think getting an education and the chance to go to college is getting paid, it isn't something they want. Calguru -- consider this -- what would a 3 year training program in Beauty School be worth to you? Does it have value to you?

I'm not saying that athletes should be paid, but saying that their education is pay because it is so valuable is not valid. To some it is a great value, but not to all and not to many student-athletes. A liberal arts degree and dorm life may be valuable and fun for some, but please don't assume it is for all.

What's the cost of a college education these days? $50,000.-$250,000. depending on the school and whether you graduate in 4 or 5 years (or more in the case of injury hardships). Do they earn it? Absolutely! It is also an internship for those with the ambition and ability to go on to the pros (admittedly a very small number) or into coaching. The name recognition and contacts that come from playing a major sport in college are every bit as important in most job searches as the degree or GPA. What's wrong is that the NFL and NBA and their player associations have denied them the opportunity to start making a living right out of high school. Even though very few are physically or mentally mature enough at 18 or 19 to be able to compete at those levels, they ought to have the chance. Just because pro football and basketball choose not to run their own farm systems doesn't mean the colleges ought to pay players over and above the cost of scholarships.

No they shouldn't.

1. Football players get tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships. That is pay already.

2. Yes, big money is being thrown around, but it is divided between so many schools that most don't make a profit.

3. The one's that are exploiting the situation are the NFL and NBA who get free developmental leagues. People should be asking if those leagues should be doing more to have viable minor league systems

4. What is more exploitative - College sports where, if they choose to take advantage athletes can get a degree that increases their earning potential for the rest of their lives, or baseball's minor leagues where most players earn dogmeat, never make it, and then get thrown out of the system with no marketable skill?

5. Speaking of baseball minor leagues, how profitable are they. Where is their ESPN contract. Fact is that the only reason you can have the money in the college system that there is is because its tied to the names and traditions of the colleges.

6. There are paying leagues out there like Arena. If they don't like the whole package that colleges provide, players should go elsewhere.

Bottom line is this. For a very small minority at the top of the spectrum of players, the players are probably undercompensated for their value. But they come because college is where they can get exposure. (I'd also point out that in basketball, they do have viable money making options overseas, but they still choose college). For the vast majority of athletes, they are overcompensated, getting a free education and room and board for playing a game they love. And, quite frankly, I'd bet a majority of college aged males would take the opportunity to play under the circumstances if they could.

I absolutely respect the hard work that athletes put into what they do and they earn every bit of their scholarships. But the idea that they are being exploited, IMO, (assuming we are not using some kind of Marxist definition of all workers being exploited) is just not good economic analysis of the situation.

TheAdvisingBear;359270 said:

---

A high school athlete in football or basketball (unlike tennis or golf or or baseball or soccer) does not have the option to say no to going to college. They can't just decide not to go. They have to go if they want to go pro.

---

That is a complaint you have with the NFL and NBA, not colleges. Under the circumstances, what colleges offer to the marketplace of athletes is extremely desirable. That is why high school athletes try and get spots in college sports in droves.

And again, if the option is so bad, why don't basketball players go play overseas where they can get exposure and pay and the NBA is consistently looking for talent. Its clearly a viable route to the NBA, yet no one takes it.

But you know why there is no viable domestic alternative? Because without the colleges, no one would watch. There would be no money to be distributed. Colleges put a cover of respect and tradition on what is essentially minor developmental league sports. As I said below, which is more exploitative, minor league baseball or college sports?

TheAdvisingBear;359270 said:

---

I'm not saying that athletes should be paid, but saying that their education is pay because it is so valuable is not valid. To some it is a great value, but not to all and not to many student-athletes. A liberal arts degree and dorm life may be valuable and fun for some, but please don't assume it is for all.

---

I completely disagree. They get admittance to universities they otherwise have no shot at, and if they pick one that doesn't train them for the field they'd like to go into if sports doesn't work out that's the athlete's fault. They couldn't take 5 minutes to see which majors are available?

Joe Igber got an engineering degree. Mike Mohamed is getting a business degree. No one says you have to do American Studies. And no one says you have to go to Cal. If you want that Aviation Management degree, great, go to a school that has a program. It's the same as for any student, athlete or not. The difference is that athletes don't have to clear the same academic hurdles to get in and don't have to monetarily pay for anything (I'm not saying they don't earn it through the time and effort they put in).

In addition, they are getting vocational training in exactly what they want to pursue, and getting it from elite trainers that regular students have no access to. If the average student wanted help on their jump shot or blitz recognition, you think they can walk into Monty's office or Tedford's office and get that help? Once the SAHPC is finished, will the average student be allowed to go work out there and get help from trainers?

We live in a capitalist economy. If there are all these young athletes being totally ripped off by the current system, then why do they keep choosing to participate in it? There are tons of leagues around the world for basketball and yet how many American kids go to those leagues? I've heard of two well regarded prospects do it. I'm not sure what kind of age limits the Arena league and CFL have, but those might be possible for young football players. And if there isn't a league that will take an 18-21 year old star football player, why hasn't someone started one? Surely if the universities are making money hand over fist, someone can come in and undercut them and all these unhappy star college players will flock to the new league to get paid rather than getting an apparently worthless education.

TheAdvisingBear;359270 said:

---

Calguru -- consider this -- what would a 3 year training program in Beauty School be worth to you? Does it have value to you?

QUOTE]

What is the value to the athlete of up to 5 years of free training in their sport? Those poor beauty school people have to actually pay for their vocational training.

I had to pay a lot to go to law school and become a lawyer. And when I was done with my law school education, I had benefitted because my marketable worth was much greater. No one was willing to pay to come watch me take law school exams, so I got to pay for the privelege myself.

Football and Basketball players choose to "study" their sports, knowing that there are only a handful of jobs out there for them, but also knowing if they are good enough to get one, they will make a lot of money. Their choice. Because people are willing to watch them take their "exams", the schools can come close to breaking even, so they pass that on to the players.

As for coaches' salaries, well, if the schools don't pay the best coaches, the best players won't come. Essentially, the players are choosing through the market to hand over their potential paycheck to the coaches. I guarantee you, if you offer $25,000 a year to each player in order to come to Cal and play for Tom Holmoe or $0 a year to each player in order to come to Cal and play for Jeff Tedford (a rough equivalent to the difference between salaries split 85 ways), NO PLAYER will take the first option. The coaches that make that kind of money are the elite teachers in this field, and the players get a free education from these elite teachers. You wanted to compare football and basketball to tennis and golf? Do you know how much young athletes pay the elite coaches in those professions to train them? With essentially the same odds of making it big? Hey, we throw in a college education gratis. They don't.

I think the argument that college players should be paid has some merit (although I personally disagree), but Reggie Bush was nonetheless unquestionably wrong. He knew the rules of the game going in, he signed the LOI, agreed to be an amateur athlete, sat through all the compliance seminars, etc. I may believe that a nice kilo of Bolivian cocaine should be perfectly legal, but it would still be wrong if I inserted it into my friend's suitcase before he went to the airport. Reggie is wrong because his selfish actions hurt not just him (he was damaged reputation wise), but also the 60-70% of USC football players that aren't receiving regular cash payments.

I don't think paying NCAA athletes could possibly work, except for giving them a small stipend during the season to cover expenses other than food and housing. I do struggle with this though, because I think it would be difficult to only provide such a stipend to mens basketball and football players. It would get awfully expensive to also provide such payments to all the other sports that are huge revenue losers (women's basketball, soccer, etc.) The effect would probably be more teams having to be eliminated. I suppose it is possible that some sort of drastic change could eventually happen where the schools that know their priorities split from the NCAA and form their own minor league. Conferences would be divided. USC, Oregon, ASU, Texas, most of the SEC, etc. would join the new Association where players are free agents and go to the highest bidding team, while schools like Cal, Stanford and UCLA would probably adopt more of an Ivy League model where there are no athletic scholarships.

I agree completely with the wise words of Oaktown Bear and boredom.

TheAdvisingBear;359270 said:

---

Calguru:

I think you are looking at the situation from a very different perspective. When you say "..the chance to have the most fun they will ever have by being able to experience "college life" then they dont have to go to school.", you miss a couple of points.

First, college was obviously a great time for you, but it is not for many others. It is an obligation and chore for many. Especially if you come from poverty. I have students who work 30 hours a week to afford college and the cost of living in Berkeley and they are tired all the time -- they are not having fun. I have students who are parents and they don't have time to go get high and dance on weekends -- they have a child to take care of. Many students are not having fun; instead they are hanging in there until they get their degrees so they can then start earning money for their families.

Second, you're wrong when you say the athlete doesn't have to take the college offer. A high school athlete in football or basketball (unlike tennis or golf or or baseball or soccer) does not have the option to say no to going to college. They can't just decide not to go. They have to go if they want to go pro.


What I often see is athletes who would otherwise not go to college if they weren't forced to because the NBA and the NFL use college as their minor leagues. Not everyone should go to college. There are many fine ways to honorably earn a living and raise a family that do not require a college degree, especially the more theoretician/research oriented degrees that are offered at Cal. I was reading in ESPN recently about two bball playing brothers who got "Aviation Management" degrees at Oklahoma State. They are trying to make it as pro players but if it doesn't work, they plan to run a private jet service. At least their school offered them a training program -- Cal and many liberal arts research schools do not.

I often have frosh athletes asking me what kind of majors there are at Cal that will set them up for a career in case they don't make the pros. And the answer is none. The UC's do not offer pre-professional degree programs. So while some think getting an education and the chance to go to college is getting paid, it isn't something they want. Calguru -- consider this -- what would a 3 year training program in Beauty School be worth to you? Does it have value to you?

I'm not saying that athletes should be paid, but saying that their education is pay because it is so valuable is not valid. To some it is a great value, but not to all and not to many student-athletes. A liberal arts degree and dorm life may be valuable and fun for some, but please don't assume it is for all.

---

As someone putting two children through UC's, I can tell you that the scholarship (free room & board with some stipend) is worth more than what many people earn. (I would suspect it's more than what most of our athletes' families can afford. Moreover, an athletic scholarship to a private or out-of-state school would be even more valuable in terms of the savings to the player and family.)

A UC education emphasizes theoretical over practical, but there are many other unversities with football teams that have a different approach. Several of the CSUs still have football teams including the very respected Cal Poly SLO (with admission standards higher than many UCs).

The fact is that allowing schools to pay athletes a market rate (or paying them for "wins") would destroy competition, thus ruining the product, as most universities would drop out of the prohibitively expensive arms race (particularly during these tough economic times). We would be left with a "league" of about 30 (and no more than 50) teams competing and paying for the top football or basetball players. Many of the remaining schools might choose to maintain footbal or basketball but with decreased revenue (assuming there is revenue after the "elite" semi-professional college teams devour most of it) scholarships would have to be reduced if not eliminated, putting a college education out of the reach of many.

In the most pure situation, we shouldn't have scholarships. Colleges and universities would admit students on merit, who would pay their own way, and who could choose to participate in an athletic team as it was for much of Cal's history. Again the product would not be as competitive or popular. The current system seems to be a good compromise between the pure amature approach of old (and somewhat retained by the Ivy League) and the notion of becoming semi-professional.

I think the situations between basketball and football are somewhat different. Gifted basketball players should be allowed to go to the NBA out of high school. And the one and done thing is a blight on the NCAA as in many cases-since a kid only has to stay eligible for his incoming semester-he is in college in name only for one semester and not even attending classes his second semester . Gifted football players, on the other hand, make a bargain with their school. They know that college is the only reasonable path to the NFL. In exchange for showcasing their talents for three years they have the opportunity to attend a University at no cost, a University in most cases they would have no other chance of attending. Some take advantage to better themselves, many do not.

My biggest problem with all this is it is sometimes framed as an educational debate. I don't think it has much to do with education. A lot of the athletes at big time programs and the administration at these programs have no interest in educating football or basketball players. (If Texas had a 30% or less graduation rates for all other students who had full scholarships, it would be scandalous). I regard it as an employment contract and that the athletes should have some protection should they be injured and also protection from having their scholarship yanked without proper cause or at the whims of a coach.

A lot of people assume that what is valuable to them is valuable to everyone. That is a very egocentric perspective. To many, college is not valuable and therefore being given a chance to go to college is not payment for services.
Thus, it is wrong to just assume that getting a college degree equals the same worth to everyone. It is patronizing to just announce that those people should "better" themselves and that college will do that.


That's all I'm saying. Stop assuming that your values are universal -- that is what a lot of these arguments are doing.

Maybe look at it this way -- someone could offer me a million dollars worth of meals at the best seafood restaurant in town in order to work five hours a week for them. The free meals are not transferable. I hate seafood, so even though that gift is worth a million to others, it is not worth anything to me -- it certainly is not fair payment for five hours of my time per week. And you can say it would be better for me to eat more seafood -- I'd be healthier. But I have the right to say "Sorry, my values are different than yours. I don't want seafood and it has no value to me." In the same way, for those of you who value college and are putting your children thru college, the scholarship is worthwhile. But by claiming universality in values, you are telling others that you know better what is good for them and what they should value.


And Oaktown -- don't bet on that guarantee of yours. There are lots of people who would take Holmoe and the $25,000. Again, you are seeing the equation thru your eyes and your values and assume everyone thinks like you. They don't.

When they're cutting sports on campuses, there should be no talk of paying over-privileged athletes.

Why are they over privileged?

TheAdvisingBear;359346 said:

---

A lot of people assume that what is valuable to them is valuable to everyone. That is a very egocentric perspective. To many, college is not valuable and therefore being given a chance to go to college is not payment for services.
Thus, it is wrong to just assume that getting a college degree equals the same worth to everyone. It is patronizing to just announce that those people should "better" themselves and that college will do that.


That's all I'm saying. Stop assuming that your values are universal -- that is what a lot of these arguments are doing.

---

You're arguing that they should be paid money. Money may be important to you, but it's not necessarily important to everyone. Aren't you assuming your value system is universal if you argue that giving players $X would be proper compensation?

A college education isn't the only thing they're getting. Food and housing in any part of the country they want to be in is another. An alumni network. Training in their chosen field by elite, multi-million dollar staffs (coaches, trainers, etc) and experience plying their trade against high level competition in packed stadiums on a national stage. The chance to build a marketable brand. Etc.

It seems that whatever they do value is being provided to them to a level that they feel is commensurate with what they're giving. Otherwise, why are they agreeing to the deal?

TheAdvisingBear;359270 said:

---

Calguru:

I think you are looking at the situation from a very different perspective. When you say "..the chance to have the most fun they will ever have by being able to experience "college life" then they dont have to go to school.", you miss a couple of points.

First, college was obviously a great time for you, but it is not for many others. It is an obligation and chore for many. Especially if you come from poverty. I have students who work 30 hours a week to afford college and the cost of living in Berkeley and they are tired all the time -- they are not having fun. I have students who are parents and they don't have time to go get high and dance on weekends -- they have a child to take care of. Many students are not having fun; instead they are hanging in there until they get their degrees so they can then start earning money for their families.

Second, you're wrong when you say the athlete doesn't have to take the college offer. A high school athlete in football or basketball (unlike tennis or golf or or baseball or soccer) does not have the option to say no to going to college. They can't just decide not to go. They have to go if they want to go pro.


What I often see is athletes who would otherwise not go to college if they weren't forced to because the NBA and the NFL use college as their minor leagues. Not everyone should go to college. There are many fine ways to honorably earn a living and raise a family that do not require a college degree, especially the more theoretician/research oriented degrees that are offered at Cal. I was reading in ESPN recently about two bball playing brothers who got "Aviation Management" degrees at Oklahoma State. They are trying to make it as pro players but if it doesn't work, they plan to run a private jet service. At least their school offered them a training program -- Cal and many liberal arts research schools do not.

I often have frosh athletes asking me what kind of majors there are at Cal that will set them up for a career in case they don't make the pros. And the answer is none. The UC's do not offer pre-professional degree programs. So while some think getting an education and the chance to go to college is getting paid, it isn't something they want. Calguru -- consider this -- what would a 3 year training program in Beauty School be worth to you? Does it have value to you?

I'm not saying that athletes should be paid, but saying that their education is pay because it is so valuable is not valid. To some it is a great value, but not to all and not to many student-athletes. A liberal arts degree and dorm life may be valuable and fun for some, but please don't assume it is for all.

---

Yes I do think college was a good time and I understand that people from poverty have to work to put themselves through school but athletes on scholarship are not having to worry about paying for their school. I also recall football players as partying as much if not more than most of the general population. The players who already have kids that they are taking care of are by far the minority.
I understand that the NFL does not allow people to go straight into the pros but the NCAA didnt make that rule. Why should the NCAA be forced to pay their players simply because the NFL wont take players out of high school, who by the way are not ready physically for the NFL. If players simply want to go pro, but dont care about the education then choose to go to ASU where they wont have to go to class. Ask what majors the school has before you show up on campus and make your choice accordingly.

The NBA is another story because if they are really good enough to go pro out of high school, then go play in Europe and then enter the draft a year later, otherwise keep your mouth shut about your free room, board, and education you receive while you are given coaching and training to help you try to reach your goals.
Look at it this way: If you are good enough to make it to the NFL then you will get paid when you get there, if you turn out not to be good enough then I would argue that you are better off with a college degree than you would have been if you failed to go pro without one.

No career prep majors at Cal? Are there no teachers graduating from the UC system anymore? No accountants? All those engineers are not prepared to find a job without benefit of grad school? I agree that not many UC grads with a simple BA/BS will have the potential immediate earning power of a draftee into the NFL or NBA but your statement (none) strikes me as a tad bizarre.

Guru --

I'm listening to you but here is where we differ: You say "I would argue that you are better off with a college degree than you would have been if you failed to go pro without one.". I'm saying that might be true for many, but not for all.

I'm not saying athletes should get paid. When I helped Jon flesh out his thesis, I agreed with him that it is unfair that everyone but the player gets money but in all our discussions, I never agreed with a solution to what I think is an unfair situation. Several years and many more discussions later, I still don't.

But the reason I got into this thread was that I deal with young men and women who don't want to go to school. They simply don't. For some, it's a choice or preference. For others, school is just too hard for them and they hate the constant struggle it takes to succeed.

It should be okay not to go to college. Saying everyone would be better off at college is actually saying that those who don't go to college lead lesser lives, or are not successful. I worry that our society undervalues the good valuable work that blue-collar people do. Being a UPS or Fed-Ex delivery person, or a railroad worker or cable-installer, or a postal worker are all honorable careers that don't need college.

For those who value college and are smart and would love to live in Berkeley for four years -- then the opportunity to have school paid for in return for playing is a great and wonderful thing. But not all want it or are capable of it, and they shouldn't have to. There is nothing wrong with choosing the path less chosen if that is what they want.

And that means for them, the tradeoff is not what they would choose. It is obviously a choice many posting on this forum would choose -- but it is not a choice all would make. That's all I'm trying to say.

59:

The UC system is philosophically against what would be called pre-professional degrees at the undergrad level. That is the job of the Cal State Universities. That's why there is no nursing or aviation management or kinesiology or criminal justice administration programs at the UC's. We have History of Art Practice, but we don't have graphic design. UC is a research institution. Even my program - Social Welfare -- is a ba degree. It is not the pre-professional BSW degree. The same philosophy applied to Public Health when they were created several years ago -- they could offer a BA in Public Health, but not a pre-professional BPH.

The more technical schools of course have their exceptions. Chem Engineering majors don't need grad school to get good jobs, but Chemistry majors do. And even most of the comp sci/engineering undergrads will go on to graduate level programs. But in L&S and CNR -- which form the vast majority of majors at Cal -- the programs assume the undergraduate will go onto grad school if they stay in the field. Even the undergrads who earn the degree at Haas Business understand they have to go on to earn an MBA if they want to get the good jobs with the high pay and the significant responsibility.

It's not bizarre. We think we are the only school in the country offering BA's in Social Welfare or in Public Health. At other schools similar to Berkeley -- say Stanford or the Ivies -- they simply don't offer these majors on the ug level.

Lots of good stuff here. Rod Brooks talked about this on that Fitz and Brooks show on Friday - not once did he make any of the sensible points mentioned here.

One thing that no one seems to mention (forgive me if I missed someone who said this), is that I believe it would be impermissible under Title IX to only pay male athletes. If you have to pay females the same as males (which is likely the case) the whole thing falls away.

And guess what, congress isn't going to change the law just to satisfy the Jim Romes of the world who have been filling up airtime with this argument for the last decade.

I would love to bet a handful of benjamins that this doesn't come to pass any time soon.

calguru;359246 said:

---

No they shouldn't get paid. I am tired of people making the argument they they are being exploited because the universities makes money and they dont. The universities are not for profit institutions if the athletes dont want the free education and the chance to have the most fun they will ever have by being able to experience "college life" then they dont have to go to school. The schools arent forcing them to go there. If anyone is forcing them it is the NFL for not taking players out of high school but the fact is they arent ready out of high school. But to make the claim that the players have a right to the money is ridiculous.

---

THANK YOU! i have heard this argument many times. many people say, oh reggie was so good, he shouldve gotten paid, absolutely ridiculous, THEY ARE AMATEUR ATHLETES, NOT PROS. i guess some people just dont realize that. GO BEARS!

if there is such a demand and investors and many willing to receive payment rather than college education then the free market would have created this "minor league" football association that would take the best players out of high schools and destroy the ncaa with superior talent, coaching, facilities and the like. It will generate billion dollar tv deals, have folks wearing branded jerseys and caps, etc. Oh wait, how come it hasn't happen? Because there is a superior professional product called the NFL. Once athletes get real money to play instead of an education, all they are is just inferior product to the NFL. That's why the line should be drawn, that's why the line exists, that's how college can create a separate system that can afford to give scholarships to high school football players.

The only college athletes who have any argument whatsoever on this topic are the creme de la creme of football and basketball. Is there anybody on Cal's football team right now that could argue that they, alone, by virtue of their presence on the field, are generating incremental cash flow for Cal? Perhaps Jahvid could have made that argument or Desean, but for every Jahvid, Desean, Reggie Bush, or Tim Tebow, there are thousands of players who are anonymous to all but the most passionate of fans.

I've listened to Rome, Rod Brooks, and others, and their arguments make no sense to me for all but the most elite of college football and basketball players.

sluggo_Cal;359269 said:

---

The current system makes no sense. Coaches and administrators can make millions. The players get paid in education and housing, which are nice, but pale in comparison to what others make.

Sluggo

---

What is the argument for not allowing players to take up part time jobs? Is it that its too difficult to police?

Tommie is correct. The reason that high school football doesnt have a television contract is because it is an extremely watered down version of the college game. The moment players get paid, college football becomes a much worse version of the NFL and the revenue dries up.

Advising: I understand that some kids just dont want to go to school but why is that a justification for them to get paid? If the only reason they go to college is to try and get to the NFL then like I said, choose a school where they will get virtually no education and try and go pro. There is no NFL rule that says they have to go to college to play in the NFL, they could train on their own for 3 years and enter the draft. The fact is that college ball offers them the best preparation to get there but the system is not set by the NCAA, its set by the NFL and why should colleges be punished for rules they didnt create?

Aside from the question of pay vs no pay, can Eastern Michi, Tulane, or Missi StU afford to pay players as much as OkU, Farm, or Oregon would?

Except for most would-be Fed-ex delivery people in college sports, they are there because they really want to keep playing their sport as long as they can. Getting free room and board in college allows them to postpone entering the work force. So even if they hate school, they are getting a big benefit. As was stated above, if they wanted to major in something that will help them in their Fed-ex career, they can choose a school that will do that. UC doesn't.

As someone who drags my butt to work everyday, I'm not feeling it for them, I'm sorry. IMO, they just need to realize, that is life. But ultimately where we disagree here is in the distribution of wealth. I think we start with the issue that I think the premise that they are getting nothing while everybody else cashes in is just wrong. They aren't getting a paycheck. I understand that many don't want the education and even see it as a detriment. I think that is their issue because that is a tremendous value, but fine, take it out of the equation. They get free room and board. They get a free education in their sport by elite teachers who would charge a lot for private training if the market were set up that way. They get facilities to train, usually state of the art or close to it. Essentially they don't need to worry about taking care of themselves at all monetarily. They may not have a great entertainment budget. They may not have the ability to support a family. (for that they could choose to start that Fed-ex career). But they are getting a lot of value.

So let's at least start from that honest premise - they get value for what they do. The question is then do they get fair value. I can see the point. But I think that the money when you break it down by individual schools is being overestimated. Based on that, I think the distribution is "fair" (by that I mean within the same parameters of "fair" that the rest of us deal with in the workplace).

But the other problem with this debate is that the people that argue for paying players are usually thinking of the Desean Jacksons of this world. If market value were paid, you wouldn't see Makonnen getting a big check. You'd see Desean getting a big check. If college football teams needed to pay their players AND STAY PROFITABLE, they would pay Desean, and if Makonnen made demands, they'd say sorry, if that's what you cost we are going to have to go to the next guy. And what you'd probably end up with is those guys at the top all going to a relatively small number of big business college football programs who could pay them, while the large majority of schools can't remain profitable and either drop football altogether or make it a non-scholarship, non-revenue activity.

In other words, for most of these guys, the deal on the table is the best they are going to get because its the best the market will bear.

The NFL and the NBA are thrilled that they have a viable minor league system that costs them nothing. The colleges have willingly colluded with them to accomplish it. That the rules preclude the paying of players together with the obvious fact that at least some schools would do so if allowed (if they aren't already!) demonstrates clearly that "the market" is simply not being allowed to function. The NCAA loves exploiting a free labor supply. The NBA and the NFL love having a free minor league system. The coaches love not having to compete with players for money.

Everybody wins but the players who, at best, get "an education." Of course, many of them don't want or care about that education. Moreover, the education clearly is subordinate to the football.

Of course the players should be allowed to be paid. I can't believe any rational person would think otherwise, much less someone from Berkeley....