Johnny Manziel on cover of TIME magazine

Do college players really need to be paid?

9/5/13 in NCAAF   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

Blog Photo - Johnny Manziel on cover of TIME magazineIn a rather rare occurrence, TIME Magazine put an athlete on the cover. Not only is it an athlete, it's a college athlete.

Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel is on the cover, along with the statement that it's time to pay college athletes.

Columnist Sean Gregory is the one who makes the case for paying college athletes, and delves into the intricacies of a hypothetical system that could go about doing that.

There are some who believe that the college game should remain strictly amateurish, and college athletes shouldn't be able to profit at all off their star status, beyond the scholarships that they receive from the school.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.

I don't necessarily think that schools should actually pay the athletes a stipend on top of the scholarships, housing, food, books, and other supplies that they already receive. I do, however, think that the NCAA is absolutely out of control with its senseless monitoring of what the players do for money in their off time.

The thing is, the schools don't have to pay players in order for the players to get a few dollars worth of spending money. If the NCAA would lift their un-American and anti-capitalist regulations on what a young adult is allowed to do, everything would work itself out.

Currently, Johnny Manziel isn't allowed to do anything that could potentially result in him profiting off his status as a football player for Texas A&M University.

Despite the fact that Manziel's signature is something that has considerable value on the open market, Manziel is not allowed to sell that signature. If he had a car, he would be allowed to sell the car. If he had any other widget, he would be allowed to sell it for whatever the market value is. His signature, however, is off limits.

Exactly why is that? What is the harm in allowing NCAA athletes to profit off their hard work, like everyone else in America does on a daily basis?

The fact is that there really isn't any harm in that. For some reason, many years ago, the NCAA decided that it was important to ensure that their athletes were amateurs and they decided to be extremely strict about what the word "amateur" means. Even Olympic athletes are allowed to have sponsors who help fund their training and help increase their quality of life in exchange for endorsements, yet NCAA athletes risk suspension if they accept even the smallest gift from the wrong person.

In an even more ridiculous example, guys are allowed to play professional baseball, and then change their mind and come back to school to play football, if they so choose. Former Heisman winner Chris Weinke played 6 years of minor league baseball before returning to Florida State to play football. Somehow, he was completely eligible as an amateur athlete, yet when Manziel was (allegedly) compensated for a few hours of his time, he was in jeopardy of missing the entire 2013 season? That's just ridiculous.

We don't need to pay college athletes. It's not necessary. If schools want to, they should be allowed to do so, as far as I'm concerned. But it's not absolutely necessary to cut them a check from the school. But why prevent them from making money on their own?
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

9/6/13   |   kantwistaye   |   4201 respect

Tyler_Waddell wrote:
As a college student with plenty of friends playing football at the FBS and FCS level, I am completely against players getting paid. Stanford coach David Shaw said it best:

"If the NCAA does pass this rule, we will comply, but my big comment is we're also giving these guys a $58,000 per year education and unbelievable contacts and summer jobs and great opportunities as well, and it's our job to make sure that these guys take advantage of these opportunities.

"I like to say that our job is to teach these guys how to make a living and not have them make a living in college."

The average cost for tuition for 2012-13 was $22,261. That's $89,044 for FREE so that we can go learn how to make money.

Its not 90k for free. Its 90k to play in (at least for football, a very violent) game to make millions of dollars for your school.  In football and men's basketball that's far below market value.

9/6/13   |   orangemen90   |   5785 respect

if they get paid can the alumni get a player fired....

9/6/13   |   Tyler_Waddell   |   410 respect

As a college student with plenty of friends playing football at the FBS and FCS level, I am completely against players getting paid. Stanford coach David Shaw said it best:

"If the NCAA does pass this rule, we will comply, but my big comment is we're also giving these guys a $58,000 per year education and unbelievable contacts and summer jobs and great opportunities as well, and it's our job to make sure that these guys take advantage of these opportunities.

"I like to say that our job is to teach these guys how to make a living and not have them make a living in college."

The average cost for tuition for 2012-13 was $22,261. That's $89,044 for FREE so that we can go learn how to make money.

9/5/13   |   kantwistaye   |   4201 respect

Jay Bilas has been essentially saying for a while that any athlete should be able to take money from anyone but the school. I'm okay with this. As Eric points out, it won't violate Title IX, and it makes sure we don't have kids doing stupid crap like dealing coke to make ends meet.

9/5/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Some combination of the Olympic model and allowing players to profit off their own name like anyone can if said name is in demand is probably the best option long-term. It keeps the schools themselves for paying out, and keep it for violating Title IX (any athlete could in theory get sponsorship, even though in practice only the Brittney Griner's of the world would of the female athletes).

9/5/13   |   Jess   |   32868 respect

(Edited by Jess)

When I read the headline, I had a long thought run through my mind and came in to post it. It went something like this:

"Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.

I don't necessarily think that schools should actually pay the athletes a stipend on top of the scholarships, housing, food, books, and other supplies that they already receive. I do, however, think that the NCAA is absolutely out of control with its senseless monitoring of what the players do for money in their off time."

Obviously you and I are on the same page.