NCAA.. paid players....

esperanzafleet · Post #1 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:06 am

i really have to state this... on another website (nbadraft.net) i stated how people such as cam newtons father ruin college athletics..

now correct me if im wrong... but i got like 10 thumbs down... by some 12 year old dumb a$$ not to be named...

moral of the story... this kid doesnt even know how the SEC works at all.. as far as players on scholarships and so on...

this is truly pathetic... and has caused me to completely quit posting there... good riddance of those idiots... i highly recommend never going there...

dan_atko97 · Post #2 » by **dan_atko97** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:07 am

whatt?

J~Rush · Post #3 » by **J~Rush** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:08 am

esperanzafleet wrote:i really have to state this... on another website (nbadraft.net) i stated how people such as cam newtons father ruin college athletics..

now correct me if im wrong... but i got like 10 thumbs down... by some 12 year old dumb a$$ not to be named...

moral of the story... this kid doesnt even know how the SEC works at all.. as far as players on scholarships and so on...

this is truly pathetic... and has caused me to completely quit posting there... good riddance of those idiots... i highly recommend never going there...

Strong in the force you are.

esperanzafleet · Post #4 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:09 am

sry... just so pissed at people for not knowing wtf they are talking about... i dont usually post on realgm forums and instead use others... (sportstwo, nbadraft) but the audacity this dude had made me post on numerous to see if he really has people that agree with him...

kenyu_weed · Post #5 » by **kenyu_weed** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:10 am

dan_atko97 wrote:whatt?

esperanzafleet · Post #6 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:14 am

^^^
i wrote about how newtons father wanted money... along with other college atheletes parents...
i also wrote about the fact that in the SEC... schools do not have to honor scholarships such as in the big 10 or big 12... if a player underpreforms they will lose their scholarship and be kicked off the sports team and be replaced... which is why the SEC usually does so good in athletics...

kenyu_weed · Post #7 » by **kenyu_weed** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:18 am

yea the whole ncaa is big business and crooked

so its either get played
or take the L out
and get payed

esperanzafleet · Post #8 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:20 am

^^^
yeah dude... i should really start postin here cause it seems people know how sports work...

Post #9 » by **darth_federer** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:23 am

Players should get some sort of stipend atleast from the NCAA since its a multi billion dollar business.

kenyu_weed · Post #10 » by **kenyu_weed** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:29 am

yea i hear lots of stories about eligibility sat scores........etc.......

privilege athletic students classes and big sponsors

and how ncaa dont want these kids to work or take classes for their future that might hinder their grades(eligibility).

so if you're injured you're screwed but i don't blame kids/parents for getting payed cause these schools make so much money its not even funny and you know you make a lot of money when you try to be greedy.with all these "bowls" ............... but especially in ball why would they want to make the biggest tournament (final four) from 64 teams to 128 ?

exposure, sponsors, commercial, ads, recruitments ......

esperanzafleet · Post #11 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:31 am

especially about the SEC... what i was trying to get across to this kid is that college athletes are STUDENTS before they are athletes... and the fact that the SEC can rob them of an education by taking away their scholarship by underpreformance is a disgrace...

its pretty sad...

BubbaTee · Post #12 » by **BubbaTee** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:33 am

Eh, I don't really blame Cam Newton & family, or Reggie Bush & family. They're generating big bucks for the school and getting compensated well below market value for their efforts. Schools turn them into walking billboards for Nike, Adidas, EA Sports, etc., without them seeing a dime of endorsement money.

Why shouldn't they take $5k in an envelope if it gets offered to them?

The schools aren't even required to pay a player's medical bills - let alone make up for his lost future income as a pro - if he shreds his knee on the field, or suffers long-term brain damage from concussions. Heck, in most cases the school has to be sued before they even pay out in cases where a player DIES in practice.

esperanzafleet · Post #13 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:35 am

because theyre getting something worth 100-200k to any normal person... its called a college education.... but youve got a point if your considering the SEC....

kenyu_weed · Post #14 » by **kenyu_weed** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:44 am

even the education is a smuck, a lot of people are in debt with 100 k + education and student loans or what not, have degrees and requirement and cat find a proper job or career plus a lot of professors just teach so it can be added in their resume when they end up publishing a book are something.

esperanzafleet · Post #15 » by **esperanzafleet** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:54 am

^^
finally... a site where people post vaild points...

thank you for your input... you make a great point...

seriously man... posted this exact stuff, and this turd had the audacity to say i was jealous of cam newton and thats why i was wrong...

Starkiller · Post #16 » by **Starkiller** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 2:45 pm

darth_federer wrote:Players should get some sort of stipend atleast from the NCAA since its a multi billion dollar business.

It's called a free education.

mup · Post #17 » by **mup** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 2:50 pm

darth_federer wrote:Players should get some sort of stipend atleast from the NCAA since its a multi billion dollar business.

I've had this discussion with a lot of people. The problem is that you can't just pay the superstars, you can't just pay the football/basketball players, etc., etc., you have to pay every athlete the same or you can't pay any of them.

Because you're dealing with an educational environment, it's not the same as dealing with a free-market "pay for what you bring in" type system. There are certain federal protections in education (for instance, Title IX). It's the same rules that say you have to have as many womens' scholarships as mens' scholarships. Stipends would have to be the same too. The NCAA makes a lot of money but not enough to pay every athlete at every school a stipend.

Only way to do it would be to divorce the teams from the schools but then you are essentially just creating a second professional league.

And, yeah, I know that only a sucker believes college athletes are "students" or that they are there to get an education, but as long as the NCAA continues to make them go to class, you have to treat them like "students" under the law.

BubbaTee · Post #18 » by **BubbaTee** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:41 pm

mup wrote:
darth_federer wrote:Players should get some sort of stipend atleast from the NCAA since its a multi billion dollar business.
I've had this discussion with a lot of people. The problem is that you can't just pay the superstars, you can't just pay the football/basketball players, etc., etc., you have to pay every athlete the same or you can't pay any of them.

Because you're dealing with an educational environment, it's not the same as dealing with a free-market "pay for what you bring in" type system. There are certain federal protections in education (for instance, Title IX). It's the same rules that say you have to have as many womens' scholarships as mens' scholarships. Stipends would have to be the same too. The NCAA makes a lot of money but not enough to pay every athlete at every school a stipend.

Who says pay would have to be the same between men and women? Coach K gets paid millions of dollars at Duke, do you think the women's gymnastics coach gets paid as much? Both of them are considered "educators" officially. The whole "education" thing is just a ruse so that college sports can remain tax-exempt, anyways.

Title IX is based on sex discrimination - you can't discriminate against girls' sports on the basis of them being played by girls. But paying players isn't based on sex/gender, it's based on how many butts an individual puts in the stands. If there are places where the women out-draw the men, then the women should get more. For instance, UConn women's basketball draws 10k/game in attendance, UConn men's hockey draws 1k/game. Thus the female basketball players should get paid more than the male hockey players.

BubbaTee · Post #19 » by **BubbaTee** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:07 pm

esperanzafleet wrote:because theyre getting something worth 100-200k to any normal person... its called a college education.... but youve got a point if your considering the SEC....

Not every college charges $30k a semester. Jimmer Fredette plays for BYU and is the leading scorer in the nation. Last year BYU drew 14k/game in attendance, good enough for #17 among all D1 schools - and that's probably higher this year with BYU being highly ranked and Fredette's popularity increasing.

So how much is the BYU education that Fredette is getting as compensation worth? $4400 a semester. If Fredette is Mormon, it's worth less than $2500/semester.
http://home.byu.edu/webapp/finserve/content/page/Tuition.html

Let's see, 2 semesters a year puts Fredette's education compensation at $8800/year. Keep in mind this is for a highly-skilled performer who is not easily replaced. We're not talking about a burger-flipper at McDonald's here. $9k a year.

You know what the US poverty line is for a 1-person household? $11k a year.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

Fredette's "education compensation", as measured in real-world dollars, puts him smack-dab in poverty status!

mup · Post #20 » by **mup** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:08 pm

BubbaTee wrote: Who says pay would have to be the same between men and women? Coach K gets paid millions of dollars at Duke, do you think the women's gymnastics coach gets paid as much? Both of them are considered "educators" officially. The whole "education" thing is just a ruse so that college sports can remain tax-exempt, anyways.

Title IX is based on sex discrimination - you can't discriminate against girls' sports on the basis of them being played by girls. But paying players isn't based on sex/gender, it's based on how many butts an individual puts in the stands. If there are places where the women out-draw the men, then the women should get more. For instance, UConn women's basketball draws 10k/game in attendance, UConn men's hockey draws 1k/game. Thus the female basketball players should get paid more than the male hockey players.

Don't kill the messnger, man. I'm just telling you why it is the way it is.

Coach K and his female counterparts aren't students. That's the difference. So, "discriminating" between them is not discriminating with respect to their education. You can pay teachers, coaches, "educators" based on merit all you want. But a university can't discriminate like that between students.

Doesn't matter how much money a sport or a certain player brings in. A ton of men's programs have been cut that brought in money because the law says you have to have an equal number of opportunities for women. So, it was either cut a men's program (regardless how profitable) or find the revenue stream to make a women's team somewhere, just to have one. A lot of schools cut men's programs like wrestling and baseball. Some tried to create women's programs (and created the laughable situation where you'd have a women's soccer team but no players).

You make some good points that a lot of people agree with, but Congress doesn't. Bottom line is that playing sports in college is seen by the law as an educational opportunity. You can't provide more funding for men than you do women. And you couldn't give more of a stipend to men than you do women. Doesn't matter how many butts are put in the seats--- it's part of the educational experience, so it has to be equal. The discrimination occurs when you give more to the men than you do to the women--- doesn't matter what your reasons are.

Basically, you're making a free-market, capitalistic argument--- doesn't apply when you're dealing with educational institutions receiving tax dollars. As soon as money comes to the school (whether by way of gate receipts at a football game or whatever), that money becomes part of the school's coffers. When you're dealing with a state school (and private schools that receive any type of federal funding--- which is all of them), that means it automatically becomes the taxpayers' money, watched over by a board of trustees. When it puts money back into the school, it has to do it equally. Can't decide to give money to the fraternities, but not the sororities. Can't give more scholarships for men than you do women. On and on.