Do you know why the term 'student-athlete' was coined? You should.

[Are_grits_groceries]

For our purposes, however, the most interesting excerpt chronicles the how and the why of the NCAA’s creation and widespread promotion of the term “student-athlete.” According to Branch, the main reason that former NCAA head Walter Byers, in his own words, “crafted the term student-athlete” and soon made sure it was “embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations” was because it was an excellent defense against being held liable for workers compensation benefits that those injured in athletic competition could seek.

“We crafted the term student-athlete,” Walter Byers himself wrote, “and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.” The term came into play in the 1950s, when the widow of Ray Dennison, who had died from a head injury received while playing football in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s-compensation death benefits. Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”

The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous. College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.

Using the “student-athlete” defense, colleges have compiled a string of victories in liability cases. On the afternoon of October 26, 1974, the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs were playing the Alabama Crimson Tide in Birmingham, Alabama. Kent Waldrep, a TCU running back, carried the ball on a “Red Right 28” sweep toward the Crimson Tide’s sideline, where he was met by a swarm of tacklers. When Waldrep regained consciousness, Bear Bryant, the storied Crimson Tide coach, was standing over his hospital bed. “It was like talking to God, if you’re a young football player,” Waldrep recalled.

Waldrep was paralyzed: he had lost all movement and feeling below his neck. After nine months of paying his medical bills, Texas Christian refused to pay any more, so the Waldrep family coped for years on dwindling charity.

Through the 1990s, from his wheelchair, Waldrep pressed a lawsuit for workers’ compensation. (He also, through heroic rehabilitation efforts, recovered feeling in his arms, and eventually learned to drive a specially rigged van. “I can brush my teeth,” he told me last year, “but I still need help to bathe and dress.”) His attorneys haggled with TCU and the state worker-compensation fund over what constituted employment. Clearly, TCU had provided football players with equipment for the job, as a typical employer would—but did the university pay wages, withhold income taxes on his financial aid, or control work conditions and performance? The appeals court finally rejected Waldrep’s claim in June of 2000, ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football. (Waldrep told me school officials “said they recruited me as a student, not an athlete,” which he says was absurd.)

The long saga vindicated the power of the NCAA’s “student-athlete” formulation as a shield, and the organization continues to invoke it as both a legalistic defense and a noble ideal. Indeed, such is the term’s rhetorical power that it is increasingly used as a sort of reflexive mantra against charges of rabid hypocrisy.

<snip>
More:http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/how-the-ncaa-has-used-the-term-student-athlete-to-avoid-paying-workers-comp/

It's still that way. If a student-athlete is injured, the school is not required to pay for any other care after a point that may arise from the injury. They may but that's up to them.

And student-athletes aren't awarded FOUR year scholarships. They are for one year and they may or may not be renewed in the next year. If a s-a is hurt, schools can and have pulled their scholarships.

Coaches can and do jump from school to school regardless of what their contract says. Some have big buyout clauses in order to be released. However, if another school wants that coach badly enough, they will find the money to pay the buy out amount.

Student-athletes have to sit out a full year if they transfer to most other schools. In addition, the school they played for doesn't have to release them to transfer. They can also put restrictions on what schools they can transfer to.

So, I support the union movement. It is the only thing that has gotten any talk of change out of the NCAA and the schools. If the NCAA were concerned with the S-As they would have done something before now.

I personally don 't think a strict union structure would be the best model for university athletics. It would probably have to be a hybrid that takes into account the many unique aspects of the athletes. However, unions are the only game in town now so I am on their side.

[Warpy]

1. They're not only terrified of paying some of these kids what they're worth

they're also terrified of losing that "amateur" label. There's nothing that says pro like belonging to a union. They can get away with tuition and a stipend but not collective bargaining.

As it is now, they get to go to classes if they want to and it doesn't conflict with their sports schedule. Sadly, a lot of them don't want to and when their sports career is over, so are they. Stars are few and only earning a degree in something besides perfunctory and rare attendance in basket weaving classes will qualify them for future coaching jobs.

I'd like to see these almost but not quite pro teams divorced from colleges completely and turned over to sports institutes where the curriculum could start with teaching them how to manage their money and end with a degree specific to sports. That would make the transition to coaching a lot smoother if they didn't turn out to be high paid stars with long careers.

Colleges aren't doing them many favors now.

[Ex Lurker]

2. The benefit varies according to school

If you're getting a free ride to Stanford, an athletic scholly is a sweet deal, probably worth upwards of a half mill. over four years. If you're at Directional State U, not so much.

A couple of other considerations: How do you figure out what an athlete is worth? No more than a handful of schools have an athletic program in the black, and even at those schools, in almost every case, football and men's basketball are the only sports to turn a profit, and carry everyone else. Players on those teams are the only ones with any collective bargaining leverage. The money-losing water polo team is out of luck. Title IX will play in to this discussion, too.

Also, a pure Union model will be problematic with a membership that completely turns over every four years.

[Warpy]

3. All good points, especially the turnover

which happens every year as some finish and others are just starting.

The wretchedly bad team sports here have a larger budget than the university affiliated hospital.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Devils advocate (and I think they are AA teams for the NFL and the NBA)

but a lot of the money for the athletics dept comes from alumni... and the football program is what gets it. I know that when I get the annual plege the few times I have given money, it is to my major, and to fund a chair. But most alumni give money to the Athletics dept. Most of that is used to run the program... and I mea the program. The rest of the sports are ugly ducklings.

I was a TA with one of these programs. Also they no longer get the basket weaving degree, they are forced by the NCAA to actually attend classes and be on tract for an actual useful degree. Many of them enroll in what is perceived an easy major, and schools are penalized for not graduating a minimum of students.

Now there are rare examples (since he has committed suicide due to the Traumatic Brain Injuries) like Junior Seau, I wish he could have attended sans scholarship, he was a 3.9 GPA student, later on got his MBA. And yes, his fellow players gave him no end of grief. After his years in the NBA he ran a very successful restaurant here in the valley.

By the way, these programs should be decoupled from schools, in that I agree. But we need to first understand how they work. They are actually more evil than people imagine and damn it, they do exploit the kids. In my mind a Union will go some way in solving those abuses.

[Brickbat]

9. It's important to remember that almost anything can be collectively bargained, not just wages.

Student-athletes could try to bargain for anything they wanted to -- working conditions and safety, for example.

[Downwinder]

24. Have to include the advertising value.

[hfojvt]

50. the Stanford degree costs a lot more

but does it reward any better, necessarily?

The degree, regardless of the cost of tuition, is ultimately only worth what the job that results from it pays. And one can goto a state college and get a decent paying job. Would my useless degree in math be worth something if it was from Stanford?

[haele]

62. Depends if you were also in a greek system.

I don't remember where I heard it, but the surest guarentee of wealth and a successful career path into CEO territory after any education is what fraternity the student belongs to. In my experiance, that tends to hold true in the financial and in major corporations. Frat brothers will look after each other, and franklly, their attitude is that they were at "the top" first - and want to ensure they, their freinds, and their kids remain at the top..
So someone who attended Standford (or Cornell, or MIT) may have gotten a greater chance to join or at least be remembered by members in one of the big Fraternities and can open a door that the person who got their degree at Directional St. University had. Being a friend of Big John Greek means you have something in common with the big boss or his son that is relatable to them.

I think it was a report of a study on women VP's, finding one of the reasons that while women do well to up the VP positions in corporations, but that's usually as far as they go, no matter how well they perform.

Haele

[CFLDem]

4. Amen!

[yeoman6987]

5. I don't have a problem paying them what they are worth

But no more free college education. They should do away with scholarships for sports. Pay them and they can pay their own tuition.

[blueamy66]

6. As much as I feel for those that get injured..

they are NOT employees. They are students who play athletics.

They know the risks...that's why more kids are forgoing their college careers and going straight to the bigs.

[CreekDog]

8. and students who work in the library get paid why?

and are covered by workers' compensation why?

and grad students who are TA's get paid why?

and they are covered by workers' compensation why?

you care but your care is extremely limited to exclude anything that would help the student.

[blueamy66]

11. If you WORK at a college/university and pay taxes on your income, then you are an employee.

Student athletes do not get pay checks. They do not pay taxes on any income from that university.

That is why they are not covered by workers' comp.

[CreekDog]

28. but if they were paid, they would do all those things

so why not call them employees?

you're changing the subject. can you take a liberal position on anything? jeez.

[joeglow3]

29. It is not conservative to point out their scholarship is compensation if they are an employee

I am not saying it is right or wrong. It is a fact that it would be compensation, subject to federal income/employment taxes.

[CreekDog]

33. students on scholarship can have paid jobs at the university

huh?

[joeglow3]

36. The argument is that the student-athletes are employees

IF they are employees, then their compensation (subject to all employment taxes) would be the value they receive in exchange for their services (i.e. their scholarship).

Nowhere did I say an student-athlete can have a paid job at the university.

[CreekDog]

40. so it sounds like you're saying they owe taxes too

sounds like they better get a job outside the campus because a 40k scholarship per year taxed as regular income is pretty steep.

i think you need to think this through because your conclusions are way off.

[joeglow3]

44. I am a tax CPA

I am telling you the law. Sorry if you don't like it, but you would need to amend the Internal Revenue Code if you want to treat them as employees, but not tax any of their compensation received in exchange for their services.

[blueamy66]

43. How am I changing the subject?

I answered your questions.

[Ikonoklast]

45. There is a quid pro quo in place, however.

Why should an athlete lose his scholarship if injured and can no longer perform?


Because his compensation (scholarship monies) gets cancelled if he can no longer provide the labor required.

[Brickbat]

10. They know the risks -- which is why they're looking to collectively bargain to protect themselves.

The ones with talent go straight to the bigs -- where they're protected by some form of a union.

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. Ya know what?

They represent their schools and the NCAA.
I don't care if you call them employees or not. That was the legal remedy that was sought. It is unconscionable that a student could require serious care from an injury sustained while playing for a school and get no help in paying for medical bills, etc.

Your attitude is EXACTLY why I support the players in forming a union or some organization that can force change in at least this area. Don't give me hogwash about their knowing the risks. Some play to go on to the pros but many play to help get an education. Without that help, they can't make it.

The pros know the risks and at least get some money and a health plan of sorts. The college players get squat.

[smokey nj]

15. My husband attended college on a baseball scholarship and I agree with you completely.

Athletes should at least get some of the money made from the sale of merchandise that features their names and likenesses. Colleges make a shit load of money from the sale of that merchandise.

[blueamy66]

18. If they want some of the money made from the sale of merchandise, they should go pro.

They are going to school for free.

[smokey nj]

19. Why should the NCAA and the colleges get to profit from their names and likenesses?

[blueamy66]

20. Because the student athlete is getting a free education.

That is part of the contract they sign.

[Moosepoop]

21. And they'd like to be able to negotiate a better contract.

Why would that be a bad thing?

[blueamy66]

26. I'm all for all students to be afforded some type of medical coverage.

But, that is all. No profits from ticket sales or merchandise sales.

They are students. If they want the bennies of being a pro, they need to go pro.

[Tansy_Gold]

30. If I remember correctly, the NFL blocked the option to go pro

And that's one of the reasons for the pro-union lawsuit. Due to restrictions from the NFL, football players HAVE to play college ball first, unlike baseball or basketball players (who have far less risk of life- and career-threatening injury, too).

And as at least one other poster has said, the academic requirements are often not enforced on student-athletes, where training schedules, game and travel requirements, and so on often hinder anything approaching a meaningful education. Some schools have a much higher graduation rate than others, though I believe the NCAA has established percentage quotas. I'm sure those schools that were falling short of that found ways to fix it, and that those ways did not actually involving making sure their athletes made legitimate academic progress.

[blueamy66]

35. It is my understanding that players must only be out of HS for 3 years to be eligible for the draft

Form a union for medical coverage. But that is all.

[joeglow3]

31. They get free medical coverage when attending

At least, they did where I worked (Nebraska Athletic Department). It was great, because when I got a cold, I could just walk down to the Doctor and he would give me something.

[Stallion]

72. PLUS-they get a Living Stipend

at SMU a school I'm very familiar with it is reportedly is worth $2100 a month for those living off campus which is a substantial amount. The Stipend is determined based on cost of living in area. There is a lot of misinformation and this is a major point often left out while everyone focuses on the top 1% of student athletes

[Stallion]

74. Here's Example of Available Living Stipend Plus Pell Grants

This recent excerpt from SMU AD shows the extent of supplementing funds

At SMU, the weighted average value of a full grant-in-aid scholarship (tuition, fees, books, room and board) is $58,757. Student-athletes living off-campus are provided a monthly stipend check for $1,550 to apply towards other expenses. Pell-eligible (need-based aid) students receive additional stipends each semester. (A total of $356,000 in Pell grants will be distributed to student-athletes this academic year.) Conservatively, a full-scholarship student-athlete attending SMU for 4 ½ years will receive over $300,000 in direct support of expenses.

Student-athletes are also provided with equipment

[joeglow3]

39. They don't profit

Most football teams make money. And the Federal government mandates that money be spent within the Athletic Department, under Title IX, until they are in compliance. By that point, the VAST majority of schools are in the red. Thus, the only people profiting on them are the, usually female, classmates.

[CreekDog]

34. do they all go pro?

what if they are injuired in their 2nd or 3rd year, does their scholarship continue? should it?

[blueamy66]

38. Of course "they" all do not go pro.

What if they are injured? Sometimes life just sucks. I don't believe that their scholarships do continue.

A wise student, and his/her parents, would get medical coverage.

[CreekDog]

41. well you're always complaining about your life sucking, but when it's you...

you want some policy or legal change to address it.

but when it's other people, you're like "too bad so sad".

[blueamy66]

46. I'm always complaining?

Are you now going to dig up old posts and throw them at me?

Yeah, I've had some crappy things happen to me. Hey, I got hit by a car yesterday.

Where did I say "too bad so sad"?

[HERVEPA]

49. Speaking of sucking.

[blueamy66]

51. Care to elaborate?

I suck because I think that sometimes "life happens"?

As I have stated, give them medical coverage.

[HERVEPA]

52. No need to elaborate. The empathy speaks for itself.

[blueamy66]

54. Then respond like an adult.

nt

[HERVEPA]

57. Then act like a Democrat

[Gormy Cuss]

58. They are NOT going to school for free. It's quid pro quo.

Unlike other scholarships which do not bring direct revenue to the school, some sports programs are designed to bring revenue to the institution, revenue used mostly to sustain the program as a marketing tool. As the OP points out, "student-athletes" are more than just students who play sports. In some cases they are athletes first (as in, the college would have no interest in them unless they played the sport.) That's a very different relationship between university and student than for the typical student with an academic scholarship.

[blueamy66]

61. If they aren't paying tuition and their parents aren't paying tuition...

I would consider that free to them.

[Gormy Cuss]

68. There's a difference between free (no obligation) and conditional cost offsets.

If they show up on campus and say that they don't want to play football, there is no free education. The scholarship goes poof.

[joeglow3]

37. They don't make money from their name

Ever notice how no jerseys for sale have names on them?

[smokey nj]

60. Here are links to two different articles on the topic:

Online jersey sales highlight NCAA's hypocrisy on amateurism

<snip>All Bilas did was type Manziel's last name into a search bar. That search bar was located on the Shop page on NCAA.com. Guess what happened?
Bilas was taken to a page that contained links to buy Texas A&M jerseys emblazoned with the No. 2. Who wears No. 2? Why, Johnny Manziel, of course. But hasn't the NCAA been telling us for years that the organization and the schools it comprises don't profit off the names or likenesses of individual players? If that's the case, why would the name of a player be tied directly to the sale of that player's jersey on the NCAA's official web site? <snip>
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130807/jersey-ncaa-sales-manziel-clowney/

The Shame of College Sports

All of this money ultimately derives from the college athletes whose likenesses are shown in the films or video games. But none of the profits go to them. Last year, Electronic Arts paid more than $35 million in royalties to the NFL players union for the underlying value of names and images in its pro football series—but neither the NCAA nor its affiliated companies paid former college players a nickel. Naturally, as they have become more of a profit center for the NCAA, some of the vaunted “student-athletes” have begun to clamor that they deserve a share of those profits. You “see everybody getting richer and richer,” Desmond Howard, who won the 1991 Heisman Trophy while playing for the Michigan Wolverines, told USA Today recently. “And you walk around and you can’t put gas in your car? You can’t even fly home to see your parents?”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true

Although names aren't used in video games of current teams, the athlete's image is used and the NCAA profits from that.

[joeglow3]

63. I would agree with Desmond Howard, if the university were getting rich

Reality is the vast majority of the profits are being eaten up by women's sports that do nothing but lose money, but are mandated under Title IX. Very FEW schools have an athletic dept. that operates in the black.

[smokey nj]

65. Provide links to back up that assertion please.

Also, address the issue of the NCAA. I mentioned that too, yet you keep avoiding it.

[joeglow3]

66. Which part?

I spent 3 years working in the accounting department of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. We were/are one a select few that operate in the black after funding all other sports.

Did a quick search on DU. There have been plenty of posts/discussions here about the need to fund collegiate athletics, given the fact that they are net financial losers.

Edit to add this link:

http://chronicle.com/article/22-Elite-College-Sports/127921/

This shows 22 universities in the entire nation had a net profit from their athletic department. It is a known fact that football and, to a MUCH lesser extent, men's basketball are the only two sports that ever have net profits. As the article shows, these profits are eaten up at almost every university by the other sports. And given that football and men's basketball account for about 100 scholarships, it is easy to see the vast majority of the remaining sports eating up the profits are mandated under Title IX. Thus, we can be as upset as we want, but these men on the football field are risking themselves to provide scholarships to mostly female athletes. Not saying it is right or wrong...just stating the facts,

[smokey nj]

67. The article doesn't say that the profits are eaten by women's sports, it doesn't mention Title IX at

all. YOU'RE the one saying that. Colleges only give scholarships to men for football and basketball? Colleges don't give scholarships to men for things like LaCrosse, rowing, swimming, baseball, or wrestling? I know they give scholarships for baseball, my husband attended a Division 1 school on a baseball scholarship. Are the sports I listed all big money makers?

The fact of the matter is somebody is (more like lots of somebodies) getting rich off the talent of college football and basketball players. I think they should get something as well.

[joeglow3]

69. This is NOT unknown knowledge

I think you need to study title ix, how it works. Start with Wikipedia...it has some good info on it.

[smokey nj]

71. I have. Title IX is only one aspect of this issue.

It's clear from your responses here in this thread and in other threads I've read hear, you lack empathy. I think you need to work on that. You're also terribly condescending, you should work on that as well.

[LordGlenconner]

70. Thanks for this response

I always enjoy it when people who know what they are talking about educate people who have no idea what they're talking about. There's a whole lot of the latter up and down this thread.

Having spent some time around another large athletics program (that was once in the same conference as Nebraska) what you wrote is chapter and verse from what folks at other schools have said. I'd add that football also helps pay for other non revenue sports like baseball, wrestling, tennis and so on. Some of those are men's sports. Some are women's sports.

It's not popular but the reality is women's basketball is profitable only at places like UConn and women's basketball is the most high profile of all women's sports by a wide margin.

Anyway I enjoyed your INFORMED response.

[joeglow3]

73. Thanks for correcting me

I knew women's basketball at UCONN made money. And I agree that men also benefit for the profitable sports (track, golf, hockey, etc.), the majority benefitting are women (because those two profitable sports create a 100 person hole that needs to be filled just to make women equal - and yes, it is not as simple as one for one scholarships for women, but the trend is close).

When I was at nebraska, they added women's bowling and rifle team to get the title ix scholarships needed.

[blueamy66]

17. He received 9 months of medical care, paid for by the university.

Hogwash? So they didn't know that if they play a full contact sport, such as football, they just might get hurt?

Go ahead and form a union. Or maybe buy an insurance policy. I have to have one.

[Moosepoop]

22. Nine months of medical care on a lifetime injury.

Perhaps the employers -- the schools -- should be required to offer an insurance policy. Other employers with that many full-time workers have to.

[blueamy66]

25. Universities DO offer insurance for their students.

Students are not full time workers.

Perhaps his parents should have kept him on their policy.

Or, as I said, form a union and get covered.

But right now, a student knows the risks involved. They, and their parents, should probably take precautions.

[joeglow3]

32. They DO provide insurance

However, it only applies so long as they are student-athletes there.

Try to bill your first employer to ever offer you health insurance for a visit today. Bet you don't get it paid by them.

[blueamy66]

48. So you have to start with the digs.

I wasn't the one that brought up unionizing the athletes. Someone else did.

Um, I bought my own insurance policy. Many are young enough to be covered by their parents.

Debate the issues and quit getting personal and nasty, k?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. When you get your pledge you send it to the football team

Don't you?

The system is fucked up, at multiple levels. And the kids deserve protection from the abuses. If they get a lifetime injury, given how much money they get in to the schools, yes, the school should absorb the cost.

As to kids going straight you are aware the NBA is considering a nobody will be able to play before 20 and the NFL has that rule in place? Oh you were not aware so the kids will have to play for free mostly, and no protections until they are old enough (and in the case of the NFL big enough).

[blueamy66]

56. I agree that the system isn't perfect.

They should be protected from the abuses.

But all athletes should be covered? For all injuries? Or only lifetime injuries?

I am aware. I believe that I posted that a kid has to be out of HS for 3 years before he can play for the NFL.

I am not an advocate of kids going straight to the pros. But why should they get the same bennies of a pro if they aren't a pro?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Kids should be covered for injuries

They are under school insurance as long as they are enrolled. Lifetime, schools should be forced to absorb the cost if there is a lifetime disability, yes. The programs can afford it. If they can't, then get the fuck out of it. As is, the kids are expected to perform as pros. I know, I was a TA with a university program, and damn you got no idea of the pressures the kids are under from the coaches.

Of course the few who go for an education are made fun off mercisely by their peers, but that is another story, and has to do with the implied promise that all will make it to the big money. this is not the case. It is a pure pyramid scheme, but every freshman believes they too will play for the nfl, of the nba. Baseball players know better IMO, the two leagues should set up their own farm teams, because you know what? SDSU, UCLA Michigan State, et all are the farm teams.

[Silent3]

7. How about putting the biggest emphasis in college on (gasp!) academics?

Too many of these colleges function more like sports teams with a bit of teaching as an underpaid sideline activity. Worse, despite what many people think about college sports being a profit center, very few are profitable, and even the profitable ones are often subsidized.

Isn't college more than insanely expensive enough without students having to subsidize, directly or indirectly, sports that most of them don't play?

Of course, I don't really expect much to change any time soon. Our country as a whole has a fucked-up obsession with sports, and a strong anti-intellectual streak, so when you combine that will all the money there is to be made (by a select few), I won't be holding my breath waiting for any significant reforms to the system.

[blueamy66]

12. What percentage of college students play sports?

Too many of these colleges function more like sports teams with a bit of teaching as an underpaid sideline activity

There were 27,000 freshmen accepted to AZ State two years ago. How many of those kids are going to that school for an education and how many are going just to play sports?

[Silent3]

14. Your numbers are my point.

I was never saying that there aren't plenty more students than athletes. It's that those few athletes get way more focus, concern, emphasis and money than those that are there for an education, while likely being subsidized by those who are there for an education.

And who's more likely to get the big salaries, the coaches or the professors?

[blueamy66]

16. No, you said that too many colleges function more like sports teams with a bit of teaching.

I would assume that, out of the 27,000 freshmen that were accepted in 2012, many more are there to get a college education than to play sports. There's ALOT of teaching going on when you have 27,000 students in the freshman class alone.

I'm sure that the football, basketball and baseball coaches get paid very well. Swimming, wrestling, volleyball...not so much.

Who "subsidizes" the students with academic scholarships?

[former9thward]

23. Other students are not subsidizing anyone.

Programs with a lot of scholarships, like major schools with football, pay for themselves. Those programs also subsidize other athletics which do not turn a profit.

Students are students -- they are not employees.

[NCTraveler]

47. Not how it works.

"Isn't college more than insanely expensive enough without students having to subsidize, directly or indirectly, sports that most of them don't play?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. The tension is there, but not for the reason you are thinking

Professors, at least back in the day, hated to get the football star, if he was a good student, like Junior Seau, that was not an issue. (He attended SDSU at the same time I did and got a business degree, while in the NFL he got the MBA, he was a 3.9 student. He got a B+ somewhere along the way). His brother though was far from ready for college. I was his TA. He was convinced he would make it to the NFL and the big bucks, so why bother?

Well kids like him lead to pressures on the professoriate for gentlemen Cs. When his brother got a nasty fracture though that ended his career the coaches stopped putting pressure, so he dropped out of college. Years later (when he was ready) he went back, and completed his degree. Many rumors abound that his older brother planned to bring this to 60 minutes, so the college absorbed the cost. The rules changed somewhere along the way where they had to pay the scholarship of injured players as well, they used not to.

Now why do colleges pay so much attention to their football program, and only that program? Alumni. The coaches explained that to the TAs. They need alumni money and that money is big. We are talking in the bigger programs in the realm of 500 million +.

It is ironic, SDSU has sunk millions into the football program, but they have produced world class athletes for football, junior Seau, who killed himself due to the TBIs. They also have had the basketball program make it to the big dance, twice. They'd rather have their bigger brother reach the big dance! basketball! who cares? It is all about big money. And the programs none pays attention to, tony Gwynn came from the baseball program, played for the Padres and now is back coaching them. And we have had world class US Team level, soccer players. The baseball, soccer and towing teams have to beg for money, and there is never enough to share with them.

Hell, my university had a fencing team, the coach was part time. So there is a lot of resentment with the football program

And yes, the athletic buildings and facilities are mostly maintained from alumni money, and they were built through grants. So it is a self perpetuating machine, you need football players to perform, and the rest of the programs are ugly ducklings.

For the record, I get the fundraiser every year, and the few times I have sent a check in, I slated it for the history program. But most alumni will slate it to the football team. Did I mention the bulk of the scholarships go there? So yes, world class, US Team soccer players, female, mostly paid their own way. One took the school to court over title nine violations. I have no idea how that ended. A track and field Olympian, also a woman, got a partial scholarship after she represented the US. Yes, it is that messed up.

[yellowcanine]

27. Yes, for the same reason that sports became "Athletic Departments"

As if intercollegiate sports are somehow just another academic department and coaches are actually professors.