The "Should players be paid" argument

[redandguilty]

Topic is getting attention on MGoBlog since this article was posted:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true

I also spotted this article on google news this morning

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572752351110850.html?google_editors_picks=true

I've warmed on the idea of either doing more for the student-athletes (or allowing them to cash in as best they can on the side, as the Olympics do) , especially in the last several years where I've seen the cases of unpaid English and history grad students in comparison with paid engineering students up close and personal.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm so sick of this argument.

No.

 

[redandguilty]

I'm so sick of this argument.

No.

The deal the way it has been is good enough for students-athletes, I agree with that. But the NCAA, being in charge of keeping them from getting paid, have become right-bastards. It would probably be better to let the kids get paid than to let the NCAA persist as it has.

 

[Michchamp]

If you allow it, it becomes MLB. the four or five programs with the most money will get whatever talent they want. it will completely destroy the competitiveness of the sport.

I had this argument with a coworker, who is one of those people who picked up a couple pop-econ books like Freakonomics, and now tries to insist that "the market" should invade every aspect of our lives.

His response was that even in the MLB, the Yankees don't win every season.

I was like, OKAAAAAY... that wasn't my point anyway.

 

[Michchamp]

people also aren't considering the effect that opening the floodgates will have on education, the rest of the school, campus life, etc.

stupid. I hope this argument dies a painful death, not only in this case, but every case where someone tries to insist things would be better if we'd just open the floodgates and let everyone sellout.

 

[dannydiggler]

How much is tuition at The University of Michigan? Okay then...

 

[hungry]

Yep, stupid argument. They already are getting paid, its just in commodities instead of cold, hard cash. They get room, board, all the food they can eat, access to all workout facilities anytime they want, books, tuition, and several other things all paid for by being a scholarship athlete.

THen there's the whole question of "who do you pay?" Most of the proponents of paying student athletes are talking about basketball and football players. There's no way in hell that schools get away with only paying 2 men's teams. The idea is that these players make money for their universities. Well, the rest of the sports do not make money for most schools. Maybe Michigan might make money off a couple of other sports. They'd have to at least pay women in as many sports as they pay men.

The NCAA just needs to start enforcing the rules better.

 

[redandguilty]

If you allow it, it becomes MLB. the four or five programs with the most money will get whatever talent they want. it will completely destroy the competitiveness of the sport.

I had this argument with a coworker, who is one of those people who picked up a couple pop-econ books like Freakonomics, and now tries to insist that "the market" should invade every aspect of our lives.

His response was that even in the MLB, the Yankees don't win every season.

I was like, OKAAAAAY... that wasn't my point anyway.

Well there's your problem. You're arguing with the wrong people. Who wouldn't be tried of that argument. It's not about free markets being a good regulator. It's about the NCAA being a bad regulator. It's about a regulator that makes money in a way that changes depending on who it regulates and how strictly.

 

[redandguilty]

Yep, stupid argument. They already are getting paid, its just in commodities instead of cold, hard cash. They get room, board, all the food they can eat, access to all workout facilities anytime they want, books, tuition, and several other things all paid for by being a scholarship athlete.

...

That's not the argument this time. How's the NCAA going to enforce the rules better when they make more money when certain schools succeed?

 

[hungry]

Yeah. Paying them would make it even harder to enforce the rules. Say the universities decide to pay all student athletes 2,000/month (most schools couldnt afford to do this). What happens when they find some student athlete in possession of $10,000? Well, he's just been saving his money. They'd still get handouts elsewhere.

 

[Michchamp]

The NCAA just needs to start enforcing the rules better.

that's it exactly. the new rules are, we enforce the old rules.

The argument that we need to do away with the rules because some people violate them is so morally bankrupt, I don't know what else to say about it. it's like the entire reason man moved out of the jungle and into society and created law and order...

you also make a good point about the other sports. a lot of programs will essentially disappear. almost no schools will fund women's sports, crew, track&field, cross country, etc.

 

[redandguilty]

The argument that we need to do away with the rules because some people violate them is so morally bankrupt, I don't know what else to say about it. it's like the entire reason man moved out of the jungle and into society.

Yeah. It ruined the Olympics. Complete Lord of the Flies these days. /s

 

[redandguilty]

Also, that 1st article has a nice section on the history/evolution of the NCAA. Here's a sample:


[quote:irtlf445]For nearly 50 years, the NCAA, with no real authority and no staff to speak of, enshrined amateur ideals that it was helpless to enforce. (Not until 1939 did it gain the power even to mandate helmets.) In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation made headlines with a report,

 

[Michchamp]

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 throughout recent history always has been. every country that could afford it fielded year-long, or close to 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.

 

[Michchamp]

[quote="Red and Guilty":uyzlzbkz]Also, that 1st article has a nice section on the history/evolution of the NCAA. Here's a sample:


[quote:uyzlzbkz]For nearly 50 years, the NCAA, with no real authority and no staff to speak of, enshrined amateur ideals that it was helpless to enforce. (Not until 1939 did it gain the power even to mandate helmets.) In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation made headlines with a report,

 

[redandguilty]

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.

 

[redandguilty]

Also, that 1st article has a nice section on the history/evolution of the NCAA. Here's a sample:

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.

 

[redandguilty]

Another interesting element of the article / good argument against Universities paying players directly is the repercussions regarding workers-comp eligibility. It's financially important that players are not employees for more than just payroll reasons.

 

[redandguilty]

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 throughout recent history always has been. every country that could afford it fielded year-long, or close to 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.

So to get back to the argument...yeah they're different, but what about the very different way the Olympics does it has you thinking it's morally bankrupt? ...especially in comparison to the way the NCAA polices universities?

 

[uofmdixon]

NO, They are getting their school paid for.