Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Have you ever seen what the SEC does with football scholarships? It's called over signing, and is basically the same as an airline overbooking a flight, except there is no refund and your life is ruined

 

Mark Richt is openly a very spiritual Christian man, so it seems unlikely he would let something like this go on unless it were in the best interest of all those young black men.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You didn't finish college, what's he supposed to think?

I remember Jalen Rose talking about taking money once. Like, people become outraged and act like it's a bunch of greedy assholes ruining the integrity of the game, but even if you have a problem with

LBJ > MJ

I would think that the pay of athletes would have to be the same, or at least the same per position. It would also have to be the same either countrywide or conference wide, or rich schools would win every year and no poor schools would play them without millions of dollars being paid as a bribe.

 

So how much could schools realistically pay for 90 football players or 15 BB players? How about the soccer and rugby teams? Think there would be backlash if they didn't pay their women teams the same? How many schools would just cancel all sports but football and basketball and then two women's sports for Title IX?

 

If they paid them 30k, how many schools would be forced to drop football?

 

Bonus question: if you gave them the options of either being paid 30k with no free school or a small stipend with free tutuion and room/board, what do most athletes choose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the pay of athletes would have to be the same, or at least the same per position. It would also have to be the same either countrywide or conference wide, or rich schools would win every year and no poor schools would play them without millions of dollars being paid as a bribe.

 

So how much could schools realistically pay for 90 football players or 15 BB players? How about the soccer and rugby teams? Think there would be backlash if they didn't pay their women teams the same? How many schools would just cancel all sports but football and basketball and then two women's sports for Title IX?

 

If they paid them 30k, how many schools would be forced to drop football?

 

Bonus question: if you gave them the options of either being paid 30k with no free school or a small stipend with free tutuion and room/board, what do most athletes choose?

 

And I thought you were a free markets type of guy.

 

 

Sklansky killed it in here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the pay of athletes would have to be the same, or at least the same per position. It would also have to be the same either countrywide or conference wide, or rich schools would win every year and no poor schools would play them without millions of dollars being paid as a bribe.

 

So how much could schools realistically pay for 90 football players or 15 BB players? How about the soccer and rugby teams? Think there would be backlash if they didn't pay their women teams the same? How many schools would just cancel all sports but football and basketball and then two women's sports for Title IX?

 

If they paid them 30k, how many schools would be forced to drop football?

 

Bonus question: if you gave them the options of either being paid 30k with no free school or a small stipend with free tutuion and room/board, what do most athletes choose?

 

Are you asking these questions in order to show that paying athletes wouldn't work?

 

Edit, because I don't have time to wait for you to say "yes" before I respond: "Do you know how many problems it will cause if we free all them niggers? Ending slavery would be a logistical nightmare! WHERE WILL WE GET THAT MANY MULES?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Those were all actual questions. Slaves weren't given the choice between 30k per year anywhere in the US and up to 200k in free education. But by all means, continue to ****ing destroy any strawmen you build.

 

 

As to JJJ, I am typically, but I think the education system is a little different. While most universities are private (Is that even true? It has to be, right), having an entity like the NCAA is nice, and promotes teamwork and tradition, which I like. However, I'm totally open to change, and I would be happy with paying athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Those were all actual questions. Slaves weren't given the choice between 30k per year anywhere in the US and up to 200k in free education. But by all means, continue to ****ing destroy any strawmen you build.

 

 

As to JJJ, I am typically, but I think the education system is a little different. While most universities are private (Is that even true? It has to be, right), having an entity like the NCAA is nice, and promotes teamwork and tradition, which I like. However, I'm totally open to change, and I would be happy with paying athletes.

 

The point wasn't that student athletes are slaves. The point was, the difficulties posed by a solution to a legitimate problem have no impact on the original problem, itself. Just because a solution is hard or fraught doesn't make the need for a solution any less pressing.

 

It sounded like you were saying, "It will be really hard to perfectly and fairly compensate student athletes. Therefore, we shouldn't compensate them at all."

 

Also what the hell, man...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said it before, but I think that the solution is guaranteed 4 scholarships and stipends for spending money. It wouldn't eliminate the booster money, but I think it would decrease it. The guy who came from nothing who gets his parents offered 50K to play ball is probably still taking it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said it before, but I think that the solution is guaranteed 4 scholarships and stipends for spending money. It wouldn't eliminate the booster money, but I think it would decrease it. The guy who came from nothing who gets his parents offered 50K to play ball is probably still taking it.

 

I think you're missing the point. Most of us are saying we want there to be MORE booster money...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like someone who loves the current system to just admit to me that the reason he likes it is that it tilts the hell out of him to see an 18y/o wearing $12,000 croc skin sweatpants. I would actually accept that as a valid reason. I would still argue that he is a monster for that publicly, but privately I would really respect it. Because even without being on the side of what's right, I still mostly care because seeing an 18y/o leaving the stadium in croc skin sweatpants would make college sports exponentially more enjoyable to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the pay of athletes would have to be the same, or at least the same per position. It would also have to be the same either countrywide or conference wide, or rich schools would win every year and no poor schools would play them without millions of dollars being paid as a bribe.

 

 

 

Sports, where the most ardent anti-government capitalists turn into marxists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all of the athletes in the lesser, non-money-making sports on scholarship?

 

Tennis is the sport that I have experience with and a lot of the players on those teams might only be on a partial one or no scholarship at all at a lot of schools for the bottom end of the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all of the athletes in the lesser, non-money-making sports on scholarship?

 

Full scholarships are the norm in hoops and football, and that's about it. Baseball teams only have a handful to spread around at most schools, for example.

 

And even in football, scholarships are delayed (gray shirting), promised and revoked, and unguaranteed. There is plenty do discretion and inequality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have people arguing that athletes are paid in scholarships anyway, but if they did get paid in cash, then every athlete would have to get paid in cash equally, even though the scholarship payment plan isn't equal and total.

 

I don't think it should be equal, but I do think there should be a cap ($10,000 to $20,000/yr). That way (as mentioned previously) the rich schools can't "buy" their teams.

 

I also think there should be factors that determine how much each athlete makes. Things like performance and possibly even GPA.

 

Finally whatever they do get paid shouldn't be a huge amount. As is, I think athletes are highly overpaid, and giving these kids "baller money" probably isn't a great idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So stars (who bring in millions and millions of dollars) should make less than they'd get on welfare so that...why exactly? So that instead of going to a good school with proper facilities and training/medical staff, they might be more likely to accidentally end up in the middle of nowhere, as the dancing monkey for some yokel whose love for the "tradition" of not paying black men for their backbreaking labor prevents him from just rooting for the Thunder or Pacers or w/e?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So stars (who bring in millions and millions of dollars) should make less than they'd get on welfare so that...why exactly? So that instead of going to a good school with proper facilities and training/medical staff, they might be more likely to accidentally end up in the middle of nowhere, as the dancing monkey for some yokel whose love for the "tradition" of not paying black men for their backbreaking labor prevents him from just rooting for the Thunder or Pacers or w/e?

 

In my perfect world, all athletes would earn the same amount (by position). Maybe something like $500k/yr (for kickers) up to $10m/yr (for QB's) Then at the end of each season, they can get bonus money based on achievements/stats. I'm just tired of seeing these guys sign huge deals, and then be unable to back it up when the season starts. Joe Flacco is a good example. He won the superbowl and was flawless in the playoffs. That's definitely deserving of some extra money in the bank in the form of a bonus. However, looking at his stats for this season so far, I can't be convinced that he's actually worth 6 years/$120 million.

 

(BTW SuperJon, I'd just like to commend you on being such a good sport about my going racial in basically every post. It's nothing personal, it's just fun to do it.)

 

Do you think I'm black?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my perfect world, all athletes would earn the same amount (by position).

 

Why?

 

I'm just tired of seeing these guys sign huge deals, and then be unable to back it up when the season starts. Joe Flacco is a good example. He won the superbowl and was flawless in the playoffs. That's definitely deserving of some extra money in the bank in the form of a bonus. However, looking at his stats for this season so far, I can't be convinced that he's actually worth 6 years/$120 million.

 

It's not about what he contributes on the field. Fans are stupid and would riot if they lost him him, so teams sign players to stupid contracts. Take it up with them.

 

I'm sick of young stars who play on a contract that's considerably less money than they would be worth if they could sign a new deal. Therefore, I think all team profits should go to the players to chop up however they want, and then maybe they can pay a little stipend to everyone else now and then so they can buy themselves something pretty.

 

Do you think I'm black?

 

I'm sorry, you said you were a dropout so I merely assumed, like McGee said.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

 

 

 

It's not about what he contributes on the field. Fans are stupid and would riot if they lost him him, so teams sign players to stupid contracts. Take it up with them.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's entirely the player's fault, but they do play a part in contract negotiations.

 

I just don't agree with paying them a ton of future money for past accomplishments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's entirely the player's fault, but they do play a part in contract negotiations.

 

I just don't agree with paying them a ton of future money for past accomplishments.

 

I don't believe in players getting paid less because of the fact that they used to not be as good as they are now either. It doesn't make a lot of sense that players should have to absorb that downside without the upside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...