Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Pay for play: Good for college football?

Sports Editor

Published: Saturday, January 8, 2011

Updated: Sunday, January 9, 2011 21:01

EA Sports' NCAA Football video game series has an addicting feature in the game called "Dynasty Mode," which lets you go through a mock recruiting process. Too bad there isn't an option to let you pay players, because that would make the game a lot more realistic.

Naturally, most college football fans frown upon players getting paid, saying that it destroys the integrity of the game and makes it unfair for schools that have small financial endowments.

I think that paying players could actually be beneficial for the game.

I remember reading an article a while back in Sports Illustrated about Josh Luchs, a former NFL agent who paid players in hopes of becoming their agent.  Luchs said it was how the "agent business really worked," and that most players receive some type of payment throughout their college careers, especially if they're NFL bound.

College football isn't what it used to be. An integrity-based game that offers players a chance to earn a free education has turned into a multi-million dollar business. The recruitment process, which in the pre-SMU "death penalty" era was a chess-match between programs, has turned into a battle of boosters on who can offer the bigger cash payout.

If the NCAA allowed universities to give their players monthly or weekly payments (they certainly can afford to do so), it would severely reduce the amount of cash payments and illegal benefits received from agents and boosters.  I'm not saying to pay college football players millions of dollars like NFL players, but they deserve a piece of the pie.

I think that universities should be able to pay their players an equal amount, and give performance-based bonuses to their star players (such as an increase in pay if they receive all-conference or All-America honors).

Football players, who have no time to work a job because of extremely busy schedules between school, football practice and gamedays, wouldn't have to stress anymore over money.  Most of the players who come from poor backgrounds would be a support-system for their family.  

Lastly, it could possibly prevent players from leaving school early to enter the NFL draft because they need money.  Too many juniors in college football do this now and, with the exception of the elite players,  get drafted in the mid or late rounds.  

With the addition of an NFL rookie wage-scale soon to be in place, rookies drafted in the later rounds wouldn't be making much more than six-figures a season.  If players were getting paid in college football, maybe these players would stick around another year to earn their degree.

Player payments might actually restore integrity in college football.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Anonymous
Wed Jan 12 2011 13:09
This will never happen. If college football players can get paid, then college baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis players, etc will want to get paid also so then what do you do? You can't just pay the football players cause then the sports players on the other sports teams will not be happy. Well that will cause a big problem so it's best to leave it alone.
All college athletes are cheap employees of the college/university. It's just that simple. They make the school a ton of $$$, especially if a sports team is tops in the country in a specific sport or many sports.
Eric Grego
Mon Jan 10 2011 12:25
If I am right, students on scholarship are not allowed to work a job either. I also think, that a salary or wages for playing that are equal, not above what any other student can make during that time would be helpful. How many players come out of school never making a dollar and then have millions thrown at them? Then once they have a bit of money they don't know how to act? Maybe teaching players how to handle financial successes will help them down the road in life. That is the point of going to school to teach lessons
Jayson
Mon Jan 10 2011 10:01
Where in the article does it say a couple hundred bucks?
Anonymous
Mon Jan 10 2011 09:52
Let's say the universities were allowed to give the athletes a small stipend every months, like $200 or $300 for their incidental expenses (e.g. personal hygiene products, eating out, etc.), as all other costs like tuition and rent are covered by their scholarship. Do you really think such a small amount would keep the kids who want to cheat from taking cars and free rent for family members like in the Reggie Bush situation?
It's not about getting a "living wage" it's about getting everything they can get while they can get it. I also doubt a couple hundred bucks would keep someone from going to the NFL early and making millions. What happens if they get hurt? I never fault a kid for leaving early if he has a legitimate chance at being drafted. Sometimes kids get bad advice to leave early, but in a case like UCF's own Kevin Smith, you can't fault him for taking the millions he got for being drafted in the 3rd round. I doubt a couple hundred dollars every couple weeks or month would have kept him here.
It does stink that some schools make a surplus of money off of the athletes, but many schools��� athletics programs barely stay in the black, so it���s not like every school makes a killing on athletics. There are a lot of costs involved with keeping the athletes housed, fed and in classes, so only the elites schools make a real profit.
The athletes also get a free education and living expenses while they play, which isn't chump change. Like the NCAA ads say, a majority of the athletes in college will "go pro" in something other than sports, so they should take advantage of their education. We shouldn't have to pay a majority because a minority decide to "cheat" and neglect their amateur status.






log out