http://www.nytimes.com/...rests-of-student-athletes

10 or so opinions and not one of them makes the point that the value of the "scholarship" is GREATLY devalued when one has to play basketball all day. I mean really, in this whole "first four" thing there isn't one mention of the fact that for student-athletes whose team is in a play-in game, they wont' have the oppurtunity to go to class all of this week (and only Monday/Tuesday next week) if there team makes a run like VCU did last year. And yet people sit back and critize these student-athletes for being too focused on athletics and not school. I mean wtf!

My take: Players in big time D1 football/basketball should be compensated some small amount, and they should be given a scholarship+stipend to live for at least 2 more years after their 4 years of playing time are up. Football players can realistically have a normal spring semester and basketball players a relatively normal fall semester...

And yet I wonder, what is a guaranteed admission to somewhere like the Univeristy of Michigan or UCLA worth to the next handful of students who didn't quite make the grade, because they couldn't jump quite high enough, or throw the ball quite hard enough to make the University fistfuls of money.

The issue isn't whether or not scholarships are worth less than their weight in gold (I can name countless players who would otherwise never be able to claim a degree from an academically prestigious university), the issue is in the magnitude in which the NCAA pillages the athlete's talents for profit, all while having to share none with the people actually preforming the action that creates the profit.

more mathletes

I don't think that college athletes should be paid outright for their work, but the NCAA and colleges should take an active role in allowing college athletes to be paid by other people.

Allow the college/university to act as an advisor to student-athletes and allow them to endorse products, advertise for companies, etc. I believe that the NCAA and its member institutions should work to create a framework where athletes can receive compensation from these outside organizations without damaging their reputation, the institution's reputation, or the NCAA's reputation.

For example, if Mothers Against Drunk Driving wanted to offer a student-athlete a contract to appear in a public service announcement to encourage designated drivers, then that's the kind of thing that the NCAA should get behind and allow the player to receive compensation for the appearance.

If Subway wanted to offer an athlete a contract to appear in a commercial for their respective state, then the NCAA should prevent the action.

Contracts that would negatively impact the NCAA or its reputation should be barred. Other than that, let the players profit without actually paying them.

I think they get reimbursed enough. For instance, our Terps got their education (8k in-state or 22k out-of-state when I was there), housing (another 6-8k a year), food (another 3-4k), nearly unlimited clothing (under armour, shoes, etc), scooters, per diems when they were at away games (I was talking to an old coworker's daughter on a d1 swim team who got $75 per diem for food on the road, even though they were already fed), and personal tutoring. I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but effectively they're being paid already to attend school and do a job without the debt many of the rest of us take on. I don't feel an ounce of guilt, especially since the best of the best will make millions (albeit that's the exception and hardly the rule).

Heh, for any of our Terps this year I think $10 is too much compensation, but that's a sidebar=)

What about my point that these players can hardly go to classes because they are on the road all the time? Like you say they are given tutors, ok great, so they are going to a great school academically, but they are taught, everyone admits, to a great degree by tutors. What difference does it make if their professor is a leader in their field, if the tutor is teaching them a majority of the class.

Allowing for these players to "renew" a scholarship after their playing days are over has the added benefit that at this point these young men have come to terms with the fact they aren't headed to the NBA (or even Europe/Asia to play), and they will probably make more use of their free education as mature 22-23 year olds with this knowledge than fresh out of high school 18 year olds who have been told by everyone around them in many cases that basketball/football is their future...

BTW I'm already too invested in the tourny this year, but next year and until a better system is worked out I'm seriously considering not watching college b-ball (I already could care less about football).

Agreed on your first point, $10 would be too much for everyone except Stogs. He actually earned his keep this year.

Yep, the players are being taught by tutors. However, I would prefer the 1-on-1 tutot to the Professor with 200 in his class or being taught by a graduate student TA. I mean I can name you on one hand all the clases at MD where there were the same or less students than in an average high school class and where the professor taught the class. Plus, I think players are eligible for free winter or summer school classes (they cost a premium for tuition-paying students). And when you give them their redshirt year they end up having 5 years of eligibility/scholarship.

I'm still paying for my piece of paper, err degree. They're not. The way I see it is they worked a job while going to school the same way I did. The difference being their overall pay well exceeded mine when you factor in those costs.

I like watching the tourney, but I like it more when I'm personally invested. So sort of the same boat. I want to win my pool, but outside of that I'm all upsets.