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.
It's not non-sense, it's true. That's what they are no matter how much money is involved. They are extracurricular to the University goal which is an education. The person who takes control of the athletic department is the president of the university, who might be a 'geek', whatever that insult is supposed to represent. But really, you've made my point for me. The sports at universities no longer are inside the framework of the university objectives and need to be weeded off. I'd suggest minor leagues not connected to colleges/universities at all.
It's not non-sense, it's true. That's what they are no matter how much money is involved. They are extracurricular to the University goal which is an education. The person who takes control of the athletic department is the president of the university, who might be a 'geek', whatever that insult is supposed to represent. But really, you've made my point for me. The sports at universities no longer are inside the framework of the university objectives and need to be weeded off. I'd suggest minor leagues not connected to colleges/universities at all.
Your take on the what collegiate athletics represent to an individual school is a very simplistic one and is causing you to miss out on several important points.
Have you ever wondered why Ivy league schools and D-III schools do not award athletic scholarships and yet continue to spend millions of dollars in support of their athletic programs? It's because university presidents realize that collegiate athletics represent a major form of marketing and branding for a university. Universities across the nation understand that having a healthy athletics program is important in terms of attracting potential students by enabling them to identify with their brand. Athletic programs are also important tools that universities use to entice donations from alumni, donations from high dollar supporters and (for state run institutions) to secure more government subsidies from the state [source]. I seriously doubt that a university president job is going to start "weeding off" their athletic programs because these programs (according to you) no longer operate in conjunction with the university's objectives. Especially when doing so makes their job that much more difficult.
Whatever an individual's personal beef is with college athletics (and I have a few), the fact still remains that athletics add value to their respective schools. A sports program is essentially seen as the face of many universities. It's what people identify with. For instance when I was growing up in Connecticut during late 80's and early 90's, UConn was pretty much a regional university that would essentially attract people from within the state and from other parts of New England, provided that there weren't any better options available to them. The school was ok but it wasn't necessarily a highly sought after destination. But when the school's basketball teams (men & women) started bringing in championships, the school went from being a regional institution to becoming one of the finest universities in the nation. The success of UConn's basketball program is THE sole reason that the school attracted more students and as a result gave the state legislature a reason to justify funnelling $1 Billion in taxpayer's money to modernize and expand its campus. 20 years ago just about anyone who applied could expect to receive an acceptance letter in the mail from UConn. Now...a prospective student has to actually measure up to a higher standard in order to meet the increasing admissions criteria. I know that this is just one example, but if you were familiar with the old UConn and contrast that to the way UConn is currently run you'd understand exactly where I'm coming from.
I still stand by my previous post that the NCAA and its idea of the "student-athlete" is a sham. However, it doesn't mean that the universities should do away with athletics all together. If a university's objective is to educate its students, and said university chooses to employ athletics as a tool to drum up local support, alumni support and support from high dollar boosters to help supplement their endowment; then the so-called "student-athlete" should at least be compensated with a GUARANTEED scholarship. I'm talking about a real scholarship that would enable the athlete to choose a legitmajor and be able to finish his/her undergraduate degree requirements no matter when their athletic eligibility runs out. This way the NCAA and its apologists can state [with accuracy] that athletes are being provided a free education for their service to the university...and complete the sentence without being laughed out of the room. No cash will have exchanged hands AND the university's objectives would continue to be upheld. This shouldn't be too much to ask for; right?
Sorry, but you were the one who started it. While I stand corrected on the Title IX stuff, you really haven't come up with an argument about how the large majority of athletic departments are going to support a huge uptick in expenses, when only a small fraction of them are breaking even as it is. And even if Title IX allows some athletes from getting paid while others do not, I'm awfully sure there were will be a whole new set of cases to argue.
The colleges who cannot afford the best players(if they are paid), will get the players they can afford, just like they get the coaches they can afford just like they get the stadiums they can afford. If they cannot afford to pay the players well they can offer a small stipend or just offer a scholarship. Just like the rest of the real world. What is so hard for you to understand?
Send 'em right to the pro teams, why waste the time and money on "recruiting" them and babying them...and making sure they pass their classes (big joke)?
Status:
"I'm not MAGA, I'm an American!"
(set 15 days ago)
Location: Upstate
9,413 posts, read 9,695,743 times
Reputation: 8737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker
Send 'em right to the pro teams, why waste the time and money on "recruiting" them and babying them...and making sure they pass their classes (big joke)?
That's the idea, sort of, behind paying college athletes. If the NFL for instance was more like the NBA (think LeBron James), then High School seniors could skip college and move right into the pros. They could start earning money right away and if for some reason they got hurt in their first few years, at least they have money. They can then go back to college and pay for it themselves if they choose. If they are hurt in college then they can be "kicked to the curb" and lose their scholarship and possibly be in a bad financial situation.
(The NBA requires "prep to pro" to be at least 19 and one year removed from HS since 2006).
There can be argument that four years of playing in college will make the player better suited for the NFL. Yet when you watch college, it's often more exciting to watch than the NFL.
Some things to think about though if college players begin to be paid:
Will they lose their "amateur status" and be considered semi-pro?
Will the students be taxed, especially on their scholarship if they still receive one?
If we all want them to be students, treat them like students. Don't give them any aid, unless they apply for it. Don't recruit them. Also allow them to work and earn a living, like other students. Yeah if we do that it will suck, because many of the athletes would not qualify, but that's good, because they didn't want to be in school anyway. Giving these guys scholarships does nothing for them, they don't want to go to class and get educated, THEY WANT TO GET PAID! Just like the coaches are getting paid, and the AD's and everyone else making money off of the games. But this won't happen, because the better athletes won't be able to attend the school, the schools won't make money, TV ratings will go down, coaches salaries will go down. So we have to continue the hypocrisy of calling them student athletes, not because we care about them being students, but because schools and coaches want their pockets to get fatter
Jadeveon Clowney, who could be the No. 1 overall pick in the 2014 NFL Draft, told Jim Rome on Showtime that he might have stayed at South Carolina for his senior season had circumstances been different.
"It would have made a difference. If I had gotten paid and had a chance to take care of my family through college, I probably would have stayed and finished," Clowney said from the Exos training facility in Florida, where he is preparing for the NFL Scouting Combine. Asked if the time is right for college athletes to receive pay, Clowney was clear: Yes.
Oh, what a load of bull****.
Everyone knows that the athletes at the big schools who are competitive are not interested in sticking around for an education and a degree. They're interested in getting signed with the right pro team for a boatload of cash and splitting as fast as possible. I bet you hardly any would stick around, unless you pay them close to the millions that they earn in the pro leagues.
Meanwhile, there's rest of us who are actual students and go to school because have to actually learn something so that we can make our way through life with a career job that annually earns a small fraction of what these guys will **** through on clubs, women, and ridiculously-rimmed SUVs in any given year. AND we are working part-time jobs AND drowning in huge debt to make it through.
And who the hell is caring about OUR families and our incomes? No one, because we didn't grow up to be giant steroidal goons who are good at catching a football and ramming things over with their heads, so greedy universities can't get fat middle-ages guys with beer bellies to watch us on TV.
"waah waaaahhh.. poor me, if only I had gotten paid..."
Get lost, Clowney. You can go **** * ****.
The only thing it's time for is for these so-called "student" athletes to get booted out of schools, whose mission WAS supposed to be ACADEMIC, and just get sent to some sub-league of an extended NFL or something. Hey, maybe when they stop racking in major cash off these supposed students and pissing it away on new sports stadiums etc., they'll stop jacking up tuition for the rest of us by double digits.
Meanwhile, there's rest of us who are actual students and go to school because have to actually learn something so that we can make our way through life with a career job that annually earns a small fraction of what these guys will **** through on clubs, women, and ridiculously-rimmed SUVs in any given year. AND we are working part-time jobs AND drowning in huge debt to make it through.
And who the hell is caring about OUR families and our incomes? No one, because we didn't grow up to be giant steroidal goons who are good at catching a football and ramming things over with their heads, so greedy universities can't get fat middle-ages guys with beer bellies to watch us on TV.
That comment reeks of so much resentment that it's funny. Who or what is stopping non-athletes from acquiring scholarships so they won't have to take out loans or be in debt upon graduation?
There are scholarships for all sorts of things that students can apply for and receive. If you don't want to pay for school, get really great grades or be good at something where some school will offer to pay expenses. Shoot, join to the military. They'll pay for you to go to college.
Nah, but folks don't wanna do that. They rather cry and complain about how a group of people who applied themselves and made sacrifices to get where they are, are somehow getting over on everyone else.
All this jealously, anger and envy ain't helping, pimpin.'
If colleges have to pay athletes, will that decrease the number of scholarships that are given out?
Instances like this are not static occurrences - in other words, you can't just start paying athletes and expect everything else to stay the same.
This will affect not only the main college sports, but also the smaller sports which feed off of the more popular sports.
Better think about that before making monetary changes.
This is what I was wondering about too. If college athletes are paid salaries will the public and private sources who put money into scholarships still have the means or the will to do so in the future? In other words if college X is paying Y dollars a year in salary to a student-athlete will they also be inclined to provide a "free ride?" A private company who used to provide scholarship money might argue the student-athletes should use their salaries to pay for school and instead put money into academic scholarships or some other write off.
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.
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.
