GopherinPhilly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,590
- Reaction score
- 266
- Points
- 83
I'm definitely in camp that believes we don't need to be playing players and that the value of a free education is reward enough, but it's not like grad assistants aren't paid for the work on grants (less so for undergrads). I can't say this happens in every instance, but my while my wife was obtaining her PHD from Minnesota her grad school was completely paid for and she received a stipend (roughly 20k/year if I remember correctly) for her work on grants. I should point out though, that the money came from the grant itself (a significant portion of the grant money is meant for paying grad students to work on it).
This post/thread brought up an interesting thought: If we were to take this model and compare it to the athletes, it would not be the sole responsibility of the athletics department or school to pay these athletes - we would include the corporations that are creating the wealth in the college football system. In this scenario the National Institute of Health would be analogous to Budweiser or Directv. People seem to love to criticize the universities for exploiting these athletes, but aren't corporations doing the same thing. Maybe we should ask the sponsors for more money, which is specifically dedicated to create stipends for the players that are helping sell beer, chips and credit cards. Just a thought...
This is been a huge part of my reasoning that student athletes should have the ability to negotiate more. The schools make money on their coke or pepsi deal, their beer deal, their uniform deal, video game deal, their shoe deal, their radio deal, and so on. But a student athlete can't make one penny from any deal they get on their own and weren't getting anything from their likeness being used that generated revenue.
I don't see how those of you that are "scholarship that doesn't pay full cost" or "full cost scholarship" is all these kids are entitled to and that they have no rights to negotiate simply because it is a monopoly. The fact that it is a monopoly is exactly the reason their needs to be regulation and the fact that these kids are making schools money in so many ways is exactly the reason there has to be a negotiation.
Again, just because the schools decided that the best way to finance sports programs that don't make money is through the ones that do is not the problem of the athletes, its the problem of the schools. If field hockey and golf are important sports at the D-1 level then let them get sponsors or fans to pay the bill or the schools can pay the bill...but expecting the cost for those sports to rest solely on the backs of the 2 or 3 profitable sports is just unfair, unreasonable and in my opinion wrong.