Should college athletes be paid?

What do you guys think? I personally think that they should be paid simply because their universities profit so much money off of them and the atheltes dont get any of it. These kids arent able to get part time jobs because they are working the hours of a full time job on top of their school work. However, most athletes (especially D1 football and men's basketball) recieve benefits that arent offered to other students. Also, not all sprts make a lot of money so run into the problem of inequal pay among athletes. Do you pay a small percentage of the sports profits to each athlete? Let me know what you guys think.

Also, I assume this has been discussed here before, so if it is easier to direct me the thread, feel free.

I think that if they're good enough, they should be paid with free tuition. Oh, wait. And the profits should go to supporting the non 'male football' sports too, and some of those athletes should also get paid with free tuition, even though they don't rake in the big bux for the school. Oh, wait.

Student-athletes work extremely long hours which, no matter what any university says, necessarily sacrifices the quality of their free education, put their bodies and health on the line, and rake in enormous sums of money for the university and NCAA. The coaches make millions of dollars off of them. And yet, the athletes aren't allowed to receive even a free tattoo or else they, and the school, are punished. The vast majority of student-athletes do not have the luxury of scholarships.

It's ridiculous. Student-athletes should be paid. There's room to debate what that payment or stipend looks like, but many of these kids are dirt poor and can barely afford groceries.

I think that there should be no more college athletics when it comes to football and men's basketball. I don't know why state taxpayers are subsidizing what is essentially a minor league system for the privatized professional sports leagues. I think that what is currently college athletics should be funded directly by the professional sports leagues, and football and basketball players should be bound by the NFL and NBA CBAs to play in those leagues for three years (or whatever) before being eligible for the respective drafts of their leagues.

That way, I'm not paying for, say, Lorenzo Romar's salary - the NBA is, as they should be. Furthermore, we stop the charade of forcing these athletes to go to college when they've worked their whole lives at their careers and should be able to get paid for it. The diminished value of a B.A. is certainly not nearly enough relative to what these players generate for their schools. We don't make golf or tennis players go to college before they go on tour, after all - or hockey or baseball players, for that matter.

Finally, maybe the university can focus its money and attention on what matters, which is actual education. If some schools want to keep up sports programs for other sports and can make them revenue-neutral or revenue-plus, that's fine. The big business of sports should be the problem of the leagues, however, and certainly, these athletes should be paid.

Absolutely. The amount of money the NCAA makes off these kids is astonishing. They just got another huge payday when Turner/CBS extended their TV deal to air the tournament too.

They can give these kids a stipend of some sort.

Hasselbeck":3ptmzj34 said:

Absolutely. The amount of money the NCAA makes off these kids is astonishing. They just got another huge payday when Turner/CBS extended their TV deal to air the tournament too.

They can give these kids a stipend of some sort.

Click to expand...

The problem is only football makes money. The rest of the sports drain money, especially women's sports (no offense to anyone.) college baseball gets about 1000 people a game, how do you justify paying them anything? LaCrosse, they get on tv for the final 4, and its on ESPN the ocho. That's not a money maker. Men's soccer, does it even get on tv other than conference networks?