man I was wondering why the NAACP was doing something fucked up like this but I apparently always get those acronyms mixed up
It's an easy mistake, but just remember: while they are both mostly about black people, one of them is against forcing blacks to work like animals for no compensation in something approximating indentured servitude
From the NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report:
"As with the previous years, in 2009-10 the highest percentage of male and female student-athletes were white (70.4 and 77.2 percent respectively) with the next highest percentage of student-athletes being black (18.7 percent for male student-athletes and 11.6 percent for female student-athletes)."
So no, one of them is not "mostly about black people". And no one is forcing them to "to work like animals for no compensation in something approximating indentured servitude". Let's back off the hyperbole to maintain a real discussion.
The money is in men's basketball and football, which is disproportionately weighted with Black athletes in the extreme in relation to both general student population and national population.
It's not all that hyperbolic.
We talking about money or people? If money, then yes you are correct. If people, then no you are not correct. Both are valid topics.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's certainly that way in the Midwest and parts of the South that don't have professional teams.
There isn't an NFL presence in states like Nebraska or Alabama, so people there go apeshit for college sports.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
There are athletes on scholarship that absolutely have part-time jobs and get paid. They don't get paid EXTRA or PREFERENTIALLY because of their skills, but they get paid within the NCAA rules. There are also athletes who major in tough stuff and do just fine.
Edit: Actually that first article makes Tressel look like a dick.
That first article is terrible, completely aside from how dickish Tressel does indeed come off. It basically argues that athletes are getting a boon by getting a fleeting reknown boost immediately upon graduation. And yeah, that works if you played for a prestige program or were a particularly outstanding athlete, but again, what about those guys who played for small schools or never started despite being on the team for years? "Oh, you rode the pine for five years at State, eh? Sounds fascinating." There's about 100x the number of the latter group than the former.
And this is the literal last line in the second article:
He'll realize that this doesn't happen every day. Or really ever.
No, I know. Being a college athlete kind of sucks. It's voluntary though. One does not have to participate in the corruptness of the NCAA, which is super corrupt.
If you want to go pro in anything besides baseball, you really have to.
Maybe you shouldn't?
Oh, ok. Lets just call up the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS and tell them to pack it up, that they are wrong and should cease to exist.
No one in the NHL drafts college players. If you are going pro in the NHL, you are probably a pro (QMJHL, OHL) around the age 16. Well before college. Very few college players make it to the NHL. College players simply don't play enough hockey to.
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
One of the best students in my year and major was on the swim team while the worst were apparently devoting 100% of their time to academic pursuits.
For a lot of kids sports is the only way they can afford college.
For a lot of kids sports is the only way they can afford college.
If they don't get a good education while they are there, it's probably not worth it. The odds are against them going pro, or in most cases, non-existant. I'd bank on the academic need-based scholarship that a lot of private universities are covering nowadays a lot more than an athletic scholarship as my path to any college. At least I'll have time to finish a worthwhile degree.
No one in the NHL drafts college players. If you are going pro in the NHL, you are probably a pro around the age 16. Well before college.
Are you saying no one in the NHL played college ice hockey? Because that is blatantly wrong.
No. I, in fact said very few. Because most NHLers come from the quebec major junior hockey league, or the ontario hockey league.
In the world of NCAA hockey, the vast majority of players on the 58 Division I and 77 Division II/III men’s teams will not make the jump to the NHL, AHL, ECHL or any other of the various professional hockey leagues around the world. But for a select few, college hockey is merely a steppingstone to the bright lights of the National Hockey League.
In fact, according to our research, a record 300 players who saw at least one regular season NHL game in 2011-12 honed their skills in college before making the leap to the professional ranks. That number represents 30.5 percent of all NHL players from the current season. In 2011-12, 52 former collegiate hockey players made their NHL debut.
Eighty-four of the former college players who reached the NHL this year were undrafted free agents.
You really, really need to differentiate between the minor league programs and other sports when making most of these statements. And when compiling any statistics.
I think most of us would agree that the issue resides pretty much entirely in the football and basketball programs.
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
No one in the NHL drafts college players. If you are going pro in the NHL, you are probably a pro around the age 16. Well before college.
Are you saying no one in the NHL played college ice hockey? Because that is blatantly wrong.
No. I, in fact said very few. Because most NHLers come from the quebec major junior hockey league, or the ontario hockey league.
In the world of NCAA hockey, the vast majority of players on the 58 Division I and 77 Division II/III men’s teams will not make the jump to the NHL, AHL, ECHL or any other of the various professional hockey leagues around the world. But for a select few, college hockey is merely a steppingstone to the bright lights of the National Hockey League.
In fact, according to our research, a record 300 players who saw at least one regular season NHL game in 2011-12 honed their skills in college before making the leap to the professional ranks. That number represents 30.5 percent of all NHL players from the current season. In 2011-12, 52 former collegiate hockey players made their NHL debut.
In fact you said no one, because I quoted you. But I know what you mean. However, "30.5% of NHL players were on a college team before they got to the NHL" is not very few either.
You really, really need to differentiate between the minor league programs and other sports when making most of these statements. And when compiling any statistics.
I think most of us would agree that the issue resides pretty much entirely in the football and basketball programs.
Which is why I was calling out a poster that said the NHL relies on the NCAA. Because that is a joke.
Not that I think moving away from your family at 17 to a different country and being able to be traded (but paid!) is much better standard than the NCAA sets.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
Yeah, the claim isn't that the NHL drafts no college players. It's that they don't need to. They have a functioning program (or programs) that provides the bulk of their player base at the pro level.
The NFL has...arena football?
We have two leagues that have no functional way to remotely hope to fill their rosters without our "student athlete" programs.
No one in the NHL drafts college players. If you are going pro in the NHL, you are probably a pro around the age 16. Well before college.
Are you saying no one in the NHL played college ice hockey? Because that is blatantly wrong.
No. I, in fact said very few. Because most NHLers come from the quebec major junior hockey league, or the ontario hockey league.
In the world of NCAA hockey, the vast majority of players on the 58 Division I and 77 Division II/III men’s teams will not make the jump to the NHL, AHL, ECHL or any other of the various professional hockey leagues around the world. But for a select few, college hockey is merely a steppingstone to the bright lights of the National Hockey League.
In fact, according to our research, a record 300 players who saw at least one regular season NHL game in 2011-12 honed their skills in college before making the leap to the professional ranks. That number represents 30.5 percent of all NHL players from the current season. In 2011-12, 52 former collegiate hockey players made their NHL debut.
In fact you said no one, because I quoted you. But I know what you mean. However, "30.5% of NHL players were on a college team before they got to the NHL" is not very few either.
I said both. Edited my post while you were replying, I'm guessing. Just like I also edited this post you made, showing that 84, almost 1/3 of those almost 1/3 of NHL players, were not drafted. So the point still stands that almost no one from college gets drafted by the NHL.
Burtletoy on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You really, really need to differentiate between the minor league programs and other sports when making most of these statements. And when compiling any statistics.
I think most of us would agree that the issue resides pretty much entirely in the football and basketball programs.
Which is why I was calling out a poster that said the NHL relies on the NCAA. Because that is a joke.
Not that I think moving away from your family at 17 to a different country and being able to be traded (but paid!) is much better standard than the NCAA sets.
Your reading comprehension is terrible if you thought I was saying anywhere in my post that the NHL relies on the NCAA. Citing the NHL along with the NFL, NBA, etc was simply to highlight all of the professional sports leagues that have corresponding money making NCAA leagues, and that those NCAA leagues mostly exist as an avenue to help student athletes achieve the dream of going pro. The NHL is more of an outlier because it actually has a farm system, but a full 30% of it's players (and growing, mind you) having played D1 college hockey is nothing to scoff at.
But yes, the problem absolutely originates with the NBA and NFL not having a real farm system. But the NHL does draw a significant amount of it's talent from the NCAA, as do our Olympic teams in basically every sport.
If you want to be a professional athlete of some sort in the United States, odds are the NCAA is going to factor heavily into your goals and drive to achieve that at some point.
I'd also like to point out there are many other avenues to get into the MLS besides college, and in fact college is becoming less of a thing for MLS with a lot of money and efforting being put into their own development acadamies. It's starting to move towards the European model of training up and developing players themselves, as well as having viable lower leagues for players to gain experience in.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
The NHL is more of an outlier because it actually has a farm system, but a full 30% of it's players (and growing, mind you) having played D1 college hockey is nothing to scoff at.
players on the 58 Division I and 77 Division II/III men’s teams
The NHL is more of an outlier because it actually has a farm system, but a full 30% of it's players (and growing, mind you) having played D1 college hockey is nothing to scoff at.
players on the 58 Division I and 77 Division II/III men’s teams
My reading comprehension is terrible.
And the NCAA covers D1-3. So yeah, I only typed D1 when talking about the organization that covers all divisions. You completely made up something I wasn't even talking about. Get bent.
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
I firmly stand against removing televised access to the sports - and because our country is in such fucking shambles when it comes to proper public funding for our education I am happy that it is a means to provide finance to our education system. It could be better spent, but letting it be a source of revenue for schools as opposed to farm team managers is a good thing in concept. Just set it so that beyond expenses only a fixed percentage of profits can be used on the athletic program itself, and the rest into the general school fund.
What I do think needs to happen is that student athletes need to be provided with comprehensive healthcare if they aren't already by the school / NCAA / someone.
Furthermore, there should be a disability fund set aside, much the the NFL is fast moving towards, to assist the people who get ruined by the sport. And this should be nationally managed, so that poorer schools who are NCAA members benefit from the $texas that Notre Dame and Duke put into the pot.
These little changes would go a long way.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
Furthermore, the NCAA asserts that they own your college era likeness in perpetuity. So you could be years out of college, and the NCAA is still making money off you. Which is what happened with O'Bannon - his friend's son was playing the latest NCAA basketball game, and the team that he was on was included among the historical teams. Including a fully rendered version of O'Bannon.
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
Furthermore, the NCAA asserts that they own your college era likeness in perpetuity. So you could be years out of college, and the NCAA is still making money off you. Which is what happened with O'Bannon - his friend's son was playing the latest NCAA basketball game, and the team that he was on was included among the historical teams. Including a fully rendered version of O'Bannon.
Which is double hypocritical because while you are active in the NCAA you and other organizations are not allowed to make money off your own likeness. It's why EA sports can create a player using your features, stats, and jersey number in a game, but not your name or likeness.
I have a hard time being sympathetic when people are getting or paying for academic degrees based in part on their physical ability.
If there were an actual minor league system for either of these sports what do you think a rookie salary would be?
But its not just money. It's admissions, and scandals about coaches influencing grades. I just don't see why there should be any connection between sports and academics.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
Furthermore, the NCAA asserts that they own your college era likeness in perpetuity. So you could be years out of college, and the NCAA is still making money off you. Which is what happened with O'Bannon - his friend's son was playing the latest NCAA basketball game, and the team that he was on was included among the historical teams. Including a fully rendered version of O'Bannon.
Which is double hypocritical because while you are active in the NCAA you and other organizations are not allowed to make money off your own likeness. It's why EA sports can create a player using your features, stats, and jersey number in a game, but not your name or likeness.
Yeah that's... weird.
It's like "yeah you can play yourself in a video game" but your reality is just being able to afford tuition, life in the dorms, and a meal plan.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think poor kids going to college is great, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why we should choose the kids that get to based on how good they are at sports. . .
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think poor kids going to college is great, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why we should choose the kids that get to based on how good they are at sports. . .
Why not? It's a skill, no different than being good at math or writing. Once they get in they have to hit certain GPA markers (and even accepting that some coaches are dickholes about that, that's an enforcement issue more than anything).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think poor kids going to college is great, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why we should choose the kids that get to based on how good they are at sports. . .
Why not? It's a skill, no different than being good at math or writing. Once they get in they have to hit certain GPA markers (and even accepting that some coaches are dickholes about that, that's an enforcement issue more than anything).
Math and writing are academic. Admitting someone to an academic institution or helping them afford it based on their academic ability makes sense. Once you are using something wholly unrelated like being a fast runner though, what justification for that ability over another like being good at cooking or being able to curl your tongue?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think poor kids going to college is great, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why we should choose the kids that get to based on how good they are at sports. . .
Why not? It's a skill, no different than being good at math or writing. Once they get in they have to hit certain GPA markers (and even accepting that some coaches are dickholes about that, that's an enforcement issue more than anything).
Math and writing are academic. Admitting someone to an academic institution or helping them afford it based on their academic ability makes sense. Once you are using something wholly unrelated like being a fast runner though, what justification for that ability over another like being good at cooking or being able to curl your tongue?
Because it also had a positive benefit for the university.
Why do you think these schools picked this stuff up?
Also, if you look hard enough you can probably find scholarships for both of those things.
Athletic admissions don't really have a negative impact on society, so you're gonna have to bring out the big guns to convince me we should make such a drastic change to ours.
That's the question though: Do athletic programs have a negative or positive impact on academics and society in general?
The simplest thing to look at here is do sports programs take or give money to the university?
Except that you've just made it too simple. That alone doesn't say much about whether they have a negative or positive impact. Financial is just one dimension, and that's even pretending that the impact on the school budget is even that easily quantified.
Like I said before, sports teams promote the school. That replaces other promotional expenses, can attract more students, etc.
That's the question though: Do athletic programs have a negative or positive impact on academics and society in general?
The simplest thing to look at here is do sports programs take or give money to the university?
Except that you've just made it too simple. That alone doesn't say much about whether they have a negative or positive impact. Financial is just one dimension, and that's even pretending that the impact on the school budget is even that easily quantified.
Like I said before, sports teams promote the school. That replaces other promotional expenses, can attract more students, etc.
And that's just the financial end.
Promotes the school over other schools or promotes post-secondary schooling in general?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That's an argument about application of sports, not existence of sports.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The question is why we should use an arbitrary criteria like sports ability at all in admissions to institutes of higher education. And not all sports serve as marketing. Who chooses a school based on their crew or track team, other than the participants in those sports?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The question is why we should use an arbitrary criteria like sports ability at all in admissions to institutes of higher education. And not all sports serve as marketing. Who chooses a school based on their crew or track team, other than the participants in those sports?
Why does it bother you? Bring me a list of great minds who have lost out on an education because of sports.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The question is why we should use an arbitrary criteria like sports ability at all in admissions to institutes of higher education. And not all sports serve as marketing. Who chooses a school based on their crew or track team, other than the participants in those sports?
Why does it bother you? Bring me a list of great minds who have lost out on an education because of sports.
How could I possibly do that? We can't know who did not get to attend because of sports, because they did not attend. That is ignoring the fact that, as has been described in this thread, an athlete's education may well be compromised, so they themselves could be the "great minds" who never reach their full potential because they didn't get the full education they should have.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well, again, until you can prove a negative I'm not going to start chomping at the bit for such a drastic change to society.
That onus is on you.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So I guess that we are done here, since you have literally just said that you are not willing to participate in a discussion on reasonable terms.
Posts
We talking about money or people? If money, then yes you are correct. If people, then no you are not correct. Both are valid topics.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
There isn't an NFL presence in states like Nebraska or Alabama, so people there go apeshit for college sports.
I like the connection.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids in high school who play sports.
tens of thousands of them are good enough to compete on a minor league level. We let them do so (and in many ways compensate them for their skills) by enforcing an education on them with a baseline GPA for good performance.
Which is awesome, because there are only a few thousand "pro athlete" jobs out there, and these people need some kind of skill or trade because they most likely didn't make it to the top.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No one in the NHL drafts college players. If you are going pro in the NHL, you are probably a pro (QMJHL, OHL) around the age 16. Well before college. Very few college players make it to the NHL. College players simply don't play enough hockey to.
Are you saying no one in the NHL played college ice hockey? Because that is blatantly wrong.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
One of the best students in my year and major was on the swim team while the worst were apparently devoting 100% of their time to academic pursuits.
For a lot of kids sports is the only way they can afford college.
If they don't get a good education while they are there, it's probably not worth it. The odds are against them going pro, or in most cases, non-existant. I'd bank on the academic need-based scholarship that a lot of private universities are covering nowadays a lot more than an athletic scholarship as my path to any college. At least I'll have time to finish a worthwhile degree.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
No. I, in fact said very few. Because most NHLers come from the quebec major junior hockey league, or the ontario hockey league.
I think most of us would agree that the issue resides pretty much entirely in the football and basketball programs.
And if that was all the NCAA did, we would sing its praises.
But it's not.
In fact you said no one, because I quoted you. But I know what you mean. However, "30.5% of NHL players were on a college team before they got to the NHL" is not very few either.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Which is why I was calling out a poster that said the NHL relies on the NCAA. Because that is a joke.
Not that I think moving away from your family at 17 to a different country and being able to be traded (but paid!) is much better standard than the NCAA sets.
That isn't so much a defense of the NCAA as it is a rejection of Space's claim that colleges shouldn't have sports programs.
The NFL has...arena football?
We have two leagues that have no functional way to remotely hope to fill their rosters without our "student athlete" programs.
I said both. Edited my post while you were replying, I'm guessing. Just like I also edited this post you made, showing that 84, almost 1/3 of those almost 1/3 of NHL players, were not drafted. So the point still stands that almost no one from college gets drafted by the NHL.
The NCAA totally needs an battery acid enema, followed by a complete rebuilding of policy, but the core of what they are supposed to be doing is sound.
Having a program that makes sure young athletes are not only focusing on a skill that has a snowballs chance in hell of being profitable in the future for them by making them have an education in exchange for playing the game is good.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Your reading comprehension is terrible if you thought I was saying anywhere in my post that the NHL relies on the NCAA. Citing the NHL along with the NFL, NBA, etc was simply to highlight all of the professional sports leagues that have corresponding money making NCAA leagues, and that those NCAA leagues mostly exist as an avenue to help student athletes achieve the dream of going pro. The NHL is more of an outlier because it actually has a farm system, but a full 30% of it's players (and growing, mind you) having played D1 college hockey is nothing to scoff at.
But yes, the problem absolutely originates with the NBA and NFL not having a real farm system. But the NHL does draw a significant amount of it's talent from the NCAA, as do our Olympic teams in basically every sport.
If you want to be a professional athlete of some sort in the United States, odds are the NCAA is going to factor heavily into your goals and drive to achieve that at some point.
The problem, as usual, is money, and the structure of the NCAA and the major conferences now is set to capitalize on the financial potential of their athletes.
You could make it where the schools couldn't show the games on TV or charge people for admission to the games, but the basic hitch in the system is that the NCAA and conferences are using the sports programs (overwhelmingly the men's football and basketball) as a revenue stream for the school. And at the top levels, we're talking about insane and vast sums of money here; it's not like changing that system is going to be easy if it means putting a divot in those profits. However, these schools are becoming massive industries (and that's the appropriate word, really) where much or most of the labor pool is working without reasonable pay.
Even factoring in tuition and board, someone like Johnny Manziel is basically being paid minimum wage to be the #1 reason his school is making tens of millions in profits.
The problem isn't that the schools are making money off the backs of these kids as much as it is how much people involved in that system are being paid as a result of those kids making money for the school. It's not a crime that star athletes aren't getting monetarily reimbursed until you factor in that their coach is making five million a year with a golden parachute clause.
So the second-string defensive tackle spends four five years getting a useless degree from a state college while battering his body with life-long consequences and can't get a good job when he graduates, while the coaches and directors all buy solid-gold mansions and second yachts.
My reading comprehension is terrible.
And the NCAA covers D1-3. So yeah, I only typed D1 when talking about the organization that covers all divisions. You completely made up something I wasn't even talking about. Get bent.
I firmly stand against removing televised access to the sports - and because our country is in such fucking shambles when it comes to proper public funding for our education I am happy that it is a means to provide finance to our education system. It could be better spent, but letting it be a source of revenue for schools as opposed to farm team managers is a good thing in concept. Just set it so that beyond expenses only a fixed percentage of profits can be used on the athletic program itself, and the rest into the general school fund.
What I do think needs to happen is that student athletes need to be provided with comprehensive healthcare if they aren't already by the school / NCAA / someone.
Furthermore, there should be a disability fund set aside, much the the NFL is fast moving towards, to assist the people who get ruined by the sport. And this should be nationally managed, so that poorer schools who are NCAA members benefit from the $texas that Notre Dame and Duke put into the pot.
These little changes would go a long way.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Furthermore, the NCAA asserts that they own your college era likeness in perpetuity. So you could be years out of college, and the NCAA is still making money off you. Which is what happened with O'Bannon - his friend's son was playing the latest NCAA basketball game, and the team that he was on was included among the historical teams. Including a fully rendered version of O'Bannon.
Which is double hypocritical because while you are active in the NCAA you and other organizations are not allowed to make money off your own likeness. It's why EA sports can create a player using your features, stats, and jersey number in a game, but not your name or likeness.
Yeah that's... weird.
It's like "yeah you can play yourself in a video game" but your reality is just being able to afford tuition, life in the dorms, and a meal plan.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Why not? It's a skill, no different than being good at math or writing. Once they get in they have to hit certain GPA markers (and even accepting that some coaches are dickholes about that, that's an enforcement issue more than anything).
Math and writing are academic. Admitting someone to an academic institution or helping them afford it based on their academic ability makes sense. Once you are using something wholly unrelated like being a fast runner though, what justification for that ability over another like being good at cooking or being able to curl your tongue?
Because it also had a positive benefit for the university.
Why do you think these schools picked this stuff up?
Also, if you look hard enough you can probably find scholarships for both of those things.
Athletic admissions don't really have a negative impact on society, so you're gonna have to bring out the big guns to convince me we should make such a drastic change to ours.
The simplest thing to look at here is do sports programs take or give money to the university?
Except that you've just made it too simple. That alone doesn't say much about whether they have a negative or positive impact. Financial is just one dimension, and that's even pretending that the impact on the school budget is even that easily quantified.
Like I said before, sports teams promote the school. That replaces other promotional expenses, can attract more students, etc.
And that's just the financial end.
Promotes the school over other schools or promotes post-secondary schooling in general?
Why does it bother you? Bring me a list of great minds who have lost out on an education because of sports.
How could I possibly do that? We can't know who did not get to attend because of sports, because they did not attend. That is ignoring the fact that, as has been described in this thread, an athlete's education may well be compromised, so they themselves could be the "great minds" who never reach their full potential because they didn't get the full education they should have.
That onus is on you.