Red Mosquito

Monkey_Driven wrote:Athletes should also be allowed to work outside of the athletic obligations.

doug rr wrote:how much does the school pay the girls that entertain the athletes fresh out of high school when they make that overnight campus visit? I've always wondered

Green Habit wrote:
I'll have more to contribute in a bit. I am generally in favor of paying the players something, but how much and how it's done is the tricky question.

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Athletes should also be allowed to work outside of the athletic obligations.

One problem that needs to be addressed with this is that the rich booster that owns the local car dealership could "hire" guys to do "work" for them. The same is true for people "buying" autographs and memorabilia for thousands of dollars. Still, I think this is where the school can use the scholarship as hostage to control things. You want to make money on your own? Fine, either contribute some to the school or we pull your scholarship. If it doesn't work out, you can get loans like most other students these days.

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Athletes should also be allowed to work outside of the athletic obligations.

One problem that needs to be addressed with this is that the rich booster that owns the local car dealership could "hire" guys to do "work" for them. The same is true for people "buying" autographs and memorabilia for thousands of dollars. Still, I think this is where the school can use the scholarship as hostage to control things. You want to make money on your own? Fine, either contribute some to the school or we pull your scholarship. If it doesn't work out, you can get loans like most other students these days.

Monkey_Driven wrote:Do you pay a football player the same as a women's tennis player who each put in equal time to practicing/training/traveling/performing?

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Do you pay a football player the same as a women's tennis player who each put in equal time to practicing/training/traveling/performing?

Absolutely not. For the same reason WNBA players don't get the same as NBA players.

Green Habit wrote:Anyway, the problem with the "they already get compensated plenty" argument is that it's highly illiquid compensation. What they are provided can only be used for very specific purposes, and only if they follow very specific rules. The grand majority of it cannot be sold for liquid cash, and even the very little that can is placed on lockdown. (see: Terrelle Pryor) When you think about it, it's an awfully paternalistic way to treat the athletes. Especially for the poorer athletes, what they want/need more than anything else is cash.

MD also stated that black market activities will always take place no matter what policy is in place. To me, that only means that we need a legitimate way of monetary compensation more so. It's a lot like the War on Drugs in that regard.

So, I still stand by my solution that I stated in the older threads, but I'll also add a twist that I think is proper: if an athlete wants to make money off endorsements, go for it, but then the college should pull the athlete's scholarship. I see no reason why the taxpayers and donors should have to pay for someone's education when he or she is capable of doing so on his/her own.

Green Habit wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Do you pay a football player the same as a women's tennis player who each put in equal time to practicing/training/traveling/performing?

Absolutely not. For the same reason WNBA players don't get the same as NBA players.

If the money is coming straight from the schools, Title IX could throw a wrench in this line of thought.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Anyway, the problem with the "they already get compensated plenty" argument is that it's highly illiquid compensation. What they are provided can only be used for very specific purposes, and only if they follow very specific rules. The grand majority of it cannot be sold for liquid cash, and even the very little that can is placed on lockdown. (see: Terrelle Pryor) When you think about it, it's an awfully paternalistic way to treat the athletes. Especially for the poorer athletes, what they want/need more than anything else is cash.

MD also stated that black market activities will always take place no matter what policy is in place. To me, that only means that we need a legitimate way of monetary compensation more so. It's a lot like the War on Drugs in that regard.

So, I still stand by my solution that I stated in the older threads, but I'll also add a twist that I think is proper: if an athlete wants to make money off endorsements, go for it, but then the college should pull the athlete's scholarship. I see no reason why the taxpayers and donors should have to pay for someone's education when he or she is capable of doing so on his/her own.

That's a really good point that doesn't get brought up (the bolded).

For some of these players, who aren't very bright, giving them a scholarship is worthless to them and a waste of time and money for the university - so in effect that it's not really compensation for the player. Someone like Devin Hester would never be in college without football, so an educational scholarship to him is worthless. Yet he still performed a valuable service - based on how much $$ the NCAA makes from it. To put that point in perspective, let's say I would hire you to do some crap work around my house for a year, but the only payment I will give you will be tutoring in super-advanced missile and rocket science that only a select few in Mensa could complete. Would you take that job? I mean that education could be potentially worth millions!

It's not that they don't get compensation, it's that it's not very fungible and it's not the value of compensation they would be getting on the open market (at least for the blue chip players).

Monkey_Driven wrote:Whatever policy is in place corruption, cheating, and people taking advantage of 18 year old kids will always happen. The idea that college athletes are not compensated is ludicrous. They make more money in scholarships and stipends than 90 percent of the student body.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Athletes should also be allowed to work outside of the athletic obligations.

One problem that needs to be addressed with this is that the rich booster that owns the local car dealership could "hire" guys to do "work" for them. The same is true for people "buying" autographs and memorabilia for thousands of dollars. Still, I think this is where the school can use the scholarship as hostage to control things. You want to make money on your own? Fine, either contribute some to the school or we pull your scholarship. If it doesn't work out, you can get loans like most other students these days.

That would absolutely be a problem. Athletes could always find work doing campus jobs. They may not be glorious, but there are hundreds of work study positions that remain unclaimed every year on this campus.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Anyway, the problem with the "they already get compensated plenty" argument is that it's highly illiquid compensation. What they are provided can only be used for very specific purposes, and only if they follow very specific rules. The grand majority of it cannot be sold for liquid cash, and even the very little that can is placed on lockdown. (see: Terrelle Pryor) When you think about it, it's an awfully paternalistic way to treat the athletes. Especially for the poorer athletes, what they want/need more than anything else is cash.

MD also stated that black market activities will always take place no matter what policy is in place. To me, that only means that we need a legitimate way of monetary compensation more so. It's a lot like the War on Drugs in that regard.

So, I still stand by my solution that I stated in the older threads, but I'll also add a twist that I think is proper: if an athlete wants to make money off endorsements, go for it, but then the college should pull the athlete's scholarship. I see no reason why the taxpayers and donors should have to pay for someone's education when he or she is capable of doing so on his/her own.

That's a really good point that doesn't get brought up (the bolded).

For some of these players, who aren't very bright, giving them a scholarship is worthless to them and a waste of time and money for the university - so in effect that it's not really compensation for the player. Someone like Devin Hester would never be in college without football, so an educational scholarship to him is worthless. Yet he still performed a valuable service - based on how much $$ the NCAA makes from it. To put that point in perspective, let's say I would hire you to do some crap work around my house for a year, but the only payment I will give you will be tutoring in super-advanced missile and rocket science that only a select few in Mensa could complete. Would you take that job? I mean that education could be potentially worth millions!

It's not that they don't get compensation, it's that it's not very fungible and it's not the value of compensation they would be getting on the open market (at least for the blue chip players).

doug rr wrote:I have this argument at least once a year and I just get tired trying to explain it

--- wrote:

doug rr wrote:I have this argument at least once a year and I just get tired trying to explain it

i can see how working this debate into your leisure regimen would be quite taxing

doug rr wrote:

--- wrote:

doug rr wrote:I have this argument at least once a year and I just get tired trying to explain it

i can see how working this debate into your leisure regimen would be quite taxing

It does normally come up at a bar stool..but I never start it...now that I'm in USC (university of spoiled children) country, more people are for it than against it