Topic #2, Group #1: Should College/University Athletes Be Paid

Discussion in 'Sports Debater's League' started by klunderbunker, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. CH David

    CH David A Jock That Loves Pepsi

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    770
    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.

    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.

    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?
     
    #26
  2. Cena's Little Helper

    Cena's Little Helper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    1,509
    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.
     
    #27
    LSN80 likes this.
  3. Big Sexy

    Big Sexy Deadly Rap Cannibal

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    789
    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.

    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."

    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.

    If you actually read the whole article then you'd see the part where it said only 57% of FOOTBALL PROGRAMS make a profit.
    It may be an upward trend but still not enough for most schools to be able to pay there players.

    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.

    Because money gives those schools even more of an advantage.
    How so? There are nearly 20 schools that have made around 20 million dollars profit recently. That is sure as **** more then one or two.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    You keep telling yourself that.
     
    #28
  4. Big Sexy

    Big Sexy Deadly Rap Cannibal

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    789
    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.
     
    #29

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"