Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Former TV executive says if you start to pay the college players, the popularity of college sports would go downhill and it turn into a semi-pro league   (espn.go.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Ed O'Bannon, European Professional Football Leagues, video cameras, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, sports broadcasting, amateurism, CBS Sports, NCAA  
•       •       •

437 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Jun 2014 at 7:53 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-13 07:17:36 AM  
... and?

The NFL is already thinking of starting their own developmental league, so talented underclassmen and high school players who want to get paid for their play will just leave school for the NFL-D League, and move up to the NFL itself once they've been out of high school for three years. This is going to drain talent away from the college game, and eventually leave the NCAA with a sub-par product.

The best way for the NCAA to keep players in school, rather than jumping to the NFL early or to a D League, is to pay those players something. Or better yet, take away those ridiculous restrictions on players earning money off of their own likenesses, so players can earn on their own. That would not cost the colleges a dime.
 
2014-06-13 07:42:28 AM  
And considering kids on full ride scholarships aren't allowed to have a part time job, the need for cash to do the things college kids like to do creates the "donation" scandals we see almost every year; giving these kids a small salary is easily the best way to clean up those problems and pass on some of the vast sums of money pulled in from these sports programs.
 
2014-06-13 07:44:13 AM  
Kids are already being compensated. The issue at hand is how much are they being compensated. I think the nonprofit NCAA can afford a few.bucks to make sure their players can eat and buy books.
 
2014-06-13 08:07:21 AM  
Allow me to retort: So?
 
2014-06-13 08:09:26 AM  

enry: Kids are already being compensated. The issue at hand is how much are they being compensated. I think the nonprofit NCAA can afford a few.bucks to make sure their players can eat and buy books.


And lets all get serious here.... this is ALL about mens Basketball and Football, and mostly "major" school I-A conferences.   If those didn't exist in their current state and everything else was like it is, nobody would be going "Man, those women's basketball players, and hockey and baseball players, and field lacrosse players need to get paid!".   The complaining is about Johnny Manziel not getting some money off of his image and notoriety while in college, not a water polo player.

So, my solution for this isn't the schools paying the players anymore... it is letting the "market" work itself out, and let the students get paid by boosters or get endorsement deals.   The players who are "marketable" because of their play & skill can make extra cash.... the better looking female players can probably make some extra cash modeling and endorsing products.    If you are on some sport that isn't very high profile and you can't get any deals... oh well, you weren't on a sport that should have gotten much if any extra cash with the school paying players anyway.
 
2014-06-13 08:16:43 AM  

dletter: enry: Kids are already being compensated. The issue at hand is how much are they being compensated. I think the nonprofit NCAA can afford a few.bucks to make sure their players can eat and buy books.

And lets all get serious here.... this is ALL about mens Basketball and Football, and mostly "major" school I-A conferences.   If those didn't exist in their current state and everything else was like it is, nobody would be going "Man, those women's basketball players, and hockey and baseball players, and field lacrosse players need to get paid!".   The complaining is about Johnny Manziel not getting some money off of his image and notoriety while in college, not a water polo player.

So, my solution for this isn't the schools paying the players anymore... it is letting the "market" work itself out, and let the students get paid by boosters or get endorsement deals.   The players who are "marketable" because of their play & skill can make extra cash.... the better looking female players can probably make some extra cash modeling and endorsing products.    If you are on some sport that isn't very high profile and you can't get any deals... oh well, you weren't on a sport that should have gotten much if any extra cash with the school paying players anyway.


I'll expand even more though, that it is even within a single team.... my Johnny football example... he is the 'face' that people complain about that ESPN, Fox, NCAA, etc are making their money off the "backs" off... not really the 4th string interior lineman on his team.  So, again... let the market decide.

As far as people worrying about , you can still "open the floodgates", but, put some stipulations on it.... only a certain number of hours per week "working" or earning money.  And you could mandate that their has to be some "job" involved, even if it is just a photo shoot, ie, can't just be boosters putting a pile of cash in front of your dorm door.  You could also stipulate that any money over $x per year earned while in school gets put into a trust until you graduate, so you aren't just "G-money" flashing cash around school (that rule would also help get more kids to actually graduate, and/or not leave school early).

And as we've seen with the recent revelations about kids not really going to class... if you put some "mandatory" hours in class/studying on the kids as well, and had HARD sanctions against the school for not following those, then, that can get better too.
 
2014-06-13 08:16:55 AM  
College sports' popularity is 100% about tribalism, and if that tribalism can survive the reality that 95% of your local football team's starters had never set foot within 500 miles of your state until the recruiters gave them free plane tickets so they could come tour the school's slut dungeons, then I think it will survive them getting a decent living stipend.
 
2014-06-13 08:19:16 AM  

MmmmBacon: ... and?


Came to say this.
 
2014-06-13 08:24:00 AM  

dookdookdook: College sports' popularity is 100% about tribalism, and if that tribalism can survive the reality that 95% of your local football team's starters had never set foot within 500 miles of your state until the recruiters gave them free plane tickets so they could come tour the school's slut dungeons, then I think it will survive them getting a decent living stipend.


How much money would it cost me to tour Oregon's slut dungeon?
 
2014-06-13 08:27:43 AM  
That's good to hear. Are we done?
 
2014-06-13 08:28:39 AM  
Get the crooked sh*t out of schools.
 
2014-06-13 08:31:24 AM  

Irving Maimway: And considering kids on full ride scholarships aren't allowed to have a part time job, the need for cash to do the things college kids like to do creates the "donation" scandals we see almost every year; giving these kids a small salary is easily the best way to clean up those problems and pass on some of the vast sums of money pulled in from these sports programs.


Its not just stuff college kids like to do, many student athletes have already been thrust in to adulthood. Some have wives, many have children that need to be provided for, or parents and siblings living in extreme poverty. You are surrounded by booster driven opulence, around the corner from being a millionaires, earning huge money for the coach and his staff, but you can't feed your family.
 
2014-06-13 08:40:58 AM  
Non-athlete college students can get jobs. Why the fark can't college athletes?
 
2014-06-13 08:46:29 AM  

machoprogrammer: Non-athlete college students can get jobs. Why the fark can't college athletes?


NCAA rules.
 
2014-06-13 08:46:51 AM  

salvador.hardin: Irving Maimway: And considering kids on full ride scholarships aren't allowed to have a part time job, the need for cash to do the things college kids like to do creates the "donation" scandals we see almost every year; giving these kids a small salary is easily the best way to clean up those problems and pass on some of the vast sums of money pulled in from these sports programs.

Its not just stuff college kids like to do, many student athletes have already been thrust in to adulthood. Some have wives, many have children that need to be provided for, or parents and siblings living in extreme poverty. You are surrounded by booster driven opulence, around the corner from being a millionaires, earning huge money for the coach and his staff, but you can't feed your family.


"Thrust into adulthood"? Sounds like they did the thrusting themselves.

They can put in the time and get the free education and hopefully use it to improve their position, or they can quit school and go to work to handle the responsibilities they have encumbered themselves with. Their choice.

The status quo is fine, and a very good deal for student athletes.
 
2014-06-13 08:53:05 AM  
Well, that's his opinion. He has no actual data to base it on.
 
2014-06-13 08:55:20 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: salvador.hardin: Irving Maimway: And considering kids on full ride scholarships aren't allowed to have a part time job, the need for cash to do the things college kids like to do creates the "donation" scandals we see almost every year; giving these kids a small salary is easily the best way to clean up those problems and pass on some of the vast sums of money pulled in from these sports programs.

Its not just stuff college kids like to do, many student athletes have already been thrust in to adulthood. Some have wives, many have children that need to be provided for, or parents and siblings living in extreme poverty. You are surrounded by booster driven opulence, around the corner from being a millionaires, earning huge money for the coach and his staff, but you can't feed your family.

"Thrust into adulthood"? Sounds like they did the thrusting themselves.

They can put in the time and get the free education and hopefully use it to improve their position, or they can quit school and go to work to handle the responsibilities they have encumbered themselves with. Their choice.

The status quo is fine, and a very good deal for student athletes.


Sure, we can ignore the issue because a child acted irresponsibly and foster a system of corruption and exploitation to ensure that they are properly punished (at least on the books). Or we can pay them a small salary for generating ungodly amounts of money for others through their skills and efforts.
 
2014-06-13 08:55:37 AM  

Irving Maimway: machoprogrammer: Non-athlete college students can get jobs. Why the fark can't college athletes?

NCAA rules.


It was a rhetorical question. I meant it was stupid the NCAA has that restriction.
 
2014-06-13 08:55:57 AM  
Got news for you.

College football is already quasi-pro.

Only the "owners" have much more control of the product than that other league.
 
2014-06-13 08:59:28 AM  
Who honestly believes that the popularity of college sports is based on the fact that "fans enjoy the concept of young people playing sports for the love of the game." And even if a number of people do, I'm not sure how public opinion is relevant to questions involving labor rights and anti-trust law.
 
2014-06-13 09:03:04 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They can put in the time and get the free education and hopefully use it to improve their position, or they can quit school and go to work to handle the responsibilities they have encumbered themselves with. Their choice.


You might have noticed this back in high school, but the set intersection of people who are hardcore into sports and people who are smart enough to reap great benefits from formal education isn't particularly big.  Giving these people gift certificates for free school is like paying a walmart cashier with gift certificates to the local BMW dealership.

This is the kind of mentality that leads people to argue for abolishing the minimum wage.  "Hey, nobody's forcing you to take that $2 an hour McD's job, and you're better off with $50 in your pocket every week than without it, right?"
 
2014-06-13 09:08:19 AM  
Are NCAA officials paid?
 
2014-06-13 09:13:07 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Who honestly believes that the popularity of college sports is based on the fact that "fans enjoy the concept of young people playing sports for the love of the game." And even if a number of people do, I'm not sure how public opinion is relevant to questions involving labor rights and anti-trust law.


Well in any discussion between College vs. Pro sports, college fans always state in some way or another
"College players care more..." with the implication of once they get a paycheck, professionals don't care about winning, just getting paid. It's really the only reason why you can tell a disinterested sports fan to watch an early october Oklahoma vs. Louisiana Tech game. 

To make matters worse, College Football had a better arguement, there were diverse styles of play; you had the spread, the wishbone, power-running, etc... where Pro just had the standard "Pro-Set" offense. And in the last 15~20 years, the pro style took over the college game. So college football is nothing more than watching a poor copy of the pro game with much cuter fans.
 
2014-06-13 09:15:50 AM  
I'm on the fence about outright payments to college players.  But I believe the NCAA should give every D1 player a stipend worth a reasonable amount of money.
 
2014-06-13 09:19:50 AM  

macadamnut: Are NCAA officials paid?


Their president (Mark Emmert) makes about $3 million per year.
 
2014-06-13 09:20:26 AM  

Another Government Employee: Got news for you.

College football is already quasi-pro.

Only the "owners" have much more control of the product than that other league.


Phil Knight has the best ownership gig in sports.
 
2014-06-13 09:30:52 AM  
A former president of CBS Sports fears that paying college athletes for the use of their image would leave less money in the gigantic money bucket that is college athletics for the networks.

That is what the title of the article should be because that is all that he is worried about. Also I can't believe that their is actually an argument regarding paying somebody for the commercial use of their name and image.
 
2014-06-13 09:36:57 AM  
A semi-pro league? Too late.

ESPN signed a 20 YEAR contract with the SEC. College football players throughout the South will be playing for SEC cable and ESPN for an entire generation. ESPN will have its own semi-pro league and make trillions off of it.
 
2014-06-13 09:37:51 AM  
I dont see why they need to go to classes to represent their school in athletics
 
2014-06-13 09:43:22 AM  

machoprogrammer: Irving Maimway: machoprogrammer: Non-athlete college students can get jobs. Why the fark can't college athletes?

NCAA rules.

It was a rhetorical question. I meant it was stupid the NCAA has that restriction.


This is why we need a sarcasm tag. And a rant tag.
 
2014-06-13 10:11:27 AM  

Irving Maimway: machoprogrammer: Irving Maimway: machoprogrammer: Non-athlete college students can get jobs. Why the fark can't college athletes?

NCAA rules.

It was a rhetorical question. I meant it was stupid the NCAA has that restriction.

This is why we need a sarcasm tag. And a rant tag.


I need the kind I can clip to my shirt.
 
2014-06-13 10:20:13 AM  
Schools make a ton of money, and the NFL/NBA has their minor leagues subsidized for them.

Too many students are getting sham classes as "compensation;" make no mistake that they are absolutely the last consideration in collegiate sports.
 
2014-06-13 10:29:26 AM  
I'm in a doctoral program for higher ed administration.  A lot of people don't know how much of the university's resources (human capitol, expenditures) are tied up in their sports programs, often to the detriment of the college.  A lot of people tend to think that the university's football program pays for itself and makes money for the university.  Except for in a few VERY BIG programs (Alabama, for example), the opposite is true.  Smaller colleges have had to compete for students by shoveling money into their sports programs and diverting funds away from, you know, education.  It speaks volumes that Northwestern's immediate reaction to the union ruling was: geez, now we're gonna have to shut down the program.  It wasn't just a threat: if they had to pay anything for student labors, they wouldn't be able to sustain the college.
 
2014-06-13 10:42:12 AM  
FTA:  A former president of CBS Sports says he fears the popularity of college sports would suffer if athletes receive money to play because fans enjoy the concept of young people playing sports for the love of the game.

TRANSLATION:  A lot of bank accounts belonging to colleges, NCAA and television networks will start to get rather light if they have to share the profits generated by a bunch of college athletes WITH the college athletes.
 
2014-06-13 10:42:26 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: "Thrust into adulthood"? Sounds like they did the thrusting themselves.

They can put in the time and get the free education and hopefully use it to improve their position, or they can quit school and go to work to handle the responsibilities they have encumbered themselves with. Their choice.

The status quo is fine, and a very good deal for student athletes.


It's a terrible deal for the kids.  The schools rake in millions on them.  In exchange, they get a scholarship to study communications or basket-weaving, because if they're important players, the coaching staff isn't going to allow them to study something marketable even if they want to.

I note, like most spoiled assholes who watch college football and support the current joke of a system, you blew by his point about parents and siblings living in gut-wrenching poverty.

If I were a highly-touted recruit who watched my mom struggle to keep the lights turned on for herself and my sister, I'd take money from boosters too.

And even for the ones who've thrust themselves into adulthood -- so what?  Kids doing stupid kid things in the past means they're less deserving of fair pay for their labor?  Bullshiat.

Pay the kids a good stipend, give them benefits, and move on.
 
2014-06-13 10:43:40 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I'm in a doctoral program for higher ed administration.  A lot of people don't know how much of the university's resources (human capitol, expenditures) are tied up in their sports programs, often to the detriment of the college.  A lot of people tend to think that the university's football program pays for itself and makes money for the university.  Except for in a few VERY BIG programs (Alabama, for example), the opposite is true.  Smaller colleges have had to compete for students by shoveling money into their sports programs and diverting funds away from, you know, education.  It speaks volumes that Northwestern's immediate reaction to the union ruling was: geez, now we're gonna have to shut down the program.  It wasn't just a threat: if they had to pay anything for student labors, they wouldn't be able to sustain the college.


Except for the athletes weren't asking to be paid for playing. They were asking for medical coverage and to be compensated for the use of their names and likeness.
 
2014-06-13 10:46:37 AM  
I found following the play-by-play of this trial yesterday to be fascinating (and a fine alternative to working).  A few things I picked up:

1) I'm pretty sure that the judge essentially ordered the NCAA to provide her with a balance sheet and cash flow statement to help her determine where all of their billions of TV revenue goes given that they are a non-profit.

2) The NCAA attorneys and witnesses are really big on a farktarded slippery slope argument of correlating the revenue from their broadcasts to televised Little League and High School games.  The plaintiff's counter argument was to ask the defense witness if Little Leauge was also controlled by a cartel (burn!)

3) The attorney's efforts to explain the process of selecting college football champion was pretty amusing.  I recall the judge asking counsel if any school was free to join the SEC to improve their chances of becoming champion.

The ESPN guy's twitter feed was my favorite to follow: https://twitter.com/TomFarrey
 
2014-06-13 10:54:11 AM  
Waiting for a University to include a $200.00/week "Living Stipend" in the full-ride athletic scholarships.  Wouldn't that solve all of the problems?  That money is then part of the scholarship for attending a school and most likely wouldn't be illegal.

/probably is, but I am no expert
//makes sense and that is why it probably is illegal
 
2014-06-13 11:03:48 AM  

ongbok: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I'm in a doctoral program for higher ed administration.  A lot of people don't know how much of the university's resources (human capitol, expenditures) are tied up in their sports programs, often to the detriment of the college.  A lot of people tend to think that the university's football program pays for itself and makes money for the university.  Except for in a few VERY BIG programs (Alabama, for example), the opposite is true.  Smaller colleges have had to compete for students by shoveling money into their sports programs and diverting funds away from, you know, education.  It speaks volumes that Northwestern's immediate reaction to the union ruling was: geez, now we're gonna have to shut down the program.  It wasn't just a threat: if they had to pay anything for student labors, they wouldn't be able to sustain the college.

Except for the athletes weren't asking to be paid for playing. They were asking for medical coverage and to be compensated for the use of their names and likeness.


The irony is: that's going to be enough to shut down most DIII programs and most DII programs.  I'm fine with this.
 
2014-06-13 11:28:29 AM  
I loved when the CBS guy said that promotional stuff of the players without the uniforms didn't have much value, that the value was in the schools, and the attorney's response was to basically ask "what would the value be of a picture of empty uniforms"
 
2014-06-13 11:35:41 AM  

GQueue: I loved when the CBS guy said that promotional stuff of the players without the uniforms didn't have much value, that the value was in the schools, and the attorney's response was to basically ask "what would the value be of a picture of empty uniforms"


Honestly, if they could get robots to play in the uniforms, most would probably not notice/care.... rooting for laundry after all.
 
2014-06-13 12:27:15 PM  
The status quo is bullshiat and every fix suggested will ruin college athletics. Kindy sucky situation all around.
 
2014-06-13 12:30:53 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Schools make a ton of money, and the NFL/NBA has their minor leagues subsidized for them.

Too many students are getting sham classes as "compensation;" make no mistake that they are absolutely the last consideration in collegiate sports.


Coaches make a ton of money.  For most schools athletics is still a net loss financially, although TV money is helping more of the big name schools break even -- their general budgets (meaning money that could have gone to education and research)  end up subsidizing the expensive teams. And then their more rabid boosters blame the inexpensive women's teams and that damn title IX.
 
2014-06-13 12:55:52 PM  

Champion of the Sun: The status quo is bullshiat and every fix suggested will ruin college athletics. Kindy sucky situation all around.


I agree with the first part.... not sure why you think "every fix" will ruin college athletics though, please give examples (you can start with mine above).

Will they "change" college athletics vs. how it has "historically" has been?   Sure.... but, so what?  Things change.   I compare this to the Olympics.... which also used to drape itself in the cloak of the "purity of amateurism".    That has been gone for a bit over 20 years now, and, has it hurt the Olympics?  Doesn't appear so.   The Olympics are certainly different... some people probably have a beef with it not being "amateur" anymore, but, those are different arguments to have.

My change actually probably most mimics what the Olympics changed from.... if you are in a sport that you can cash in on your fame, then, by all means, go endorse the crap out of things.   You don't get paid anything by the Olympics other than winning a medal.... you make your money in other events and opportunities, and the Olympics won't disallow you to participate any more.   Same thing can be applied to college athletes.  As has been stated... in just about every other endeavor in college, if you want to go make money on the side while you go to school, you are able to.  Only sports has these crazy rules for some sort of archaic "purity of amateurism" reason.   It's time to take the shroud off of that.
 
2014-06-13 01:25:11 PM  

dletter: Champion of the Sun: The status quo is bullshiat and every fix suggested will ruin college athletics. Kindy sucky situation all around.

I agree with the first part.... not sure why you think "every fix" will ruin college athletics though, please give examples (you can start with mine above).

Will they "change" college athletics vs. how it has "historically" has been?   Sure.... but, so what?  Things change.   I compare this to the Olympics.... which also used to drape itself in the cloak of the "purity of amateurism".    That has been gone for a bit over 20 years now, and, has it hurt the Olympics?  Doesn't appear so.   The Olympics are certainly different... some people probably have a beef with it not being "amateur" anymore, but, those are different arguments to have.

My change actually probably most mimics what the Olympics changed from.... if you are in a sport that you can cash in on your fame, then, by all means, go endorse the crap out of things.   You don't get paid anything by the Olympics other than winning a medal.... you make your money in other events and opportunities, and the Olympics won't disallow you to participate any more.   Same thing can be applied to college athletes.  As has been stated... in just about every other endeavor in college, if you want to go make money on the side while you go to school, you are able to.  Only sports has these crazy rules for some sort of archaic "purity of amateurism" reason.   It's time to take the shroud off of that.


I wonder if any college will benefit from an exclusive Nike sponsorship for their players? Maybe whatever college Phil Knight went to. Or Rutgers for the under armor CEO.  Or maybe T. Boone Pickens would want to pay six figures to have players froma certain college endorse his oil wells? Etc.  your idea is stupid.
 
2014-06-13 01:47:54 PM  

Komplex: Wellon Dowd: Who honestly believes that the popularity of college sports is based on the fact that "fans enjoy the concept of young people playing sports for the love of the game." And even if a number of people do, I'm not sure how public opinion is relevant to questions involving labor rights and anti-trust law.

Well in any discussion between College vs. Pro sports, college fans always state in some way or another
"College players care more..." with the implication of once they get a paycheck, professionals don't care about winning, just getting paid. It's really the only reason why you can tell a disinterested sports fan to watch an early october Oklahoma vs. Louisiana Tech game. 

To make matters worse, College Football had a better arguement, there were diverse styles of play; you had the spread, the wishbone, power-running, etc... where Pro just had the standard "Pro-Set" offense. And in the last 15~20 years, the pro style took over the college game. So college football is nothing more than watching a poor copy of the pro game with much cuter fans.


I disagree.  The last 15-20 years has seen the spread come to the forefront in college football.  Teams running pro-sets and West Coast offenses in college are not the norm anymore.    College still has a much more exciting playing style due to varying philosophies and the fact that on every play somebody is screwing up.
 
2014-06-13 01:56:49 PM  
Economist Dan Rauscher is tearing it as a plaintiff witness right now....
 
2014-06-13 01:57:51 PM  
The NCAA will likely roll out some more methods of compensation for their players without going to a pay-for-play or even a "boosters allowed" model. The big one is that the guys in the Northwestern Union group were discussing how these kids often wreck their bodies and brains, but are out of luck for medical treatment a lot of the time. They've already introduced unlimited food plans, so it would be within the NCAA's track record to do something like that.

There's a bigger, fundamental problem that the NCAA has been completely avoiding its own responsibilities for awhile now. We often joke that the guys who play football at places like Alabama, North Carolina and LSU aren't really the brightest. It's a known thing that they aren't really college student material. They're all just basically there to develop themselves for a hopeful pro career, but the majority of them won't get there. They leave college to find themselves broken, out of work, no education, having been paid nothing for their peak years. The easy solution would be if the NFL made a D-league that accepted those guys and paid them. But the NCAA has tolerated and tacitly accepted the academic shenanigans that go along with getting functionally illiterate linemen on the field for top football teams. That needs to end. You can't argue that the scholarship is a perfectly fine compensation, when the scholarship isn't what the workers want. The NCAA has a monopoly on young football talent. Their players have no other choice for football. If their players didn't want the scholarship, they don't get a choice. That's going to be a big obstacle in their arguments. 

One thing that could save the NCAA: rules about what schools do with those piles of donor/merchandise/video game money. Building fancy stadiums and paying the head coaches millions of dollars screams opulence. If they were to have rules that stated that x% of football profits has to go back into the university general fund, they'd have a much more solid case for keeping the funds.
 
2014-06-13 01:58:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: "Thrust into adulthood"? Sounds like they did the thrusting themselves.

They can put in the time and get the free education and hopefully use it to improve their position, or they can quit school and go to work to handle the responsibilities they have encumbered themselves with. Their choice.

The status quo is fine, and a very good deal for student athletes.


but why are they so different than the student who has kids and got an academic scholarship; that student would be allowed to get a part-time job.  allowing him to pursue his free education AND provide for the responsibilities encumbered upon themselves.

but if the scholarship involves swimming back and forth in a pool, then it is a no go on teaching swimming lessons on the side.
 
2014-06-13 02:53:18 PM  

Sliding Carp: Orgasmatron138: Schools make a ton of money, and the NFL/NBA has their minor leagues subsidized for them.

Too many students are getting sham classes as "compensation;" make no mistake that they are absolutely the last consideration in collegiate sports.

Coaches make a ton of money.  For most schools athletics is still a net loss financially, although TV money is helping more of the big name schools break even -- their general budgets (meaning money that could have gone to education and research)  end up subsidizing the expensive teams. And then their more rabid boosters blame the inexpensive women's teams and that damn title IX.


I spoke to a guy whose dream is to become a sports administrator at a major university.  His argument is such: a college's number of applications increase when a team makes a huge leap in the sports world.  Unfortunately, this presumes that the college a) had infinite space to take in all the students they want, and b) that admissions fees are a profit-making entity.  Both are completely untrue.  The "bump" in applications also only lasts for a few months.  Essentially, the student body remains the same, and admissions officials are inundated with a larger number of applications of not very high quality.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report