The college football world is abuzz with the news that ESPN leaked last night: Auburn’s Cam Newton is being investigated about allegations that, while he was being recruited, his father pretty much actively sought money ($180,000) from prospective colleges. There is no known Auburn connection, nor is there any present evidence that Cam himself had any knowledge of what was going on. There are, however, many mysterious rumors from mysterious sources that this is the tip of the iceberg, and this will not end well for Auburn. There is already a lot of commentary out there speculating that this will cost him the Heisman, whether he’s eventually cleared or not.
As of now, he remains eligible for play at Auburn.
Full disclosure: Yes, I am an Alabama fan. However, this news saddens me because:
Money or no, Newton is a phenomenal athlete.
College football gets another black eye.
I want Cam on the field, hale and healthy, when Auburn comes to Tuscaloosa for the Iron Bowl. I think Bama wins regardless, and I want no excuses like we heard from the Longhorns fans last year.
It is college athletic business as usual. Nothing new.
When I got out of high school in 1961, a lineman on our team was recruited to go to Notre Dame. I saw him a few months later and he went to Oklahoma. I asked why ,and he said Oklahoma paid better.
Division I schools make tens of millions of dollars off their football programs and the antiquated (and quaint) rules punish athletes very aggressively. Virtually anything that an athlete does to make money is probably illegal under NCAA rules.
The sad thing is that the scum “agents” who are often at the root of these problems don’t get anywhere the same reprimand as the student athlete does.
College football is a major cash cow for the big conferences of the NCAA. It is also in all practicality an unfunded minor-league for the NFL. It is also a form of institutionalized slavery. College athletes should be paid.
Cam Newton’s Dad, if this report is true, correctly saw that his son was a valued commodity and correctly asked for remuneration. It is the NCAA who should be ashamed!
Truly amateur sports don’t generate the income levels college football does. College women’s volleyball is amateur. College baseball is amateur. College football is an unfunded NFL minor league.
I agree college football is a very well funded NFL minor league.
It is relatively obscene how the NCAA fucks over the players at the big football schools. There very little that is amateur in the big football programs.
Who gives a fuck about university income? It’s irrelevant. Lots of students bring in millions in research grants and patents to universities in other departments. You don’t think university hospitals and science labs aren’t churning out hefty income on the backs of students under scholarship?
NCAA teams have 85 players under scholarship, and with good private colleges charging $25,000+ per year not including room and board and state schools charging $25,000-30,000 a year with room and board that’s $2,125,000 a year in benefits “paid” to players. Over $100,000 per player for their entire college career. All in all, not a bad deal for student-athletes working a 20 hour a week commitment.
Now, I think with the revenue that football and basketball create and with how poor many of these kids are a weekly stipend for living expenses and incidentals is perfectly reasonable and might go a long ways towards limiting the influence of these boosters and recruiters, but you can’t rightly ignore how hugely valuable those scholarships are.
How are they getting fucked, again? They are usually given a full-ride scholarship, and the opportunity to earn a college degree. They are given the opportunity to play a sport they love in front of a nationwide TV audience, which can vastly increase their future employability at the next level. They have no right to the money generated by the program, and no one is forcing them onto the field. They are there voluntarily.
This argument reminds me strongly of the old horseshit saw that “graduate students are slave labor for the department”. What a load.
I’m not quite sure what your point is. If students are bringing in research grants, they should be paid commensurately.
If scholarships are so valuable, it is because the best students and/or athletes give them value.
Do you actually think that College/University presidents could bring in huge ticket moneys/contributions/grants to their respective universities without the presence of superior students or athletes. I don’t think so. Do the superior students/athletes ever get justly remunerated for their contributions? No they don’t.
This is an ugly form of institutionalized slavery.
The NCAA is nothing more than a gang of slave-owners, gaining riches at the expense of the intellectual or athletic expertise of students without proper remuneration.
The professor bring in the grants in the same way that the conference commissioners and athletic department head bring in the ticket revenue and TV contracts. The researchers are the ones doing the bulk of the work under the supervision of the professor, much like players do the work under guidance of the coaching staff. They are paid a pittance, and are not restricted from working other jobs in the way athletes are. I think it’d be fair to treat athletes in the same manner.
Hey genius. You should look up the term apprenticeship. Nearly ever industry has new workers working at well below market price in order to learn a trade. In the sciences and athletics they tend to be paid in scholarships. In law firms and medicine they tend to be paid barley minimum wage for 80 hour work weeks. In the trades apprentices are often not paid at all or pay for the privilege of being an apprentice.
I think grad students doing research are protected by the Department of Labor, Workmans Comp and OSHA. What protection does a football player like Rutger’s Eric LeGrand have?
I wonder if there is a distinction between being a grad student and being a undergrad. My girlfriend had a scholarship in college for theater and part of the requirement was that she work a certain number of hours in their offices or library or something. I think this is typical, I do not think she was paid in addition to their scholarship. The university put on shows for which they charged admission and could have theoretically made a profit.
I think some uniformity in the way students are treated, be they athletes or other “working” students is justified but implying that athletics are somehow alone in their fundamentals is silly.
Is it possible she got a partial scholarship with the remainder being paid out of a departmental grant that had the condition of working in the office?
Comparing college football players to slaves is offensive. They know exactly what they’re signing up for, and do so willingly and eagerly. Not only are they getting a college education (if they want), they’re getting professional help with their athletic talents in world class facilities and given immediate and free publicity and media attention.
Students with academic scholarships can receive money without risk to their scholarship, right? As in, if I were a booster for the UConn art department I could pay for a house that a bunch of the art students could live at, and that wouldn’t affect their scholarships, right? I could give them cars, and even buy their parents houses to live in, too, if I wanted. Their art “eligibility” wouldn’t be impacted at all, and nobody at the university would bat an eye even if I sent them a formal, notarized notice of all these acts of charity.