Former ND Athlete Thinks College Players Should Be Paid
This according to former Notre Dame football player Allen Sack.
In the Christian Science Monitor, Sack said athletes should be compensated at least with benefits for playing sports on scholarship.
It's an interesting argument from the member of the 1966 National Championship team, who authored a new book along the lines of the same topic called "Counterfeit Amateurs."
-By Michael Rothstein of The Journal Gazette

I played at a Big Ten school (which did nothing to diminish my lifelong love for ND), and was always (and always have been) amazed when people complained about athletes not getting paid. What about free room/board, tuition, tutors, books, and all of the other perks that accompanied playing. For example, I could knock a senior (non-athlete) out of a class I wanted as a freshman athlete.
I walked away from school with a great education and not one single dime owed to anyone. Can't say as much for a vast bulk of my friends who owed thousands upon thousands of dollars after walking away with their sheepskins.
And in a day when many schools are gigging the general student population to make up for any budgetary shortfalls, their pockets would be getting drained at even faster rate to subsidize the athletes. Because it's not like the moneymaking sports athletes (football, basketball...for the most part)would be the only ones getting paid. Guaranteed Title 9 would insist that all those sports that are financial blackholes would also have to be anted-up for in pay. Is any of that seriously a path we want to go down. Take the free education and perks and quit bitching.
Posted by: Hammerhead | March 07, 2008 at 09:21 AM
More important is the lowering of academic standards to accomodate athletes. Lowering the standards for one lowers them for all. I heard the comment at my school: "as long as he's here, they will never throw me out".
Posted by: Vin Donahue | March 07, 2008 at 09:32 AM
I'm surprised the IRS hasn't determined a rational for taxing the free or even partial rides people receive.
Posted by: TBoneND | March 07, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Pay college athletes that are on scholarship? Isn't that what the SCHOLARSHIP is itself...Monetary payment in the form of a free college education? Give me a break.
Posted by: Kevin | March 07, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Alan is a classmate of mine who has
been espousing pay for athletes for
many years. When we were in school,
there were at least 5,000 students
in the stands that were willing to replace a ball player and receive his scholarship. At that time the four year education was a total of $10,000.
"Scholar" should be returned to the term "scholar athlete" and major college athletics should not be a developmental league for the pros.
Posted by: Ed Christopher '67 | March 07, 2008 at 11:51 AM
My basketball scholarship roommate came to school with a new car, huge stereo and all the glory that goes with the status. I worked all summer in a factory to pay my way through. He never was short of beer and pizza money while I worked in the school cafeteria for snacks. He got a nation wide stage to show off his talents and received pro offers right out of school. I had to send out applications and interview for a job for months out after graduation. Boo hoo for the poor under paid jock!
Posted by: jim | March 07, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Ditto to that Ed Christopher...Poor JOCKS..
Posted by: gsportsmann | March 07, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Athletes are paid with housing, tuition etc. And paid very well. The NCAA limits practice to 20 hours a week. Figure a 30 week season and that's 600 hours. A $45,000 a year education at ND and 600 hours of work and the athlete is being paid $75 an hour. Tha equates to a $150,000 year job.
Posted by: Pete | March 07, 2008 at 01:01 PM
When I saw the title to your piece on pay for athletes, I knew right away it was Allen Sack. He has been one form or another of anti-jock since he graduated. Time to move on, Allen
Posted by: Joe Schaefer '59 | March 07, 2008 at 02:57 PM
If college athletes are paid, then how is it any different from professional sports. The richest schools will get the best athletes. No more cindrellas in March that's for sure.
Posted by: Scott | March 07, 2008 at 03:30 PM
There is no argument to this. I shunned Ohio State and Florida when they had athletes saying the same thing back in 2005. Athletes at school on scholarship ARE getting paid. That is the roof over there heads, the food they eat, and the schooling they get (which will give them way more than sports for most, in the end), as well as some of the finest medical treatment and facilities anywhere. They also get stipends for living expenses...you know what, we lowly non scholarship people can only afford to give them so much with our overpriced education, as it really is us that are paying for this.
Posted by: Mike | March 07, 2008 at 07:44 PM
And think about the first "paid" athlete that buys dope with his "scholarship salary." They receive a stipend and everything else. A salaray is ridiculous.
This is stupid.
Posted by: Lloyd Carr | March 08, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Paying athletes is simply ridiculous. If they want to get paid, let them go to a service academy where all students are on a full ride and salary. As a former scholarship athlete and with one at ND, I strongly oppose such and idea.
Posted by: nddad98 | March 08, 2008 at 07:33 PM
Like the earlier writers I am opposed to athletes getting "paid". When they graduate they have NO loans to repay, they get jobs because they were an athlete, and they have a degree from a university taking courses that prepared them for life. No pay, nosalary, they got a scholarship.
Posted by: William Vita | March 09, 2008 at 01:33 PM
I agree with Allen Sack. Athletes should get paid. You cannot justify paying college coaches 2-4 million dollars a year off the backs of "student athletes". I am sorry...college football is a business and to a degree has always been. It essentially is a minor league system for the NFL...a very profitable racket for the colleges.
The NCAA is the most un-American institution. It allows the colleges and colleges to reap all the money. But if a student athlete were to get a part-time job, they will act like the gestapo. The ratio of the cost of education and the revenue these student athletes produce is unjustifiable.
Mark Richt just earned a $900,000 raise...a $900,000 raise? I am capitalist and I will say at a boy Richt...but was it Richt or the players who produced? What do the players get? Nothing.
The problem with this debate is that the players have no option. You have to go to college before you can enter the NFL. If there was a real minor league system for the NFL, where the players had the option of playing for pay or choosing to go to college, then I would say it is fair. But right now the player has no option but to be used and abused by the commie NCAA.
Players should be paid.
Posted by: sahmadi | March 09, 2008 at 04:30 PM
Hi,
Read your comments all the time. Thought I would share this with you. Mike McCoy former ND All American and Green Bay Packer tours the nation today conducting presentations to school kids, prisoners, church groups etc. with a message about how to avoid the pitfalls in one's life.....the do's and the don'ts.
The ND Club of Houston and local businesses sponsored him in presentations around the Houston area last year and he was great. The middle school kids I saw were really impressed. He gets on stage with his Green Bay Packer jersey on and it is impressive.
This year I am arranging for him to visit my old high school in Galveston, Texas. I am looking forward to seeing him.
Mike is really giving back to the community. Thanks.
Skip Medina
ND class of '66
Posted by: skip medina | March 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
allen sack '67
is a prof of SOCIALOGY
at u of new haven
draw your own conclusions
re; paying college players
Posted by: john sullivan '62 | March 10, 2008 at 01:09 PM
You must be kidding! They are already getting paid with full tuition, free room and board, books and any other item they need to be a student. I feel bad for the other students who receive nothing, and who are just as important if not more so than a jock who flings a ball around. They are already being overpaid in my book. All they need is some spending money from their folks who are also savings thousands of dollars each year with their son/daughter on scholarship.
Posted by: Poppy | March 10, 2008 at 10:15 PM
In the first paragraph of my Christian Science Monitor article, I clearly state that college athletes should not be paid. The headline posted on Irish Insights got people fired up, but may have been misleading for those who did not get around to reading the article, or see my larger argument that one-year renewable scholarships are essentially pay. The real issue, the one I tried to raise in the article, is whether scholarship athletes in revenue sports deserve greater compensation than the NCAA currently allows. That, I think, makes for an interesting debate.
Allen Sack 1967
Posted by: Allen Sack | March 12, 2008 at 03:52 PM
We at freetoapply.com support college sports and provide scholarships search for all students who attend college, but you have to remember if you start it in sports, others who receive scholarships in other fields may expect compensation also. We offer stipends and work study along with many more ways to make a income. So we encourage more corporations and people to continue to give to scholarships, and maybe we can increase AWARD GIVING TO STUDENTS.
Posted by: Support Person | June 02, 2008 at 09:27 PM