18 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyWell counselor, are refer to "slave labor" and getting "paid"....but you are failing to see
My question is, would college football be better off without the NCAA? Should athletes be payed and treated as the adults or is there a benefit to this slave labor?
some significant light here.
I would say that, on average, every scholarship athlete is being paid $25,000.00 per
year, tax free. In some cases it is much more than that.
Have you paid for 4 years of college lately?
I have....for 4 children, and I know what it cost me to send them.
Considering that a reasonable percentage of these athletes currently have qualifications
that would allow them to work at McDonald's or as a construction laborer, that is
a pretty fair wage, wouldn't you?
Now, the walk-on athletes are the only ones who are paying their own way.
They are playing by their own choice and are under no obligation to stay.
Most of these athletes, don't get to play much either.
Perhaps they like being treated as "slaves" as you say.
Now, having played myself, the only thing I would argue is that there is a need
for some sort of a stipend for spending money.
The reason is the NCAA forbids student-athletes from holding any job.
The NCAA forbids them from taking any handout money from anyone other than parents.
They face scrutiny when they get much money from their parents too.
Other than that, no, I think your argument is not valid at all.
I think the NCAA serves a function and does a reasonable job.
Coaches, on the other hand, are more willing to" bend rules" or "look the other way"
when a "special athlete" that they covet does not make the grade or qualify.
Sort of like that coach...(what was his name?) at Ohio State did.
18 Sep 11
How about taking athletics out of education all together? I'd be in favor of that!
This mixing of professional sports and education is a joke. Sure a few schools make big bucks on sports, but most schools lose money. It isn't the NCAA. It's the entire idea of glorifying jocks at educational institutions.
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by EladarSpoken by a non jock who doesn't have a clue.
How about taking athletics out of education all together? I'd be in favor of that!
This mixing of professional sports and education is a joke. Sure a few schools make big bucks on sports, but most schools lose money. It isn't the NCAA. It's the entire idea of glorifying jocks at educational institutions.
Everyone playing college athletics isn't on scholarship.
Many of those on scholarship aren't even on a full scholarship.
Now you say they should eliminate athletics from college?
How about the scholar-athletes?
You would penalize them because you have a hard on against the pros?
Get a grip.
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitI was Second Team All-Lone Star Conference in college. I played football for Abilene Christian. I played center.
Spoken by a non jock who doesn't have a clue.
Everyone playing college athletics isn't on scholarship.
Many of those on scholarship aren't even on a full scholarship.
Now you say they should eliminate athletics from college?
How about the scholar-athletes?
You would penalize them because you have a hard on against the pros?
Get a grip.
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by EladarSo, having played, why would you say the separation of education and athletics should
I was Second Team All-Lone Star Conference in college. I played football for Abilene Christian. I played center.
be instituted in your opinion?
It makes no sense. And FYI, most schools profit from athletic programs.
They do not balance the budget across all sports, but their big ticket sports help,
as well as alumni contributions which they receive due to their athletic programs.
19 Sep 11
It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest. There were a number of people on the team who were there just to play football. They used steroids and didn't exactly represent the University very well, but because they played football that didn't matter so much.
One of those players ended up on America's Most Wanted. It was about 20 years ago when I saw his picture (in ACU uniform) on AMW as well as his descripion of the modern day Bonnie and Clyde. Bonnie was his 16 year old girl friend and he was about 30 at the time.
Sure, when it is done right it is good for both players and school. The problem is that doing it right isnt' what's important. Winning is what's important. Money that could be use for education is put into sports. A vast majority of NCAA teams lose money on their athletic programs. Scholarships that could be given to a kid who has a 3.8 gpa with an ACT of 28 is given to a kid who can barely score a 20 on the ACT but runs a 4.3.
Big time college football is simply the minor leagues for the NFL. Until the NCAA finds a way of creating an actualy minor league for the NFL and allow student athletes to go to college, the problem will not stop.
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by EladarSo, isn't your problem more with the coaches and the individual institutions that bend
It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest. There were a number of people on the team who were there just to play football. They used steroids and didn't exactly represent the University very well, but because they played football that didn't matter so much.
One of those players ended up on America's Most Wanted. It was about 20 years ago when ...[text shortened]... league for the NFL and allow student athletes to go to college, the problem will not stop.
the rules to get the "athlete only" types into school to begin with?
The NCAA has established guidelines on that you know.
And what about the players who cheat in school?
Should they be treated differently than the non-athletes who cheat in school?
Why should the bulk of the student athletes who are legitimate be denied the
opportunity to play because of the actions of coaches or schools?
I think you have become too jaded on the topic and miss the whole point.
Whether you want to admit it or not, only a small fraction of college athletes make it
to the professional rank in any sport.
So, the opportunity to play and compete at a sub-pro level should be taken from all
because of the actions of a few?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by EladarHear, hear!
How about taking athletics out of education all together? I'd be in favor of that!
This mixing of professional sports and education is a joke. Sure a few schools make big bucks on sports, but most schools lose money. It isn't the NCAA. It's the entire idea of glorifying jocks at educational institutions.
Great athletes should be given sponsorship for performing in their sports.
Great academics should be given sponsorship for furthering their studies.
Athletes should not be paid for playing American Football under the pretense of studying. That's just wrong; it insults both the real students and the real athletes.
Richard
20 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAhhh, but how can you separate the two when they are the same animal??
Hear, hear!
Great athletes should be given sponsorship for performing in their sports.
Great academics should be given sponsorship for furthering their studies.
Athletes should not be paid for playing American Football under the pretense of studying. That's just wrong; it insults both the real students and the real athletes.
Richard
Edit: By that I mean, are you saying all athletes are not good students?
How do you think the term "Academic All American" came about.
I played baseball and was on the Dean's List every semester.
I would have had a shot at playing professionally, but blew out my shoulder.
I agree, there are some who are dumb as a stump.
Got news for you though, there are some party animals who attend because of daddy's money.
They aren't athletes, but they make the same mockery you speak of.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThen the great student/ athletes should recieve both of course but not in the same stroke. They should get a sponsorship and a scholarship.
Ahhh, but how can you separate the two when they are the same animal??
Edit: By that I mean, are you saying all athletes are not good students?
How do you think the term "Academic All American" came about.
I played baseball and was on the Dean's List every semester.
I would have had a shot at playing professionally, but blew out my shoulder.
I ...[text shortened]... cause of daddy's money.
They aren't athletes, but they make the same mockery you speak of.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitYup, and I think they should not be allowed to interfere with the real students, either.
I agree, there are some who are dumb as a stump.
Got news for you though, there are some party animals who attend because of daddy's money.
They aren't athletes, but they make the same mockery you speak of.
If you want someone at college who is a real student and a good athlete, give him a grant to study and allow him to play some sport in his spare time. That's no problem at all.
The problem is with university grants for athletic achievement. I have no problems with people being at university who are also good sportsmen. I don't even have problems with people being given both an academic and an athletic grant, as long as both are justified. What I have a problem with is "students" who are there only to put the college's American Football team at the top of the league, and have no real academic qualities, yet are given money from the academic funds, take up space in class and valuable time from professors and, worse, the real students, and in the end produce only a handful of tries and nothing of worth to the academic world.
That kind of person should be paid to play his sport, and not be required to bother the students. That way he will still make a worthwhile impact on the sports world - probably a greater one than he would now, because he himself would not be bothered by the academic requirements, either - and would not make a negative impact on the serious students. Everybody wins.
You may well ask, fine, but where is that grant coming from, if it's not coming from the university? Well, that's not my problem but the sports team's. Right now, it's coming from funds which ought to go to the education of your people rather than to panem et circenses. And that's the real problem.
Richard
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThen, you certainly also must be disgusted with "students who take up spots in classes
Yup, and I think they should not be allowed to interfere with the real students, either.
If you want someone at college who is a real student and a good athlete, give him a grant to study and allow him to play some sport in his spare time. That's no problem at all.
The problem is with university grants for athletic achievement. I hav ...[text shortened]... your people rather than to panem et circenses. And that's the real problem.
Richard
only because their parents are wealthy and spend the money for their child(ren) to
go experience fraternity life...party to the fullest...and, oh yeah, go to school sometimes.
Of course, the prospective students who really want to be in college and have everything
except the financial capability to pay are left out in the cold in favor of pay to play.
I get so sick of hearing about "all of the fat cat athletes and their special treatment".
If you want to get rid of college athletics, then get rid of the fraternity system as well.
While you are at it, get rid of tenure for professors so worthless educators who are there
only because they can't be fired, don't screw up the minds of the youth.
Of course, someone, or something is going to have to pay for all of this.
Last I checked, fraternities provide ZERO for the schools.
Athletics do provide benefits...either monetary, visibility or both.
Then, how about some of the idiotic wastes of money on things like the arts?
The arts cater to the wealthy, not to the poor, right?
The poor can't afford entertainment.
I could go on, but I am tired of the "holier than thou" attitudes expressed about how
things ought to be, when they are nothing but self-serving ideals.
Sorry Rich, but you have totally missed the boat here.
24 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitYour argument is clearly biased and you clearly didn't read his whole post. Please read it again.
Then, you certainly also must be disgusted with "students who take up spots in classes
only because their parents are wealthy and spend the money for their child(ren) to
go experience fraternity life...party to the fullest...and, oh yeah, go to school sometimes.
Of course, the prospective students who really want to be in college and have everything ...[text shortened]... thing but self-serving ideals.
Sorry Rich, but you have totally missed the boat here.
24 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Oh, I did read it. His post was clear. However, his dual grant scenario is unrealistic,
Your argument is clearly biased and you clearly didn't read his whole post. Please read it again.
but his thread of getting athletics out of the learning institutions rings loudly.
Perhaps you should read it again.
I am most definitely opposed to his notion, and I merely showed other examples
that are not sports related that show that there are other people not focused on
education who go to college, yet he does not single them out...only athletes.
It is also a biased notion that all athletes are in college just to get to the professional ranks.
It is also a biased notion that all athletes are not good students or even worthy.
I advanced the notion that several athletes perform superior to non athletes in academics.
I advanced the notion that many athletes don't stand a chance to play professionally.
I also scoff at having the professionals funding the training of the athletes.
I do understand that there are a bunch of athletes who go to college as a springboard
to the pros, however, there is nothing guaranteed.
Several of these kids have nothing else going for them.
That is sad, but it is a true statement.
I am merely saying, to sacrifice the entire program because you are pissed off about
a small portion of them is ridiculous.