There have been a lot of articles, ideas, and debates going on about whether or not CFB Players should be paid (more). T. Pryor's side business of selling jerseys sparked some of this, as some said 'heck, why shouldn't he be rewarded for his play?'
To those folks, I say: He already is. In spades.
The average college tuition is $8,000 per year. So, players are currently 'earning' $32,000, assuming they stay for 4 years. The return on that investment, is much, much higher than $32,000 - college grads are much more likely to find employment, and they are likely to earn more, than non-grads. So it's not just about the current 'pay' - these athletes also get set up to be much better off down the road (assuming they actually study/learn something and then go out and pursue a career. This is hardly guaranteed, but the opportunity is there should they decide to take advantage of it).
With such a small fraction of players going pro, the incentive should be to graduate and maximize the free ride they're getting. And since better schools are more expensive, players should be knocking down the doors of the better schools.
Think about this: ND will cost a student ~$200,000 over four years. That means ND players are 'earning' more than 6X the average. SCORE! Plus, ND players are set up with a Top 10 ROI on that investment. ND ranks #9 with a 30 Year ROI of $1.38M and the football players don't pay for the degree. So they get the opportunity for a ton of benefit with very little up-front investment. That's huge.
(Side note: This should be a huge factor for current recruits/players. A player will 'earn' so much more by going to a good school. ND, Stanford and the like are much more expensive so you're getting 'paid' a lot more to attend, and the post-school benefits are much, much greater. Note that only two schools other than ND - Stanford at #6 and Cal at #16 - play relatively big time college football.)
So now we know that players are getting a ton of value (if exploited) in the free education. Let's pretend like we don't care about that. like we're from the SEC. Graduation doesn't matter. It's just not important. Okay then, players also get paid in a ton of other ways:
1) Free gear
2) Free training and healthcare
3) Free tutoring and academic help
4) Free trips all around the country/region 6-8 times per year
5) Relative fame and an extreme edge in the dating game
6) TV exposure
7) Huge stage/multi-year interview for a potential employer that can make them millions
8.) Bowl Game Schwag
9) Amazing networking opportunities that the average student simply cannot replicate
10) They get to play a game that millions upon millions of others would give almost anything to play
As it stands, college football players get a ton of compensation. Tossing them a few hundred bucks a year is a pittance compared to what they're already getting, and student loans are available to those that need a few bucks for day to day stuff.
I'm not sure that we can quantify exactly how much players 'earn' today. I'm also not sure that we can accurately assess how fair that is vis a vis the dollars they help bring in. (It also gets really messy when you start trying to assign value to individuals vs an average - how much more is a starting QB 'worth' than a second string CB?) But to me it's pretty clear that players get a ton of value/compensation today. Unless we collectively want just another NFL (I Don't), paying players just doesn't make sense. And it's simply not needed. Today, kids are doing all they can to get into good college programs. Granted, they don't have many alternatives. But clearly they see a lot of value in playing ball under the current system. This is why we see more and more talent, and landing top scholarships is getting harder and harder: kids want in, and the competition gets tougher.
It's also pretty clear that there is much more value to be had by going to a better school. Granted, there will also be more work there, but I'd love for this line of thinking to get more play in the recruiting game. "Come to ND, we'll give you $200K of value, while others will only give you $32K".
Finally, some folks would suggest that we can't simply pay players directly, but we should let them earn their market value on the side (e.g. through jersey sales and the like) through an Olympic-like model. It's the most interesting solve I've heard, but it falls apart pretty quickly and results in direct-pay one way or another. Boosters would start to pay outrageous sums for signed pictures, multiple times per year, to spread the word that "Coming to School X = More $'s for your signature" and it just becomes a straight up pay-to-play scheme in short order. Because of this, I still say no way.
Net-net, being a college football player is a great deal for the kids. They get a ton of once-in-a-lifetime type experiences, and they get a lot of other things that other students will never get. They also get a degree (we're no longer pretending we're in the SEC) and all the benefits that go along with that. Oh, and they get it all while not paying to attend college in the first place.
Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. What say you, Her Loyal Readers? Pay 'em? No way?
Note: This topic was being debated in 1987.
By theIrishLion10 June 20, 2011 - 4:13 pm
I say no way. I just don’t understand how people can’t grasp the simple fact that athletes ARE getting paid. I would give anything to be able to attend a University of my choice, while getting my education paid for, as a result of me playing a GAME. A free education to PLAY FOOTBALL? How does that not end the argument right there? I understand that “there is so much money being made off of athletes,” but I still don’t understand how getting a free education and getting to play football on Saturdays is not payment enough.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Vairish84 June 20, 2011 - 5:30 pm
I agree with most of your assessment. Two things, scholarships don’t cover everything, and I don’t just mean spending money. Some schools do not cover books and other academic related items. Those should be covered by everyone (they may be covered at ND, I don’t know).
I would make the scholarship like a ROTC scholarship where it included some nominal amuont as spending money. When I was at ND, I believe it was $100 per month. Probably would need to be $300 now. While that is not a lot, it probably would relieve a lot of the minor pressure to cheat. Also, since many of the players, particularly at ND, come from a different socio-economic background than their peers, they can not afford to do things that their peers can. Now, most people are happy to buy the players a beer or a pizza without reciprocation. However, the players should have the opportunity to use their own money.
This would work at ND, the other BCS schools. I tend to doubt the smaller 1-A programs could afford it though, and that is a problem for adopting it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 12:14 am
I agree with the spirit of the stipend, but who pays for it? Less than 20 programs (I think, don’t quote me there) more than cover their expenses with football. So the other 100 would have to take the money FROM other places. Should women’s track get even less so the football team can get MORE than what I outlined above?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TXIrish2 June 20, 2011 - 5:57 pm
Small monthly spending stipend would be fine with me, to help them cover certain expenses that tuition doesn’t cover. Anything more than that doesn’t make sense. They’re student-athletes, they are getting a free education.
On the other hand, Notre Dame has a great return on investment for the average student, but football players are anything but average students. I’d be interested to see a study that tracked college football players lifetime earnings and compared it to non-athlete college students and also to persons without a college degree, just to see exactly what kind of benefit the “unpaid” players are having conferred upon them.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TLNDMA June 20, 2011 - 7:38 pm
NO. Can’t be done fairly and would make cheating all the more likely……Start a minor league, if you want to pay em $$.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 20, 2011 - 9:23 pm
I have no objection to giving players an ROTC-style or graduate-student style stipend. In fact, I encourage it. Biscuit’s objections are rebuttable, as follows:
1. Average college player has a 50% graduation rate, not a 90+% graduation rate like ND. Some SEC schools over-recruit with the expectation that players will wash out. Other schools don’t provide the academic support necessary for their players to graduate. The only solution to this – imposing mandatory graduation rates – would invite fraud.
2. The average player is not getting a degree with a high return on investment. Remember when Harbaugh called out Michigan and said that it wouldn’t let him major in history? He majored in “general studies,” and so do the vast majority of Michigan players with degrees. This is not so much of a problem at ND, but if anyone here thinks that Tony Rice has the same career trajectory as your typical ND pre-med, I have some great land near Vegas to sell you.
In short, the typical college football has a maybe 50% chance of getting a degree and will likely see a below-average return on that degree if it is earned. In exchange for the even odds of getting said degree, our player gets beaten up 11 months out of the year, has way less free time than the typical student, and has less money to spend in that free time than does that typical student. But the university for which he plays will make millions off of his services.
Theoretically, the scholarship is enough. In the real world, it isn’t. Football players deserve stipends.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 12:11 am
1. Thisshould incent the players to go after better schools, and to actually study. They can choose to take advantage of the opportunity. Since many don’t, we pay them? Seems backwards to me. If schools don’t provide the support you need to succeed, go to one that does. I don’t give players a pass for taking the easy route, and I certainly don’t agree that that is a reason to pay them.
2. Again, why? If schools don’t allow them to apply themselves, they should go elsewhere.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 21, 2011 - 7:59 am
I agree with you completely on this point, and should have said so above. My impression is that ND only recruits athletes who can handle the coursework. Those athletes should and probably do see ND’s graduation rate and reputation as plus factors in making their decision about which offer to accept. There is lots of anecdotal evidence that this happens – e.g., Michael Floyd referring to ND as a 40-year investment, recruiting boards recounting the way that ND coaches appeal to parents by citing academics as a strength, et cetera.
The problem is that any rule about giving stipends to players has to apply not just to ND, but to all schools. Most athletes are not capable of graduating from ND and therefore can’t be “incented” to choose more academically challenging schools.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 9:39 am
See, I guess that’s just fine with me. I like that a smarter kid, or a kid that is willing to work hard to graduate, ‘gets extra’ if he goes to a better school.
There are a lot of options as you move down the line from Stanford and ND and I wish the student part of student athlete could be used to incent players to challenge themselves – the fact that this is worth more value is rarely brought up.
As for a stipend, DMQ points out below that players already get them for general living expenses. I am still ok with the spirit of an additional stipend to help kids out if the base doesn’t cover full costs, but I just dont think anything beyond cost of living can be executed.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 12:20 am
Also, does the University really make millions off the average player? I say not even close. First, the university often makes the player. The coaching, the training, the exposure. The school accounts for some chunk of that cash flow above and beyond the ‘structural share’.
Then, the school should take the share that they have earned by building up the program. Some percentage for the history and legacy which certainly counts for something. Now, divide up the remaining millions by the 85 scholarship guys. Those millions are no longer millions. Even for ND.
And in reality, it’s probably just a few players on any given team that really drives that value. Do you now pay some guys little and some a lot?
And again, only a few programs are even profitable, so I don’t know how you handle this in all those that aren’t.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 21, 2011 - 8:05 am
The fact that a school’s athletic department loses money does not mean that its football program also loses money. To the contrary, almost all football programs are profitable; but only some are so profitable that they can subsidize all other sports and still have money left over.
The kinds of stipends that I am thinking about are for living expenses. They would be equal and would not be performance based. Maybe $1,000 per semester above tuition and room and board. That’s maybe $170K per year, total. Not enough to break the bank at any school.
Also, while it is true that the school makes the player, the school wouldn’t have a team without players. Both need each other.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 9:43 am
Sorry, shouldn’t been clear that I meant the AD. But the point still stands – where does the money come from? Non-rev sports? I am sure those athletes, already on a relatively thin budget, will love that. Title IX also impacts here…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 21, 2011 - 5:44 pm
$170k times approx. 120 schools. That’s over (or only) $20 million. NCAA could raise many times over putting on an 8 or more team playoff (surely on TV rights alone). But all the other problems you mention, Biscuit, are legitimate and would have to be considered and sorted out.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak June 21, 2011 - 4:50 pm
Paragraph one is spot on. Without the university there is no player. The University is expected to give the player the coaching to give him a chance to compete in the NFL.
It is funny because when I student taught, I covered all the cost and was to be grateful that a university let me in to their teacher college and provided me with the opportunity to student teach. I paid to work. This work of course was an investment on my part to teach professionally.
That is what these young men must realize, their college education and college football career is an investment.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 21, 2011 - 5:40 pm
The relationship between player and school is symbiotic.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak June 21, 2011 - 8:13 pm
What do you mean?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 22, 2011 - 6:56 am
They each rely on one another to exist. Football programs need players and players need football programs.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By E-Man June 21, 2011 - 7:09 am
Joe-
The average college student graduates at a 50% rate within 5 years. People assume that almost everyone who goes to college graduate, whereas at a lot of public schools, that isn’t the case.
Also, can you please cite which major programs do not have academic support for their atheletes? I imagine that there are, but my gut feel is that it’s not at any of the major programs
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 21, 2011 - 8:10 am
I know that kids at many public colleges don’t graduate. My brother took 4.5 years to get through PSU, and he knew lots of people who were taking longer. My point is simply that being a college football player is not guaranteed to lead to a degree and a lifetime of high earnings in the way that Biscuit seemed to suggest in the main post.
I can’t cite any programs that completely fail to provide support to their athletes. But low graduation rates at, say, OSU, suggest that either athletes are not being vetted before admission or else are not being required to stay on top of their studies. My impression is that while ND requires athletes to check in with academic advisors and has those advisors check in with professors – so that problems are nipped in the bud – many other schools make advisors available but don’t require players to take advantage of them. That’s what Bob Huggins does.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak June 21, 2011 - 4:54 pm
Joe, if the lad commits himself to his degree, should he not attain it. Why are we so apologetic for these kids. No one watched over my shoulders and I got my degree. On top of that if the kid gets his degree he has a better earning potential, whether he plays pro or not.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak June 20, 2011 - 11:14 pm
Where does it end? Do we pay basketball players, or only kids in cool sports like golf and badminton? I get it that these small sports do not reap universities much cash and that football often subsidizes all other sports including womens table tennis. However Biscuits key point whatever anyone argues is the most salient point; these kids whether $32000 0r $200000 get a free ride. They also know what they are signing up for.
The argument that schools (SEC) over recruit has nothing to do with the discussion. If Nick Saban is a slimy bastard, and overstacks, that needs to be dealt with separately.
I was an okay athlete in high school, but did not possess the god-given skills that would get me a full ride scholarship. These young men that get these opportunities are very lucky.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska June 21, 2011 - 12:14 am
Some athletes get a 5th or in rare cases a sixth year to work on grad degree, When I was a student at ND, athletes got a coupon book they could use on campus, at huddle, dinning hall, book store, Just no cash. Not lavish, but better than nothing.
D1 athletes do put in a lot of time training, studying the game. Some are used and abused by the coaching staff.
The NCAA needs to have consistent enforcement and let athletes know what to expect from a particular school or conference, i.e. over-recruitment, loss of scholarship for injury, etc.
ND is risk free for injury, many schools are not.
As for paying college athletes, that could end up on a very slippery slope. How much and to whom. Human nature is to want more. Where does it end? Enforcing consistency across all universities, etc.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Mayhem June 21, 2011 - 7:13 am
I think that one of the biggest things people are forgetting here is that there are a few athletes out there that take the money not for flashy cars and beer money, but to support a family back home. A lot of times they come from single parent homes, in the grip of extreme poverty, where $500 seems like they won the lottery. It would be really hard to turn down that money, when you are living a now comfortable life on campus knowing that your family at home is still struggling. Hard to wait for a NFL payday that may never come and if it does is 4 years away at best.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 21, 2011 - 5:39 pm
The retort here would be “get a student loan.” But who is going to extend credit for living expenses to someone with no assets — and if they do, the interest rate is damn-near usury — and who can’t get a co-signer?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By domer_mq June 21, 2011 - 8:00 am
Guys, just so we’re all clear, here’s a good, quick explanation of how the current NCAA player stipend system works.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/CFB-Explainer-How-do-scholarships-and-stipends-?urn=ncaaf-136534
I think most people fail to realize the players get a stipend for “living expenses” already.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 9:04 am
Thanks DMQ.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 9:08 am
And if the standard stipend isn’t enough, student loans remain an option to cover day to day stuff.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 21, 2011 - 10:30 am
This is a very good point. I think I am coming around to Biscuit’s position after all.
Louis Nix III does not sleep. He waits.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Vairish84 June 24, 2011 - 10:33 am
The stipend you refer to is for rent and utilities for off campus living. There may be some minor amount for meal in there, which would otherwise be covered in the on campus dining hall plan. The stipend does not cover pizza money.
i actually think ND pays the rent directly rather than via stipend to avoid some of the issues that came up with Matt Leinart.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By kyndfan June 21, 2011 - 8:14 am
The scholarships alone are pay enough. Add to that earning potential and all the other perks, and the players get plenty of compensation.
LNIII drinks napalm to quell his heartburn.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 21, 2011 - 9:31 am
Biscuit, I think we’ve fleshed out more than a few points in previous posts, but I wanted to mention a couple things here.
I’m a bit amused by “Free Gear” being the first perk. Yes, the players gets free stuff — but if he writes his name on a piece of it and someone in turn fills up his gas tank, he’s a criminal. Like I said, amusing.
The other thing I’d mention is the return on investment (ROI) assumptions. Schools like Notre Dame have a very tight process for trying to create a student body that’s bright and ambitious — it’s called admissions. I’m not so naive to think that the name on a diploma can’t open doors, but I’m suggesting, that’s what bright and ambitious people do: they succeed. In other words, great schools help begot success — but so does the fact that many of these people were bright and ambitious in the first place.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Joe Magarac June 21, 2011 - 10:29 am
This is a very good point. I’ve seen studies which compare students who were accepted and decided to attend top-flight private schools, with students who were accepted at those schools but chose to attend local state schools for a free ride. They end up doing about the same 20 years out. In other words, an Ivy league degree or an ND degree is to some extent just a signal or marker that shows that a graduate is smart. I value ND for the friends I made and the exposure to adult Catholicism that I received; the classroom education was good but probably not much better or worse than my brother’s at Penn State.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 21, 2011 - 1:07 pm
Free gear is #1 just because it’s the first thing I thought of. Plus, free gear is sweet.
And you’re 100% right on the ROI calcs. Self-selection bias abounds. But the structural benefits are all still there (e.g. more likely to be hired than non-grads, likely to make more, etc)
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Pat June 21, 2011 - 5:46 pm
I’ll give you that: Free gear *is* sweet.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Erik '04 June 21, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Let’s compare the relative costs here. My parents took out a 2nd mortgage on their house (which they’ll be paying off for the rest of their lives) to help with my tuition, and I still ended up with $25k+ in student loans. Football players put in a lot of hard work for 44-55 months and get used by the school.
The relative merits of each situation: I had more free time. The football players get 1-10 outlined by Biscuit in the original post.
So, would I trade my situation for theirs? Is that even a question??
No pay for play.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By BurbankSteve June 23, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Not adding anything sensible to the discussion here, but there was a clue in today’s LA Times Crossword: “Ohio Stadium Purchase” – the answer was BUCKEYE TICKETS.
One of the other regular solvers on the crossword blog (yeah, there’s a crossword community, don’t knock it, it’s fun) wrote:
“I tried “GAME-USED MEMORIABILIA SIGNED BY TERRELLE PRYOR” for way too long @28A. Did me in just as it did him in.”
Make me laugh
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Erik '04 June 23, 2011 - 4:13 pm
Haha, I interpreted that as the purchase of Ohio Stadium, and thought “why would someone want to buy the stadium of a broken down team like that?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Dana June 28, 2011 - 8:45 am
Couple of points
Yes, the athlete might not make the most of his academic opportunity, but that doesn’t devalue the opportunity. The school might also get a football player that never plays a down…this is the point of a student athlete, you can’t cut the guy (unless you are an SEC school, I only partly joke)…the school made a commitment to the kid, a commitment that is worth a significant amount of money
College football is not about the individual players, Ohio St. sells out its stadium regardless of whether Terrelle Pryor is on the team. Where is Terrelle Pryor without college football? I will watch Notre Dame no matter who suits up. The salient point is the exposure and FOOTBALL opportunity college football gives the players.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0