Started By
Message
re: Paying players?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:11 pm to undecided
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:11 pm to undecided
quote:
why are athletes different? Especially, when they are generating millions for the university
Do you not want to understand? What would prevent a law firm from hiring a QB for a no-show job for $100k? Use your imagination. The boosters would (and do).
0
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:11 pm to asphinctersayswhat
So much fail. The free market doesn't exist. 1.)The contract you agreed to was completely voluntary and you have had multiple avenues to recieve just compensation. Almost anyone can do your job. 2.) College athletes do not have the same avenue, as their skills are very specific and they are restricted not only due to the nature of their skills but also by their opportunities. Where should they go? AFL? It's only 50 yards long and indoors. Canadian? The field isn't up to American football standards. As for the shitloads they recieve where is it? Tutoring? Check with your school they probably provide it for free. Why is education always seen as invaluable? 4 years of good college? Please tell me what a degree in Sociology, Sports Management, and Family and Community Services provides long term? See you have a choice. Need a new job while in school? You pick one up. Need a new major? You change it. Throwing a party to pay rent? You make money. Athletes are banned by NCAA/coaches and if they do they're banned.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:14 pm to Warfarer
quote:
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.
Just because something isn't fair does not make it wrong.
Not compensating someone because another entity cannot afford to do so would be illegal and unethical in most places but for college athletes it's considered sound reasoning
This post was edited on 11/20/12 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:16 pm to undecided
quote:
Just because something isn't fair does not make it wrong.
yes it does. Title 9 is a law and as such has to be adhered to by the schools that expect government money. Now if a school is a private school, then they don't have to follow Title 9 I think but they still have to maintain amateur status for their players.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:19 pm to undecided
quote:
Just because something isn't fair does not make it wrong.
There's nothing "fair" or "right" about boosters paying athletes for "services rendered." That's not even an economic argument. They're not being paid for what theyre doing on the job or even based upon their actual worth to the university. They're being speculatively compensated in hopes the team wins something.
Become the fan of a pro team. That's apparently what you want.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:21 pm to undecided
quote:
Not compensating someone because another entity cannot afford to do so would be illegal and unethical in most places but for college athletes it's considered sound reasoning
That is the thing though, there are only a couple programs that could possibly afford to pay all of their scholarship athletes.
Here is a fun fact. 22 schools in the country make money on athletics. 22. Auburn is 26th with a negative $822k a year. If you can't see how schools that can afford to, are allowed to pay their athletes wouldn't create an unlevel playing field then you probably can't be argued with in the first place.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:26 pm to asphinctersayswhat
Free education and free top notch training? Nah, the university gives them more than enough, not to mention a place to live, food, and all the free stuff they get from nike, the bowls, ect
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:28 pm to Navajo61490
quote:
the bowls, ect
I was honestly shocked when I first heard about the swag bags they get at the bowl games. One bowl gave each player a bag valued at like 2k a couple years ago. Not sure how that doesn't void an amateur status at all.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:29 pm to undecided
quote:
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
The Facebook's and Google's of this world were created outside of school. Giving players the unlimited access to jobs outside of sports would just corrupt the entire system because people would obviously take advantage of this. See e.g., NEVIN SHAPIRO.
Plus, as a counter argument to your example. If I am a grad student working under a research grant for bone cancer and I find a cure for bone cancer because of my research at the university, can I claim the cure for bone cancer as my own? The answer is no for people who think you can.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:32 pm to the808bass
Title 9 and "competitive advantage" are excuses that the NCAA is clinging too to justify the massive amounts of money they are generating but not having to share with the generators.
Nothing about college athletics is reflective of a free market economy. You have the NCAA and the schools receiving billions from free labor with fans justifying it by screaming scholarship, scholarship when it's clear the two are no equal.
Also you guys basically sound like selfish children saying, "Yes athletes should be paid but I don't want them to because then I won't enjoy the game as much"
Nothing about college athletics is reflective of a free market economy. You have the NCAA and the schools receiving billions from free labor with fans justifying it by screaming scholarship, scholarship when it's clear the two are no equal.
Also you guys basically sound like selfish children saying, "Yes athletes should be paid but I don't want them to because then I won't enjoy the game as much"
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:34 pm to undecided
quote:
Also you guys basically sound like selfish children saying, "Yes athletes should be paid but I don't want them to because then I won't enjoy the game as much"
You're dumb. I hope you're young.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:37 pm to ForeverGator
Plus, as a counter argument to your example. If I am a grad student working under a research grant for bone cancer and I find a cure for bone cancer because of my research at the university, can I claim the cure for bone cancer as my own? The answer is no for people who think you can.
But you would be compensated for your contribution and if revenue is available you are not prohibited from payment
But you would be compensated for your contribution and if revenue is available you are not prohibited from payment
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:38 pm to undecided
quote:
Also you guys basically sound like selfish children saying, "Yes athletes should be paid but I don't want them to because then I won't enjoy the game as much"
I haven't seen anyone say this. I really don't understand why rules need to be changed when they are known up front. The NCAA tries to create a reasonably level playing field and it has worked. You have athletes on every team that could break one out on any given play. Do all teams have a chance against the big boys? Not truly but they stand more of a chance than if the big schools are paying their players 200k to come there.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:39 pm to Warfarer
These same Bowl Executives were taking fact finding trips to strip clubs
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:44 pm to Warfarer
quote:
Here is a fun fact. 22 schools in the country make money on athletics. 22. Auburn is 26th with a negative $822k a year. If you can't see how schools that can afford to, are allowed to pay their athletes wouldn't create an unlevel playing field then you probably can't be argued with in the first place.
You are correct which leads to the argument if you can't afford it don't buy it?
College football and basketball are businesses not fun extracurricular activities. I just wish people would acknowledge this and stop arguing this pure amateur student-athlete ideal that no longer exists
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:45 pm to the808bass
quote:
You're dumb. I hope you're young.
You resort to name calling and yet hope I am young?
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:45 pm to undecided
quote:
But you would be compensated for your contribution and if revenue is available you are not prohibited from payment
Unless Auburn grants you the permission over the stuff you discover while working under a research grant, you absolutely have no ownership over the stuff you discover while under that grant. You have no ownership of the intellectual property.
Now, can a company that the university sells it to hire you? Absolutely! Isn't this parallel the same as football if you think about it?
You can put that research on your resume, the same as a football player puts their playing experience on his. Next, an NFL team could pick that player based on that experience, just as a company could pick you up after your research (because you'd be a retard for leaving before your grant is up). Sorry if this is too far extended, but I feel it is the best comparison.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:48 pm to undecided
quote:
You are correct which leads to the argument if you can't afford it don't buy it?
So through all your arguing now you are boiling down to 15 teams that can afford to should be able to pay their players while the others that can't should just suck it up? That would go well.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:52 pm to undecided
Yeah, that was probably a bit harsh. We have obviously reached an impasse in our discussion.
You don't want college athletics to be amateur and don't care that a maximum of two sports are consistent positive cash flow generators. Your argument flies in the face of the law, the facts and logic. Carry on apace.
You don't want college athletics to be amateur and don't care that a maximum of two sports are consistent positive cash flow generators. Your argument flies in the face of the law, the facts and logic. Carry on apace.
Posted on 11/20/12 at 11:54 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
Unless Auburn grants you the permission over the stuff you discover while working under a research grant, you absolutely have no ownership over the stuff you discover while under that grant. You have no ownership of the intellectual property.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Phd students write their own grants with staff oversight soo you should know to address compensation if needed? I know professors receive compensation for research findings aeb Amy Bishop, the UAH professor, having her patent money included in the civil suit. t
The university would have the same right to their IP as they would a students
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News