WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives > Sports Debater's League
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-10-2011, 11:33 AM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Within this post, I shall focus on American collegiate football to support my argument.
There's one major flaw with this statement and your post as a whole. You are saying that individual sport's programs, like football, should pay their athletes if the program is profitable. However, every individual program is part of the athletic department's program as a whole. Every single athletic program at a University has their revenue and expenses given and taken away from the athletic department. Obviously the most profitable sports like football will be given the most money to help improve the program but that doesn't mean they can afford to pay their players.

Only 14 of the 120 athletic programs that are included in the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) from 2004-2009 made money. That is just 12% of schools. Here is my source below.

http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...by-the-number/

That means there are only 14 athletic departments that MAY be able to afford paying their football athletes. It would be nice if college football was its own separate entity from the rest of the athletic programs within a Universities athletic department but it isn't. Paying the profitable college football schools' athletes just wouldn't work because in most cases it would just cause athletic departments to lose even more money then they already are.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-10-2011, 01:25 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
There's one major flaw with this statement and your post as a whole. You are saying that individual sport's programs, like football, should pay their athletes if the program is profitable.
Precisely.

Quote:
However, every individual program is part of the athletic department's program as a whole. Every single athletic program at a University has their revenue and expenses given and taken away from the athletic department. Obviously the most profitable sports like football will be given the most money to help improve the program but that doesn't mean they can afford to pay their players.
I don't see how equity with different programs within a school should be a concern here. Save for basketball and football, hardly any other program make money. Furthermore, besides football and basketball, I can't think of any other collegiate sports program that serves as the main source of future talent for their relevant professional sports league.

This problem is easily remedied: make sports programs that don't earn money into club-/intramural-level programs. If these programs can't make money, then it's obvious that there's not enough interest in them and/or the program costs way too much considering the revenue it brings in to the school.

Quote:
Only 14 of the 120 athletic programs that are included in the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) from 2004-2009 made money. That is just 12% of schools. Here is my source below.

http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...by-the-number/

That means there are only 14 athletic departments that MAY be able to afford paying their football athletes.
An overwhelming majority of the football programs within the FBS made money. They're entitled to it; the athletes that don't make a dime for their school are not entitled to it.

Your contention that there's a flaw in my argument is based on one or both of two assumptions:

1) University sports programs can't be structurally changed. That is to say, there's no way that a football program's profits can't be kept for itself and must instead be shared with all of the sports programs within its host university. This is easily changed through the rewriting of NCAA and university bylaws/regulations. This is not a situation that's set in stone.

2) There's something morally wrong with not sharing your profits with fellow university athletes. I don't see anything morally objectionable to it at all, and you've given no argument to suggest otherwise.

Quote:
It would be nice if college football was its own separate entity from the rest of the athletic programs within a Universities athletic department but it isn't. Paying the profitable college football schools' athletes just wouldn't work because in most cases it would just cause athletic departments to lose even more money then they already are.
And, as I already said, this is easily remedied by making those programs that don't make money into club-/intramural-level sports.

The only argument that could potentially be raised against my own is that unprofitable collegiate sports programs are necessary to the success of their relevant professional sports. In reality, though, this is not the case at all (maybe a little bit for hockey, but that's about it).
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-10-2011, 02:05 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
I don't see how equity with different programs within a school should be a concern here. Save for basketball and football, hardly any other program make money. Furthermore, besides football and basketball, I can't think of any other collegiate sports program that serves as the main source of future talent for their relevant professional sports league.

This problem is easily remedied: make sports programs that don't earn money into club-/intramural-level programs. If these programs can't make money, then it's obvious that there's not enough interest in them and/or the program costs way too much considering the revenue it brings in to the school.
So you're basically trying to tell me that every NCAA sport save for basketball and football just needs to be turned into a club sport? It may sound good in theory and help your argument but it's just something that isn't realistic. One big problem with it is Title IX. No matter what you have to keep a certain number of women's sports compared to men's and I guarantee the women's sports are not going to make a profit.

Quote:
An overwhelming majority of the football programs within the FBS made money. They're entitled to it; the athletes that don't make a dime for their school are not entitled to it.
That is still just one sport and again not all FBS college football programs make money. Some are losing money and even some that do make a profit are not making enough where they can really afford to pay their players all that much. The more money a school makes the more money they can give out to players and that in turn will affect recruiting and the parity in college football.
Quote:
1) University sports programs can't be structurally changed. That is to say, there's no way that a football program's profits can't be kept for itself and must instead be shared with all of the sports programs within its host university. This is easily changed through the rewriting of NCAA and university bylaws/regulations. This is not a situation that's set in stone.
This isn't just some easy change that can be made overnight. It would take years for something like this to be put through and again there is no guarantee that the NCAA would ever allow something like this to happen, especially with the affect it would have on recruiting that I stated earlier.

Quote:
2) There's something morally wrong with not sharing your profits with fellow university athletes. I don't see anything morally objectionable to it at all, and you've given no argument to suggest otherwise.
I personally don't find anything morally wrong with it at all. However, I don't see any fair way it can be done without negatively affecting college football and the college athletics in general.

Quote:
And, as I already said, this is easily remedied by making those programs that don't make money into club-/intramural-level sports.
And as I said already this can't happen in the current NCAA. I talked about Title IX earlier but also Division 1-A football playing schools must sponsor a minimum of 16 sports. that includes a minimum of 6 all male or mixed-gender teams and a minimum of at least 8 all female teams. That comes straight from the NCAA requirements.

This is the best source I could find for that information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tih...school&f=false
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
It appears Blue is MIA.

HmmÖdefinitely an interesting topic. Iím going with a no though. Simply put, you should be getting paid as a professional athlete, not an amateur. If colleges were going to pay every student athlete for each game or for each week they ďworkĒ, then the students wouldnít make that much anyway. Football, baseball, hockey, and basketball are just a few of the many sports that are likely offered to play in. Baseball and hockey donít generate as much revenue as football or basketball, so that wouldnít be fair, and I believe would be a violation of Title IX. So we start a base salary at $20 a game or week? Well football would be screwed from the get go since they play 11-13 games a season.
You'll have to explain how paying players part of the profits they earn would be a violation of Title IX. I could understand if certain athletes were "denied the benefits of" a sports program that they were a part of, but profits shouldn't be considered a benefit of sports programs that makes no money.

Also, I'd consider college athletes in football and basketball amateurs in name only. Their main purpose is to make money for the college that they play for. They're only amateurs because they don't get to see the fruits of their labor in the form of greenbacks.

Quote:
I actually think that athletes are getting paid (sorta) by continuing their education at established schools such as USC, Michigan State, Florida, among the thousands of schools in the US and around the world. Some are getting full ride scholarships to high class universities just to play a sport, and have the added bonus of attending classes that they want to go to. What most people donít realize or donít get is that these student-athletes arenít just athletes. They are students first and need to be going to class and getting an education (which they need to pass their classes to play). Thatís payment enough in my eyes.
Economically speaking, this doesn't make sense. By going to college, a basketball or football player potentially forgoes four years of money that he could earn as a professional. As a rookie, he'd come out of the NFL after four years having earned $1,875,000 or out of the NBA after four years having earned a little over $3,000,000. At most, a student athlete gets $50,000 in-kind every year in the form of a scholarship and maybe $5,000 spending money ($2,500 per semester); that's $220,000 when all is said and done.

If it weren't for age restrictions in the NFL, I'm sure many athletes would forgo college and opt to go pro immediately (this is also the reason why college basketball stars rarely stay to finish their education). You can always go back and finish your education with the ability to live comfortably while doing so. The same can't be said for your earnings potential as professional athlete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noahconstrictor View Post
I'm definitely going to agree with you David. College athletes should not be paid. Most of them get into college for free on scholarships, and if they are good enough, they will get a professional job, and get paid then. What's the point in paying them now? Their free tuition is more than enough payment. Getting a football or basketball scholarship to some Ivy Tech school such as Yale means you get into Yale, a top school for the smartest people, for free. Yale costs $40,000-$45,000 a year. That means that they get $170000 worth of free tuition. That seems like more than enough payment to me.
Ivy League schools don't give out sports scholarships, Noah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
Open


As much as I'd like to say yes to certain situations there is just no fair way to do it so I'm going with no, college athletes should not be paid. First off the only two college sports that are really profitable for some schools are football and basketball and even with those sports not every school makes a profit from them. There are only certain schools and certain sports that could afford to do this.
And they should be able to do so.

Quote:
With all of the rules and regulations the NCAA has I just don't see a way where only certain sports with certain schools can pay their athletes. Not only that but if the big time football programs were able to pay there students then those schools would have a leg up in recruitment. If you're coming out of a high school and have a choice between a very profitable football program, like USC, or one that is still good but doesn't make as much money, like Clemson, then you're going to go to the school that offers you the chance to make more money.
Firstly, NCAA regulations, as I said in my response to your rebuttal, aren't set in stone. This is a theoretical debate, not a practical one, so this is not a very compelling reason.

Secondly, there's a huge supply of high school talent in America when it comes to football. Prospects might initially be drawn to very profitable programs like USC or Texas, but they only have a limited number of spots on their rosters. Talent would still be drawn to less profitable programs by necessity. Paying your players would not harm competition in any way, shape, or form.


Quote:
Collegiate Athletics isn't Profitable for the Most Part


I'd also like to elaborate on a point I made earlier. The majority of collegiate athletic programs LOSE money on a yearly basis. Only a handful of big time schools like Michigan, USC, Alabama, etc., make a profit every year. Even with college football probably only around half of those schools are profitable with their programs at the end of the year. So basically only half of these athletic programs in only 1 or 2 sports can afford to compensate their athletes.
This is easily remedied by cutting those varsity programs (by program, I mean an individual sport, not the athletic program as a whole) that don't make money. If students really want to play a sport not offered on a varsity level, then can join/start one on a club/intramural-level.

If by program you mean an individual, varsity sport, I'd agree with you; if your sport doesn't make money, you aren't entitled to any.

Quote:
Some Compensation is Already Given


Finally, although it may not seem like a lot, these athletes do get paid. They often have full ride scholarships that pay for all of their schooling, books, where they live, and food. Plus with these scholarships there is often a small amount of money left over that can be spent in any other way that is needed. So even though it isn't a lot, these athletes are actually getting paid a small amount to play their particular sport.
It's not a lot, and it's absolutely unfair to football and basketball athletes considering the amount they'd make as a professional. It's offensive that student athletes in these sports are being given only a fraction of their true market worth. Universities should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their labor to line their own pockets and pay for other varsity programs that no one gives a shit about.

Quote:
Conclusion


In conclusion even though I'd love to say "pay certain athletes in the profitable programs because they deserve it," there is just no real fair way to do it without messing up things like recruiting and the parity in college football or basketball. There is also no way to make it fair for all schools because for the most part collegiate athletics are not profitable on the whole.
Paying athletes would do nothing to recruitment and parity; basketball and football athletes would initially seek out those schools that pay the most, but the roster limitations these schools have would still force these players to seek opportunities to play elsewhere. This argument only works if there's not enough talent to go around to all of the major basketball and football programs in America; there's more than enough.

Theoretically speaking, fairness should play absolutely no role in the discussion here. Some athletes lose money for their schools, other do not. Since universities are, first and foremost, institutions of learning, extracurricular activities like sports should only be evaluated based on the amount of money they make. If they don't make money, they should be cut. Problem solved, entire college programs are saved, and athletes in profitable varsity sports are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-10-2011, 02:38 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
Secondly, there's a huge supply of high school talent in America when it comes to football. Prospects might initially be drawn to very profitable programs like USC or Texas, but they only have a limited number of spots on their rosters. Talent would still be drawn to less profitable programs by necessity. Paying your players would not harm competition in any way, shape, or form.
Yes there is a lot of talent but you're a fool if you don't think the opportunity to make more money would weigh heavily on some of these recruits. The best of the best talent wise is more then likely going to want top go to one of the 10-20 schools that can afford to pay them a decent amount. It would certainly affect recruiting especially when a lot of the top players are guys that are coming from families that are strapped for cash.


Quote:
This is easily remedied by cutting those varsity programs (by program, I mean an individual sport, not the athletic program as a whole) that don't make money. If students really want to play a sport not offered on a varsity level, then can join/start one on a club/intramural-level.
I already explained why this can't happen because of NCAA regulations and because of Title IX. Dropping sports just isn't an option.

Quote:
It's not a lot, and it's absolutely unfair to football and basketball athletes considering the amount they'd make as a professional. It's offensive that student athletes in these sports are being given only a fraction of their true market worth. Universities should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting their labor to line their own pockets and pay for other varsity programs that no one gives a shit about.
With basketball you only have to stay one year or you could go the Brandon Jennings route and make great money overseas for a year before entering the NBA. In the NFL you do have to be out of high school for three years and I can agree somewhat that these athletes are being exploited by the amount of money they are making for their schools, but again there just isn't a fair way to fix the situation without harming the game of college football. I already talked about recruiting and I also would like to bring up the question of how much does each player get? Do they all get the same amount? Do the star players get more? How is all of that decided? Auburn is going to be very profitable this year in football and the main reason for that is Cam Newton. It wouldn't be fair for him and some back up running back to make the same amount.

Quote:
Paying athletes would do nothing to recruitment and parity; basketball and football athletes would initially seek out those schools that pay the most, but the roster limitations these schools have would still force these players to seek opportunities to play elsewhere. This argument only works if there's not enough talent to go around to all of the major basketball and football programs in America; there's more than enough.
College football schools can give out around 25 scholarships per school. If around 20 schools are very profitable and can give out the most money then that could potentially be 500 of the top players gone. Obviously not every player will go for the big bucks but you'd be lying if you tried to tell me that a large amount of them wouldn't want to. These are 17 and 18 year old kids we are talking about after all.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
So you're basically trying to tell me that every NCAA sport save for basketball and football just needs to be turned into a club sport? It may sound good in theory and help your argument but it's just something that isn't realistic. One big problem with it is Title IX. No matter what you have to keep a certain number of women's sports compared to men's and I guarantee the women's sports are not going to make a profit.
So you keep two women's sports besides men's football and basketball. That still substantially cuts down on an entire program's expenditures and would still make an overwhelming majority of the programs profitable (there's absolutely nothing in Title IX that would imply that the women would have equal access to the profits). The deadweight comes from such programs as baseball, lacrosse, and soccer (double those for Title IX, cut them and you double the amount you cut because of Title IX).


Quote:
That is still just one sport and again not all FBS college football programs make money. Some are losing money and even some that do make a profit are not making enough where they can really afford to pay their players all that much. The more money a school makes the more money they can give out to players and that in turn will affect recruiting and the parity in college football.
There are 10 out of 119 FBS schools that lost money in their football programs for the 2009-2010 season. As I said before, an overwhelming majority make a profit. Also, there are 85 scholarships that an FBS football program can give out. The incentive program that I concluded with in my first post would work fine for this purpose.

I've already told you why parity wouldn't be ruined by a pay-for-play system, so I won't belabor the point here.


Quote:
This isn't just some easy change that can be made overnight. It would take years for something like this to be put through and again there is no guarantee that the NCAA would ever allow something like this to happen, especially with the affect it would have on recruiting that I stated earlier.
Again, it would have little to no effect on recruiting. Schools would still get quality players.

As I said in one of my rebuttals, this is more of a theoretical debate than a practical one.

Quote:
And as I said already this can't happen in the current NCAA. I talked about Title IX earlier but also Division 1-A football playing schools must sponsor a minimum of 16 sports. that includes a minimum of 6 all male or mixed-gender teams and a minimum of at least 8 all female teams. That comes straight from the NCAA requirements.

This is the best source I could find for that information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tih...school&f=false
Schools could still be profitable with Title IX if they limit their male sports to profitable ones. The stipulation you listed makes paying student athletes infeasible, but this debate is about, "Should College/University Be Paid?," not, "Under Current NCAA Rules, Can University Athletes Be Paid?" Of course they can't. If it was found that they deserved to be paid (I've already made a very compelling argument for this) then NCAA rules would be changed accordingly.

You've only given two arguments against why athletes shouldn't be paid: they are already paid in-kind with scholarships and paying athletes would ruin program parity. I've already overcome both of these objections in previous posts.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2011, 03:59 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
Yes there is a lot of talent but you're a fool if you don't think the opportunity to make more money would weigh heavily on some of these recruits. The best of the best talent wise is more then likely going to want top go to one of the 10-20 schools that can afford to pay them a decent amount. It would certainly affect recruiting especially when a lot of the top players are guys that are coming from families that are strapped for cash
I never said that it would. The talent pool for college football recruits is huge, a point that you agree with. Not all of them can play for 10-20 schools. There's more than enough quality talent every year to be recruited by 80-90 schools. Do you think the ones that don't make the cut at a USC or Auburn are just going to throw up their hands and say that they won't play, period, because they won't be getting paid the most? This is absurd. They'll go to the next best paying school.


Quote:
already explained why this can't happen because of NCAA regulations and because of Title IX. Dropping sports just isn't an option.
And I've already explained to you that this is normative, not a positive, debate.


Quote:
With basketball you only have to stay one year or you could go the Brandon Jennings route and make great money overseas for a year before entering the NBA.
Still a better option than college because they don't get paid.

Quote:
In the NFL you do have to be out of high school for three years and I can agree somewhat that these athletes are being exploited by the amount of money they are making for their schools, but again there just isn't a fair way to fix the situation without harming the game of college football. I already talked about recruiting and I also would like to bring up the question of how much does each player get? Do they all get the same amount? Do the star players get more? How is all of that decided? Auburn is going to be very profitable this year in football and the main reason for that is Cam Newton. It wouldn't be fair for him and some back up running back to make the same amount.
I already went over the basics of how the paying schedule would work in my first post.


Quote:
College football schools can give out around 25 scholarships per school. If around 20 schools are very profitable and can give out the most money then that could potentially be 500 of the top players gone. Obviously not every player will go for the big bucks but you'd be lying if you tried to tell me that a large amount of them wouldn't want to. These are 17 and 18 year old kids we are talking about after all.
Even if they went for the big bucks, it wouldn't do anything to hurt the recruitment process. Even without money, perennial powerhouses in college football recruit the overwhelming majority of premier all-Americans every year (there is a strong home state bias, however). Nothing would change in a pay-for-play system because of the roster limitations each school has. You can't stuff 100 players that want to go to USC into the 25 roster spots they have available. 75 of these players will seek out opportunities elsewhere.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2011, 04:11 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
So you keep two women's sports besides men's football and basketball. That still substantially cuts down on an entire program's expenditures and would still make an overwhelming majority of the programs profitable (there's absolutely nothing in Title IX that would imply that the women would have equal access to the profits). The deadweight comes from such programs as baseball, lacrosse, and soccer (double those for Title IX, cut them and you double the amount you cut because of Title IX).
That's a lot easier said then done. I realize this could be seen as more of a theoretical debate but I still believe that some practicality has to be used. The topic is also clearly "Should College Athletes be Paid?" If the topic was "Should college athletes from profitable teams in a profitable sport be paid?" then I may be more inclined to agree with you.

Quote:
There are 10 out of 119 FBS schools that lost money in their football programs for the 2009-2010 season. As I said before, an overwhelming majority make a profit. Also, there are 85 scholarships that an FBS football program can give out. The incentive program that I concluded with in my first post would work fine for this purpose.
I'd like to see a source because I believe there are more then 10 schools that did not make a profit. Even so how many of those profitable schools had a large enough profit to be able to afford paying the players on their team? I highly doubt Universities are going to give up most of their profits just to pay players.

Quote:
Again, it would have little to no effect on recruiting. Schools would still get quality players.
You saying it doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Schools could still be profitable with Title IX if they limit their male sports to profitable ones. The stipulation you listed makes paying student athletes infeasible, but this debate is about, "Should College/University Be Paid?," not, "Under Current NCAA Rules, Can University Athletes Be Paid?" Of course they can't. If it was found that they deserved to be paid (I've already made a very compelling argument for this) then NCAA rules would be changed accordingly.
And you're just focusing on one sport involving college athletes. The question isn't "Should College Football Players be Paid?" The same way I'm using current NCAA regulations to help support my argument you are using a hypothetical set of regulations to support yours.
Quote:
You've only given two arguments against why athletes shouldn't be paid: they are already paid in-kind with scholarships and paying athletes would ruin program parity. I've already overcome both of these objections in previous posts.
You haven't done anything to refute the parity argument other then saying "high school recruits may take the money at first but then would probably go to other programs." You have no evidence at all to back up any of those claims. Common sense at least agrees with me that these 17-18 year old athletes would rather go to schools that pay them more.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-10-2011, 04:18 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
I never said that it would. The talent pool for college football recruits is huge, a point that you agree with. Not all of them can play for 10-20 schools. There's more than enough quality talent every year to be recruited by 80-90 schools. Do you think the ones that don't make the cut at a USC or Auburn are just going to throw up their hands and say that they won't play, period, because they won't be getting paid the most? This is absurd. They'll go to the next best paying school.
That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the top recruits are going to be going to the schools that can pay more. Other schools will still get talent but it won't as good of talent thus the parity won't be at the same level it is now.

Quote:
Even if they went for the big bucks, it wouldn't do anything to hurt the recruitment process. Even without money, perennial powerhouses in college football recruit the overwhelming majority of premier all-Americans every year (there is a strong home state bias, however). Nothing would change in a pay-for-play system because of the roster limitations each school has. You can't stuff 100 players that want to go to USC into the 25 roster spots they have available. 75 of these players will seek out opportunities elsewhere.
There are tons of kids who choose home town schools so they can be closer to home, often times because they have families that are strapped for cash. If monetary compensation was a factor then these kids would be more likely to go after the money. Like you said powerhouse Universities already get better recruits so why give them even more of an advantage? If a kid has a choice between U of M and Michigan State right now it may be a tough choice for him. If he sees that he can make twice as much money at Michigan then the choice is a lot easier.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-10-2011, 04:46 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
That's a lot easier said then done. I realize this could be seen as more of a theoretical debate but I still believe that some practicality has to be used. The topic is also clearly "Should College Athletes be Paid?" If the topic was "Should college athletes from profitable teams in a profitable sport be paid?" then I may be more inclined to agree with you.
You're using current NCAA guidelines and you act as if they can't be changed; they can be changed, they aren't set in stone. I understand why you stick to the practical side of things, though; you've said nothing convincing so far as to why athletes shouldn't be paid if they make money for their school.

Quote:
I'd like to see a source because I believe there are more then 10 schools that did not make a profit. Even so how many of those profitable schools had a large enough profit to be able to afford paying the players on their team? I highly doubt Universities are going to give up most of their profits just to pay players.
Lulz, the king of unverified claims asking for a source. Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...itle=undefined

I downloaded the Department of Education's Equity In Athletics/EADA Report 2009 - 2010. If a school was a Division IA program, I included their profits in my tally. I calculated profits by subtracting expenditures from revenues.



Quote:
You saying it doesn't make it true.
Your saying the opposite doesn't make it false. The difference between my analysis and yours is that mine is much thorough and doesn't unjustifiably simplify things like yours does.


Quote:
And you're just focusing on one sport involving college athletes. The question isn't "Should College Football Players be Paid?" The same way I'm using current NCAA regulations to help support my argument you are using a hypothetical set of regulations to support yours.
I qualified my argument in my opening post and have used football as my main source of support. I'll repeat what I said in my opening post here: If a college's sports program is profitable, then the student athletes within that program should be given monetary compensation. Don't equivocate here and try to argue that sports programs aren't profitable because it's clear from my posts that I mean one varsity sport when I say program, not a college's whole athletic program.

And, yes, I am using a hypothetical set of regulations because NCAA regulations would obviously have to change if athletes were to be paid.


Quote:
You haven't done anything to refute the parity argument other then saying "high school recruits may take the money at first but then would probably go to other programs." You have no evidence at all to back up any of those claims. Common sense at least agrees with me that these 17-18 year old athletes would rather go to schools that pay them more.
Firstly, I never said this. I said that they would seek out those schools that would be able to pay them the most but that they'd then seek out a school that pays the second-best should they not be recruited by the first school. You seem to think I'm saying that a 17 and 18 year old wouldn't take money when that is precisely what I'm saying.

Secondly, what do you not understand about the fact that universities have a limited number of roster spots? If a university uses redshirting and they split football scholarships across years evenly, then that means that have a total of 17 scholarships to give out a year. Multiply that by 119 (the number of FBS teams there are) and you get 2023 football scholarships given out a year. The recruitment pool each year VASTLY outnumbers these scholarships. Even without a pay-for-play system, the recruitment pool's cream of the crop already commits to the most prestigious football programs (which, not coincidentally, happen to be the most profitable programs).

The pay-for-play system would DO NOTHING to change the status quo. The limitations on the numbers of scholarships that can be awarded by each school ensures this. USC can't take every single one of this year's top 50 defensive end prospects in the nation; they would necessarily be allocated to different programs around the nation (and they might even be equally allocated to 50 different programs if coaches took a balanced approach in their recruitment strategy).
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices