The "Should players be paid" argument

[redandguilty]

NO, They are getting their school paid for.

OK, but what's the greater evil: players getting paid or the way the NCAA runs things? I used to think the former too. I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[Michchamp]

wait... and you want to go back to that?

You are not very good at arguing. Stick to the chemistry lab, Poindexter.

That's not an argument or a suggestion. That's an aside, an inducement to get people to read the thing.

edit: I don't really know what to tell you to stick to, since recognizing and understanding arguments is supposed to be part of your thing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[redandguilty]

That's not an argument or a suggestion. That's an aside, an inducement to get people to read the thing.

edit: I don't really know what to tell you to stick to, since recognizing and understanding arguments is supposed to be part of your thing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yeah, I liked the Poindexter bit, even +1'ed it.

 

[hungry]

that's not even close to being the same thing we are talking about here.

an olympic athlete is essentially a pro-athlete anyways, and always had been. every country that could afford it fielded year-long training programs and facilities; these were never really amateurs, unless you go back to like 1910.

college sports, established by institutions of higher education, most of which accept federal money & are mandated by law to maintain certain educational standards, and equal opportunities for male & female athletes, are not really comparable to the nationalistic olympic games.

bro.

Yeah. The US is the only country with big time sports tied to institutions of higher learning. That's the root of the problem. Big money being tied to this very commercial, non-academic pursuit being tied to our universities. A policing organization evolved under these conditions, but it was invented in a different age...pre-"college football on TV". The incentives for poor/uneven policing weren't imagined when it was created.

If you want to suggest a method of policing the system that wouldn't go corrupt...like maybe an NCAA that's funded by equal contributions from members...I'd go for that before I'd go for players getting paid. But as far as I know, nobody is talking about that.

I see a flaw with this, you argue that student athletes in sports is a non-academic situation? I disagree. It provides an academic opportunity for thousands that could not otherwise afford it. They get tutors, books, tuition, and everything else at university that they never would've been able to attend otherwise. They get to attain a degree and use that to find a job after university. Let's remember, 99% of student athletes go pro in something other than sports after college.

 

[redandguilty]

Yeah. The US is the only country with big time sports tied to institutions of higher learning. That's the root of the problem. Big money being tied to this very commercial, non-academic pursuit being tied to our universities. A policing organization evolved under these conditions, but it was invented in a different age...pre-"college football on TV". The incentives for poor/uneven policing weren't imagined when it was created.

If you want to suggest a method of policing the system that wouldn't go corrupt...like maybe an NCAA that's funded by equal contributions from members...I'd go for that before I'd go for players getting paid. But as far as I know, nobody is talking about that.

I see a flaw with this, you argue that student athletes in sports is a non-academic situation? I disagree. It provides an academic opportunity for thousands that could not otherwise afford it. They get tutors, books, tuition, and everything else at university that they never would've been able to attend otherwise. They get to attain a degree and use that to find a job after university. Let's remember, 99% of student athletes go pro in something other than sports after college.

I called it a non-academic pursuit. I didn't say the kids don't have an academic opportunity, I said the schools are making big money off something other than academics. However, thinking about it the way you word it does suggest the job we'd like the NCAA to do. Just having an "academic opportunity" does not make you a student. You have to take advantage of that opportunity to be a student, and some athletes would rather not. So we expect the NCAA and the schools to police the situation somehow...but if you read the article, that's not what they do. They punish whistleblowers.

Edit: they (the NCAA) don't punish whistleblowers, they (the Universities) do.

 

[redandguilty]

From the article:

[quote:ast000f3]Within big-time college athletic departments, the financial pressure to disregard obvious academic shortcomings and shortcuts is just too strong. In the 1980s, Jan Kemp, an English instructor at the University of Georgia, publicly alleged that university officials had demoted and then fired her because she refused to inflate grades in her remedial English courses. Documents showed that administrators replaced the grades she

 

[Michchamp]

You keep posting these articles that do nothing but emphasize the reasons for having an NCAA & rules governing amateur athletes in the first place.

you think if we allow players to be paid, there would somehow be less pressure to fix grades?

Would you be in favor of the universities fielding entirely pro teams, competing directly with the NFL, NBA, etc. for players, and no eligibility rules whatsoever? Because that's the only realistic approach.

 

[redandguilty]

You keep posting these articles that do nothing but emphasize the reasons for having an NCAA & rules governing amateur athletes in the first place.

you think if we allow players to be paid, there would somehow be less pressure to fix grades?

Would you be in favor of the universities fielding entirely pro teams, competing directly with the NFL, NBA, etc. for players, and no eligibility rules whatsoever? Because that's the only realistic approach.

I'm not for that. But I think the people that ensure that our student-athletes are actually students should not be people that make more money as college sports bring in more money - there's a conflict of interest there. All this worrying about whether or not students are getting any benefits distracts from what should be the real goal of making sure they're getting decent educations.

 

[Michchamp]

The professor, Jan Kemp, has since died: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/education/12kemp.html

You almost have to laugh at people like this: <blockquote>O. Hale Almand Jr., a lawyer for the defense, offered a justification for the favorable treatment accorded the athletes, citing a hypothetical player.

 

[redandguilty]

...and with all this focus on money and universities claiming that students never had the rights the NCAA requires them to sign away, someday one of these lawsuits might just come along blow up the system and then we'll nave nobody trying to make sure the students are actually students.

 

[redandguilty]

[quote="MichChamp02":5d3temmp]The professor, Jan Kemp, has since died: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/education/12kemp.html

You almost have to laugh at people like this: <blockquote>O. Hale Almand Jr., a lawyer for the defense, offered a justification for the favorable treatment accorded the athletes, citing a hypothetical player.

 

[Michchamp]

You keep posting these articles that do nothing but emphasize the reasons for having an NCAA & rules governing amateur athletes in the first place.

you think if we allow players to be paid, there would somehow be less pressure to fix grades?

Would you be in favor of the universities fielding entirely pro teams, competing directly with the NFL, NBA, etc. for players, and no eligibility rules whatsoever? Because that's the only realistic approach.

I'm not for that. But I think the people that ensure that our student-athletes are actually students should not be people that make more money as college sports bring in more money - there's a conflict of interest there. All this worrying about whether or not students are getting any benefits distracts from what should be the real goal of making sure they're getting decent educations.

Well, you have a fair point. according to the Wiki, the NCAA was formed at Teddy Roosevelt's insistence that college sports clean up their act.

the NCAA is similar to the Motion Picture Association... go back to the 60's... you have some independent studios and directors making movies that upset the rabble, and in order to keep Washington from coming in, the bigger studios fund a organization to self-police the industry.

the wiki article didn't exactly clear up the funding issue; I'm guessing the universities themselves contribute to maintain the NCAA? You have a fair point with the conflict of interest inherent in self-policing associations in general. The real answer you are proposing would be an organization funded by government to enforce the rules... like a law enforcement agency for college football.

good luck getting that passed in today's political climate...

I guess in your mind, the next best thing to independent oversight and enforcement isn't "some rules," but total anarchy. the jungle. Only the richest programs survive.

 

[hungry]

[quote="MichChamp02"pa60z67]The professor, Jan Kemp, has since died: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/education/12kemp.html

You almost have to laugh at people like this: <blockquote>O. Hale Almand Jr., a lawyer for the defense, offered a justification for the favorable treatment accorded the athletes, citing a hypothetical player.

 

[redandguilty]

I guess in your mind, the next best thing to independent oversight and enforcement isn't "some rules," but total anarchy. the jungle. Only the richest programs survive.

No. I'm not saying that.. Where are you getting that? I want to see the policing of the student aspect of the student-athlete experience and I'm now prioritizing that over the money end of things...that's all. The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of the NCAA getting a flat fee from each member (rather than the current licensing methods), which would allow both. To me, fixing that is a way bigger issue than the issue of players getting paid. I used to think that keeping the players unpaid was a top priority, but now I think it's secondary and maybe getting in the way of the top priority.

 

[redandguilty]

Where the NCAA money comes from:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Answers/Nine+points+to+consider_one

In most years, rights fees have accounted for about 85 percent of all NCAA revenue. In 2009-10, the media agreements constituted 86 percent of NCAA revenue. Most of the remaining 14 percent in 2009-10 came from championships (mostly ticket sales).

If the point of the NCAA is to police these issues, it's of funny that only 1% of the budget goes to enforcement.

 

[michlady77]

stop the olympics comparison

no one is forcing these kids to play here - most won't have a pro career anyways and if they do it is relatively limited

i am tired of this argument - they get plenty of support beyond teh education, room, board, books, tutors, assistance

 

[redandguilty]

stop the olympics comparison

no one is forcing these kids to play here - most won't have a pro career anyways and if they do it is relatively limited

i am tired of this argument - they get plenty of support beyond teh education, room, board, books, tutors, assistance

Again, I'm not arguing otherwise. It's not about whether or not the kids deserve more money. That's not the argument. The argument is that the NCAA is failing to do it's job, it's probably fair to call it corrupt, and that the focus on illegal benefits shouldn't be priority one. If they worried about the players' education the way they worry about the money, we'd have half the SEC in MENSA. I used to freak out over the idea of the players getting money or drop a flat "no" as well...I'm starting to see how that's not what the 1st priority ought to be. Might not even be that big a deal...