So this morning, I was listening to Tim Brando while driving back to Blacksburg. One of the topics was the "full cost of attendance" proposal currently being batted around, which would increase the stipend that student-athletes receive. Given the amount of debate on the issue, I believe I've found a solution that will make everyone happy: student-athletes should receive scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance, meaning that increasing the stipend ought to happen (making the players happy), BUT these student-athletes will be required to get a degree (making the academically-minded people happy), and if they fail to do so, which tends to occur when players leave early for the pros, then they will be required to pay back the full value of their scholarship (helping to alleviate concerns about the increased expenses involved in providing larger stipends). I feel far too smart for coming up with this, so someone, please, tell me why I'm wrong.
An Everybody-Wins Solution to the Pay for Play Question
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The whole argument behind student athletes being paid is more than just scholarship or stipend money, unfortunately. They're looking for more than that.
For fun: I wrote a blog on this topic about a month ago if anyone would like to read
http://wetalkinboutblogging.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/moneymen/
Not a bad idea, but without thinking through the solutions, here as some quick concerns:
1. What to do about a football player in good academic standing who, after two years, decides football isn't for him anymore. Is he immediately on the hook for those two years? He now has no ability to apply or receive financial aid for those prior semesters, which he may have otherwise qualified for. In addition, you are essentially pressuring players who may no longer be interested in playing (for one reason or another) to continue taking scholarships away from players who deserve them and can contribute.
2. What if a player goes pro prior to receiving his degree? What is the time period in which the player has to begin making payments on the past due tuition? Is there a payment plan? Is he/she required to pay back 100% immediately, seeing as the semesters are long completed? If that player doesn't make it in the pro's, etc. due to some reason (not good enough, injuries, etc.), they would essentially be forced to take out a private loan to pay that amount off, because the amount they could borrow from various academic lending agencies is limited.
3. There is a chance you would be incentivizing specific unnamed questionably-moral programs to confer degrees on students who may not fairly earn them. I mean, lets be honest here...schools are already helping push kids through just to keep them eligible. Recent history suggests something like this would be possible, as a means of going even further to look out for the "student" athletes...
4. What do you do about the added costs included within the stipend to compensate the players above and beyond tuition? Do they owe that back, as well?
The more I think about this, a system that penalizes student athletes for failing to earn their degree isn't a change for the better. The reason why this issue is arising is because players feel taken advantage of. The solution you are proposing puts them in an even weaker position, on top of being taken advantage of. Again, not a bad idea, but it needs tweaking.
KJ is an example for #2. After quite a few years, he is back and finishing his degree. Would he be on the hook to repay his scholarship because he left before he was done?
Outstanding counterpoints.
Honestly, getting to play on a college level in any sport is a privilege not many people have the chance to do. I'm fully against paying players, however I think ones such as manziel or even Logan Thomas should profit upon leaving the program from the use of their likeness whether in video games (no longer an issue) or through jersey sales.
The money from using the likeness should be put in escrow for when they are out of school.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate, but why should that student have to wait for that money? If their jerseys are selling now, and they want money now, why should they wait?
Honestly I have no reason, beyond the fact I feel athletes shouldn't be paid. I know as a current college student I would love to have money waiting for me after graduation, I like the escrow account idea
I understand your feeling, but that's not justifiable. Perhaps offer them a delayed investment vs. an immediate check, but you have to at least give them the option of accessing their money immediately.
Paying student athletes (from revenue sports) isn't an issue b/c players need more money to survive (which is true in some cases, but from most of the athlete's I've talked to at tech, they're living well enough), it's an issue b/c they see such a small piece of the pie.
If we are to use round numbers, and assume that Tuition costs $30k/year at tech (accurate for out of state), and that VT football brings in $15 million annually, then a player sees .2%. Some people (not I) feel this is unfair given the effect some players have on a program, and given a program's value to the school (IE, applicants to VT increased by 32% in MV7's time here; the school benefited dramatically, but he was not compensated this).
Another issue (IMHO, the only issue) is that athlete's cannot profit from the use of their likeness, nor can they use said likeness for monetary gain. So their face is used in video games, but they get no compensation. Additionally, if they want to appear in an advertisement, or start a business for pay, they must forfeit their amatuer status.
Your solution doesn't really solve any of the problems, but adds more potential problems (such as those mentioned in PhillyHokie's post).
PS, hope my post doesn't sound disrespectful; not trying to shoot your idea down, just trying to clearly explain my thoughts related to paying players.
EDIT: Note that I think that if one were to hire a consulting firm to 'value' a student athlete, I would suspect that 95% NCAA DI athletes gain more from their school than their school gains from them. There are small exceptions (think players who wind up having average pro careers) then there are major exceptions; the MV7s, Tim Tebows, Johnny Footballs, etc are incredibly undercompensated for their value to the school. Due to media coverage, they're the only ones we hear about.
A lot of kids graduate early. If they redshirt, take summer classes, take a heaver work load they could be done in 3 years (a possible SO-RS) I'm assuming in your scenario they could leave early?
And in a Michael Cole situation I'm assuming a player can retire for injury
Former Hokie walk-on here. Having known many D1 athletes (at VT and elsewhere), the "piece of the pie" argument never seemed to be an issue, except with high profile/publicized players, which is usually a very small percentage of the entire athlete department as a whole. Generally, most everyone I knew seemed more than content with getting a free ride (except me, a walk-on), the perks and fan/student worship, and opportunity to showcase their talents to maybe get drafted. It was only when someone would put that bug in your ear of being undervalued/slighted that the resentment may start to creep in your mind.
Honestly, the NCAA has tried to make it a even playing field for every school, and nobody is handcuffing student-athletes to make them stay in school if they feel so undervalued. If a student-athlete feels like they are being "taken advantage of" and wants to see their true market value, OR just doesn't think school is for them, they could try out for The Canadian Football League, arena leagues, and semi-pro leagues all have age requirements of 18 or 19. I think the current system is ok. Tuition, room and board to potentially finish a graduate degree depending on redshirts, avoiding having to pay student loan interest on all of that (I never see anybody mention this), as well as training and skills to potentially become a professional.
My only suggestion would to have an NCAA-paid health insurance benefit that's fully funded while still a participant, then available at an extremely low premium (based on number of months as a participant) after playing days are over. All of the conferences/schools would have to contribute based on number of NCAA athletes. This fictional NCAA Insurance Department would create dozens of jobs at NCAA HQ, and jobs in regions/universities, and make athletes and their families happier, and save the economy. The end.