Started By
Message
re: Paying players?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:44 pm to Swoopin
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:44 pm to Swoopin
quote:
I mentioned earlier that just because society values the educational opportunity, doesn't mean that person does.
Then they shouldn't take state/school money and be enrolled.
quote:
I didn't put in the work to develop those skills. So who am I to pretend the hypothetical value I place on them is fair?
Are they paying for the development of those skills while in school or are they given the best that is offered?
quote:
Saying a scholly is enough is ignoring that indisputable fact completely.
They get a whole helluva lot more than just a scholarship and you know that.
quote:
Again, you take your point of view on what we're trying to determine in this debate and using it as your argument. That is not valid argumentative logic.
It's a valid argument. As much as you want to compare it to being a job and getting paid. You can't have one side of the discussion and ignore the other part. It's either a job or it's not.
0
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:45 pm to piggilicious
quote:
Are you being for real?
Yes.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:45 pm to Swoopin
quote:
There is no cartel/monopoly system in place saying you can't make more than you do.
There isn' a system in place that says you have to go to college to play professionally either.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:45 pm to lwest41
quote:So, the Cadillac dealership in Tuscaloosa can sponsor a RB for say $200k a year? Sure. Sounds like a foolproof system.
So what about the Olympic model?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:46 pm to the808bass
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:46 pm to lwest41
quote:
So what about the Olympic model? They are considered amateur athletes yet can sign autographs for cash or sell their own merchandise. Gabby Douglas has made 10 mil on endorsements and projected to make 100 mil more in her lifetime. She is 16. Yet if a college athlete receives a free hamburger, it is a violation. NCAA football 2012 has sold 1.8 million units as of October of this year. At 60 $ a game, that's like 103,000,000. Players don't get a cent of that. The new playoff in CB will net 5 billion over the next 10 years. The NCAA currently has a contract with CBS worth 10.8 million. Give the kids a 1500 stipend per year because they must dedicate their lives to their sport for 4 years and have no time to work a real job and therefore have no cash to pay for everyday things.
Fine and well, but that is one sport and March Madness creates huge revenues too. But what about the other 20 sports that each school has? Title 9 requires all to be equal. And before you start some bullshite argument against Title 9, it isn't going anywhere and if it wasn't allowed it would have saved schools BILLIONS of dollars.
You can't have 1 college athlete go make a couple grand signing autographs while another has no way of earning the same.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:46 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
They are paid, they go to school for free. I paid my way to college.
And if someone wanted to pay you while in college you could have accepted it. The players can't. Why is that fair?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:47 pm to the808bass
quote:
Title IX doesn't say you can't pay players. But if you're paying a male athlete a per diem, the female athlete's per diem has to be equal.
This is exactly what I'm saying a good attorney could argue - something to the effect of, females would receive per dime equal to the expense/value of their sport or something. Notice I say a "good" attorney as he would be using something like the Lily Ledbetter Law to argue equal pay for equal work
I wish I could be more detailed but I'm posting from my phone and am tired. If the thread is still around in the morning I will try to better articulate my argument
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:48 pm to wdeinttown
quote:
And if someone wanted to pay you while in college you could have accepted it. The players can't. Why is that fair?
Really?
Really?
Albert Means ring a bell? Or SMU? Or any other pay for play scandal, that sent recruits to one school over others?
This post was edited on 11/20/12 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:49 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Albert Means ring a bell?
Yeah. And he had to leave Alabama and the school suffered for it.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
So, the Cadillac dealership in Tuscaloosa can sponsor a RB for say $200k a year? Sure. Sounds like a foolproof system.
Don't they already do this
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:53 pm to undecided
quote:
females would receive per dime equal to the expense/value of their sport or something
There is no value/expense involved. Equal means equal. What is offered to a football player on scholarship must be offered and available to every scholarship athlete there. There is no wiggle room.
Wallace College in Dothan had 3 sports at one time that were booming. They had a top 5 golf program, top 5 baseball and a top 5 or 10 basketball program and literally had to disband the golf program because they couldn't afford to bring in another female program to equal the scholarships. They went from a top 3 finish to being disbanded the next year.
Title 9 is bullshite and has costs tons of money in the name of equality.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:53 pm to undecided
Well, we have had Heisman calibre RB's. They earned and deserved it.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:54 pm to undecided
Touché.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:58 pm to asphinctersayswhat
I have argued this in the past as the best parallel:
If a graduate student comes up with an invention while "working" for the university, or even the research they do that the university sells off to companies, should that student get paid for that?
They get paid the same way that players do, and sometimes not paid at all.
Why should this be any different?
If a graduate student comes up with an invention while "working" for the university, or even the research they do that the university sells off to companies, should that student get paid for that?
They get paid the same way that players do, and sometimes not paid at all.
Why should this be any different?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 10:59 pm to Warfarer
quote:
Title 9 is bull shite and has costs tons of money in the name of equality.
We agree. I think colleges would love to be rid of Title 9 and I think it will end up on the chopping block when things come to a head on the O'Bannon lawsuit
From what I have read, they are building a solid case and the schools aren't helping themselves by chasing television money.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:02 pm to undecided
quote:
I think colleges would love to be rid of Title 9
And I would love dinner with Kate Beckinsale. Neither will happen.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:03 pm to asphinctersayswhat
I'm not reading all of this thread but they are paid. Not just free education. They have the best trainers, best cooks, best nutritionists, best tutors, etc. These guys travel across the country and for some get put in a position to make millions and millions of dollars. How much is all of that worth?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:08 pm to ForeverGator
Like Facebook and I believe another thread on this topic mentioned the founders of google being Standford students at the time the company was created. I'm not aware of Harvard or Standford having any claim on the intellectual property
A better example, as a grad student I received scholarship money and had an internship in which I received a stipend. I was also able to work part-time and receive cash/benefits from most anyone (ethically) without fear of being declared "ineligible" by some organization with arbitrary rules. With the exception of athletes, most students have no restrictions on where they can generate income from - why are athletes different? Especially, when they are generating millions for the university
A better example, as a grad student I received scholarship money and had an internship in which I received a stipend. I was also able to work part-time and receive cash/benefits from most anyone (ethically) without fear of being declared "ineligible" by some organization with arbitrary rules. With the exception of athletes, most students have no restrictions on where they can generate income from - why are athletes different? Especially, when they are generating millions for the university
This post was edited on 11/20/12 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:10 pm to undecided
quote:
most students have no restrictions on where they can generate income from - why are athletes different?
Because the system would be abused and create an unfair playing field. It would separate the schools with a ton of boosters from those with none. You would end up with a football team sitting in a field jerking off and making 200k a year to do it at big programs.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News