Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Scholarship football players are getting their education for free

Are scholorship football players are getting their education for free

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 51.6%

  • No

    Votes: 45 48.4%
  • Total voters
    93
Not free. I have the scars to prove it. I would say it is more like indentured servitude. . . . . . . . . and I'd do it again tomorrow if I had the chance.
 
I thought the indentured servitude is your sentence in the frozen north?
 
Just to add a little fuel to the fire...to counter the arguments of how much money is made from athletes for the school. The avg NCAA D1 revenue is $35.59M and the average expenditures for the atheltic department are $34.57M, a total profit of $1.02M. However, also included in the total revenue are student fees allocated to the AD, Direct Institutional Support (Grants and services provided to the AD), and Direct Gov't Support to the AD which averages a total of $7.69M across all D1 schools. With this factor removed, as a business, the average D1 AD is operating with a $6.6M defecit from direct revenue. OUCH. Furthermore, within that average, only 12 of the DI schools are operating in the black; so, most of the schools are losing money. Sure, some of the expenditures are for upgrades to stadiums (sell more tickets), upgrades to facilities (get more recruits), beef up the support structure (coach's salaries to win games)...All to generate more revenue. Football and basketball aren't going anywhere, but as these to sports (in most cases) hold up all of the other AD programs and the others continue to drain the AD budget, you will see more and more programs disappear. It seems to be a better deal to the student athlete who receives an education at no cost and the additional benefits rather than the school. I bet Florida is one of the teams operating in the black...good b-ball revenue from recent championships and good fb revenue from 2 MNCs in 3 years. Win a lot-make a little money...recruit good players=win a lot...good facilities, good coaches, and good benefits=recruit good players.
 
The ones who really benefit from this structure are the scholarship athletes and coaching staffs in sports that generate zero revenue for the school. The athletes get their education paid for and salaries for the coaches, and the only real benefit to the school is getting to maintain its D1 status and meet title IX.

If ADs were truly run as a business, you'd see sports getting dropped all over the place. CU would probably be left with only 1 varsity sport...2 tops. Schools like Florida would have a few more.
 
buffalo30 said:
Then the government should be taxing the student-athletes for the value of the education they are receiving.

:wow:

:smile2:
Click to expand...


One could make a circuitous argument that they ARE taxed, but the money comes off the top in terms of allowing University athletics to be funded through their ticket sales, use of the athletes' likeness for fundraising and other athletic tie-ins. The athletes cannot financially benefit during this time, but the University (and athletes in non-revenue producing sports) are recipients of some of this. The government does "tax" the athletes in terms of keeping the profits they produce and returning it to the educational organization.
 
We have eleven pages of arguing over the definition of "free".

Is the education given to them without any expectation of a return to the University? Of course not. That goes back to the "There's no such thing as a free lunch" argument. Not only is it not free, but it's subsidized by the rest of the students. Somebody is paying for it.

BUT - and this is important in my opinion - if you define "free" as not costing the athlete anything monetarily, then yes, it's free. The premise of the question is flawed as it does not adequately address how we are supposed to view the concept of "free".
 
sackman said:
We have eleven pages of arguing over the definition of "free".

Is the education given to them without any expectation of a return to the University? ....
Click to expand...

And your definition of "is" is?....The season cannot get here fast enough so we can get back to insulting Fuskers and arguing who should be QB.:smile2:
 
leftybuff said:
And your definition of "is" is?....The season cannot get here fast enough so we can get back to insulting Fuskers and arguing who should be QB.:smile2:
Click to expand...


We could next argue about whether Fuskers' "education" is "free" or whether graduates of that institution can appeal for a refund.
 
sackman said:
We have eleven pages of arguing over the definition of "free".

Is the education given to them without any expectation of a return to the University? Of course not. That goes back to the "There's no such thing as a free lunch" argument. Not only is it not free, but it's subsidized by the rest of the students. Somebody is paying for it.

BUT - and this is important in my opinion - if you define "free" as not costing the athlete anything monetarily, then yes, it's free. The premise of the question is flawed as it does not adequately address how we are supposed to view the concept of "free".
Click to expand...

the bigger question is


how did you vote?
 
sackman said:
Is the education given to them without any expectation of a return to the University? Of course not. That goes back to the "There's no such thing as a free lunch" argument. Not only is it not free, but it's subsidized by the rest of the students. Somebody is paying for it.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. No surprise there.
Doesn't the football team pay its own way?
Doesn't the football team support many of the other non-revenue sports?
How is the average student paying for any footballer's education?
 
there is no answer to this stupid ass question and it will go round and round until people stop posting and it gets deleted. This argument is about as effective as getting the NCAA to have a playoff in the FBS...a lot of talk that goes absolutely nowhere. free or not free, that is the question...everybody has their own definition of free. Who cares. The players know what they are getting in to when they sign on the line; play and you don't pay for your education...free.
 
FChairbanks said:
the bigger question is


how did you vote?
Click to expand...


I voted "yes, it's free", because technically, they're not shelling out any money for it. But I also realize that they are giving up something for it.

As for the issue of the rest of the students subsidizing it - you bet they are. They do pay their tuition & fees, some of which go directly to the athletic department. No students = no football team.
 
sackman said:
I voted "yes, it's free", because technically, they're not shelling out any money for it. But I also realize that they are giving up something for it.

As for the issue of the rest of the students subsidizing it - you bet they are. They do pay their tuition & fees, some of which go directly to the athletic department. No students = no football team.
Click to expand...

idot...
 
so, i think we have just about wrapped this up, eh? and all before dinner. i love it what things move right along! :smile2:
 
sackman said:
Go spill another margarita.
Click to expand...

in fact...i am sitting in blake street tavern (a fine establishment owned by a buff alumnus) watching the us open on the big screen...

i just finished my second (and last) doggie style pale, and i got through both without spillage.

because i had to pay for it.

it was not free.

see... that is how it works. this fine establishment was compensated (in this case, financially) in exchange for the services and products they offered me.

much like scholarship athletes are compensated (in that case via their education, room and board) for the services they offer.

duh...
 
FChairbanks said:
in fact...i am sitting in blake street tavern (a fine establishment owned by a buff alumnus) watching the us open on the big screen...

i just finished my second (and last) doggie style pale, and i got through both without spillage.

because i had to pay for it.

it was not free.

see... that is how it works. this fine establishment was compensated (in this case, financially) in exchange for the services and products they offered me.

much like scholarship athletes are compensated (in that case via their education, room and board) for the services they offer.

duh...
Click to expand...

just to keep this going on and on...if they offer a "free" one with the purchase of another is it actually free since you have to buy the first one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top