Gary Patterson answers questions about
- Thread starter West Coast Johnny
- Start date
Despite the odds Frog
Active Member
He has some really good points. Paying players is such hogwash...haven't used that word in some time. $100,000 education for free - they get paid $100,000 and they play a game! They get entrance in a school they probably would have never qualified to get in and they are obtaining an education from that school which will bring them a good job in the future, if they do not go to the NFL. They get free food, clothes, books, and much much more. Athletes are not hurting on campus, now their families might still be in the same situation as they left it, but non athletes go to college and their home life they left stays the same. This want is from the big schools so that they can easily hide the payments they are currently giving students - the hope to pass $3,000 stipend will cover up the bigger payout of $30,000 plus the school has been really giving the athlete.
West Coast Johnny
Full Member
I agree with your post for the most part but do have mixed feelings about it. Its a bit of an exploitation because Bowl Game executives and TV networks are getting rich off these kids.
West Coast Johnny
Full Member
Yes that was my point. I think its exploitative to the players that people like Junker of the Fiesta Bowl have 9 figure salaries while the players get a scholarship and no salary. I would rather pay the players than the suits that run bowl games and television networks. I actually don't think the players should be paid, but I have mixed feelings about it.
froginaustin
Active Member
"Paying players is such hogwash . . .."
Patterson also talked about some kids needing a little extra dough so that they could go off the meal plan and get a burger, etc.
Before that tape, I probably would have expressed an opinion that paying any players anything except the scholarship value and money that they already get, was simply wrong, a slippery slope to professionalism, etc.
But come to think of it, some kids don't have ANY walking-around money without a part time job or something like that. And as I understand it scholarship athletes are very limited in what jobs they can take.
If I were a decider, I would think long and hard before deciding that scholarship athletes couldn't get an "allowance" as Patterson put it, in a modest amount, based upon financial need or personal pride in not wanting to take spending money from their families (or "friends"
h34r: ).
Not saying that I'm fer it. But I'm not as sure I wouldn't be if it was a decision I had to make.
Patterson also talked about some kids needing a little extra dough so that they could go off the meal plan and get a burger, etc.
Before that tape, I probably would have expressed an opinion that paying any players anything except the scholarship value and money that they already get, was simply wrong, a slippery slope to professionalism, etc.
But come to think of it, some kids don't have ANY walking-around money without a part time job or something like that. And as I understand it scholarship athletes are very limited in what jobs they can take.
If I were a decider, I would think long and hard before deciding that scholarship athletes couldn't get an "allowance" as Patterson put it, in a modest amount, based upon financial need or personal pride in not wanting to take spending money from their families (or "friends"
h34r: ).Not saying that I'm fer it. But I'm not as sure I wouldn't be if it was a decision I had to make.
My first thought was about kids being able to travel back to their homes. And you have certain situations like with Broughton, where both his parents have passed away.
Maybe it would be a good idea to give each player an extra $500 each semester for travel and unexpected expense. Doubt it would be like paying pro players in that case. But it makes sense.
Maybe it would be a good idea to give each player an extra $500 each semester for travel and unexpected expense. Doubt it would be like paying pro players in that case. But it makes sense.
FrogFutbol
Member
If the NCAA had any guts they would force the Bowls to fund this player allowance. These "non-profits" are allowed to pocket millions and millions of dollars without giving anything back. All bowl profits go into a pool for athlete allowances. If they balk, then the NCAA could use that as the excuse to start a playoff.
Endless Purple
Full Member
Not really a fan of paying players more. They options for Pell grants and after that loans like every other student. Though if the schools all decided they could afford a small stipend, I would not go out of my way to fight it.
Open market would destroy college athletics.
Open market would destroy college athletics.
