Majestic Pape
The-Coli = W SOHH = L
Thats pretty much a slavery model and we all know how the slavery model built America.
Yep. This is a country that has been built on exploitation. Whenever one form is changed another form is going to pop up.
Do you think the NCAA will be able to keep this business model up forever?
- Thread starter CrimsonTider
- Start date
Yep. This is a country that has been built on exploitation. Whenever one form is changed another form is going to pop up.
The excuse is that it's always been this way.
The thing is, 100 years ago, it was fair. You come to my school to get a free education, you play for me.....we both win...and at that time schools werent making zilions of dollars off of sports. But now, alot of dudes dont give a damn about school itself....it's just a vehicle to get to the NFL.
So the part about coaches pushing them to major in certain majors is moot b/c most of the players dont value their educational opporutnity anyway and wouldnt be there otherwise. The ones that do, major in harder majors.
Well, they aren't really working. Basketball is game where you run around, dribble a ball, and throw it. That's not work. That's just goofing off. You get to get free uniforms and shoes, free transportation, and if you are good, free glory and an opportunity to get in the NBA. If you aren't top tier, at least you get to have fun being on the team.
Coaching is real work. They get paid millions and the students are paying for it through their tuition. If you removed the football and basketball programs from a Div I college, you could drop everyones tuition by thousands of dollars per semester.
Coaching is real work. They get paid millions and the students are paying for it through their tuition. If you removed the football and basketball programs from a Div I college, you could drop everyones tuition by thousands of dollars per semester.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
it depends.
At UMD, under Fridgen, he discouraged some players from doing hard majors. I had football players tell me that.
You gotta be strong in your conviction to overrule them like Dominique Foxworth.
tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
It's a glorified internship
Thats pretty much a slavery model and we all know how the slavery model built America.
It's pimping, point blank. The players go out and risk life and limb to bring money in and the schools cake of the shyt and provide fro their "needs". If the players don't perform they are SOL and looking to get money from other sources is not allowed. These University presidents should all be drinking out of diamond encrusted chalices.
BlvdBrawler
Superstar
No.
You're looking at the 0.05% of NCAA athletes that go pro and saying, "They're SLAAAAVES!"
The other 99.95% are on athletic scholarships because they want to get a free education. Just because elite athletes aren't in it for the schooling (generally speaking), doesn't mean that there isn't great value in a scholarship.
You're looking at the 0.05% of NCAA athletes that go pro and saying, "They're SLAAAAVES!"
The other 99.95% are on athletic scholarships because they want to get a free education. Just because elite athletes aren't in it for the schooling (generally speaking), doesn't mean that there isn't great value in a scholarship.
I believe that was the XFL considering it for the 2nd season.
They never made it to year 2.
PortCityProphet
Follow me to the truth
Nah man. They only thinking bout a couple football players and a basketball player who's gonna be there a year. That's the only sports that colleges field
PortCityProphet
Follow me to the truth
Now let me ask y'all in favor of paying them this...
If they decided to pay them but took away their scholarships would y'all be ok with that?
If they decided to pay them but took away their scholarships would y'all be ok with that?
How is a great opportunity when scholarships are only for 1 year at a time.
So if the athletes says fukk a consumer science degree and major in pre med.
As a results he slacks on the field and is pushed to the end of the depth chart, next year comes around and his scholi is taken and given to an incoming freshman.
Is that still a great opportunity?
BlvdBrawler
Superstar
Absolutely. He/she is no worse off than anyone else, and will have less debt as a result of that first year scholarship.
This is a topic I could write a thesis paper on, I'll try to keep it brief. I think our collective views on amateur athletics are a microcosm borne of a capitalistic ideology. But besides that, I think it's also tinged with a certain jealousy (i.e. they go to school for free, I had enormous debt when I graduated, they got broads, etc.). However, those are overarching maladies and not a direct characterization of this specific issue. A few general thoughts before I get to the crux of my position: there is no such thing as a "free athletic scholarship." These dudes (in the money generating sports at big time schools) bust their asses; the opportunity cost is absolutely huge. Well, one might say, "They don't have to do it, they can be a regular student (if they can get into the school) or they can work, or try some other avenue to attaining their goals, or they might not be in school if they couldn't run fast," and so on.
This brings me to the heart of my argument. We can't even be earnest in any pursuit of this question because we aren't honest enough with ourselves in regard to the "student-athlete." They are not regular students by any quantitative or qualitative measure. We aren't honest enough with ourselves to admit that. We don't care what they major in or do academically (caveat being that it is something exceptional, e.g. Myron Rolle), as long as they can run fast on the field and don't embarrass whatever institution we swathe in adulation. And the premier football coaches, basketball coaches and athletic administrations of the day feel the same way, that's why they streamline them into "easy" degrees where they'll remain eligible (I don't think our apathy is a bad thing, we just need to be honest about what this really is). So, any gripes with their mental acuity, aptitude or lack thereof is utter hypocrisy. Yet, when it suits us, we like to say, "but they're getting a free education," as if a degree in women's studies is the Holy Ghost making its way around the upper room. This constant moving of the goalposts is because we're being disingenuous, and the whole idea of amateur athletics is a rubbish. It's a farm system, a farm with unpaid field-hands, where there are certain criterion to remain eligible to participate in said system, and the system is constructed with the idea in mind it will get the participant to the next level, professional or otherwise, in a given field.
Some say, "Well, these athletes should know better than to major in women's studies or sociology!" If only it were that simple. For one, you're dealing with elite athletes and their egos. They all think they're going to "make it." Hell, that's part of the psychology of being an elite athlete, the notion that you're superior or different from your peers. Secondly, coaches don't walk into living rooms and say, "Son, our biochemistry department is one the finest in the country. They're conducting groundbreaking research into the human genome everyday. I'll take you by doctor Polaski's office on your official visit." No, they say, "Son, we could use you in all kinds of blitz packages and with your speed I could see you wreaking havoc off the edge. Your build and attitude on the field remind of Patrick James, a guy we had that went 3rd overall in the NFL draft 2 years ago." Lastly, the coaches don't want them doing these "hard" majors, even if they have the ability to do so. It's takes away time they could be studying the playbook, working out, reviewing game film, etc. This is coaches' livelihoods and these are multi-million dollar jobs, they want max returns on their investment. And surely I would think my coach has my best interest in mind, no?
Do I think this model can last? No, I don't. As the NCAA makes more billions each year, while falsely portraying itself as the gatekeepers of amateur athletics, that line of demarcation will become more and more weak, and people will see this for what it is, a high-level charade played on a national scale. I don't know what they correct model is or if athletes should be paid directly or compensated by some other means, I just know this one is some bullshyt. I think in 50 years people will look back and wonder how it ever was. To borrow a line from the Dark Knight Rises, "Cause when it hits you're all going to wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us."
This brings me to the heart of my argument. We can't even be earnest in any pursuit of this question because we aren't honest enough with ourselves in regard to the "student-athlete." They are not regular students by any quantitative or qualitative measure. We aren't honest enough with ourselves to admit that. We don't care what they major in or do academically (caveat being that it is something exceptional, e.g. Myron Rolle), as long as they can run fast on the field and don't embarrass whatever institution we swathe in adulation. And the premier football coaches, basketball coaches and athletic administrations of the day feel the same way, that's why they streamline them into "easy" degrees where they'll remain eligible (I don't think our apathy is a bad thing, we just need to be honest about what this really is). So, any gripes with their mental acuity, aptitude or lack thereof is utter hypocrisy. Yet, when it suits us, we like to say, "but they're getting a free education," as if a degree in women's studies is the Holy Ghost making its way around the upper room. This constant moving of the goalposts is because we're being disingenuous, and the whole idea of amateur athletics is a rubbish. It's a farm system, a farm with unpaid field-hands, where there are certain criterion to remain eligible to participate in said system, and the system is constructed with the idea in mind it will get the participant to the next level, professional or otherwise, in a given field.
Some say, "Well, these athletes should know better than to major in women's studies or sociology!" If only it were that simple. For one, you're dealing with elite athletes and their egos. They all think they're going to "make it." Hell, that's part of the psychology of being an elite athlete, the notion that you're superior or different from your peers. Secondly, coaches don't walk into living rooms and say, "Son, our biochemistry department is one the finest in the country. They're conducting groundbreaking research into the human genome everyday. I'll take you by doctor Polaski's office on your official visit." No, they say, "Son, we could use you in all kinds of blitz packages and with your speed I could see you wreaking havoc off the edge. Your build and attitude on the field remind of Patrick James, a guy we had that went 3rd overall in the NFL draft 2 years ago." Lastly, the coaches don't want them doing these "hard" majors, even if they have the ability to do so. It's takes away time they could be studying the playbook, working out, reviewing game film, etc. This is coaches' livelihoods and these are multi-million dollar jobs, they want max returns on their investment. And surely I would think my coach has my best interest in mind, no?
Do I think this model can last? No, I don't. As the NCAA makes more billions each year, while falsely portraying itself as the gatekeepers of amateur athletics, that line of demarcation will become more and more weak, and people will see this for what it is, a high-level charade played on a national scale. I don't know what they correct model is or if athletes should be paid directly or compensated by some other means, I just know this one is some bullshyt. I think in 50 years people will look back and wonder how it ever was. To borrow a line from the Dark Knight Rises, "Cause when it hits you're all going to wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us."
Yeah, I remember reading a while back about a player at a big time school whose coaches wouldnt let him study for the mcat, he had to sneak to do it
I am not in favor of straight up payment as much as I am in favor of getting rid of the restrictions they have on guys. I understand that it would be tricky paying guys, especially paying them what they are worth when you have so many players just on the football team and then you have to consider the other sports. I totally get that. However there is no good reason guys shouldn't be able to use their sports prowess and celebrity to come up on some free or discounted shyt. There is no reason a guy who becomes a star shouldn't be able to do ads or other things to profit from his likeness. The rules as currently constituted are basically on some "You mine bytch!" type shyt. No other college student, even those on scholarship, have those type of limitations placed on them.