[belcherboy]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

My buddy from South Alabama used to buy his books and his friends books (if he didn't spend all his alloted credit), having his friends pay him directly. He would then sell them back at the end of the semester. He said he would make around $200-$300 on his books. I don't think they were suppose to, but he said no one ever asked. From what I understand now, they have people who go through the teams classes and get the books for them to eliminate this type of behavior.

He was also given 3 pairs of training/running shoes each year. He would wear the shoes for a month or so, and go to the guy in charge of supplies and tell him his shoes were coming apart (which after a month they would show some wear). The supplies guy would would take his old shoes and give him new ones letting him know out loud that he would just have to "throw these things out in the dumpster behind the gym". My friend would then go and get them out of the dumpster and continue wearing the old ones while putting the new ones away. With this method he would actually get around 6-7 pairs of running shoes each year. He graduated in 1997, and has just now ran through of all his free shoes.

He really is a nice/honest guy, but he said he wasn't then when it came to free stuff given by the department.

[SuperJon]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

That may be the case here. It's not the case at a lot of schools. See: Rich Rodgriguez leaving WVU.

[Ed Dantes]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

My buddy from South Alabama used to buy his books and his friends books (if he didn't spend all his alloted credit), having his friends pay him directly. He would then sell them back at the end of the semester. He said he would make around $200-$300 on his books. I don't think they were suppose to, but he said no one ever asked. From what I understand now, they have people who go through the teams classes and get the books for them to eliminate this type of behavior.

He was also given 3 pairs of training/running shoes each year. He would wear the shoes for a month or so, and go to the guy in charge of supplies and tell him his shoes were coming apart (which after a month they would show some wear). The supplies guy would would take his old shoes and give him new ones letting him know out loud that he would just have to "throw these things out in the dumpster behind the gym". My friend would then go and get them out of the dumpster and continue wearing the old ones while putting the new ones away. With this method he would actually get around 6-7 pairs of running shoes each year. He graduated in 1997, and has just now ran through of all his free shoes.

He really is a nice/honest guy, but he said he wasn't then when it came to free stuff given by the department.

That's real harsh. I can't imagine how I survived college WITHOUT the perks such as free pairs of shoes. Athletes really are college's version of a martyrs.

[Ed Dantes]

I agree that it is hard for many schools, but it costs schools nearly nothing to give away an education. If you are writing those people checks each month, that is a different story that could cause problems financially for the institution.

No, it does cost something. The costs are just deferred onto the other students.

If I have a college with 10 students that costs $100,000 to run, tuition should be approximately $10,000. If I give a break to one student through things such as scholarships, that cost needs to be made up somewhere else.

Say the first student is given an athletic scholarship. He's not going to contribute anything to the $100,000 figure needed to balance the deficit. So, the other nine students now have to have their tuition raised so the school doesn't go into debt. Instead of $10,000, they'll pay $11,112.

While it may not cost "the schools" something, it may in the form of lower enrollment. Maybe people don't want to pay an extra whatever it is so the school can give a full ride to the 12th man on the field hockey team.

[Ed Dantes]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

Here's the thing.

If you're on an athletic team, everyone recognizes that as such and they'll accommodate you. When you're enrolling for classes, athletes get first dibs.

However, there are other jobs that students have that don't have the same benefits, even if the workload is the same. You can say that "athletes have to leave on Fridays, so they should have first dibs at picking a schedule for the following semester so they can select a class that's not on Friday."

Well -- working for the paper & radio station I probably put in 40-50 hours of work every week. I wasn't paid as handsomely in scholarship money as athletes are (in fact, i did not get 1 cent -- in real money or scholarship -- my second semester senior year) -- I had to put in a good 14 hours of work on Monday -- and when it came time to register for classes (and select a room on campus to live in) -- I was put in the back of the line. Where all my other fellow, non-athletic students in this jock-ocracy society of college.

[JDUB]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

Here's the thing.

If you're on an athletic team, everyone recognizes that as such and they'll accommodate you. When you're enrolling for classes, athletes get first dibs.

However, there are other jobs that students have that don't have the same benefits, even if the workload is the same. You can say that "athletes have to leave on Fridays, so they should have first dibs at picking a schedule for the following semester so they can select a class that's not on Friday."

Well -- working for the paper & radio station I probably put in 40-50 hours of work every week. I wasn't paid as handsomely in scholarship money as athletes are (in fact, i did not get 1 cent -- in real money or scholarship -- my second semester senior year) -- I had to put in a good 14 hours of work on Monday -- and when it came time to register for classes (and select a room on campus to live in) -- I was put in the back of the line. Where all my other fellow, non-athletic students in this jock-ocracy society of college.

you're bitter

[belcherboy]

I agree that it is hard for many schools, but it costs schools nearly nothing to give away an education. If you are writing those people checks each month, that is a different story that could cause problems financially for the institution.

No, it does cost something. The costs are just deferred onto the other students.

If I have a college with 10 students that costs $100,000 to run, tuition should be approximately $10,000. If I give a break to one student through things such as scholarships, that cost needs to be made up somewhere else.

Say the first student is given an athletic scholarship. He's not going to contribute anything to the $100,000 figure needed to balance the deficit. So, the other nine students now have to have their tuition raised so the school doesn't go into debt. Instead of $10,000, they'll pay $11,112.

While it may not cost "the schools" something, it may in the form of lower enrollment. Maybe people don't want to pay an extra whatever it is so the school can give a full ride to the 12th man on the field hockey team.

I work at a private school and it is sort of like a buffet. It only costs you something if you have to push a paying customer out the door and give it away to someone else. If you have an extra seat in a classroom there is basically no cost to allowing someone to sit in that seat. Similar to an airplane. The cost is set, so you can basically give an empty seat away without much cost. For many schools they can give away the seat because that athlete will cover what little costs there are (in some cases a big name can cover whole program costs). Even when giving away room and board to an athlete, it is very little cost (although they charge a buttload). There is almost always empty rooms on campus, and always a lot of thrown away food. Basically if you eliminated all sport scholarships, you would not see a lower tution rate.

[belcherboy]

athletes don't sell their books back. or at least they aren't supposed to. they turn them in, and someone from the sports department brings them back to the bookstore.

Here's the thing.

If you're on an athletic team, everyone recognizes that as such and they'll accommodate you. When you're enrolling for classes, athletes get first dibs.

However, there are other jobs that students have that don't have the same benefits, even if the workload is the same. You can say that "athletes have to leave on Fridays, so they should have first dibs at picking a schedule for the following semester so they can select a class that's not on Friday."

Well -- working for the paper & radio station I probably put in 40-50 hours of work every week. I wasn't paid as handsomely in scholarship money as athletes are (in fact, i did not get 1 cent -- in real money or scholarship -- my second semester senior year) -- I had to put in a good 14 hours of work on Monday -- and when it came time to register for classes (and select a room on campus to live in) -- I was put in the back of the line. Where all my other fellow, non-athletic students in this jock-ocracy society of college.

Nearly no one makes money in paper and radio these days, no matter how hard you work. There is just little to no money in it. A scholarship athlete is specially skilled to do something 95% of all students cannot do, especially at the Division I level (which I believe only 2% of all athletes make it to the DI level). They are worth more than an average student, at least to a university who uses athletics as a huge promotional/fund raising programs.. That is why they are given special treatment, and in my opinion rightfully so. One summer I worked for a car dealership. Some of those salesmen were slimy, lying scumbags. They were given the best spot in the showroom, could come in late, leave early, etc. Why? They were worth more to the dealership. If that status changed, they would lose that priviledge (or even their job). Same with an athlete. If he isn't doing his job, he could lose his scholarship.

[SuperJon]

And that's why I think what they (full-scholarship athletes) get now is more than enough. Let's recap what they get:

a) Free tuition
b) Free room and board/rent
c) Free books
d) The excess money after that's been covered
e) Free top of the line clothes
f) First dibs on all classes
g) First dibs on all dorms
h) All you can eat food on campus

[thepostman]

man...this is why I wish I was athletic....what a deal athletes get

[belcherboy]

And that's why I think what they (full-scholarship athletes) get now is more than enough. Let's recap what they get:

a) Free tuition
b) Free room and board/rent
c) Free books
d) The excess money after that's been covered
e) Free top of the line clothes
f) First dibs on all classes
g) First dibs on all dorms
h) All you can eat food on campus

Doesn't room and board include food?

This isn't a great example because we now know that he was taking money from boosters, but I think it is true for the honest, big named athletes out there. When Chris Webber was asked why he wouldn't return to the University of Michigan for an almost certain NCAA title he said, (paraphrasing from memory) "I walked into a campus book store to buy a pepsi and saw my jersey, with my name on the back of it, selling for $75. I reached in my pocket to buy my pepsi and I had $5. I would rarely have enough money to take a girl out on date, have enough to buy new clothes/cd's/video games, etc. I'm making this school millions of dollars and I got $5 in my pocket. That is why I'm going to the NBA." We now know the guy had hundred's of thousands of dollars funneled to him in his two years at Michigan, but that is why I don't have a problem throwing a few dollars toward scholarship athletes. I just personally think it would kill many programs that can barely afford the programs as they currently are. After talking to my former Division I buddy, I agreed with him that there is NO ONE on campus (or in most professions) that works harder and longer hours than a Division I athlete. That is arguable, but after hearing about his workout routine, travel schedule, and practice times, I took his side. Tossing them a few bucks outside of their scholarship seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps it isn't a good deal, but I have a REAL tough time comparing them to an average student.

[SuperJon]

Doesn't room and board include food?

No. You pay for your room and board, then you have to pick what meal plan you pay for on top of that. Athletes get the best meal plan there is.

[RubberMallet]

i almost went to a college when i graduated and they were going to get me $ to play soccer....not a full ride mind you but a good hunk...it was still pretty expensive so i didn't.....

these guys get so many other perks that paying them would just be overkill....

[flamesbball84]

If you are going to compare the time an athlete puts in, compare it to a real job where you dont get paid for every single thing you do for the job and for every single minute you work.

With that in mind, travel time should not be taken into consideration when talking about how much work a student athlete puts in. If I have to attend a conference, I don't get paid for the x number of hours I have to travel. If I take vacation time or personal time, I get paid for the vacation and personal days I earned, but not for my travel time. I get reimbursed for travel costs, food, and lodging, but I don't get paid for travel time. You will find that is pretty much the standard wherever you work. So why should the time an athlete puts in take into account travel time when a real job doesn't pay you for travel time?

Also, the time spent in the offseason should not be factored into the equation either. Whatever they do in the offseason is, in my opinion, to be considered training. Most organizations won't pay you a certain amount per hour worked for training, rather it be going to classes to better your job performance or going to conferences or whatever. So If I go to a class at CVCC for my job, the organization will pay for the class as long as it pertains to my job, but they won't pay me for the hours I put in during class or doing homework and studying, they won't pay for bucks, and they won't pay for any supplies I need for class. That is pretty standard at a lot of organizations as well. Some organizations won't even pay for the class! So if I engage in training activities outside of work hours and don't get paid for it, then why should the offseason training an athlete engages in be taken into account?

[Ed Dantes]

This isn't a great example because we now know that he was taking money from boosters, but I think it is true for the honest, big named athletes out there. When Chris Webber was asked why he wouldn't return to the University of Michigan for an almost certain NCAA title he said, (paraphrasing from memory) "I walked into a campus book store to buy a pepsi and saw my jersey, with my name on the back of it, selling for $75. I reached in my pocket to buy my pepsi and I had $5. I would rarely have enough money to take a girl out on date, have enough to buy new clothes/cd's/video games, etc. I'm making this school millions of dollars and I got $5 in my pocket. That is why I'm going to the NBA."

Maybe if Chris Webber got an education while he was at school, he could have learned how to manage his money efficiently enough so that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be able to take a girl out on a date.

[belcherboy]

This isn't a great example because we now know that he was taking money from boosters, but I think it is true for the honest, big named athletes out there. When Chris Webber was asked why he wouldn't return to the University of Michigan for an almost certain NCAA title he said, (paraphrasing from memory) "I walked into a campus book store to buy a pepsi and saw my jersey, with my name on the back of it, selling for $75. I reached in my pocket to buy my pepsi and I had $5. I would rarely have enough money to take a girl out on date, have enough to buy new clothes/cd's/video games, etc. I'm making this school millions of dollars and I got $5 in my pocket. That is why I'm going to the NBA."

Maybe if Chris Webber got an education while he was at school, he could have learned how to manage his money efficiently enough so that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be able to take a girl out on a date.

Totally agree. How about the other 200+ pro calibre D-I athletes out there that do things legally each year? Do they have a point? The easy solution is to go pro, but you cannot do that in football for 3 years and basketball now has a 1 year minimum time.

Again, I have no problem with them not paying the athletes outside of their scholarship, but any player from any team in the top 6 conferences in Division I men's basketball is underpaid for the money they bring to their schools IMO.

[ALAFlamesFan]

So how many of you are free market conservatives??? From reading this thread over again I think we should all vote democrat or socialist in the next election. After all the rich get plenty more than I do and I have to pay more in taxes (tuition). Who cares if they have a marketable skill I don't that brings added value to the marketplace/university.. Hillary please come help me! LOL...

(this is written tongue in cheek but if you reread some of the arguments in this thread you will get my point)

[ATrain]

No, athletes should not get paid.

[flamesbball84]

After all the rich get plenty more than I do and I have to pay more in taxes

Spoken like a true, ignorant liberal! (tongue in cheeck, by the way, not calling YOU ignorant, but the ones who actually believe that!)

[belcherboy]

If you are going to compare the time an athlete puts in, compare it to a real job where you dont get paid for every single thing you do for the job and for every single minute you work.

With that in mind, travel time should not be taken into consideration when talking about how much work a student athlete puts in. If I have to attend a conference, I don't get paid for the x number of hours I have to travel. If I take vacation time or personal time, I get paid for the vacation and personal days I earned, but not for my travel time. I get reimbursed for travel costs, food, and lodging, but I don't get paid for travel time. You will find that is pretty much the standard wherever you work. So why should the time an athlete puts in take into account travel time when a real job doesn't pay you for travel time?

Also, the time spent in the offseason should not be factored into the equation either. Whatever they do in the offseason is, in my opinion, to be considered training. Most organizations won't pay you a certain amount per hour worked for training, rather it be going to classes to better your job performance or going to conferences or whatever. So If I go to a class at CVCC for my job, the organization will pay for the class as long as it pertains to my job, but they won't pay me for the hours I put in during class or doing homework and studying, they won't pay for bucks, and they won't pay for any supplies I need for class. That is pretty standard at a lot of organizations as well. Some organizations won't even pay for the class! So if I engage in training activities outside of work hours and don't get paid for it, then why should the offseason training an athlete engages in be taken into account?

I still find it hard to compare a person who is in the top 3-5% off all Americans in terms of their unique skill, to an average person. College sports bring in billions of dollars a year because of these top athletes. What other profession has a group of men or women that are in the top 5% of the rest of adults in terms of their unique skill to work in a billion dollar industry, yet only make $30,000, possibly $50,000-$60,000 a year? I've pointed out earlier that it isn't even paid to the athletes in real dollars. I still don't see why these guys (and girls) are overpaid. Where is this money really going? It certainly isn't making it cheaper for the average student IMO. The more I argue this, the more reason I think they should pay these athletes a monthly spending money allowance.

[flamesbball84]

I still find it hard to compare a person who is in the top 3-5% off all Americans in terms of their unique skill, to an average person. College sports bring in billions of dollars a year because of these top athletes. What other profession has a group of men or women that are in the top 5% of the rest of adults in terms of their unique skill to work in a billion dollar industry, yet only make $30,000, possibly $50,000-$60,000 a year? I've pointed out earlier that it isn't even paid to the athletes in real dollars. I still don't see why these guys (and girls) are overpaid. Where is this money really going? It certainly isn't making it cheaper for the average student IMO. The more I argue this, the more reason I think they should pay these athletes a monthly spending money allowance.

the money is going to cover the costs of the athletic department....how many times does it need to be said to you and others that virtually every single athletic department and athletic team spends more money that they bring in every year? It doesn't matter if they bring in millions of dollars every year to the school and athletic department if the athletic department is spending more money than it brings in. In the real world, if such a department existed within a company, the department would either be cut if possible...

Also, your analysis regarding top executives is flawed. Generally, most companies that bring in millions to billions of dollars that an afford to pay top executives hundres of thousands of dollars and more a year don't have to basically subsidize departments that in an accounting sense are deadweight. In a college athletic department, the revenue producing sports are in essence required to subsidize sports like tennis, golf, track, cross country, etc. that in an accountant's eyes are deadweight because of their great cost and little incoming revenue. Do you think every Wal-Mart would be able to pay their managers and assistant managers so generously if they had to finance departments that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? I don't envision the top executives in Arkansas allowing the Wal-Mart managers to make 100k or more a year if they spent more money than they produced...

[belcherboy]

I still find it hard to compare a person who is in the top 3-5% off all Americans in terms of their unique skill, to an average person. College sports bring in billions of dollars a year because of these top athletes. What other profession has a group of men or women that are in the top 5% of the rest of adults in terms of their unique skill to work in a billion dollar industry, yet only make $30,000, possibly $50,000-$60,000 a year? I've pointed out earlier that it isn't even paid to the athletes in real dollars. I still don't see why these guys (and girls) are overpaid. Where is this money really going? It certainly isn't making it cheaper for the average student IMO. The more I argue this, the more reason I think they should pay these athletes a monthly spending money allowance.

the money is going to cover the costs of the athletic department....how many times does it need to be said to you and others that virtually every single athletic department and athletic team spends more money that they bring in every year? It doesn't matter if they bring in millions of dollars every year to the school and athletic department if the athletic department is spending more money than it brings in. In the real world, if such a department existed within a company, the department would either be cut if possible...

Also, your analysis regarding top executives is flawed. Generally, most companies that bring in millions to billions of dollars that an afford to pay top executives hundres of thousands of dollars and more a year don't have to basically subsidize departments that in an accounting sense are deadweight. In a college athletic department, the revenue producing sports are in essence required to subsidize sports like tennis, golf, track, cross country, etc. that in an accountant's eyes are deadweight because of their great cost and little incoming revenue. Do you think every Wal-Mart would be able to pay their managers and assistant managers so generously if they had to finance departments that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? I don't envision the top executives in Arkansas allowing the Wal-Mart managers to make 100k or more a year if they spent more money than they produced...

So why do schools keep their sports programs if they are just breaking even (or as it seems losing money)? Could it be that there is countless billions of other dollars generated by the exposure the sporting teams brings to their school? (i.e. people that choose to attend a college because they like their sports programs)

I understand your logic, but to simply state that "virtually every single athletic department" spends more than they make is far from accurate IMO. Nearly every major league baseball team and NHL team claimed they were losing money at the last contract talks. It is easy to make the books look that way, but sports puts butts in the seats....and I'm not just talking about a stadium or arena.

I do agree on your points, but I think there is a little more money around than you give credit for. IMO there is enough to drop a few dimes on it's workforce.

[flamesbball84]

I still find it hard to compare a person who is in the top 3-5% off all Americans in terms of their unique skill, to an average person. College sports bring in billions of dollars a year because of these top athletes. What other profession has a group of men or women that are in the top 5% of the rest of adults in terms of their unique skill to work in a billion dollar industry, yet only make $30,000, possibly $50,000-$60,000 a year? I've pointed out earlier that it isn't even paid to the athletes in real dollars. I still don't see why these guys (and girls) are overpaid. Where is this money really going? It certainly isn't making it cheaper for the average student IMO. The more I argue this, the more reason I think they should pay these athletes a monthly spending money allowance.

the money is going to cover the costs of the athletic department....how many times does it need to be said to you and others that virtually every single athletic department and athletic team spends more money that they bring in every year? It doesn't matter if they bring in millions of dollars every year to the school and athletic department if the athletic department is spending more money than it brings in. In the real world, if such a department existed within a company, the department would either be cut if possible...

Also, your analysis regarding top executives is flawed. Generally, most companies that bring in millions to billions of dollars that an afford to pay top executives hundres of thousands of dollars and more a year don't have to basically subsidize departments that in an accounting sense are deadweight. In a college athletic department, the revenue producing sports are in essence required to subsidize sports like tennis, golf, track, cross country, etc. that in an accountant's eyes are deadweight because of their great cost and little incoming revenue. Do you think every Wal-Mart would be able to pay their managers and assistant managers so generously if they had to finance departments that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? I don't envision the top executives in Arkansas allowing the Wal-Mart managers to make 100k or more a year if they spent more money than they produced...

So why do schools keep their sports programs if they are just breaking even (or as it seems losing money)? Could it be that there is countless billions of other dollars generated by the exposure the sporting teams brings to their school? (i.e. people that choose to attend a college because they like their sports programs)

I understand your logic, but to simply state that "virtually every single athletic department" spends more than they make is far from accurate IMO. Nearly every major league baseball team and NHL team claimed they were losing money at the last contract talks. It is easy to make the books look that way, but sports puts butts in the seats....and I'm not just talking about a stadium or arena.

I do agree on your points, but I think there is a little more money around than you give credit for. IMO there is enough to drop a few dimes on it's workforce.

so the accounting departments at these schools are producing faulty work then? i've seen countless studies that back up waht i've said. i've yet to see more than a handful of studies that have said the athletic department produce more money than they spend, and those studies only focused on the revenue earning sports ignoring sports like tennis...

[belcherboy]

the money is going to cover the costs of the athletic department....how many times does it need to be said to you and others that virtually every single athletic department and athletic team spends more money that they bring in every year? It doesn't matter if they bring in millions of dollars every year to the school and athletic department if the athletic department is spending more money than it brings in. In the real world, if such a department existed within a company, the department would either be cut if possible...

Also, your analysis regarding top executives is flawed. Generally, most companies that bring in millions to billions of dollars that an afford to pay top executives hundres of thousands of dollars and more a year don't have to basically subsidize departments that in an accounting sense are deadweight. In a college athletic department, the revenue producing sports are in essence required to subsidize sports like tennis, golf, track, cross country, etc. that in an accountant's eyes are deadweight because of their great cost and little incoming revenue. Do you think every Wal-Mart would be able to pay their managers and assistant managers so generously if they had to finance departments that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? I don't envision the top executives in Arkansas allowing the Wal-Mart managers to make 100k or more a year if they spent more money than they produced...

So why do schools keep their sports programs if they are just breaking even (or as it seems losing money)? Could it be that there is countless billions of other dollars generated by the exposure the sporting teams brings to their school? (i.e. people that choose to attend a college because they like their sports programs)

I understand your logic, but to simply state that "virtually every single athletic department" spends more than they make is far from accurate IMO. Nearly every major league baseball team and NHL team claimed they were losing money at the last contract talks. It is easy to make the books look that way, but sports puts butts in the seats....and I'm not just talking about a stadium or arena.

I do agree on your points, but I think there is a little more money around than you give credit for. IMO there is enough to drop a few dimes on it's workforce.

so the accounting departments at these schools are producing faulty work then? i've seen countless studies that back up waht i've said. i've yet to see more than a handful of studies that have said the athletic department produce more money than they spend, and those studies only focused on the revenue earning sports ignoring sports like tennis...

I never said they were producing faulty work. I'm saying nothing illegal (that I know of). Most every business (and person) will have an accountant do what it takes to make their income help them the most. Most sports programs have so much money donated to building programs, new equipment, etc. I'm pretty sure they don't include those gifts in their numbers and why should they? Many buildings (several at LU) are built without much cost to the college. Money is made (concerts, summer shows, other non university sporting events) in those same buildings that would not have been built without athletics. There is so much money that is probably put in different departments in the university that wouldn't exist if it weren't for athletics.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nearly every schools sports program makes the school money. Whether it is directly (i.e. ticket sales, team sponsors, etc.) or indirectly ( school merchandise, higher enrollment, facilities used for non athletic purposes, etc.) through the athletic department.

[Ed Dantes]

So how many of you are free market conservatives??? From reading this thread over again I think we should all vote democrat or socialist in the next election. After all the rich get plenty more than I do and I have to pay more in taxes (tuition). Who cares if they have a marketable skill I don't that brings added value to the marketplace/university.. Hillary please come help me! LOL...

(this is written tongue in cheek but if you reread some of the arguments in this thread you will get my point)

Since many athletes wouldn't be at a particular university in the first place if it weren't for athletics, shouldn't that be payment enough?

I mean -- Georgetown University is one of the best academic colleges in the world. And Stephon Marbury went there.