Pay the athletes?

[NewsCopy]

Just how much they need for all that, however, is a subject of great debate on and off college campuses everywhere — including among members of the Ragin' Cajuns football team. "We've got a scholarship, so that's all we really need," tight end ...

The rest of the story

[duggie85]

Why can't players take out living expense loans just like ppl that go to law school, med school, etc.???? They can't have full time jobs either...

[Lexhead]

Why can't players take out living expense loans just like ppl that go to law school, med school, etc.???? They can't have full time jobs either...

Seriously? These kids give their blood and sweat, and sometimes their bodies for the university, and you want them to pay for the privilege?

Look, I have advocated a stipend for a long time. I have personally seen athletes spend countless hours at the UL complex in training, meetings, weight lifting and practice, but not be able to afford a new pair of jeans or to take a girlfriend on a date. I knew athletes that sold plasma at UL for a little money to spend on the weekend. The NCAA prohibits them from having jobs because of the alumni abuse surrounding it. They are in a jam. That said, I also see what a slippery slope this can be. It is actually pretty complicated. Is $2,000 in Lafayette the same as $2,000 in Los Angeles? How do we make that fair? Will this broaden the gap between the haves and have-nots? (You betcha it will.) And once we start giving money, what is to stop the inevitable creep of that benefit? All considered, I had felt that it was best to just leave things the way they were but to apply some common sense to the enforcement of the existing rules.

[duggie85]

Seriously? These kids give their blood and sweat, and sometimes their bodies for the university, and you want them to pay for the privilege?

Look, I have advocated a stipend for a long time. I have personally seen athletes spend countless hours at the UL complex in training, meetings, weight lifting and practice, but not be able to afford a new pair of jeans or to take a girlfriend on a date. I knew athletes that sold plasma at UL for a little money to spend on the weekend. The NCAA prohibits them from having jobs because of the alumni abuse surrounding it. They are in a jam. That said, I also see what a slippery slope this can be. It is actually pretty complicated. Is $2,000 in Lafayette the same as $2,000 in Los Angeles? How do we make that fair? Will this broaden the gap between the haves and have-nots? (You betcha it will.) And once we start giving money, what is to stop the inevitable creep of that benefit? All considered, I had felt that it was best to just leave things the way they were but to apply some common sense to the enforcement of the existing rules.

I've seen it first hand as well, they do invest alot into this program and put their bodies on the line. And in return, they get an opportunity to invest in their future at no cost (financially).

[Lexhead]

I've seen it first hand as well, they do invest alot into this program and put their bodies on the line. And in return, they get an opportunity to invest in their future at no cost (financially).

True enough. But let's compare them to similarly situated kids. Suppose a kid gets a full ride for academics, or even band. There is nothing preventing that kid from getting a campus job or an off campus job to help to pay the expenses of a car or campus life or even (heaven forbid) an occasional movie. Athletes are not given that luxury. And I am sure that you would agree with me that the kid on an athletic scholorship gives more of himself/herself that the kid on a biology ride. (And arguably produces more revenue for the university in the process.) Even with the NCAA rules on practice times, these kids are in the training room, weight room, meetings, film, travel, mandatory study hall (do they still do that?), etc. I am not trying to undersell the value of the free education, but I am saying that these kids that give so much are actually at a greater disadvantage compared to similarly situated kids.

And I still think the stipend is a bad idea.

[cajunfan79]

True enough. But let's compare them to similarly situated kids. Suppose a kid gets a full ride for academics, or even band. There is nothing preventing that kid from getting a campus job or an off campus job to help to pay the expenses of a car or campus life or even (heaven forbid) an occasional movie. Athletes are not given that luxury. And I am sure that you would agree with me that the kid on an athletic scholorship gives more of himself/herself that the kid on a biology ride. (And arguably produces more revenue for the university in the process.) Even with the NCAA rules on practice times, these kids are in the training room, weight room, meetings, film, travel, mandatory study hall (do they still do that?), etc. I am not trying to undersell the value of the free education, but I am saying that these kids that give so much are actually at a greater disadvantage compared to similarly situated kids.

And I still think the stipend is a bad idea.

difference is you can't completely blow out a knee and carry that injury with you the rest of your life, sitting in a desk in a class room. It is the same in some ways, but players do sacrifice a little more.