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
  #21  
Old 01-10-2011, 05:00 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 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.
I know exactly what you're saying, but you're still not getting the point. Scholarship limitations ensure that all recruits won't go to one school. I don't think this point can be made any clearer or simpler.

Quote:
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.
What do you mean why give them more of an advantage? A pay-for-play system wouldn't give them an advantage. Maybe it'd give the football players more incentive to play harder because of how much cash was at stake, but then you have to take into account the professional prospects that all college players have as an incentive.

The real point of contention here is that you think that a small number of recruits are much, much better than all of the other recruits in a given talent pool and that, given monetary incentives, they'd all matriculate to only a handful of schools. This is a flawed argument for two reasons (these are reasons that I keep on driving home, hopefully this is the last time I'll have to do so). One, there's much more parity in the talent pool than you seem to think there is. I can't even count the number of All-American lists that are created each year for high school players. Two, colleges have a limited number of scholarships and roster spots to give out. All the talent in a recruitment pool can't matriculate to one school or even a handful of them. It's just no possible.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-10-2011, 05:07 PM
The People's Peep's Avatar
The People's Peep The People's Peep is offline
Mr. Manager
WWE Diva's Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 451
The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...The People's Peep worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
Barely any D1 schools' athletic departments have a positive profit at the end of the year. Even football, the biggest money making sport for most schools, doesn't bring in profits for all schools. It's only around half of the schools maybe a few more that turn a positive profit. What do all the other programs do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
Those are just the big universities, and mainly for football and basketball. Baseball, hockey, tennis and the many other sports offered in colleges and universities don't make as much money as they do. How would you make it so that every student athlete would get money every week? Cut shares from each sports individual profit? Wouldn't be equal for the other sports that don't make as much money.
Get some help from the conferences and NCAA. I'm not as concerned with the money the university makes as much as the NCAA and the conferences. Most of the revenue goes to them.

Quote:
That's if they have a car. I know people that went off to college and didn't take their cars. Not saying people don't, but how many people really do? Now even if a student gets a partial scholarship, they can distribute and take out loans for the rest of their expenses. Plus that's still better than Joe Blow who couldn't get an academic scholarship and has to pay his whole way, via loans most likely. What other expenses would a full ride athlete (without car) have other than maybe new clothes?
I dont know about other college students, but I sure as hell dont spend all my time on campus. Anything you do off campus is going to require personal money.

Quote:
Some kinks? You have to make sure there are none if you are to go forward with this. That simply won't happen because of all of the schools and all of the athletic programs at each school. Each athlete needs to be paid equally, and when you have hundreds if not thousands of athletes, that is a lot of money to be giving out.
You're right. There would have to be a way to make it equal for all sports and athletes and I certainly dont know how to do it. But I just dont think its fair that the athletes dont get a cut of the money made. Finding a way to make it fair could take a long time, but there has to be a way.

Quote:
As far as exploitation goes, some colleges actually have their student athletes sign forms for full imagery benefits. The forms are so the students can't sue the university. They could always, you know, not sign the forms. But then they don't play. They agree to it for their future to possibly play in the pros, not for the now of getting paid on top of a full ride scholarship.
Yeah, the contracts that allow the NCAA to team with EA and make video games with their likeness. Just some more revenue for them.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo Mays View Post
Do what TPP says or the beard goes.

GOT IT?
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-10-2011, 05:25 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
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.
Yes, they can be changed but you act like changing them is some easy task and it isn't. The chances of these drastic changes happening that you are suggesting are slim to none. I stick to the practical side because that is the side that is most relevant.

Quote:
Lulz, the king of unverified claims asking for a source. Here you go:
I always back up my sources when asked.

Quote:
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.
Maybe that was true for one year. But this study http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...by-the-number/ from 2004-2009 shows only 57% of FBS programs were profitable.

This article: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/201...tead-of-trees/ shows that only 78 FBS schools had a positive net revenue and the article is from June 2009.

Quote:
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.
That's very debatable.

Quote:
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.
I know exactly what you did with your argument but I'm saying that there are way too many holes for your argument to realistically work. Paying the football players would cause athletic programs to lose even more money then they already are, sacrificing every other team. And yes I know in your hypothetical plan you are going to get rid of all the other teams save for a couple women's teams to comply with Title IX. However, I'd rather argue something that is actually realistic then some hypothetical plan that has virtually no chance of happening. You have chosen to argue theoretically and I have chosen to argue more practically. By reading the thread question there is no way to 100% say which way of arguing is better but I'll take realism over a fantasy world. The question says should they pay college players and I say no because it negatively affects college athletics in the current NCAA world. The NCAA world that is very unlikely to see drastic changes anytime soon.

Quote:
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.
That's all well and good but the best schools are going to recruit the best players.

Quote:
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 commit to the most prestigious football programs (which, not coincidentally, happen to be the most profitable programs).
I understand it completely. What do you not understand about their being more then 1 or two big time profitable schools? If there are 20 schools that are very profitable and they each have 25 scholarships, then that is 500 top players potentially gone. Schools that are in the same state as one of the more profitable schools would certainly have their recruiting suffer.

Quote:
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 ensure 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).
Once again I'm not saying one school will take all of the top players but there are many profitable schools all with 25 scholarships that will affect the recruiting process negatively. Players with a choice between Michigan and Michigan State, USC and UCLA, Texas and Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, will be much more likely to go to the more profitable in home state.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-10-2011, 05:33 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 know exactly what you're saying, but you're still not getting the point. Scholarship limitations ensure that all recruits won't go to one school. I don't think this point can be made any clearer or simpler.
ONCE AGAIN I'm not saying they will be going to one school, I'm saying decisions whether to go to a more profitable school or a less profitable one will be easier.
Quote:
What do you mean why give them more of an advantage? A pay-for-play system wouldn't give them an advantage. Maybe it'd give the football players more incentive to play harder because of how much cash was at stake, but then you have to take into account the professional prospects that all college players have as an incentive.
If a kid has a tough choice between two schools and one could pay more then the other because of profits who do you he's going to choose?

Quote:
The real point of contention here is that you think that a small number of recruits are much, much better than all of the other recruits in a given talent pool and that, given monetary incentives, they'd all matriculate to only a handful of schools. This is a flawed argument for two reasons (these are reasons that I keep on driving home, hopefully this is the last time I'll have to do so). One, there's much more parity in the talent pool than you seem to think there is. I can't even count the number of All-American lists that are created each year for high school players. Two, colleges have a limited number of scholarships and roster spots to give out. All the talent in a recruitment pool can't matriculate to one school or even a handful of them. It's just no possible.
I'm not saying they are a shit ton better but in many cases they are better players and when you are able to get more of these players then usual, the talent adds up therefore widening the gap between certain schools. There is a lot of parity with high school talent but once you get past the first few hundred players it gets less and less. Like I pointed out multiple times 20 high profit schools times 25 scholarships = 500 players. Not all 500 will go for the money but a large amount of them will.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-10-2011, 07:44 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, they can be changed but you act like changing them is some easy task and it isn't. The chances of these drastic changes happening that you are suggesting are slim to none. I stick to the practical side because that is the side that is most relevant.
So, essentially what you're saying here is that college athletes from profitable varsity sports shouldn't be paid because it'd be too much of a bitch to change the rules? This is probably one of the biggest cop-outs to a compelling argument that I've ever seen.

If football players deserve to be see more of the profit they create, then the current rules should be the least of anyone's concern.

Again, you refuse to argue the question at hand: Should college athletes be paid? You keep on arguing the following question: Can college athletes be paid under current NCAA guidelines?


Quote:
I always back up my sources when asked.
Back up all of your sources for all the factual statements you've claimed to have made in this debate, especially the one concerning what would happen should players be allowed to play. You said I hadn't refuted it (I definitely refuted your argument for parity not being a consequence of a pay-for-play system), so I assume you have a source to back this claim.


Quote:
Maybe that was true for one year. But this study http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...by-the-number/ from 2004-2009 shows only 57% of FBS programs were profitable.

This article: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/201...tead-of-trees/ shows that only 78 FBS schools had a positive net revenue and the article is from June 2009.
We're arguing college football now, not athletic programs as a whole, so the first article is totally irrelevant to the debate at hand.

As to the second article: that's still a total profit of $1,026,810,000. Who's to say that that profit can't be shared between all Division IA schools? As a matter of fact, this is what's happening as we speak: a lot of bowl-eligible teams are emigrating to one of the six conferences with automatic BCS bids. Even if profit stayed the same over the next few years (it did grow by 7% for the 2009-2010 season, by the way), the percentage of profitable football programs would rise due to this aforementioned emigration.

All of this is to say the following: profitability has been on an upward trend for college football programs. The only relevant season to look at would be last year's season (until the statistics for this year come out, of course).


Quote:
That's very debatable.
It is debatable since all we can do is theorize about it. I've given sound reasoning for my position and there's nothing that's been said in this thread that brings it into question.


Quote:
I know exactly what you did with your argument but I'm saying that there are way too many holes for your argument to realistically work. Paying the football players would cause athletic programs to lose even more money then they already are, sacrificing every other team. And yes I know in your hypothetical plan you are going to get rid of all the other teams save for a couple women's teams to comply with Title IX. However, I'd rather argue something that is actually realistic then some hypothetical plan that has virtually no chance of happening. You have chosen to argue theoretically and I have chosen to argue more practically. By reading the thread question there is no way to 100% say which way of arguing is better but I'll take realism over a fantasy world. The question says should they pay college players and I say no because it negatively affects college athletics in the current NCAA world. The NCAA world that is very unlikely to see drastic changes anytime soon.
Read what I wrote to your first passage. Also, if arguing about this is such a moot point, then why was it chosen as a debate topic? Furthermore, why has it sparked so much academic debate?


Quote:
That's all well and good but the best schools are going to recruit the best players.
So, you're essentially agreeing with me here that the best schools already get the best players? Why would paying them make a difference then? They're just going to get a bunch of people they don't want knocking at their door.

Quote:
I understand it completely. What do you not understand about their being more then 1 or two big time profitable schools?
I don't understand this because it's completely false.

Quote:
If there are 20 schools that are very profitable and they each have 25 scholarships, then that is 500 top players potentially gone. Schools that are in the same state as one of the more profitable schools would certainly have their recruiting suffer.
For the millionth time, there are more than 500 players available each year, and you already agreed with me that they are already recruited by the most profitable schools. How would paying them be any different?

Furthermore, the only programs that would potentially suffer are non-FBS football programs that probably lose money every year. How insignificant these programs are to the NFL is show by the fact that, over the past ten years, there have only been two players drafted in the first round that didn't come from a Division IA school.


Quote:
Once again I'm not saying one school will take all of the top players but there are many profitable schools all with 25 scholarships that will affect the recruiting process negatively. Players with a choice between Michigan and Michigan State, USC and UCLA, Texas and Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, will be much more likely to go to the more profitable in home state.
Erm, you might to think of better example; all eight of these schools finished in the top 50 for profits in the 2009-2010 season. They won't have any problem whatsoever recruiting players in a pay-for-play system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
ONCE AGAIN I'm not saying they will be going to one school, I'm saying decisions whether to go to a more profitable school or a less profitable one will be easier.
Tell me how this is relevant to the debate. This is a forgone conclusion, man; of course they're going to go to the school with the most profit. Does their going to the school with the most profit automatically mean that the school(s) they rejected won't be able to get an equally talented player? We've already agreed that the recruitment pool every year is deep; I fail to see how someone can be so much more significantly talented than another player that they'll create a huge disparity between teams. For every USC middle linebacker recruit, there are a 100 more out there waiting to be picked up by a school.

A pay-for-play scheme would do nothing to create disparity between FBS football programs. Recruitment pools are too deep and almost all of these schools would be able to offer their players some form of monetary compensation (they'd all be able to offer monetary compensation should they join a conference with an automatic BCS bid).

Quote:
If a kid has a tough choice between two schools and one could pay more then the other because of profits who do you he's going to choose?
The one that offers the most money. Of course, salaries could always be capped to create parity. But, I'm not going to argue this point as I'm tired of you retreating to how much more practical your argument is.



Quote:
I'm not saying they are a shit ton better but in many cases they are better players and when you are able to get more of these players then usual, the talent adds up therefore widening the gap between certain schools. There is a lot of parity with high school talent but once you get past the first few hundred players it gets less and less. Like I pointed out multiple times 20 high profit schools times 25 scholarships = 500 players. Not all 500 will go for the money but a large amount of them will.
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I've already overcome this objection at least 5 times. You can go ahead and rebut this post if you like. I'll be making my closing argument either late tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-10-2011, 08:52 PM
CH David's Avatar
CH David CH David is offline
A Jock That Loves Pepsi
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 27
Posts: 1,070
CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
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.
Tdigs I know you are smarter than that. If you can't pay players equally, from men's athletics to women's, that is a violation of Title IX. You pay football and basketball teams more than hockey, baseball, tennis or golf? Violation.

Quote:
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.
Their main purpose is to play a sport that they love for the school they (usually) want to play for. The sport(s) just happens to be huge in the country and worthy of a lot of sponsorships.

Quote:
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.
Sure economically speaking. But are you really going to sit here and tell me that a high school football player is ready both mentally and physically for the NFL? Hell no they aren't. Most basketball players coming out of high school are busts, not everyone is like Kobe, KG, or LeBron have been. Basketball players would fail most of the time, so they go to college and show how much they can make an impact, thus earning their scholarships and free rides. That still doesn't mean that they should get paid. One of my friends is a med student and she doesn't get paid for her training, should she get paid as well?
__________________
THEO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by klunderbunker View Post
I thought you were dead. Good to see you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White Sam View Post
Go get me a fucking Pepsi, you wanker.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:21 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

Concluding Post


I'll conclude this post by restating my original argument: If a student athlete's program is profitable (i.e., their varsity sport), then he/she should be paid. I have given two very compelling reason for why this should be. One, by giving them monetary compensation for their athletic services, a student athlete's college/university gives them an incentive to stay and finish their education. Two, the amount of profit some university programs make per player is insulting and downright exploitative. At Texas last season, each football player with a scholarship earned its institution at least 16 times what they were given "in-kind" in the form of a scholarship. Keep the "in-kind" qualification in mind; these players couldn't redeem or trade their scholarships for money. They're essentially just like the homeless people you see on the street with "Will work for food" signs, the only difference being that they don't get the opportunity to decide what they will work for.

Rebuttals have come my way in two forms, and I have overcome them both. The first rebuttal questions the feasibility of my proposal. Under current NCAA regulations, yes, you would not be able to pay student athletes for their services. However, this is a debate about whether or not student athletes should be paid, not if they can be paid. I've given reasons for why they should, and it's not sufficient to argue that they shouldn't be paid because of existing rules. If enough people thought student athletes merited pay, the rules would be changed, simple as that.

The second rebuttal concerns the disparity that paying student athletes in profitable Division IA football programs would cause. I have thoroughly shown that, among Division IA football programs, it would cause no more disparity than that which currently exists. I don't have any doubts that student athletes would be more proactive in getting recruited by the schools that have the biggest coffers, but that's about all that would change. Limitations on scholarships would still exist and the best of the best would still be recruited by the most prestigious and profitable of programs. Ultimately then, if we had the ability to go back in time and institute a pay-for-play policy for this past football season, I have no doubt in my mind that recruits would still matriculate to those schools that they have actually matriculated to (the only difference being that they'd potentially have their pockets stuffed with cash at season's end).

That's all. Best of luck to everyone else.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:13 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
So, essentially what you're saying here is that college athletes from profitable varsity sports shouldn't be paid because it'd be too much of a bitch to change the rules? This is probably one of the biggest cop-outs to a compelling argument that I've ever seen.
Goddamn you love putting words in people's mouths. It is hard to change the rules but that's not the point I'm getting at. The rules shouldn't be changed because going to college for most athletes isn't about going to the next level in the pros and making a bunch of money. It's about getting a great education while competing at the highest level possible in whatever sport you play in. Why should that be taken away from a bunch of athletes just so football players can make money? There are no full ride scholarships given out to club sports. By making these changes you are ending the sporting careers of thousands of athletes prematurely. Of course I wouldn't expect you to look at the big picture.

Quote:
Again, you refuse to argue the question at hand: Should college athletes be paid? You keep on arguing the following question: Can college athletes be paid under current NCAA guidelines?
The guidelines are part of it though because like I said above paying college athletes for football would be ending the sporting careers of a ton of athletes. And if I'm failing to answer the question then you are doing the same because the question isn't "Should College Athletes be paid under hypothetical fantasy guidelines."

Quote:
Back up all of your sources for all the factual statements you've claimed to have made in this debate, especially the one concerning what would happen should players be allowed to play. You said I hadn't refuted it (I definitely refuted your argument for parity not being a consequence of a pay-for-play system), so I assume you have a source to back this claim.
I never claimed those statement to be absolute facts. I claimed that common sense was on my side when making the statements about recruiting because it is. There is no way to provide 100% factual evidence either way on whether recruiting would be affected by paying players but my stance at least has logic behind it and some sort of example behind it which I will get to later.

Quote:
We're arguing college football now, not athletic programs as a whole, so the first article is totally irrelevant to the debate at hand.
If you actually read the whole article then you'd see the part where it said only 57% of FOOTBALL PROGRAMS make a profit.
Quote:
All of this is to say the following: profitability has been on an upward trend for college football programs. The only relevant season to look at would be last year's season (until the statistics for this year come out, of course).
It may be an upward trend but still not enough for most schools to be able to pay there players.

Quote:
Read what I wrote to your first passage. Also, if arguing about this is such a moot point, then why was it chosen as a debate topic? Furthermore, why has it sparked so much academic debate?
All I said was that we are taking two completely different routes to how we are debating the topic. However, I believe the route I chose to be the more relevant one.

Quote:
So, you're essentially agreeing with me here that the best schools already get the best players? Why would paying them make a difference then? They're just going to get a bunch of people they don't want knocking at their door.
Because money gives those schools even more of an advantage.
Quote:
I don't understand this because it's completely false.
How so? There are nearly 20 schools that have made around 20 million dollars profit recently. That is sure as fuck more then one or two.
Quote:
For the millionth time, there are more than 500 players available each year, and you already agreed with me that they are already recruited by the most profitable schools. How would paying them be any different?
I never said there weren't more. I stated that once you get past 500 players the talent is obviously going to drop off somewhat. There aren't a thousand players out there that are all equal in talent. Top talent is already hard to recruit to the non big name schools. Adding money makes it even tougher. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Quote:
Erm, you might to think of better example; all eight of these schools finished in the top 50 for profits in the 2009-2010 season. They won't have any problem whatsoever recruiting players in a pay-for-play system.
That was just random in state schools off the top of my head. The point remains the same. Texas A&M may have had a nice profit but it was still just 1/3 of what Texas had. Miami and Florida State would both struggle recruiting against Florida. Pitt would be in trouble against Penn State.

Quote:
Tell me how this is relevant to the debate. This is a forgone conclusion, man; of course they're going to go to the school with the most profit. Does their going to the school with the most profit automatically mean that the school(s) they rejected won't be able to get an equally talented player? We've already agreed that the recruitment pool every year is deep; I fail to see how someone can be so much more significantly talented than another player that they'll create a huge disparity between teams. For every USC middle linebacker recruit, there are a 100 more out there waiting to be picked up by a school.
And most of those hundred more are not nearly as talented and may not make more of an impact then the one. Especially since the next ten middle linebackers in line will be more likely then ever to go to other big profit schools.
Quote:
A pay-for-play scheme would do nothing to create disparity between FBS football programs. Recruitment pools are too deep and almost all of these schools would be able to offer their players some form of monetary compensation (they'd all be able to offer monetary compensation should they join a conference with an automatic BCS bid).
Here's an example to show why you are wrong. Let's look at a school like SMU from the early 80's. They were a decent program in the late 70's but nothing special. Then their boosters started illegally paying players (it was happening in other schools in the conference to but SMU was offering more). All of the sudden SMU rose to the top of the conference and at one point to the top of college football until their program got under fire for recruiting violations. Obviously SMU illegally offering more money and incentives then the other schools around them helped them to be better then the other schools so why would making it part of college football not do the same thing? The other schools were still getting talent too but not as much and not the same caliber thus they weren't as good.

Quote:
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I've already overcome this objection at least 5 times.
You keep telling yourself that.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:27 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

Closing Statement


College athletes should not be paid. It may be unfair to some big name football programs but a few programs in one sport does not make up college athletics. There are tons of sports and tons of athletes and there is not any realistic way to pay the players from profitable programs without getting rid of tons of other sports.

College is about preparing for your future and finding your career path, and many college athletes get the chance to do that while still playing a sport that they love and often times is the reason that they have gotten to college. There may be some hypothetical situations where football players from profitable programs could make some money but to do that it would be at the expense of many other sports and also at the expense of many other athletes. There aren't any scholarships given out for intramural or club sports. Paying football players would mean potentially ending the sporting lives AND harming the future of thousands of other student athletes. Not all athletes have the grades or finances to get into a decent school without scholarships for the sport they play in.

Potentially getting rid of other sports and making them all club sports just to pay some football players is not only something that realistically could never happen, it is something that morally should never happen. If all collegiate sports were profitable then by all means I'd say pay the athletes, but you can't pay a select few athletes at the expense of many others.
__________________
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 07:32 PM.

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