Should the NCAA pay its athletes?

Postby nova » 04 Jan 2006, 10:38

Fact or Fiction: Division I football and basketball players should receive a small stipend in exchange for their lining the pockets of their member institutions.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25500
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Postby Frank the Tank » 04 Jan 2006, 10:45

nasty nova wrote:Fact or Fiction: Division I football and basketball players should receive a small stipend in exchange for their lining the pockets of their member institutions.

Fact. The NCAA is the most hypocritical organization out there. They negotiate billion-dollar TV contracts and refuse to put a playoff system in football because they want to protect their bowl paydays, but they'll suspend a kid for making $25 selling a used pair of sneakers. Fuck the NCAA.
2015 SOTSG Fantasy Football Champion

BostonSucksMyBalls 11/2/2016: "I hate the internet. No accountability. Just a wasteland of shitheads."
User avatar
Frank the Tank
TiVo's Prophet
 
Posts: 31567
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 08:34

Postby BostonSucksMyBalls » 04 Jan 2006, 11:15

nasty nova wrote:Fact or Fiction: Division I football and basketball players should receive a small stipend in exchange for their lining the pockets of their member institutions.

Fiction: If they dont like playing a sport for their school in exchange for getting a full ride, fuck em. I didnt get a full ride, or recieve a stipend in college. The full ride is worth anywhere from $10K to $40K a year anyway. Plus, they all get major college ass out of it too. Paying college kids $$$ is crazy, IMO.
User avatar
BostonSucksMyBalls
Slave to Uber
 
Posts: 31089
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 09:59

Postby nova » 04 Jan 2006, 11:21

BostonSucksMyBalls wrote:Fiction: If they dont like playing a sport for their school in exchange for getting a full ride, fuck em. I didnt get a full ride, or recieve a stipend in college. The full ride is worth anywhere from $10K to $40K a year anyway. Plus, they all get major college ass out of it too. Paying college kids $$$ is crazy, IMO.


Sure, the full ride is worth $10k to $40k per year, but they are also prohibited from doing certain things that other students are allowed to do, like get a part-time job. I think it is an abomination that athletes can cause the television networks to pay billions of dollars for broadcast rights, but the people performing get a mere drop in the bucket.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25500
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Postby BostonSucksMyBalls » 04 Jan 2006, 11:26

nasty nova wrote:Sure, the full ride is worth $10k to $40k per year, but they are also prohibited from doing certain things that other students are allowed to do, like get a part-time job. I think it is an abomination that athletes can cause the television networks to pay billions of dollars for broadcast rights, but the people performing get a mere drop in the bucket.

I think we wil just have to agree to disagree. Again, they dont have to take the scholarship!
User avatar
BostonSucksMyBalls
Slave to Uber
 
Posts: 31089
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 09:59

Postby nova » 04 Jan 2006, 11:29

BostonSucksMyBalls wrote:
nasty nova wrote:Sure, the full ride is worth $10k to $40k per year, but they are also prohibited from doing certain things that other students are allowed to do, like get a part-time job. I think it is an abomination that athletes can cause the television networks to pay billions of dollars for broadcast rights, but the people performing get a mere drop in the bucket.

I think we wil just have to agree to disagree. Again, they dont have to take the scholarship!


It's a bit early in the game to play the "agree to disagree" card. I am not saying that a free college education is not worth playing sports for; I just happen to agree with Frank's wording that the NCAA is hypocritical for making billions off of them, while it's against their rules for the players to get $25 for selling his shoes. If the NCAA were fair, they would sell the broadcast rights at a price determined by the aggregate scholarship value of all athletes affected. That way, the member schools are reimbursed for their "troubles" in education, housing, and feeding these kids.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25500
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Postby TheWolf » 04 Jan 2006, 11:32

I agree that the NCAA is incredibly hypocritical, and I don't think there should be rules against things such as selling their shoes. But I also think that paying an actual salary to a guy that's already got a full scholarship is just too much.
"our kayaking guy sucked and came last"
- SGSW
User avatar
TheWolf
Hand-Holder
 
Posts: 18461
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 08:17
Location: Dead

Postby nova » 04 Jan 2006, 11:36

TheWolf wrote:I agree that the NCAA is incredibly hypocritical, and I don't think there should be rules against things such as selling their shoes. But I also think that paying an actual salary to a guy that's already got a full scholarship is just too much.


I'm not saying a salary. I think they should get around $150 per month so they can go to the movies, take their girlfriend to dinner, and get their kid some baby forumla.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25500
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Postby BostonSucksMyBalls » 04 Jan 2006, 11:38

nasty nova wrote:If the NCAA were fair, they would sell the broadcast rights at a price determined by the aggregate scholarship value of all athletes affected. That way, the member schools are reimbursed for their "troubles" in education, housing, and feeding these kids.

Well, that's just not realistic. The NCAA is an actual business. If CBS or ABC wants to charge advertisers a jillion dollars for the commercial spots, why wouldnt the NCAA want to see some profit off of that? The NCAA does have to pay its employees and member institutions, etc. I dont see why the athletes are in such a horrible postion. Even kids that are able to get part time jobs in college, its not like they are pulling in more than like $75/week. I would be irate if the athletes started getting a stipend. Remember, they do get a monetary per diem on road trips, something like $30-$40/day. And that does not take into account that the team has a team meal before games. So, they pocket most of that perdiem anyway.
User avatar
BostonSucksMyBalls
Slave to Uber
 
Posts: 31089
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 09:59

Postby nova » 04 Jan 2006, 11:41

BostonSucksMyBalls wrote:Remember, they do get a monetary per diem on road trips, something like $30-$40/day. And that does not take into account that the team has a team meal before games. So, they pocket most of that perdiem anyway.


Last time I checked, the NCAA is not a business, but a non-profit organizaiton.

Sure, they eat before the game, but most of the players did spend 1.5 to 3 hours competing a very high level of athletic competition, which could make someone slightly hungry. There is no team meal after the games, pretty much relegating them to eat out on the town. While I agree that the per diem is a tad high, it still doesn't add up to the benefit the athletes are giving the schools.
Last edited by nova on 04 Jan 2006, 11:43, edited 1 time in total.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25500
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Postby Dr Jeckyll » 04 Jan 2006, 11:41

TheWolf wrote:I agree that the NCAA is incredibly hypocritical, and I don't think there should be rules against things such as selling their shoes. But I also think that paying an actual salary to a guy that's already got a full scholarship is just too much.


I kind of agree with what Nova is saying that it would be nice if the players got a little stipend, but i don't get the charge of hypocrisy. what is the NCAA supposed to do, not accept the money from the TV networks? If they didn't accept this money than either they would have to cut scholarships or else raise tuition across the board. Not paying athletes is a long-standing rule, it would be pretty absurd if the NCAA did not sell broadcasting rights.
Gregs Kite - Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:55 pm: I hate DJ and his stupid face and hes so stupid and I want to punch him
User avatar
Dr Jeckyll
Never Forgotten
 
Posts: 7766
Joined: 08 Oct 2005, 14:11
Location: New Jersey

Postby Frank the Tank » 04 Jan 2006, 11:48

I wouldn't have a problem with no stipend if it weren't for the fact that they're not allowed to have part-time jobs. You're essentially cutting off all sources of funding except mom & dad, and that seems too strong for me. Even if you're giving them a full ride they need to have a way to get a little spending cash. Either loosen the restrictions a bit or give them a stipend IMO.
2015 SOTSG Fantasy Football Champion

BostonSucksMyBalls 11/2/2016: "I hate the internet. No accountability. Just a wasteland of shitheads."
User avatar
Frank the Tank
TiVo's Prophet
 
Posts: 31567
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 08:34

Postby BostonSucksMyBalls » 04 Jan 2006, 11:48

Luckily for me I guess, I doubt the NCAA will start paying athletes. What are thy gonna do, pay MBB and FB players, and no other sport? That would never fly. Title 9 would step right in. How could they afford to pay 35,000 athletes?
User avatar
BostonSucksMyBalls
Slave to Uber
 
Posts: 31089
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 09:59

Postby SouthernYokel » 04 Jan 2006, 11:50

BostonSucksMyBalls wrote:Luckily for me I guess, I doubt the NCAA will start paying athletes. What are thy gonna do, pay MBB and FB players, and no other sport? That would never fly. Title 9 would step right in. How could they afford to pay 35,000 athletes?


Bingo!!!! BSMB wins. Title IX would trump any paying of athletes because how are you going to justify paying the women's equestrian team?
JT99 wrote:imagine working your entire board life on being a guy investigating every nook and cranny of others' sexual lives only to have some drunken baboon stumble into the r&t jackpot
User avatar
SouthernYokel
Hank the Hangover Turtle
 
Posts: 29840
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 08:09

Postby Dr Jeckyll » 04 Jan 2006, 11:51

Frank the Tank wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with no stipend if it weren't for the fact that they're not allowed to have part-time jobs. You're essentially cutting off all sources of funding except mom & dad, and that seems too strong for me. Even if you're giving them a full ride they need to have a way to get a little spending cash. Either loosen the restrictions a bit or give them a stipend IMO.


They can't take part-time jobs because of the risk of no-show jobs and other potential abuses. i guess i'm coming around to agreeing that there should be a stipend.

Bingo!!!! BSMB wins. Title IX would trump any paying of athletes because how are you going to justify paying the women's equestrian team?


if it's a small stipend for necessities, i think they could pay everyone.
Gregs Kite - Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:55 pm: I hate DJ and his stupid face and hes so stupid and I want to punch him
User avatar
Dr Jeckyll
Never Forgotten
 
Posts: 7766
Joined: 08 Oct 2005, 14:11
Location: New Jersey

Next

Return to College Sports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest