User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » why we should legalize paying collegiate athletes Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

you don't think they are required to be at certain places at certain times, 50-60 hours a week? do explain...

4/17/2014 10:06:20 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

Scholarship students have to spend 20-40 hours per week depending on their scholarship. Now compare that to athletes benefits and time.

4/17/2014 11:40:32 PM

ncstatetke
All American
41128 Posts
user info
edit post

87% of scholarship students have a high paying job within 4 years of graduating

compare that to 14% of scholarship athletes

4/17/2014 11:46:09 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ source? I've seen very few academic scholarships with that kind of time commitment. Even if we accept that bogus estimate, it still doesn't compare to the athlete's 50-60 hours a week.

4/17/2014 11:59:30 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

There is a major difference between scholarship students and scholarship athletes. Scholarship students are near (or at) the top of their class, while many scholarship athletes (mostly in football, basketball, etc.) are not even ready for college. Look at all of the programs that have accepted illiterate athletes. It has to do with their ability and aptitude, also athletes tend to major in things that are not useful or marketable. How many football players have you meet that majored in engineering, physics, math, chem, etc.? Probably few to none. Like I said before, it is their option to take advantage of the opportunity that is given to them. If they decide to throw it away, that is their choice.

4/17/2014 11:59:47 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

Like I said. The athletes have to spend more time because they get more benefits. Also, how about you check in with any of the requirements for major scholarships. Park, goodnight, etc.

4/18/2014 12:00:34 AM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

It's funny that you say "look up the Park scholarship." let's see what it says:
Quote :
"Q: Does being a Park Scholar take a lot of time?

A: Park Scholars do spend time on service and program activities. A student should expect to spend about the same time on Park Scholarships activities as he or she might spend in a three credit-hour university course."

In other words, that's not 20-40 hours per week, unless you think a 15-credit hour course load corresponds to 100-200 hours per week of classwork.

I can't find any information about Goodnight scholarship time commitments, so, again, I'll ask you: "source? I've seen very few academic scholarships with that kind of time commitment. "



but still, "athletes spend a lot of time." Kind of like, they're obligated to spend that time there? In the same way that I'm obligated to spend 40 hours a week or more at my job?

4/18/2014 12:04:47 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

That's their basic requirements. If you knew a park scholar you would realize that they dedicate several hours each day to their program. They have to take an actual class (which is 3 credit hours) which is what you are referring to.

4/18/2014 12:07:00 AM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

You obviously don't know what you're talking about at this point. Their program website says "spend time on activities equivalent to a 3-hour course." It says nothing about "they take a 3-hour course plus they do a bunch of other stuff." All you have to do is provide a source to back up your source-less claims. I'm waiting.

4/18/2014 12:09:53 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm waiting for you to actually give a response to my entire post instead of picking apart single lines. How about you actually produce evidence or examples for why we need to pay student athletes. I don't have to defend anything because we don't pay athletes as of current. So unless if you can explain why they should be paid, I'm going to respond that it would be incredibly stupid to pay athletes. And if you looked at my post you would realize that it is impossible (or nearly) for most programs to pay student athletes.

4/18/2014 12:12:47 AM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post

^^He or she is talking about the type of stuff listed at the bottom of this page:

http://park.ncsu.edu/about/

It's not 20-40 hours a week, but it's a time commitment.

It doesn't really belong in this debate anyway.

4/18/2014 12:16:18 AM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm asking you to support your own assertions. You said there are other numerous other "scholarships" where students are required to spend 20-40 hours per week on scholarship activities outside of the classroom. You mentioned the Park Scholarship, yet the website for it says no such thing. You could come up with some program material to support your claim, but you haven't.

Your basic claim is that athlete's "scholarships" are exactly the same as any other scholarship, yet no other scholarship I can think of requires 50-60 hours of activity in order to keep the scholarship (but I can think of many employment situations that require it). No other scholarship I can think of forbids the student from any other employment opportunities (but I can think of many employment contracts with such a stipulation). I don't need to respond to your entire post when its premise is so demonstrably false that it can be picked apart with one simple demonstration. I'm not saying that we should pay athletes; I'm saying that to pretend they are just like any other student with a scholarship is naive and simple-minded, and to ignore the parallels they have to employees at other institutions is just as stupid, which, not coincidentally, is exactly what the Chicago NLRB ruled recently.

^ right, bridget, there is some time, but it's nowhere near the level of commitment athletes have, nor is it even close to his claim of "20-40 hours per week," which is at least a part-time job.

4/18/2014 12:22:37 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

I didn't say that other scholarships require 50-60 hours/week, but if you notice athletic scholarships give so much more than academic scholarships.

4/18/2014 12:24:21 AM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post

How's that again?

4/18/2014 12:26:04 AM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ no, you said they required 20-40 hours a week, and you STILL haven't supported that assertion. And the "but athletic scholarships give more" argument is pure bullshit. There are plenty of full-ride scholarships that don't require 50-60 hours per week of extra-curricular activity. The notion that athletic students are "students first" falls completely apart when you demand they do the equivalent of a full-time job (plus overtime) in addition to their "studies".

4/18/2014 12:29:21 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

Fine, if they are not students then we need to stop bullshitting everyone. We all know that most athletes (especially the ones seeking this) are not students. They are given grades and they do not have to try for any of it. So they are only doing to work for their sports program. We need to abolish college sports then, make the NCAA the minor leagues, and let them pay them. That way schools don't have to subsidize the AD, the players get what they want, and there will be no bs about this.

4/18/2014 12:37:12 AM

thegoodlife3
All American
35363 Posts
user info
edit post

boy, that sure was a quick journey to seeing the light

4/18/2014 12:58:13 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

If you actually looked at my full post you would see I said that before. If 'student' athletes want to be paid then they should not be given a scholarship to attend school. They could pay for it with their own money then if they want to attend. Universities are places for learning, not routes to get to professional sports. It's an embarrassment that we are even having this discussion.

4/18/2014 1:04:15 AM

thegoodlife3
All American
35363 Posts
user info
edit post

universities are a route to become a professional in waaaaay more fields than athletics

it's just athletes are the ones who aren't able to play by the same rules

4/18/2014 1:21:48 AM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49266 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ ugh enough if this idealistic bullshit. UConn was a shitty regional school 35 years ago. Now it's a top 20 public school (top 60 nationally) due in large part to the success of the basketball program which increased applicants, donations and state investment in it. You are doing the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand if you don't think athletics has a MAJOR impact on the direction of a school.

And revenue athletes aren't regular students. Period. End of story.

(As an aside, Mark Emmert is a classless fuck. Enough with this ass clown. How did a guy who so egregiously fucked up a $200mm building program at a school to the point the state launched an investigation in to it rise to the rank of head of the NCAA???)

4/18/2014 9:34:31 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

Athletics does affect schools, but if we're having this conversation I can only see athletics negatively affecting most schools. Most schools AD are subsidized by the school itself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Take a look at state. We made around $3 mil profit while being subsidized $5 mil. So if athletes were to be paid then the schools would be subsidizing that, which is bs. Universities are education and research facilities first. We are taking budget cuts and we have to limit and/or cut off certain things now (such as open hours of buildings on campus, library academic database, etc.). Our school should not be subsidizing something that is not even making a full profit, so if they want even more then the school should stop subsidizing it.

I don't want State to go bankrupt because we're paying some 'student' athletes, who don't take their academics seriously, to go win three games a season without an in conference win. It's bs if anyone thinks they deserve more than what they are getting. If we start paying them, then where is the line for paying high schoolers, middle schoolers, or little league? The point is that they are NOT professional athletes. It is not their job to go out and work for that team. If they decide that they want the scholarship, that they want to put in the hours, that they want to risk injury, fine, but don't bs everyone and try to get paid.

4/18/2014 10:13:02 AM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49266 Posts
user info
edit post

I fundamentally disagree. It IS their job to go out and win games for the university. And no one is saying we are going to make them salaried employees like NBA players like you're making it out.

In your perfect world I suppose coaches shouldn't be paid either? You're advocating the abolishing of college sports in essence. It's a non-starter and I don't really see the point in even conversing about it.

The idea of subsidizing players is a far more likely and viable solution to the current question than whatever it is you're arguing for.

4/18/2014 10:16:55 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

And wow. I just checked. Our 'student' athletes actually make $10/hour (assuming they are instate, if they are out of state they make $18/hour. this includes a 50 hour work week, normal expenses http://www7.acs.ncsu.edu/financial_aid/costug.html , and it is post tax). Use this website to check me http://us.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/hourly.php

So no one can use the argument that their scholarship, housing (which might actually be more than the website because many athletes live in apartments), food, books, supplies, transportation, etc. is not enough.

They are making equivalent to $10/hour if they are in state. So, a few questions.
How do they deserve more?
Why do they deserve more?
How would the school afford it?
Why is the scholarship not enough?

4/18/2014 10:24:38 AM

Fry
The Stubby
7750 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you don't think they are required to be at certain places at certain times, 50-60 hours a week? do explain..."


they don't have to play sports at all.

4/18/2014 11:12:27 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

you're right. they have academics they have to worry about. They have to spend much more time on academics and extracurricular's to keep their scholarship. Athletes don't have to worry about academics, so they only have their sport.

4/18/2014 11:22:32 AM

BJCaudill21
Not an alcoholic
7888 Posts
user info
edit post

I think universities do enough for them. Just let johnny manziel sign his name for a couple bucks, or do a tv commercial for a few thousand or whatever. Why would that affect anything? If you're a non revenue or just not very good you get an education, if you're really good you probably have more opportunities for money, seems fine to me

4/18/2014 5:46:43 PM

TreeTwista10
Laugh, Think, Cry
141127 Posts
user info
edit post

How about we only pay student athletes if they're good Christians

http://www.thestate.com/2014/04/15/3389480/group-wants-clemson-swinney-to.html

4/18/2014 5:55:41 PM

laxman490
All American
2362 Posts
user info
edit post

We should stop calling them "athletic scholarships." what the hell are football players scholars of. Someone smarter than me should come up with a better term.

4/18/2014 6:05:38 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they don't have to play sports at all."

right, and they're off the team. and out of school.
kind of like I don't have to go to work every day. but then i lose my job. and stop getting paid.

4/21/2014 12:52:11 AM

Sayer
now with sarcasm
9841 Posts
user info
edit post

College athletes on scholarship are already getting paid.. with a scholarship. Depending on where they attend school, the total value of a scholarship can be $50k-100k and up. Add in the little things like 4 years of coaching, trainers, workout facilities, promotional opportunities, world travel, etc. and you have a really fucking hard time convincing me that these scholarship athletes are getting jipped by the system.

Quote :
"None of this shit will matter in 10 years anyway once all the football concussion lawsuits bankrupt the NCAA and all athletic departments."


As cynical as this statement is, and as unsure as I am about the proposed timeline, I find myself in strong agreement.

What would happen if all the revenue generated from college football went away in the present state/system of college athletics? It's the major financial driver of the institution currently, right?

What happens when a group of former college football players get together and realize that they have legal standing to start suing college athletic departments for damages due to football (damages in this case can either apply to physical damage sustained while playing for the school, or the school shortchanging the players on education)? What happens when the feeder system for football dries up, because Public School football programs can't afford the liability insurance for their teams? This is a discussion for another thread, but it has a direct impact on the discussion we're having here.

If nothing changes with the state of football as a whole in this country, football will collapse under the weight of a million lawsuits. There is nothing written anywhere that guarantees that football will maintain it's seat as the top of the sports totem pole. If football, the major revenue driver for all college sports dies, the system itself has a strong chance of collapsing and being reborn as something different.

[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2014 8:19:28 AM

BanjoMan
All American
9091 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"What would happen if all the revenue generated from college football went away in the present state/system of college athletics? It's the major financial driver of the institution currently, right? "


Actualy NO, infact Notre Dame is one of the few high revenue football schools where money actually goes back to the university. Other big name schools like UT don't see a penny from football revenues.

Quote :
"College athletes on scholarship are already getting paid.. with a scholarship. Depending on where they attend school, the total value of a scholarship can be $50k-100k and up. Add in the little things like 4 years of coaching, trainers, workout facilities, promotional opportunities, world travel, etc. and you have a really fucking hard time convincing me that these scholarship athletes are getting jipped by the system. "


CASH rules everything in the States. What good is a scholarship if the dude is out with his family and wants to go HAM on some BBQ? Also, many of those guys leave with degrees that make it difficult to find a job in the real world. It is not like they are churning out premeds or competitive engineering students. You are also not cosidering that the guys at the top are rolling in actual cash, whereas the workers in the trenches get a "scholarship".

Typical, epidemic, capitalism-gone-wrong bullshit.




[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 9:28 AM. Reason : d]

4/21/2014 9:24:23 AM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

You're right on everything. Except for the last thing about capitalism. I am wholeheartedly against the American system that produces inequalities, but college football players are NOT workers. You can't say they deserve pay, because they are not working. Also, why do they need extra money past a scholarship? I have to pay for my schooling by working, and I don't get any spending money at all. If I can do it, so can they if they have everything paid for.

4/21/2014 10:26:09 AM

OopsPowSrprs
All American
8383 Posts
user info
edit post

^ What they need doesn't matter. It only matters what they are worth.

You have to pay for your own education because no one is paying to watch you play football.

4/21/2014 10:58:12 AM

thegoodlife3
All American
35363 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" but college football players are NOT workers. You can't say they deserve pay, because they are not working."


are you implying that professional athletes aren't workers, either? if so, what are they getting paid for?

4/21/2014 11:57:21 AM

Sayer
now with sarcasm
9841 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Actualy NO, infact Notre Dame is one of the few high revenue football schools where money actually goes back to the university. Other big name schools like UT don't see a penny from football revenues."


No no you misread me. Football is the major source of revenue for the athletic department, not the academic institution. If football and it's associated revenue disappears, the entire financial model the modern collegiate athletic department depends on would collapse.

Everything changes if something happens to football.

Quote :
"CASH rules everything in the States. What good is a scholarship if the dude is out with his family and wants to go HAM on some BBQ? Also, many of those guys leave with degrees that make it difficult to find a job in the real world."


As good as a scholarship is for someone who doesn't play sports. You act like these kids can't have jobs while on scholarship. They can work a few hours and get cash like the rest of us. Don't act like you haven't seen a football player from State working at a club as a bouncer in the spring. Or in the C Store. And they can leave with whatever degree they earn. It's their choice what to do with their time*.



*except UNC. All athletes must major in African-American Studies.

[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2014 1:07:03 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42729 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" I am wholeheartedly against the American system that produces inequalities"


Jesus Christ comrade

4/21/2014 1:29:13 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

What's that? Are you blind or just ignorant to how bad America spawns inequalities?

4/21/2014 7:07:49 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^ What they need doesn't matter. It only matters what they are worth.

You have to pay for your own education because no one is paying to watch you play football."


Except that they don't make any money for the school or the AD. Yes, they are 'worth' something to the university, but what the university spends is great.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

The AD makes a profit of about $3 million/year, however they are subsidized $5 million/year. The athletics program here is not even profitable, so if you're asking for athletes to be paid you're asking for one of two things 1.) Bankrupt the school to subsidize these 'workers' 2.) Abolish sports because of the cost.

4/21/2014 7:14:41 PM

Kurtis636
All American
14984 Posts
user info
edit post

Well, sure if you insist on paying everyone then yeah it would be a net loser. However, if you only paid the athletes in revenue generating sports and ditched the ridiculous title IX requirements it would be a different story.

It's ok, in the end the whole sham amateur thing is going to come to an end thanks to the Northwestern unionization threat, the O'Bannon lawsuit, and changing public opinion.

4/21/2014 7:46:29 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ players don't bring in any money? what the hell are you smoking, because I want some of it! And sure, athletes aren't workers, except for the fact that they match the definition of a worker in every possible way.

4/21/2014 11:06:29 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

The athletes do bring in money, but not enough to turn a profit. Our athletic department runs a net loss, so the school subsidizes them $5 million/year.

4/21/2014 11:09:41 PM

laxman490
All American
2362 Posts
user info
edit post

The stupidity in this thread is astonishing

4/21/2014 11:10:26 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

(My problem is that players should be protected if they get injured or any scenario like that, which is what the NW unionization was about. I am for that and I want the schools to be responsible for providing the players with treatments instead of dumping them and leaving them to pay the medical bills. I have a problem with players wanting to be paid a pay check.)

4/21/2014 11:11:08 PM

laxman490
All American
2362 Posts
user info
edit post

^don't worry in 10 years the NBA DL will have raided college basketball of all talent straight out of high school. Same will happen to football if the ncaa does not do anything.

4/21/2014 11:19:01 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm okay with that. I would rather have the player who are in college actually care about their education instead of worrying about a possible paycheck. Not to be harsh, but college is for education first and extracurricular's (including jobs) second.

4/21/2014 11:22:24 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

**players**

4/21/2014 11:22:45 PM

laxman490
All American
2362 Posts
user info
edit post

Until schools decide to get rid of sports because no one cares about them anymore.

4/21/2014 11:26:30 PM

WolfPack2017
Veteran
218 Posts
user info
edit post

And I'm okay with that if that means they will use the subsidizes they have for the AD and 'scholarships' for actual campus resources and academic or need based scholarships. The university is facing cutbacks in many departments, the libraries, and other facilities.

4/21/2014 11:32:48 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51986 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The athletes do bring in money, but not enough to turn a profit. Our athletic department runs a net loss, so the school subsidizes them $5 million/year."

Except, of course, where they do. When you include non-revenue sports, it's incredibly easy to make that argument. But when you use logic, and talk about the revenue sports (which is what everyone else is talking about; no one is talking about fucking gymnasts and cross-country runners), it's plain as day that these organizations bring in money. Which is exactly what I said a few days ago. Are you just going to keep recycling discredited arguments ad nauseum until everyone else just leaves the thread?

4/22/2014 12:58:22 AM

Sayer
now with sarcasm
9841 Posts
user info
edit post

yep, I'm pretty sure that's his plan

4/22/2014 8:45:51 AM

 Message Boards » Sports Talk » why we should legalize paying collegiate athletes Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.