College Football Playoff Case Study

There have been much controversy weather universities should pay student athletes. The nation is divided into two groups, financially compensating the student-athlete or not. One side declares Division I and Division II schools make millions of dollars off ticket and merchandise, therefore, the athlete should receive a salary. The argument arises when for instance in football or basketball, schools make millions for winning bowls or tournaments, which the money awarded to the schools goes far beyond a four-year education. Video games along with last names on jersey have been banned for sale since college athletes were used without receiving financial compensation. On top of this are the multimillion dollar sponsorship deals universities are making with athletic apparel companies. The other side argues student athletes receive a free college education from prestigious schools and therefore should not receive financial gains. They declare a student-athlete receives free national exposure and paying them will uneven the playing field in college sports. In addition, a student will be deducted income taxes from their salary if paid. Most imply, some of the students come from inner city neighborhoods and some cannot read or write at a college level. As a result, these athletes are assigned tutors and therefore pass the courses with ease. In all, college sports have become huge money makers, but the question arises whether an

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

Actions towards paying athletes are being taken and according to the TCU Daily Skiff, “There’s a legislation being passed around in the Big 12 states to provide athletes with an extra stipend in addition to their all-expenses paid education. The idea is that these students are producing truckloads of revenue for the university and should see some of the fruits of their labor.” (Jennings, par. 2) Because athletes aren’t paid for producing such money, supporters feel some of the money made should go towards helping with extra expenses. An average student athlete has to pay for phone bills, transportation, entertainment, laundry, toiletries and other things. While the typical college student has the opportunity to work, athletes don’t. Some students in college receive academic full ride scholarships, which are the same as athletic full rides, but they have time to earn extra money on the side. If these students are receiving a full ride scholarship and have the opportunity to work then an athlete should be paid a compensation for his or her efforts on the playing field.

Another reason the athletes should receive pay is because, they never really had had financial experience before they enter professional sports. If schools were to begin paying players, they could help the students deal with this situation. This would allow them to be experienced, these students to financial investors who had their best interests in mind. Whether or not these college athletes went on to play professionally, they would at least have some type of financial literacy to carry with them into whatever path they choose. This would set them up a better financial

When people hear of college athletics, all they think of is a game. Most people do not realize that there is a million dollar industry going on around these athletes. Eric He, a sports fanatic who writes for the Daily Trojan, states, “The NCAA is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that just happens to be a billion-dollar industry, raking in $740 million per year from March Madness alone” (par. 7). When the NCAA is generating that much money, how can it not go to the players? It is not the

But why should a student athlete be paid in the first place? Their just athletes right? They go to school just like everyone else? What makes them so special? What makes a college athlete different than the average student is the amount of revenue that they help bring to their selected colleges. This type of revenue is made up from ticket sales, merchandise, media rights and contributions. “USA today” reported that the University of Texas generated $167.7 million dollars from their athletic programs, and that’s just one school. With this in mind, imagine just how much money other colleges are making from their athletics. Sure one can make the argument that they should not be paid because they are not professionals, but one can’t ignore the fact that they are bringing in millions of dollars and seeing none of it.

The student athletes at most universities can be compared to employees, yet receiving no wages (Cooper 12). Along with time in the classroom and being a full-time student, athletes are expected to spend just as much time on their respective sport. In an article “Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid,” Dave Anderson explains that a college athlete spends just over 43 hours a week devoted to their sport. Those hours are spent with mandatory lifting workouts, conditioning workouts, watching film, position meetings, and practice. As I stated earlier, all this time that is spent on their sport is in addition to the time spent in the classroom with homework and studying. All of that added up well surpasses the time of the average work week at 40 hours and these athletes can quite honestly be looked at as workers for their universities.

Both sides of this argument have a strong case for why student athletes should, or should not be compensated. The problem might not be what it looks like at first. The main problem is the amount being spent on college athletes and the rising tuition costs for these universities. Duke University 's golf team spent an estimated $20,405 per player (Branstetter). The amount of money being spent on one player on their golf team is represented in the insane amount of tuition which is 60,000 dollars a year at Duke. This is a huge reason as to why colleges are so eager to get a cut of a 60 billion dollar industry. The issue of paying student athletes is not so one sided as athletes work very hard between school and sports, or that

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

Some may say student – athletes have it easy because they get to go to school for free and live the life of a college athlete when that is not the case in most situations. College athletes are in the business of marketing at a young age without playing professional sports which is a business. Which is why I believe student – athletes should be paid to play college sports. My reasons for this argument are that the student athlete may need spending money and money to support their families, secondly the schools along with their sport profits off of the students athletes names, and lastly for big events some student athletes are required to miss schools due to these events.

Well I mean they do work long hours practicing. Being in class and studying makes it even harder for them to have spare time. What about the players that have to use the scholarship as the only way to receive an education? Some people do not have family to help support them and if they have no time for a job how will they get by? I see it like this; Players should get something but not necessarily a wage or a paycheck. There are numerous ways players good get paid besides additional funding from the school. The NCAA could most definitely shake loose some of their rules. Let the players receive new Nikes from a sponsorship or a kid that looks up to them. Let those hardworking, no time for anything, injury sustaining young players receive something, at least a little something, besides free education they barely have time for because of practices, games, pep rallies, and camps. The NCAA is too strict on these players about accepting outside sources of money, free meals, and plenty of other helpful sources (Rosenburg 2). I’m all for student athletes getting paid in some way and form but maybe not a salary or four

College athletes should not be paid. “ They argue that the main purpose of going to college is to get a education, not to make money” (“Should college”...1). College is not a job, it is a place to learn. Also many college athletes receive scholarships to attend that school. “The value of the scholarships athletes receive during four years of college can be well over $250,000” (Weiss et al.1). Therefore, athletes

College athletes are finally getting attention on the fact that they are not paid. I believe that whether or not it is college or pro sports they deserve a salary. These players put their heart and soul on the field and get nothing in return. In the articles “Athletes New Day” by Paul Marx and “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” by Warren Hartenstine, the reasons for college athletes to be paid are very evident. No matter the case, if the students move on to pro sports or not after college, they should be entitled to some pay for their contributions. College athletes deserve to be compensated for their playtime in these sports, sales of products with their name on it, and even compensation for their injuries.

The NCAA’s greatest fear about paying student athletes is the money itself. They worry it will be spread thin between all the sports departments, but with all the money circulating around the college sports industry, they should not have any concerns. The two most popular college sports, football and men’s basketball, generate over $6 billion in annual revenue combined; more than the amount the National

With this being new, there must be a good amount of responsibilities with this job. So my next question was quite simple, which was what are the major job responsibilities with the CFP? Michael runs the day-to-day operations at the office, as well as helping out all of the bowl games and the championship game. He is responsible for building the foundation and the brand for the College Football Playoff, as well as making all of the communications among the organization. And with working as COO, there must be some policy procedures. Because of that, the next question was what are the two most important policy issues in the CFP? And to my surprise, Michael said there aren't really any major issues. He mentioned that having to follow the