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 01-09-2011, 04:39 PM
gd's Avatar
gd gd is offline
Plump, Juicy User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 2,716
gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN
Really? Paying a student athlete $10.00 an hour for a 30 hour work week would really put such a dent in the university's finances?
Actually, I'm sure it would. Take that money you're proposing (8,000 a year per student, approximately) and multiply that by every single student athlete and you are in the millions of dollars range. That surely is a significant figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN
College athletes do everything professional athletes do, if not more. They practice almost year round, with two a days during the season, not to mention mandatory workouts. They sell merchandise, garner huge television deals, and compete for championships, all while having to get an education at the same time.
The bold part is what I realy question. They have to get an education? How bout they are privleged to be getting an education, an education they may not have the oppurtunity at unless it was for the fact that they were blessed with great athletic genes. Your thought process is quite contorted here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN
Because of their hard work, they pump money back into the place they're playing at because of this. The only difference is that while professional athletes are getting compensated for the money they pump back in to their employers, student athletes are not. 71% of them aren't even getting compensated by way of that full ride you noted. They should be in some other form for doing their job, and that's financially.
Here is where your argument gets a little shaky. You're assuming that all student athlete pump money back into the schools, which is false. At most schools, basketball and football are the only profitable sports. All of the other ones cost the university money to run, for the most part. And virtually all football and basketball players, at least the ones that are pumping money into the university, as you would say, are on full ride athletic scholarships, which we all can agree is enough of an education.

Instead of basing everything you say off some sketchy study from 5+ years ago, you should really just be using some common sense when looking at the situation. It's quite a simple argument, really.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyourinmaru View Post
it's a prestarted family. My Girlfriend has a 3 year old
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2011, 05:07 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
Actually, I'm sure it would. Take that money you're proposing (8,000 a year per student, approximately) and multiply that by every single student athlete and you are in the millions of dollars range. That surely is a significant figure.
Im not proposing that they get paid year round. Only during the actual season. I made that point in my earlier post, you're picking and choosing what parts of my argument you want to single out and distort to make your point.

Because their time and energy is spent in athletics and academics, they don't have time to work during the season. Their sport is their job. Like regular students, they can get jobs during the off-season. the title of the thread was "Should College athletes be paid for their time on the court?", not "Should they be paid all year round?" Paying them for 4 months would be quite less of a financial burden on the College or University then you proposed. Students who work other on-campus jobs get paid similarly, how is there a difference for those who work as athletes? There isn't.

Quote:
The bold part is what I realy question. They have to get an education? How bout they are privleged to be getting an education, an education they may not have the oppurtunity at unless it was for the fact that they were blessed with great athletic genes. Your thought process is quite contorted here.
Noted. The flaw here in your logic is that while all students are priviledged to get an education, student athletes are required to get one. NCAA regulation's mandate that student athletes maintain a GPA of 2.0 in order to continue to play, scholarship athlete or not. I was a scholarship basketball player for one year where I was forced to maintain a 2.5 in order to stay on the team. So yes, in order to compete at a collegiate level, an education is a must.Anyone who gets an education is fortunate and blessed, student athlete or not.

Quote:
Here is where your argument gets a little shaky. You're assuming that all student athlete pump money back into the schools, which is false. At most schools, basketball and football are the only profitable sports. All of the other ones cost the university money to run, for the most part. And virtually all football and basketball players, at least the ones that are pumping money into the university, as you would say, are on full ride athletic scholarships, which we all can agree is enough of an education.
And many of the student athletes whose sports dont pump money back into their university are forced to pay for their own equipment, and have fundraisers in order to get uniforms. Yet they're working just as hard as their counterparts that are making money for their schools. Im not arguing that all sports make money for their schools, Im arguing that the sum of all sports revenue could bring much more money into the schools then the cost. The person who mans the desk at the library doesn't bring money into the university either, but they're still compensated for it. From the football player to the the women's tennis player, they're putting far more time and energy into their job then someone who checks out books. As such, they should get paid for it. If you have the breakdown of what sports are most profitable, and who are on scholarship, Id love to see it. Because right now, all you're giving is your opinion.


Quote:
Instead of basing everything you say off some sketchy study from 5+ years ago, you should really just be using some common sense when looking at the situation. It's quite a simple argument, really.
Shaky? There was a 3 percent margain of error, if you read the entire thing. That's the farthest thing from shaky. I also used Thriller's USA Today study, which I mentioned, statistics from the NCAA's own website, and my own experience as a former student athlete. Not to mention the points I made about increasing graduation rates, decreasing the influence of boosters and agents, and several others. Im also basing what Im saying on the idea that the dedication, hard work, time, and health student athletes put into their sports goes largely unrewarded for most. Common sense would dictate that they should be compensated in some way.

The simple argument is this. Schools overpay for things such as coaches and facilities at the expense of both scholarships and funds for their students. While these students bring money into the school, they arent rewarded in turn. They should be. That's my simple argument, you can read my longer one above.

Im checking out for the night, but Ill be back tomorrow to debate this further if needed.
__________________

Last edited by LSN80 : 01-09-2011 at 05:28 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2011, 05:55 PM
Megatron's Avatar
Megatron Megatron is offline
Justin Verlander > You
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 887
Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

I'm going to say that no, college athletes shouldn't get paid. I believe that college athletics is nothing more then a hobby, and for most sports, there's only a small percentage of kids that will make it in the pros. So, if they're lacking in money, they should either stop playing their sport and get a job, or try and get their funds up during their offseason. While that seems harsh in words, it's a tough reality. These kids are student athletes, and as such, should focus on their studies first, not their athletics. If the workload combined between the two is too much, they should give up their sport, even if they've been playing it since they were young, and focus on their education.

Because let's face it, are you going to pay the golfer as much as you would the football player? No. Football brings in cash, golf doesn't. But if you pay the football player something you have to pay the golf player something as well, in the interest of fairness.

And let's be honest, their 'pay' should be an education. They don't need sports, and life will go on with or without them in it. However, if they want to make it in life, they will need an education, which is what it should be all about.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-09-2011, 08:41 PM
gd's Avatar
gd gd is offline
Plump, Juicy User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 2,716
gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN80 View Post
Im not proposing that they get paid year round. Only during the actual season. I made that point in my earlier post, you're picking and choosing what parts of my argument you want to single out and distort to make your point.
But according to your plan why shouldn't they get paid year round when they put just as much time in? And do student athletes from different sports get paid different amounts? What if they make it farther in the postseason, do they get paid more? What happens in case of an injury on the "job"? Do they get benefits? Are their salaries negotioble? How do they vary from school to school? These are all questions you need to ask yourself and complications with the whole paying students system. It's simply too difficult.

Quote:
Because their time and energy is spent in athletics and academics, they don't have time to work during the season. Their sport is their job. Like regular students, they can get jobs during the off-season. the title of the thread was "Should College athletes be paid for their time on the court?", not "Should they be paid all year round?" Paying them for 4 months would be quite less of a financial burden on the College or University then you proposed. Students who work other on-campus jobs get paid similarly, how is there a difference for those who work as athletes? There isn't.
But student athletes are already getting paid in the form of scholarships which other students are not receiving and are receiving other extra benefits because of their athletic gifts. Regardless of your study, which is outdated anyway, athletes are already receiving more benefits than average students.


Quote:
Noted. The flaw here in your logic is that while all students are priviledged to get an education, student athletes are required to get one. NCAA regulation's mandate that student athletes maintain a GPA of 2.0 in order to continue to play, scholarship athlete or not. I was a scholarship basketball player for one year where I was forced to maintain a 2.5 in order to stay on the team. So yes, in order to compete at a collegiate level, an education is a must.Anyone who gets an education is fortunate and blessed, student athlete or not.
Don't see your point here. If you told me I could go to college for free if I maintained a C average I'd be estatic. Am I supposed to feel pity for athletes who need to keep their grades above D's so that they get a free education?


And many of the student athletes whose sports dont pump money back into their university are forced to pay for their own equipment, and have fundraisers in order to get uniforms. Yet they're working just as hard as their counterparts that are making money for their schools. Im not arguing that all sports make money for their schools, Im arguing that the sum of all sports revenue could bring much more money into the schools then the cost. The person who mans the desk at the library doesn't bring money into the university either, but they're still compensated for it. From the football player to the the women's tennis player, they're putting far more time and energy into their job then someone who checks out books. As such, they should get paid for it. If you have the breakdown of what sports are most profitable, and who are on scholarship, Id love to see it. Because right now, all you're giving is your opinion.


Here you go. Student athletes are not actually brining money in after all. Like I said, football and men's basketball are the only sports brining in any money, and even so only about half of them are profitable. 1/4 of the universities revenue from athletics is going directly back to the athletes in the form of grants or scholarships. Universities are already paying nearly $80,000 a year per student athlete, they certainly can't afford to pay them any more. That'd just drive up tuition for everyone else to even more ridiculous numbers than it already is.

http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...by-the-number/
Click for Spoiler:
College Athletics By The Numbers: A Deeper Look at Profitability

A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money.

12% of college athletic programs are profitable.

Which college athletic sports are profitable?

According to the NCAA study, only two sports were reported by any university as being profitable:

■Football
■Menís Basketball
Letís take a closer lookÖ

■Football
■There is a lot of discussion about football keeping athletic departments alive. Yes, football is one of only two sports (menís basketball being the other) that ANY university reported as being profitable. At the same time, however, only 57% of football programs reported being profitable. Thus the other 43% of football programs are still part of the problem.
■Menís Basketball
■As the only other profitable sport that any university reported, menís basketball is also considered an important aspect of keeping college athletics alive. Once again, however, keep in mind that roughly 57% of menís basketball programs reported being profitable, so there is a large percentage of menís basketball programs losing money.
How do college athletic departments MAKE money?

Three items account for over 50% of revenues:

■Ticket Sales (17%)
■Alumni/booster donations (27%)
■NCAA/conference distribution (14%)
How do college athletic departments SPEND money?

Two items account for over 50% of expenses:

■Salaries and benefits (32%)
■Scholarships (Grants In Aid) (25%)
In case you are curious, here are a few other items as a percentage of total expenses:

■Facilities maintenance and rental (13%)
■Team travel (7%)
■Recruiting (2%)
■Equipment/uniforms/supplies (3%)
■Game expenses (4%)
The median expense per student athlete in 2009 was $76,000.

How much does a college athletic program cost each university?

Average assistance that each university gave to the athletic department was $10.2 million.

How do we improve college athletics moving forward?

There isnít an easy answer although simple math tells us that a start would be to reduce costs and increase revenue. As witnessed yesterday by Calís decision to cut five sports, universities are less willing to keep athletic programs alive so itís time for college athletic programs to be self sustaining.

Decrease Spending

While salaries and scholarships arenít necessarily easy to reduce as they are driven by outside factors (salaries of competing positions, tuition rises, etc), the data indicates its the first place to look in terms of reducing costs. This could come in the form of fewer staff members per department/team, lower salaries for staff members within college athletics, or cutting athletic programs. As someone who has worked in sports business, I recognize sports already has low salaries (particularly lower level positions) but I recognize that in order for college athletics as we know it to continue changes need to be made. In my experience, there are opportunities for college athletics to become more efficient. What if conferences became responsible for marketing individual teams instead of the universities athletic departments? Or media rights were handled at the conference or NCAA level instead of the individual institution? I recognize a large percentage of expenses for salaries are on the field in the form of coaches so perhaps there need to be guidelines for coaching salaries in college athletics? Is it time to re-evaluate the scholarship model? Reduce scholarships? Offer various levels of scholarship based on academic standing, performance on team, etc? . Cutting expenses is always a tough task full of difficult decisions (see Cal), so I welcome any ideas in the comments.

Increase Revenue

The report doesnít explicitly state what ďNCAA and conference distributionsĒ are but presumably its an athletic programs cut of any revenues generated by the NCAA or conference on their behalf (TV, radio, etc). What are some other ways to increase revenue? There is talk that a football playoff would generate significantly more revenue but is that the answer? What about individual conferences forming their own network (similar to Big 10 network)? Will that generate enough revenue for athletic departments? Can other sports generate significant fan interest? I think the15,896 people who showed up to UC Santa Barbara to watch a college soccer game say yes.

What do you think? Iíve really enjoyed reading the debate the last few days on Twitter regarding college athletics and cutting sports programs so I welcome any ideas, or comments you have. What are some solutions for college athletics? Is there even a problem?





Quote:
Shaky? There was a 3 percent margain of error, if you read the entire thing. That's the farthest thing from shaky. I also used Thriller's USA Today study, which I mentioned, statistics from the NCAA's own website, and my own experience as a former student athlete. Not to mention the points I made about increasing graduation rates, decreasing the influence of boosters and agents, and several others. Im also basing what Im saying on the idea that the dedication, hard work, time, and health student athletes put into their sports goes largely unrewarded for most. Common sense would dictate that they should be compensated in some way.
I see what you're going for know. Just because you had a bad experience as a student athlete it doesn't mean you're automatically right and we should all be feeling sympathy for you. I call this the Stormtrooper Concussion Corralary.

Anyway, here's the main point I've been trying to make. Student athletes already simply get compensated more than other students because they are more physically gifted than them. There is no reason they should get even more benefits. Sure, college make suck financially for some student athletes, but it sucks for basically every student. Athletes don't need any more perks than they already have.

Quote:
The simple argument is this. Schools overpay for things such as coaches and facilities at the expense of both scholarships and funds for their students. While these students bring money into the school, they arent rewarded in turn. They should be. That's my simple argument, you can read my longer one above.
Being as they don't actually bring money into the school, for the most part, this is invalid, my friend.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyourinmaru View Post
it's a prestarted family. My Girlfriend has a 3 year old
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-10-2011, 12:00 AM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
But according to your plan why shouldn't they get paid year round when they put just as much time in? And do student athletes from different sports get paid different amounts? What if they make it farther in the postseason, do they get paid more? What happens in case of an injury on the "job"? Do they get benefits? Are their salaries negotioble? How do they vary from school to school? These are all questions you need to ask yourself and complications with the whole paying students system. It's simply too difficult.
.
I never said they put in as much time during the offseason. They put in time, but not as much during the regular season. But I digress.

I agree. The questions you asked are ones that need to be asked and answered along the lines of paying the student. The idea that they can't be answered them is ludicrous. If you work overtime in your profession(postseason), you get paid more. Different jobs, varying on level of importance(basketball vs. volleyball), are paid accordingly. I work in the mental health field. One company paid me $3.00 more an hour then the other(varying within schools). Its called designing a business structure, by the school, and sticking to it. When you're injured on your job in life, you get paid workmans compansation benefits(injured playing a sport). Does the regular college student who works an hourly on-campus job receive benefits?(correlation to athletes) Come on man, this is easy here. If i can answer your questions, with no business acumen whatsoever, the NCAA, or its solo colleges and universities, certainly can.

Quote:
But student athletes are already getting paid in the form of scholarships which other students are not receiving and are receiving other extra benefits because of their athletic gifts. Regardless of your study, which is outdated anyway, athletes are already receiving more benefits than average students.
Some are. Actually few are. You don't like my "outdated study", which is hardly the case being that its five years old. Would you argue that things have changed so much in five years that the 71% number of students who DONT receive full scholarships and benefits isn't close to being accurate?

Just because some are receiving more benefits then others, that has nothing to do with them being compensated. They're sacrificing alot to receive said benefits, and depending on their family's income level, many are almost forced to stoop to dubious means to just have spending money. Paying them would eliminate much of this. There will always be agents and boosters and students will always be greedy, but paying the student will curtail this highly.

Quote:
Don't see your point here. If you told me I could go to college for free if I maintained a C average I'd be estatic. Am I supposed to feel pity for athletes who need to keep their grades above D's so that they get a free education?
WHo said anything about you feeling pity for them? This is about paying them, correct? Its difficult to maintain a full academic workload while playing a sport, full time. My point is that they can't simply play sports, they have to get an education. You said they simply should feel priviledged. When you're forced to do something, that's not a priviledge. I understand its a requirement that comes with a scholarship, and acknowlegded ahead of time. But its a requirement, nonetheless.

Quote:
Here you go. Student athletes are not actually brining money in after all. Like I said, football and men's basketball are the only sports brining in any money, and even so only about half of them are profitable. 1/4 of the universities revenue from athletics is going directly back to the athletes in the form of grants or scholarships. Universities are already paying nearly $80,000 a year per student athlete, they certainly can't afford to pay them any more. That'd just drive up tuition for everyone else to even more ridiculous numbers than it already is.
Sure they can. It's called a restructuring of the current business model under which they operate. The results of the study you posted noted that the Number 1 expense for college athletics was coaches. Not student-athletes, coaches. If universities were to stop throwing multi-million dollar contracts at these celebrity coaches and reduce unneeded staff, the money would be there to compensate the athlete. Its not the idea of compensating the athlete that is wrong, it's the current business structure universities operate under that is the real problem. Your article argued as much.


Quote:
I see what you're going for know. Just because you had a bad experience as a student athlete it doesn't mean you're automatically right and we should all be feeling sympathy for you. I call this the Stormtrooper Concussion Corralary.
This is hilarious. If you had bothered to read my opening post, you would have noticed that my knee injury and losing my scholarship was the BEST thing that's ever happened to me. It allowed me to focus on my education and get a job within my career field while STILL in college making 24 grand my senior year. The only job I could get while as a student was, at most, 10 hours a week making $6.50 an hour. Call it whatever you want, but your wrong.


Quote:
Anyway, here's the main point I've been trying to make. Student athletes already simply get compensated more than other students because they are more physically gifted than them. There is no reason they should get even more benefits. Sure, college make suck financially for some student athletes, but it sucks for basically every student. Athletes don't need any more perks than they already have.
And the points Im trying to make a three-fold. The benefits that the student athletes are receving are hardly compensary to ther amount of sacrifice and labor they put in to their university, which then puts money back into the universities pockets. How the university chooses to use that money shouldn't be at the expense at the student/athlete. Often is. Most of them will still leave college with debt. Most. Call a five year study outdated all you like, but its quite the leap to make to think that those statistics have changed drastically within the last five years.

Second, these students are often doing their "jobs' at the expense of their education, and further employment advancement. 1% of student athletes are able to go pro. That means 99% will have to find something else to do to make money. The problem is, while the non-student athlete is able to use their time not in class earning money and furthering their employment pursuits while still in college, the student athlete often cannot. Because athletics are becoming more year round now then ever, it becomes increasingly difficult on said athlete. The least that can be done to reward them for their hard work is a small paycheck.

Finally, when's the last time you've gone a week turning on ESPN daily and HAVEN'T heard of some sort of financial inpropriety by a student athlete? Cam Newton is just the last big name example. Im not saying that paying the student athlete will complete eliminate the problem, but it will certainly serve as a reasonable way to help curtail it. This benefits both the university and the student when less inpropriety occurs.
__________________

Last edited by LSN80 : 01-10-2011 at 12:19 AM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2011, 05:21 PM
newc868's Avatar
newc868 newc868 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 188
newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

They shouldn't be paid at all because as it's already been mentioned - they get a full scholarship pro bono.

If you begin to pay them as well, I think it's just ludicrous. I don't care if you're the star Running Back or potential All-Star guard, you're there doing a course, mostly so that in case you suffer a career-ending injury or you just don't do as well as predicted - you have a back up.

I mean you only have to take a look at someone like Ryan Leaf who did a Bill Lesnar and believed his own hype around himself and although he ultimately failed in the NFL, he had nothing else to fall back and now he's in jail. This type of thing can be avoided by simply letting them have that back up option, whether it's a communications degree or a business degree - they have a degree. End. Of.

The film Coach Carter, which is based on real life events, best sums up what I'm trying to say. Despite his player being gifted, they needed to know that sport isn't the be all and end all. When you finish up playing - which is say around 35 - then you've still got another half of a life ahead of you.

Paying the players before they've earned the right to call themselves professionals is ridiculous and shouldn't be done at any rate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Man View Post
AJ... Tiny girl, juicy ass. It just doesn't make sense but I don't fucking care.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2011, 08:37 PM
gd's Avatar
gd gd is offline
Plump, Juicy User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 2,716
gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN80 View Post
I agree. The questions you asked are ones that need to be asked and answered along the lines of paying the student. The idea that they can't be answered them is ludicrous. If you work overtime in your profession(postseason), you get paid more. Different jobs, varying on level of importance(basketball vs. volleyball), are paid accordingly. I work in the mental health field. One company paid me $3.00 more an hour then the other(varying within schools). Its called designing a business structure, by the school, and sticking to it. When you're injured on your job in life, you get paid workmans compansation benefits(injured playing a sport). Does the regular college student who works an hourly on-campus job receive benefits?(correlation to athletes) Come on man, this is easy here. If i can answer your questions, with no business acumen whatsoever, the NCAA, or its solo colleges and universities, certainly can.
Paying different amounts for different sports, especially men and women's sports, can get real hairy, real fast. Also, if the amount varies by school, that could be a huge problem. Let's say the University of Alabama can pay their football players tens of thousands of dollars more than any other football program. You don't think that'd be a problem?

Quote:
Some are. Actually few are. You don't like my "outdated study", which is hardly the case being that its five years old. Would you argue that things have changed so much in five years that the 71% number of students who DONT receive full scholarships and benefits isn't close to being accurate?
It may be close, it may not be. I haven't seen a definitive, updated study on the matter.

Quote:
Just because some are receiving more benefits then others, that has nothing to do with them being compensated. They're sacrificing alot to receive said benefits, and depending on their family's income level, many are almost forced to stoop to dubious means to just have spending money. Paying them would eliminate much of this. There will always be agents and boosters and students will always be greedy, but paying the student will curtail this highly.
Paying players surely will not curtail things such as boosters. It will only worsen the problem. If some booster wanted his school to win so badly that he was willing to pay the nation's top recruit, say, a million dollars a year, wouldn't that be a huge issue. According to your system this would be perfectly legal, I suppose.


Quote:
WHo said anything about you feeling pity for them? This is about paying them, correct? Its difficult to maintain a full academic workload while playing a sport, full time. My point is that they can't simply play sports, they have to get an education. You said they simply should feel priviledged. When you're forced to do something, that's not a priviledge. I understand its a requirement that comes with a scholarship, and acknowlegded ahead of time. But its a requirement, nonetheless.
I think we're straying a little from the argument with this point, I admit. Still, they should have to maintain a decent GPA is they want to stay on scholarship, which once again is a privlege, like I said before. Anyway, we're still not on point here it seems. Disregard this garbage.

Quote:
Sure they can. It's called a restructuring of the current business model under which they operate. The results of the study you posted noted that the Number 1 expense for college athletics was coaches. Not student-athletes, coaches. If universities were to stop throwing multi-million dollar contracts at these celebrity coaches and reduce unneeded staff, the money would be there to compensate the athlete. Its not the idea of compensating the athlete that is wrong, it's the current business structure universities operate under that is the real problem. Your article argued as much.
Yes, college coaches are paid ridiculous salaries, but this really doesn't have as much to do with athletes as you say. Even if they did reduce coaches salaries it isn't like most colleges would suddenly have the money to pay all of their athletes significant amounts since they're already operating in the red. Reducing spending on coaches would simply get them a little closer to breaking even.

Quote:
This is hilarious. If you had bothered to read my opening post, you would have noticed that my knee injury and losing my scholarship was the BEST thing that's ever happened to me. It allowed me to focus on my education and get a job within my career field while STILL in college making 24 grand my senior year. The only job I could get while as a student was, at most, 10 hours a week making $6.50 an hour. Call it whatever you want, but your wrong.
My bad, I suppose. This in fact is not the Stormtrooper Corallary. Also, you're


Quote:
And the points Im trying to make a three-fold. The benefits that the student athletes are receving are hardly compensary to ther amount of sacrifice and labor they put in to their university, which then puts money back into the universities pockets.
But it doesn't but money back into the universities pockets, I already said that. The study shows most schools are losing money.

Quote:
How the university chooses to use that money shouldn't be at the expense at the student/athlete. Often is. Most of them will still leave college with debt. Most. Call a five year study outdated all you like, but its quite the leap to make to think that those statistics have changed drastically within the last five years.
Most of them may leave college with some debt. But a) it isn't the athletes that are actually brining in any significant money. And b) it isn't really a significant figure, compared to normal student. The average came out to something like $4,000 a year in student loans, which is paltry compared to what most normal students have to pay.

Quote:
Second, these students are often doing their "jobs' at the expense of their education, and further employment advancement. 1% of student athletes are able to go pro. That means 99% will have to find something else to do to make money. The problem is, while the non-student athlete is able to use their time not in class earning money and furthering their employment pursuits while still in college, the student athlete often cannot. Because athletics are becoming more year round now then ever, it becomes increasingly difficult on said athlete. The least that can be done to reward them for their hard work is a small paycheck.
The normal students may have more time to work, but where is that money going, for the most part? To their schooling, which a lot of athletes don't have to worry about at all. They don't need any more money on top of that.

Quote:
Finally, when's the last time you've gone a week turning on ESPN daily and HAVEN'T heard of some sort of financial inpropriety by a student athlete? Cam Newton is just the last big name example. Im not saying that paying the student athlete will complete eliminate the problem, but it will certainly serve as a reasonable way to help curtail it. This benefits both the university and the student when less inpropriety occurs.

I still don't see how allowing student athletes to be compensated will solve the problems of agents and whatnot. If you start paying athletes, you're simply opening up a whole new Pandora's Box of issues.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyourinmaru View Post
it's a prestarted family. My Girlfriend has a 3 year old
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2011, 11:54 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
Paying different amounts for different sports, especially men and women's sports, can get real hairy, real fast. Also, if the amount varies by school, that could be a huge problem. Let's say the University of Alabama can pay their football players tens of thousands of dollars more than any other football program. You don't think that'd be a problem?

I still don't see how allowing student athletes to be compensated will solve the problems of agents and whatnot. If you start paying athletes, you're simply opening up a whole new Pandora's Box of issues.[/
No, because of scholarship limits that are placed on programs by the NCAA to begin with. With most schools being in the red, as you claim, where would the money come for such a ludicrous sum of money to be paid? Certainly not from the school, right? Even if they were to get money to pay out to one student, the parity would still be there for other universities to be able to recruit players. It wouldn't cause as big a problem as you propose, because of the scholarship limits that are placed on schools, as well as the financial burden that would be gross negligence in spending by the University.

Athletic academics getting paid would help to curtail the improprities in college sports. Knowing that they had money coming in would give students less of a reason to risk their future with the university and the dents to both the image of themselves and the University. Nothing is foolproof, and there will always be the greedy few. But the knowledge of a paycheck is motivation to anybody. By paying students, you're putting a serious dent in those issues that already exist. If I can convince you of one thing in that, its that they would be putting a serious dent in the inpropriety, because those students would already be making money.


Quote:
Paying players surely will not curtail things such as boosters. It will only worsen the problem. If some booster wanted his school to win so badly that he was willing to pay the nation's top recruit, say, a million dollars a year, wouldn't that be a huge issue. According to your system this would be perfectly legal, I suppose.
And my system was that students are paid $10.00 an hour for a 30 hour work week. And for there to be set boundaries put in place by the University across the board for programs. They couldn't pay one football player more then the other, or one basketball player more then the other. So said booster would have to pay the kicker as much as pays the starting QB. I don't see that happening.

Athletic academics getting paid would help to curtail the improprities in college sports. Knowing that they had money coming in would give students less of a reason to risk their future with the university and the dents to both the image of themselves and the University. Nothing is foolproof, and there will always be the greedy few. But the knowledge of a paycheck is motivation to anybody.

Quote:
I think we're straying a little from the argument with this point, I admit. Still, they should have to maintain a decent GPA is they want to stay on scholarship, which once again is a privlege, like I said before. Anyway, we're still not on point here it seems. Disregard this garbage.
Duly noted, and Ive yet to object to this.

Quote:
Yes, college coaches are paid ridiculous salaries, but this really doesn't have as much to do with athletes as you say. Even if they did reduce coaches salaries it isn't like most colleges would suddenly have the money to pay all of their athletes significant amounts since they're already operating in the red. Reducing spending on coaches would simply get them a little closer to breaking even.
Why wouldn't it? According to the study you provided, the number one reason for spending within college sports is on coaches. Not on the scholarship money to all of the players, its to the coaches. Facilities was the number 3 reason. This has been one of my my arguments. By reducing large expenditures on facilities and coaches, the money would be there for the players. The money is there to pay the coaches somehow, right? With that logic, the money would certainly be there to pay the players by reducing wasteful spending.


Quote:
But it doesn't but money back into the universities pockets, I already said that. The study shows most schools are losing money.
Most of them may leave college with some debt. But a) it isn't the athletes that are actually brining in any significant money. And b) it isn't really a significant figure, compared to normal student. The average came out to something like $4,000 a year in student loans, which is paltry compared to what most normal students have to pay.
The average actually came about to be approximately quite more then this. Around $14,500, to be exact, amongst all student athletes, according to the study done by the Fourtune 100 Company The Hartford Financial. As for the argument regarding universities not making money, there's this:

Click for Spoiler:
Quote:
Source:Huffington Post
1. University of Texas At Austin: $68,830,484
2. University of Georgia: $52,529,885
3. Pennsylvania State University: $50,427,645
4. University of Michigan: $44,861,184
5. University of Florida: $44,258,193
6. Louisiana State University: $43,253,286
7. University of Alabama At Tuscaloosa: $40,766,391
8. University of Tennessee: $39,236,601
9. Auburn University: $38,251,007
10. University of Oklahoma: $38,145,119
11. University of South Carolina: $35,471,948
12. University of Notre Dame: $34,672,275



This study shows the profits of the top College Football teams in 2009/10. Just the College Football teams. They're making a hefty sum of money here. I wasn't arguing this to be an issue of fairness, one that students be paid to play. Texas came out on top at $69 million dollars a year. Surely, they can afford to pay their players something out of that, as this is a figure based on profit, not on revenue. So the universities just referenced, on average, are making approximately $500,000 a piece(rounding) off of the 85 scholarships they are giving out to their players. That's alot of money that those players are generating back to the school. Im not arguing that there isn't cost, Im arguing that the players are bringing in substancial amounts of money to their schools, and should be paid in kind. I argued that student athletes should be paid compensatory to their value to the Institution. But for those making the sacrifice, some sort of payment should be afforded.

Quote:
The normal students may have more time to work, but where is that money going, for the most part? To their schooling, which a lot of athletes don't have to worry about at all. They don't need any more money on top of that.
This is based on speculation, nothing more. And for the 99% of student athletes who aren't getting paid, they're having to worry about paying back that same schooling that those who are able to work are. The difference is, they don't have the time the others do. They're already dropped further behind in the overall timeline of being able to make money then the other students do. Rewarding them financially is the least the college or University can do to the masses, as most student-athletes are having to pay back financial loans, and large ones at that.
__________________

Last edited by LSN80 : 01-11-2011 at 12:15 AM.
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 04:23 PM.

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