Title ix vs cost of scholie

[upperdeck]

schools dont get money for games played in the tourney the leagues do.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Don't know about the 2nd part, but the first part is spot on. They are not getting nothing. IMO, labeling kids who get free college education, get the publicity they get, play in front of tens of thousands of adoring, cheering fans 'slaves' is insulting.

Indentured servitude I can live with.

Welcome to socialism ie indentured servitude. 95% of the players value is expropriated by the governing body, exactly as Bernie recommends (95%). About 1/3 of the country seems to favor indentured servitude. Proponents justify indentured servitude because it is the will of the people as determined by the democratic process. If all colleges decide to fix the compensation of their athletes it is the right thing to do as it is the will of the people.

 

[Jake]

What do you call people who have to put in a ton of work on something and don't get paid? Just curious. I'm always trying to improve my vocabulary.

Underpaid. Which is a frigging looooong way from being a slave.

 

[pfister1]

What ever happened to the concept of amateurism?

If you are going to pay players, why limit the pay in any way?? If you are going to pay them then why continue the fairy tale of requiring them to go to school whilst paying for pay? Wait why not just have schools run professional basketball franchises?

If kids don't find playing for an education and the incidentals that go along with it to be sufficient compensation then they shouldn't accept a scholarship and should intstead look for a true professional opportunity.

 

[Dave85]

Underpaid. Which is a frigging looooong way from being a slave.

Working without being paid is not "Underpaid". I am not going to agree with all the socialists and communists that working without pay is good for the athletes. I believe in capitalism and the old fashion value that people who work should be paid. The colleges make tons of money off these players. "Student athlete" is a euphemism. Just like the "clean-air act" is euphemism for a corporate socialist boondoggle. If people at spending time doing something for the college that has nothing to do with academics but benefits the college will millions of dollars of income the people involved should be paid just like the coaches are paid.

I understand we all have strong opinions on this subject. So I apologize if mine offend your way of boondoggle thinking.

P.S. The scholarship is not being paid, it's bartering. Not the same thing as being paid.

 

[Jake]

Working without being paid is not "Underpaid". I am not going to agree with all the socialists and communists that working without pay is good for the athletes. I believe in capitalism and the old fashion value that people who work should be paid. The colleges make tons of money off these players. "Student athlete" is a euphemism. Just like the "clean-air act" is euphemism for a corporate socialist boondoggle. If people at spending time doing something for the college that has nothing to do with academics but benefits the college will millions of dollars of income the people involved should be paid just like the coaches are paid. I understand we all have strong opinions on this subject. So I apologize if mine offend your way of boondoggle thinking. P.S. The scholarship is not being paid, it's bartering. Not the same thing as being paid.

I'm republican and I'm offended that someone would toss around the world "slave" as being congruent with "not being paid".

They aren't remotely similar. The reasons are too numerous to point out, but I'll give you one...it's called "freedom". You might want to add that one to your vocabulary.

 

[AZOrange]

This thread has to be amongst the dumbest this board has ever produced and that's saying something.

 

[Consigliere]

The colleges make tons of money off these players.

And the players get tons of value from the colleges in terms of experience, exposure (would Malachi Richardson be contemplating an NBA career right now if not for his NCAA tournament performance?) and yes, the opportunity for an education. Do you honestly see no value from the college experience gained by athletes? If you want to make the case that college athletes deserve a stipend, fine. That's a valid opinion and seems to be gaining acceptance. But putting in hard work to better yourself and build skills that will financially benefit you later in life is not being exploited. It's a conscious and rational decision that most adults in a capitalist society make every day.

 

[orange79]

Working without being paid is not "Underpaid". I am not going to agree with all the socialists and communists that working without pay is good for the athletes. I believe in capitalism and the old fashion value that people who work should be paid. The colleges make tons of money off these players. "Student athlete" is a euphemism. Just like the "clean-air act" is euphemism for a corporate socialist boondoggle. If people at spending time doing something for the college that has nothing to do with academics but benefits the college will millions of dollars of income the people involved should be paid just like the coaches are paid.

I understand we all have strong opinions on this subject. So I apologize if mine offend your way of boondoggle thinking.

P.S. The scholarship is not being paid, it's bartering. Not the same thing as being paid.

Boondoggle thinking. Right. Doesn't really sound like an apology to me.

No one forced these kids into going to school. Both sides get something out of the relationship. Do both sides get the same amount? No. But the kids knew the rules going in. Are they receiving a check each week? No. Are they getting something in return for their efforts? Absolutely. Those who will play after college get experience, exposure, etc. Those who won't, get a free education. Who wouldn't like to walk out of college debt-free?

This is, in fact, capitalism. The athletes could go play overseas to ply their trade for cash. But most choose college. Why? Because they are receiving something of value.

So this argument that they get nothing out of this is specious, at best. As I said above, they are not receiving cash. I get that. And that is about to change. But don't try to make the argument that they get nothing out of this. Call it barter, call it servitude, call it whatever. It all comes down to the same thing. Kids are receiving value for playing sports and going to class. The amount of money the school makes in relation to the value of a scholarship is a totally different discussion.

 

[Hoo's That]

What ever happened to the concept of amateurism?

If you are going to pay players, why limit the pay in any way?? If you are going to pay them then why continue the fairy tale of requiring them to go to school whilst paying for pay? Wait why not just have schools run professional basketball franchises?

If kids don't find playing for an education and the incidentals that go along with it to be sufficient compensation then they shouldn't accept a scholarship and should intstead look for a true professional opportunity.

That's what Bilas has been advocating. No one is benefiting, in his opinion, from making these players go to class, especially when you look at the classes they take. As it is, a one-and done only has to pass his first semester and register for the second. No need to attend class. Because the NFL and NBA won't set up minor league systems like the MLB has had for a long time, Bilas wants the colleges to do it. He feels the side benefit to the colleges is that they don't have to admit someone who really doesn't care about the educational opportunity at the expense of someone who would benefit from it. Those teams would be in a separate division and wouldn't play against the schools who require their players to attend class.

 

[Dave85]

And the players get tons of value from the colleges in terms of experience, exposure (would Malachi Richardson be contemplating an NBA career right now if not for his NCAA tournament performance?) and yes, the opportunity for an education. Do you honestly see no value from the college experience gained by athletes? If you want to make the case that college athletes deserve a stipend, fine. That's a valid opinion and seems to be gaining acceptance. But putting in hard work to better yourself and build skills that will financially benefit you later in life is not being exploited. It's a conscious and rational decision that most adults in a capitalist society make every day.

Everyone in college gets tons of value. That's not the point. The point is the number of hours they spend not doing academics. People who spend time for the benefit of the college should be paid. The scholarship is a barter. Nobody should work for free.

 

[orange79]

Everyone in college gets tons of value. That's not the point. The point is the number of hours they spend not doing academics. People who spend time for the benefit of the college should be paid. The scholarship is a barter. Nobody should work for free.

Do you understand that barter is an exchange of things of value? Good.

Cash is an analog - something that is exchanged in lieu of exchanging some good or service, having been assigned a value based on communal trust. Just because someone isn't paid cash doesn't mean they are not being paid.

If you worked a job, and someone provided you a house and food instead of giving you paper money, would you say you were not getting paid?

 

[Dave85]

Boondoggle thinking. Right. Doesn't really sound like an apology to me.

No one forced these kids into going to school. Both sides get something out of the relationship. Do both sides get the same amount? No. But the kids knew the rules going in. Are they receiving a check each week? No. Are they getting something in return for their efforts? Absolutely. Those who will play after college get experience, exposure, etc. Those who won't, get a free education. Who wouldn't like to walk out of college debt-free?

This is, in fact, capitalism. The athletes could go play overseas to ply their trade for cash. But most choose college. Why? Because they are receiving something of value.

So this argument that they get nothing out of this is specious, at best. As I said above, they are not receiving cash. I get that. And that is about to change. But don't try to make the argument that they get nothing out of this. Call it barter, call it servitude, call it whatever. It all comes down to the same thing. Kids are receiving value for playing sports and going to class. The amount of money the school makes in relation to the value of a scholarship is a totally different discussion.

It's the amount of time they spend doing athletics that bothers me the most. I get it, people like to be exploitative. It's like interns who work for nothing. You obviously like this kind of exploitation. My opinion is anyone who spends that much time doing something that benefits someone else should be paid for their efforts. All the people who are against paying the athletes are a bunch of Ebenezers. From your Ebenezer point of view it all makes sense.

 

[orange79]

It's the amount of time they spend doing athletics that bothers me the most. I get it, people lot to be exploitative. It's like interns who work for nothing. You obviously like this kind of exploitation. My opinion is anyone who spends that much time doing something that benefits someone else should be paid for their efforts. All the people who are against paying the athletes are a bunch of Ebenezers. From your Ebenezer point of view it all makes sense.

Yes, I obviously like this kind of exploitation. I'm just an 'Ebeneezer' (and you're using that term correctly either)

See my post above. You don't seem to understand what being paid is. It is NOT only exchanging a service for cash. It just isn't.

 

[Dave85]

Do you understand that barter is an exchange of things of value? Good.

Cash is an analog - something that is exchanged in lieu of exchanging some good or service, having been assigned a value based on communal trust. Just because someone isn't paid cash doesn't mean they are not being paid.

If you worked a job, and someone provided you a house and food instead of giving you paper money, would you say you were not getting paid?

In this country, most employees pay money. I think student athletes should be paid because they spend so much time and have no money for travel, cloths, and food. You think they are paid enough. Let's just disagree on this point. I just don't see your point of view or what you care about.

 

[Dave85]

Yes, I obviously like this kind of exploitation. I'm just an 'Ebeneezer' (and you're using that term correctly either)

See my post above. You don't seem to understand what being paid is. It is NOT only exchanging a service for cash. It just isn't.

Yeah, I don't understand what work is. Forget it, let's just disagree on this point.

 

[Dave85]

What do you think is fair compensation?

Not the way it is currently structured. They way it is now, with the amount of time the athletes spend doing athletics, the cost of travel, clothing, and food, in my opinion, it's extremely exploitative and unfair. I don't want to argue it anyone. Obviously people love exploiting other people.

 

[orange79]

In this country, most employees pay money. I think student athletes should be paid because they spend so much time and have no money for travel, cloths, and food. You think they are paid enough. Let's just disagree on this point. I just don't see your point of view or what you care about.

I never said they weren't paid enough. In fact, in one of my responses to you, I said the exchange is nowhere near fair or even. My point is you say they are not being paid. They are. And you didn't answer my question. I said IF they gave you housing and food, would you consider yourself not paid. Which is what the schools are doing, in addition to the free education and everything else they are receiving.

 

[MSOrange]

In this country, most employees pay money. I think student athletes should be paid because they spend so much time and have no money for travel, cloths, and food. You think they are paid enough. Let's just disagree on this point. I just don't see your point of view or what you care about.

I guess the thing I don't understand is that you seem to feel so strongly about this topic, and yet you get so worked up if the guys dare go pro early because they should be "loyal to the fans"

 

[upperdeck]

they get 50k of value for which if they were getting paid would be like 70k amd for that they put in time. is it 40hrs a week? they also can get a degree worth something and depending on the degree would be worth a very lot. millions of people work far more for far less.

 

[pfister1]

The thing no one ever brings up is that there are 347(?) Division I college basketball programs offering scholarships. The great majority of those schools do not make the money that is being discussed as a reason for paying kids in addition to providing them a scholarship. Should those kids only get 1/2 scholarships because their efforts don't make enough money for their schools? Are the kids at Delaware State (pick your school) who are on scholarship being taken advantage of, maybe they are taking advantage of a system that pushes the schools they attend to field a team and put kids on scholarship to play on that team?

The solution that Hoos mentions that Bilas has proposed is the only way to go down this road in my view. Create two divisions. The professional division and the amateur division. Kids in the professional division don't attend classes and don't receive a scholarship, they play for pay. Schools have a strict salary cap and can allocate the dollars among their rostered players anyway they want. But at that point its no longer college basketball, its now weak professional basketball.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

What do you think is fair compensation?

Give them 25% minimum of the revenue from merchandising with their name/number while they are wearing the number during school and of the name merchandise after they leave school as well. I'm sure SU for one still sells clothes with Carmelo's name on it. Is he seeing a penny of that? I don't care what he makes as a pro, he should get paid for college merchandise if he isn't already as should all former players who fit the conditions.

And all scholarship players for the big sports should get a cash stipend for walking around money, say 50 a week when school is in session. That might not be enough, I have no idea what things cost on campus now. Maybe 75 a week. So they can say go to a movie on an off night and take a date. Buy a few comic books if they're into them. Or a video game a month. Things that every other student on scholarship can do because they can earn money without forfeiting their scholarship.

 

[TheCusian]

Everyone in college gets tons of value. That's not the point. The point is the number of hours they spend not doing academics. People who spend time for the benefit of the college should be paid. The scholarship is a barter. Nobody should work for free.

They wouldn't be receiving an education if they weren't on scholarship for sports. Again - it's not for free if you're getting something of real monetary value in return.

Underpaid is where you should staking out your opinion. Not "slave" or "working for free". It's false and easily disproved.

 

[upperdeck]

Give them 25% minimum of the revenue from merchandising with their name/number while they are wearing the number during school and of the name merchandise after they leave school as well. I'm sure SU for one still sells clothes with Carmelo's name on it. Is he seeing a penny of that? I don't care what he makes as a pro, he should get paid for college merchandise if he isn't already as should all former players who fit the conditions.

And all scholarship players for the big sports should get a cash stipend for walking around money, say 50 a week when school is in session. That might not be enough, I have no idea what things cost on campus now. Maybe 75 a week. So they can say go to a movie on an off night and take a date. Buy a few comic books if they're into them. Or a video game a month. Things that every other student on scholarship can do because they can earn money without forfeiting their scholarship.

many of these kids already qualify for pell grants and get the free money. i guess kids getting college for free should also have more money to do things that other kids who are paying for college cant afford. should the kids playing for cornell apply for the money too since they dont get any money or a scholarship?

we could go back to the old way of the 30-40s and make everyone pay

 

[Ozcuse]

many of these kids already qualify for pell grants and get the free money. i guess kids getting college for free should also have more money to do things that other kids who are paying for college cant afford. should the kids playing for cornell apply for the money too since they dont get any money or a scholarship?

we could go back to the old way of the 30-40s and make everyone pay

I wouldn't mind if players had to pay their own way if it also meant that schools didn't get tv contracts in the 20-40 million range plus bowl money plus ncaa tourney money plus merchandise money plus ticket money, etc. There is a gross hypocrisy that we want the schools to get more and more money but we balk when the players that generated that income were to share in a tiny percentage.

I would wager that Malachi Richardson made SU more money in 6 minutes than the entire 2016 roster's scholarship costs combined. Kevin Sumlin should be thanking Johnny Football every day for his six year guaranteed 30 million.