Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point taken. But you also don't seem to take into account how suddenly adding roughly 200-250 athletes to an athletic department's payroll would break most institutions. Even if you paid them a token $10,000 stipend, that's over two million added to the department's expenses. That doesn't even take into account other issues that almost immediately pop up such as workman's comp, etc. For once the door is open, anybody with an imagination can see how universities will start sweetening the pot for some five-star quarterback in terms of extra incentives. It will spiral out of control very quickly.
Sure, a university such as Texas or Alabama could afford that. But given that most athletic departments are a fiscal drain on their respective universities as it is, it creates an entirely new set of problems.
What's more, you kind of sloughed those concerns off with a "they figured out how to pay everyone else associated with college athletics" statement. But remember that colleges and universities are now coming under very serious scrutiny and are having to get their financial houses in order. In the era of cheap student loans, parents did not pay much attention to how much in subsidies schools were throwing at their athletic departments, essentially paid for by tuition checks and activities fees.
Now that we're seeing a more consumer-minded parent, those days are gone. I will have two kids in college next year, both of whom had good GPAs and standardized test scores way above average. And if my wife and I are sacrificing to send them to college without financial support from the institution, I'm not really keen on that same university stroking a check to an academically-challenged athlete just because he can catch a football. Sorry.
But you have no problem with coaches and everyone else getting paid sometimes millions, even though they contribute far less than the players do? And I"m sorry your bitterness about paying lots of money for tuition for your kids was your choice and not a relevant consideration for this issue.
But you have no problem with coaches and everyone else getting paid sometimes millions, even though they contribute far less than the players do? And I"m sorry your bitterness about paying lots of money for tuition for your kids was your choice and not a relevant consideration for this issue.
Thanks for not paying attention to logic here. And, actually, I do not think a college football coach should be paid $4,000,000.
No bitterness at all, by the way. I'm just posing what should be a legitimate question. Should colleges be in the business of supporting semi-pro football leagues, even when a large proportion of them actually lose money for the school even now? As it stands, college football attendance is dropping, yet guys like you propose doubling down by driving universities even further in the hole. Right. As if that makes any sense at all.
Not so fast. That press release is a whitewash once you dive into the actual statistics. Here are the real numbers for FBS attendance (Not Divisions I, II, and III) in 2013 versus 2005 versus some press release:
According to the NCAA's own numbers, the average attendance at an FBS game has declined from 46,039 in 2005 45,671 in 2013, a 1% drop.
To be sure, total attendance has increased from 32,641,526 in 2005 to 35,135,118 in 2013. However, even that raw number is gamed because it takes into account six more FBS teams playing. In addition, those numbers are for a 12-game schedule as opposed to the 11-game schedule in 2005 and the addition of eight more bowl games. Add in Divisions I, II, and III, the game inflation is even greater.
So at a time where the country's population has grown by 7%, attendance at individual FBS games has dropped by 1%. That's an 8% spread between where attendance should be if attendance growth even matched population growth and where it actually is. This should give any athletic director pause.
Attendance has not affected college coaches salaries rising over the last handful of years. More than 50 FBS coaches now draw an annual salary of more than $1 million, according to the Knight Commission. In 2006, a little more than 40 coaches made $1 million.
So, what other excuse you gonna come up with to not pay players?
Attendance has not affected college coaches salaries rising over the last handful of years. More than 50 FBS coaches now draw an annual salary of more than $1 million, according to the Knight Commission. In 2006, a little more than 40 coaches made $1 million.
So, what other excuse you gonna come up with to not pay players?
Okay, so I shot down your first response and you're accusing me of making excuses? Fully half of university football programs lose money right now.
Tell you what. Why don't you actually go back through this thread. I've thrown out some pretty well-reasoned arguments.
Yes. There are billions of dollars changing hands every year in college football and almost none of it goes to the people doing the hard work on the field. That's patently unfair.
Sure you are. You've been taken in by a few sportswriters who think that tuition, room, board, textbooks, free tutoring, and a host of other benefits is somehow exploitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
