9 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2018
    1. however, the average Division I men's basketball coach earns nearly twice as much in salary as the average Division I women's basketball coach. NCAA members have not suggested terminating the pay of college basketball coaches to resolve this concern.

      This is due to the fact that Division 1 men's basketball brings in more money than women's basketball.

    2. These college sports revenues are passed along to NCAA executives, athletic directors and coaches in the form of salaries. In 2011, NCAA members paid their association president, Mark Emmert, $1.7 million. Head football coaches at the 44 NCAA Bowl Championship Series schools received on average $2.1 million in salaries.

      They are paid because it is their job. Paying college athletes would mean that they would become employees of the NCAA.

    3. This "veil" not only ensures great wealth for athletic directors and coaches, but it also ensures sustained poverty for many of the athletes who provide their labor. A 2011 report entitled "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport" confirms that 85 percent of college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line.

      Choosing to play a sport in college for free isn't labor I don't think. And college athletes on scholarship have no expenses to pay for other than food and other small things. So while their income may be below the poverty line, they aren't struggling.

    1. If you’re unaware, the NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers).

      One of the biggest obstacles in the paying college athletes. Most of the universities simply can't afford to pay all of their athletes.

    1. That’s the old model. In the new era, a coach could offer a recruit a salary instead of a scholarship. Does a $100,000 salary give the student-athlete a better deal than the $65,000 scholarship? The $100,000 salary is impressive. A future Heisman Trophy winner might command more, but $100,000 is not bad for an 18-year-old high school recruit. But since it’s a salary, not a scholarship, it is subject to federal and state income taxes. Tuition and college expenses would not be deductible because the income level surpasses the IRS eligibility limit.

      Interesting idea but would end up being similar to a scholarship due to taxes.

    1. Faculty often remark that the most discouraging aspect of teaching is encountering a student who just does not seem to care, who has to be cajoled into thinking about the reading, who is obviously bored in class, or who resists rewriting a paper that is passable but not very good. Such students are failing to take full advantage of the educational opportunities that these colleges and universities are there to provide.

      This is one of the main issues in this debate. The players that would most likely be paid are those that are only at the university for 1 year. Because of this, there isn't much education to be had. Even if they were highly focused in the classroom, the classes freshman take are only prerequisite's.

    1. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a “pro mindset” where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

      While players may have a different mindset, I don't think they will lose their passion for the game that they love. Even if the collegiate players are being paid, many of them are still trying to make it to the next level.

    2. “We do have hungry nights that we don’t have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don’t think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don’t know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I’m not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”

      Interesting quote from a collegiate basketball player who has gone professional. Shows both the pros and cons of paying college athletes.

    3. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don’t know how to manage their money, and there wouldn’t be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, “I don’t think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it—and let’s be honest, they’re gonna spend it on weed and kicks!”

      One of the most convincing arguments against paying college athletes. This could cause a lot of legal issues and potentially ruin college sports.