U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2018, 05:00 PM
 
2,433 posts, read 2,150,814 times
Reputation: 2689

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
Please, it has nothing to do with Title IX. Costs have gone up at public universities because states continue to contribute less and less to the cost of education, while asking students to foot more of the bill. Meanwhile, they are putting more into fancy facilities like dorms, dining halls, buildings, etc. When I was in school 20 years ago, we had dumpy shared dorms, most of which did not have AC. Now kids expect to live in dorms that are fancier than apartments many adults live in within the same community. The classrooms also have to be brand new instead of the old, creaking lecture halls. Schools can absolutely choose the sports they have. Many are Division II or Division III, many have few sports. They just have to offer sports for men and women.

Most of the kids who row, do wrestling, or play golf do not get that much of a scholarship at all... At best most of these students get a small scholarship and just enjoy playing the sport during their college years. A couple of the top students who are olympic/Tiger Woods caliber will probably get full scholarships, but the rest will probably end up having to pay.

It actually has everything to do with Title IX. Title IX is the reason so many athletic departments struggle. Dozens of football programs make tons of money, but they have to have 85 scholarships in women's sports to offset that... and yeah... those sports all lose tons of money.

If Title IX didn't exist, you wouldn't have football players subsidizing women's cross country and other sports that hemorrhage money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2018, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,590 posts, read 14,677,234 times
Reputation: 9304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
These are good ideas MK but they will fail. An alum or sneaker company will still come up with a better offer including money for the mother and "vacations" in Las Vegas.

The colleges have leagues of like minded members. Let the SEC have rules that their members agree on. Let the Ivy League have their rules. The NCAA is a sham and a harmful sham.

The NFL and NBA should be encouraged, or coerced if that doesn't work, to set up minor leagues like the NHL has. They could pay kids getting out of HS or turning 16 their market worth. More kids would get more money as opposed to a few kids getting all the money.

They can rejigger the tournaments however they like. Go back to NCAA and NIT, whatever gets them off.
Well they could, but I would say if it is changed to my proposal, the players would also forfeit their blind trust similar to the transfers that aren't NCAA approved (similar to them redshirting for a year to move.)

I agree about the conference rules but that is what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
No. Students should not be compensated for playing a sport at university beyond the same types of tuition waivers and other fee waivers that are given for academic and artistic scholarships.

What the professional leagues need to do is set up lower level professional, or semi-professional, sporting leagues that feed into the topmost league. They have the money to support that. In other words, they should supply their own athlete pipelines.

This is what is done in Europe with futbol and other sports. School is for education, not sport, in most countries of the world. Only in the US of A do we have this b-tard college sport phenomenon.

Yes, it would go against the tradition of college sports, but if they start paying "student"-athletes, soon they will want to exempt the "students" from having to attend class and then what? Are they still "students"? The income paid to the "students" will be low initially, but then rise as programs have to bid higher "wages" to obtain the best athletes. Soon, the "students" won't have to get a degree since they are already making a livable wage and they won't need to attend class.

And I laughed when someone suggested paying the "students" minimum wage. Yeah, right. How long will that last before a "student" files a lawsuit over what he or she considers poverty or slave wages?

When the tail starts to wag the dog, cut off the tail and start over.
I don't mind school being for education. The problem is the NCAA don't allow students to make money at all like most students even if they are on any other type of scholarship. The NCAA don't allow jobs, YouTube channels, booster gifts or trades because they get nothing from it. The NCAA are greedy pricks. They licensed player stats for EA video games for nearly 20 years and only stopped it because they got sued. NCAA puts on both men's and women's March Maddness (even the NIT) and conference championships and bowl season for the football programs in a few short weeks, which is a hundreds of millions if not billions of revenue. The players get nothing for their labour. Schools have even sold jerseys of Reggie Bush and Matt Leinert in stores and they got nothing from them, the schools and the NCAA did. The NCAA did have a problem when Bush got presents from a booster though...

The reason why I say pay the football players and basketball players minimum wage and put money into a trust for the four to five years (redshirting) for D-1 schools, it pays them for the labour while right now for lack of better term, it is in a way slavery. Fair is fair after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor76 View Post
I'm not for paying athletes, but there definitely should be some changes in the NCAA and their so called rules for Student Athletes. I think going the route baseball and hockey has for all sports would be a great idea. Many athletes have no desire to be in school one second, and a football player or basketball player who has no interest in being a student is just wasting everyone's time. So the NFL and the NBA shouldn't use the NCAA as a feeder system and develop a farm system if need be (The NBA appears to be going in that direction. Also what law would be broken if a college athlete could make money as an individual off their celebrity? If a company wants to use them to endorse a product, what is the harm in that? In my opinion none. And this would be for all athletes! For example here in Connecticut, probably the most popular team in the state is the UCONN women's basketball team. Those young ladies could make some pretty good money endorsing businesses around the state.


Bottom line is something has to change. The Olympics did it, and survived, the NCAA can as well. Coaches making insane money, the NCAA making BILLIONS per year, and doing everything they can it seems to keep things status quo, while acting as if they care about a person's education and livelihood is a joke. Honestly, I would rather them give them nothing, and let them be real students and make their own money, then give scholarships to athletes who don't even care about an education.
The NBA has the G-League. The NFL is the only league in America with no minor league. Hockey has AHL, ECHL. MLB has TONS of leagues and a number of teams have 3/4 minor league teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
It actually has everything to do with Title IX. Title IX is the reason so many athletic departments struggle. Dozens of football programs make tons of money, but they have to have 85 scholarships in women's sports to offset that... and yeah... those sports all lose tons of money.

If Title IX didn't exist, you wouldn't have football players subsidizing women's cross country and other sports that hemorrhage money.
And honestly before that the football program and/or basketball subsidized men's hockey, lacrosse, baseball, soccer, diving, and track teams. Title IX just doubled it. That said, women's basketball in college is still a money maker, even women's softball at time does. But yes, you doubled tracked, swim/dive and track team size. The problem is that many of the big schools will have put out merchandise in the likeness of the athletes and the athletes make $0 from it. Yet they monetize their YouTube channel, get paid by boosters or trade merch for tattoos and the NCAA make them ineligible...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2018, 09:40 AM
 
2,433 posts, read 2,150,814 times
Reputation: 2689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
And honestly before that the football program and/or basketball subsidized men's hockey, lacrosse, baseball, soccer, diving, and track teams. Title IX just doubled it. That said, women's basketball in college is still a money maker, even women's softball at time does. But yes, you doubled tracked, swim/dive and track team size. The problem is that many of the big schools will have put out merchandise in the likeness of the athletes and the athletes make $0 from it. Yet they monetize their YouTube channel, get paid by boosters or trade merch for tattoos and the NCAA make them ineligible...

I think I read recently that UCONN women's basketball was the only profitable program in the country.

EDIT: Just read something from Forbes a few years back that said 43 out of the 300+ women's programs were profitable. From 2008 to 2011, UCONN won 2 championships and had like a 90 game winning streak and were losing money each year

A lot of men's basketball programs aren't profitable either. Really, the number of public schools that should have football programs from an economic standpoint is probably about 60 and the number of public schools that should have men's basketball programs from an economic standpoint is probably about 100, and the number of public schools that should have women's basketball programs is probably about 30. I imagine then you'd have profitable athletic departments, but tens of thousands of other athletes wouldn't be getting scholarships. But the money that would finance those scholarships could still fund other scholarships, so I really don't think that would be a big loss to society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2018, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,590 posts, read 14,677,234 times
Reputation: 9304
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
I think I read recently that UCONN women's basketball was the only profitable program in the country.

EDIT: Just read something from Forbes a few years back that said 43 out of the 300+ women's programs were profitable. From 2008 to 2011, UCONN won 2 championships and had like a 90 game winning streak and were losing money each year

A lot of men's basketball programs aren't profitable either. Really, the number of public schools that should have football programs from an economic standpoint is probably about 60 and the number of public schools that should have men's basketball programs from an economic standpoint is probably about 100, and the number of public schools that should have women's basketball programs is probably about 30. I imagine then you'd have profitable athletic departments, but tens of thousands of other athletes wouldn't be getting scholarships. But the money that would finance those scholarships could still fund other scholarships, so I really don't think that would be a big loss to society.
I think it also depends on the fanbases too. Bama, Clemson, Auburn, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Notre Dame (though private), Miami, etc. are totally sound from all other revenues in regards to football.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 03:29 PM
 
1,158 posts, read 841,002 times
Reputation: 2720
If the athletics want paid, all they would have to do is form a union, go on strike, and demand a cut of the gate. The schools would have no choice but to give it to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 03:42 PM
 
3,737 posts, read 2,082,205 times
Reputation: 6499
No of course not their compensation is a free education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,590 posts, read 14,677,234 times
Reputation: 9304
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
No of course not their compensation is a free education.
Ok then the NCAA cannot sell their likeness like they have with jerseys or the EA sports and Midway games they recently ended. The NCAA are total hypocrites when they sell Reggie Bush jerseys and make money off that while he don't get a cut but a booster giving him a car is a problem? Anyone else see a problem with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 08:59 PM
 
1,399 posts, read 274,663 times
Reputation: 1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Ok then the NCAA cannot sell their likeness like they have with jerseys or the EA sports and Midway games they recently ended. The NCAA are total hypocrites when they sell Reggie Bush jerseys and make money off that while he don't get a cut but a booster giving him a car is a problem? Anyone else see a problem with that?
Why are you so concerned that an entitled future felon isn't getting enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,590 posts, read 14,677,234 times
Reputation: 9304
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC1984 View Post
Why are you so concerned that an entitled future felon isn't getting enough?
Why are you not concerned with student athletes being taken advantage of and having no way to earn money to cover living expenses whether they are on scholarship or not? See how as easy that works to ask an irrelevant question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 12:29 AM
 
1,399 posts, read 274,663 times
Reputation: 1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Why are you not concerned with student athletes being taken advantage of and having no way to earn money to cover living expenses whether they are on scholarship or not? See how as easy that works to ask an irrelevant question?
Because they are coddled and compensated enough already! Are you upset that math and engineering students are not compensated too?
Obviously there's some connection for/to you with this....why not just tell us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top