OSU Scholar Cardale Jones: "Classes are pointless"

[big bun]

hes right tho. student athlete shyt needs to stop. colleges should pay them good salary to play football and if they give them diplomas, give em in physical education or something..everyones happy.

if student athletes actually want to get education...let them be on the level playing field.

You sure all student-athletes want to be paid a salary?

Where will these colleges get the money to pay them all?

What about the effects of paying FB student-athletes on the rest of the athletic department?

What about the other student-athletes from other sports getting paid?

What about Title IX?

Are you familiar with the cost of attendance, student-athlete opportunity fund, loss of value insurance?

Holla at me since you got it all figured out, mayne.

EDIT: Oops

 

[yseJ]

You sure all student-athletes want to be paid a salary?

Where will these colleges get the money to pay them all?

What about the effects of paying FB student-athletes on the rest of the athletic department?

What about the other student-athletes from other sports getting paid?

What about Title IX?

Are you familiar with the cost of attendance, student-athlete opportunity fund, loss of value insurance?

Holla at me since you got it all figured out, mayne.

EDIT: Oops

my point is colleges want to have cake and eat it too. so if they wanna keep on caking with popular sports they need to have salary-based system and stop pretending the 'student athletes' are 'students' and just treat them as athletes that earn them money.

the top athletes for most part arent real students. why should there be double standards and professors have to pass failing ass 'students' ?

ideally itd be like in europe, COMPLETELY separate colleges and specialized sports academies. you want to get an education, go to college and be judged on merits. you want to be an athlete, attend an academy. you have a career ending injury, tough fukking break

if this means no more college sports, I couldnt care less.

 

[big bun]

my point is colleges want to have cake and eat it too. so if they wanna keep on caking with popular sports they need to have salary-based system and stop pretending the 'student athletes' are 'students' and just treat them as athletes that earn them money.

the top athletes for most part arent real students. why should there be double standards and professors have to pass failing ass 'students' ?

ideally itd be like in europe, COMPLETELY separate colleges and specialized sports academies. you want to get an education, go to college and be judged on merits. you want to be an athlete, attend an academy. you have a career ending injury, tough fukking break

if this means no more college sports, I couldnt care less.

Couldn't answer the questions, huh?

 

[yseJ]

Couldn't answer the questions, huh?

I can.

You sure all student-athletes want to be paid a salary?

do people want to be paid money ? well I dont know, most do. is this is a trick question ?

Where will these colleges get the money to pay them all?

not my problem. if you cant pay maybe tone down your program or get rid of it. again do colleges in europe have expensive sports programs ? exactly. if you cant pay, dont have a program.

What about the effects of paying FB student-athletes on the rest of the athletic department?

I didnt mean pay just FB athletes. I meant ALL student athletes. but of course theres prestige among sports so some will be paid more than others. proportional payment to revenue is good enough

[What about the other student-athletes from other sports getting paid?

just addressed that

What about Title IX?

what about it ? I dont see how title ix has to do with anything. this is about being a student based on your athletic ability, not your student ability, but counted as such.

Are you familiar with the cost of attendance, student-athlete opportunity fund, loss of value insurance?

cost of attendance sure, I went to a college (a good one to boot). but I took classes. if college were paying athletes they wouldnt be real students. they wouldnt take regular classes; thats my whole point. separate the athletes from students.

student-athlete opportunity fund - nope, explain.

loss of value insurance- sure. what does that have to do with student athletes ? has everything to do with athletes, nothing to do with students

 

[big bun]

I can.


do people want to be paid money ? well I dont know, most do. is this is a trick question ?


not my problem. if you cant pay maybe tone down your program or get rid of it. again do colleges in europe have expensive sports programs ? exactly. if you cant pay, dont have a program.


I didnt mean pay just FB athletes. I meant ALL student athletes. but of course theres prestige among sports so some will be paid more than others. proportional payment to revenue is good enough


just addressed that


what about it ? I dont see how title ix has to do with anything. this is about being a student based on your athletic ability, not your student ability, but counted as such.


cost of attendance sure, I went to a college (a good one to boot). but I took classes. if college were paying athletes they wouldnt be real students. they wouldnt take regular classes; thats my whole point. separate the athletes from students.

student-athlete opportunity fund - nope, explain.

loss of value insurance- sure. what does that have to do with student athletes ? has everything to do with athletes, nothing to do with students

You have no idea, man. Carry on though.

 

[Stack Money]

@ that disloyal fakkits @Illeye buckmatic

#blackexcellence

Why you put a quote of mine from another thread in this one when I never even posted in here?

 

[The God Poster]

Why you put a quote of mine from another thread in this one when I never even posted in here?

Maaaan my bad
think I musta been looking at both threads and quoted by mistake​

 

[Ohene]

You sure all student-athletes want to be paid a salary?

Where will these colleges get the money to pay them all?

What about the effects of paying FB student-athletes on the rest of the athletic department?

What about the other student-athletes from other sports getting paid?

What about Title IX?

Are you familiar with the cost of attendance, student-athlete opportunity fund, loss of value insurance?

Holla at me since you got it all figured out, mayne.

EDIT: Oops

you have no idea how large some of these schools endowments are do you

 

[godkiller]

You sure all student-athletes want to be paid a salary?

Where will these colleges get the money to pay them all?

The same place the colleges get the money to pay coaches, administrators and other support staff millions of dollars a year. At least that's what the federal judge said when the NCAA asked her.

What about the effects of paying FB student-athletes on the rest of the athletic department?

What effects in particular should anyone be thinking about? People should be paid for their labor regardless of what their peers think. Your question should not even qualify into the legal argument over whether players should be paid. It doesn't matter what an employee thinks of another employee getting paid.

What about the other student-athletes from other sports getting paid?

That's fine. Everybody should get paid for their labor according to what they bring in. The swimmers should get paid too -- just not with any money the football program brings in.

What about Title IX?

What about it? A judge already dismissed this argument. Title IX has nothing to do with the question of whether players should be paid. Females can opt to be paid for their labor too.

Are you familiar with the cost of attendance, student-athlete opportunity fund, loss of value insurance?

Are you? When players get paid, the "cost of attendance" won't mean anything. We're talking about hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in salary.

Holla at me since you got it all figured out, mayne.

EDIT: Oops

I figured it out for you.

 

[Ed MOTHEREFFING G]

Classes at ohio state ARE pointless.

 

[smitty22]

Classes at ohio state ARE pointless.

Having scUM as a rival the last 14 years has been pointless

 

[big bun]

you have no idea how large some of these schools endowments are do you

I'm fully aware. I'm also fully aware that most schools are scrambling to figure out ways to pay the cost of attendance for their student-athletes while also providing them unlimited meals and snacks. There's only like 10 schools in the nation who could do both comfortably. And before you call bullshyt, I do this for a living so I know.

 

[Ohene]

I'm fully aware. I'm also fully aware that most schools are scrambling to figure out ways to pay the cost of attendance for their student-athletes while also providing them unlimited meals and snacks. There's only like 10 schools in the nation who could do both comfortably. And before you call bullshyt, I do this for a living so I know.

from an opportunity cost standpoint what is the effect?

lets say we remove these scholarshipped athletes who in turn would not be able to pay tuition or even meet the academic requirements and thus would go elsewhere...

what is the marginal cost of professors/TAs/chefs grading their papers/tests or cooking their food and how much lower would the total expense go down for said professors/ta's
what is the cost of the raw materials used to prepare their meals
what is the cost of having seats filled by these players in comparison to other students that would or wouldnt attend the school ...especially considering many athletes and students skip even the fullest humanities or soc sci classes
what is the revenue that they would receive from having students paying tuition instead of having athletes in their spots..in comparison to the revenue these schools get from television contracts and ticketing.

its a conundrum indeed. (no sarcasm)

But nothing a simple financial analyst or accountant couldnt solve. I cant speak because I dont know all of these figures...but one thing I doubt is that these universities are doing gods work and holding football teams just to field professional leagues and give students something to talk about. There are definite benefits (tangible and intangible) that schools get as a result of their sports teams

 

[big bun]

The same place the colleges get the money to pay coaches, administrators and other support staff millions of dollars a year. At least that's what the federal judge said when the NCAA asked her.

No institution has unlimited money. Very few would be able to do that and would have to fold their athletics program.


What effects in particular should anyone be thinking about? People should be paid for their labor regardless of what their peers think. Your question should not even qualify into the legal argument over whether players should be paid. It doesn't matter what an employee thinks of another employee getting paid.

Student-athletes aren't employees. They are students that play sports. They get their education paid for and have access to money for NEED based items (clothes, money for trips home, etc.). What they choose to do with their opportunity for a free education is all on them. But, where else would a young brother from the ghetto have an opportunity to receive a free education (and a possible chance to get drafted to the NFL) from an institution like TCU (where tuition is about $45,000/year)? Most student-athletes take advantage of that chance. Don't let the media fool you.


That's fine. Everybody should get paid for their labor according to what they bring in. The swimmers should get paid too -- just not with any money the football program brings in.

The potential antitrust money is capped at $5,000/year. If the decision makes it through appeals (good chance it won't without being overturned), the next step would be lawsuits for sports other than men's basketball and football. $5,000 per student-athlete at an institution is quite a hefty bill that NO institution wants to foot.

What about it? A judge already dismissed this argument. Title IX has nothing to do with the question of whether players should be paid. Females can opt to be paid for their labor too.

Again, using the antitrust lawsuit as the example here, it isn't an issue now but most likely will be in the future.

Are you? When players get paid, the "cost of attendance" won't mean anything. We're talking about hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in salary.

I'm very familiar with it. Trust me. Both are separate issues that will be pertinent. Again, student-athletes are not employees and won't get paid millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars. That money will be capped at $5,000/year. Cost of attendance is potentially set to go into effect for higher resource institutions as soon as this weekend.

I figured it out for you.

^^^

 

[godkiller]

@bigbun

No institution has unlimited money. Very few would be able to do that and would have to fold their athletics program.

Businesses don't have "unlimited money" either, yet they still find a way to pay their employees. How? Through revenue generation, exactly the process by which schools afford to pay coaches millions of dollars right now. If a business can't afford to pay its employees a certain salary, that busines can either get new employees, ask their current employees to take a lower salary, or go out of the business. The same is true of institutions. But you know what? Colleges make so much money that they'll pay players rather than let their football cash cow fold. That's simple economics (which you know nothing about).

Student-athletes aren't employees. They are students that play sports. They get their education paid for and have access to money for NEED based items (clothes, money for trips home, etc.). What they choose to do with their opportunity for a free education is all on them. But, where else would a young brother from the ghetto have an opportunity to receive a free education (and a possible chance to get drafted to the NFL) from an institution like TCU (where tuition is about $45,000/year)? Most student-athletes take advantage of that chance. Don't let the media fool you.

Student athletes are practically employees, as determined by at least one national economic board. Anyone who fufils the same duties and have similar obligations to employees, therefore they are employees in all but name. If student athletes had the ability to freely move and argue for more pay, their being paid nothing right now wouldn't matter. But because the NCAA insists on denying student athletes' their due rights, the NCAA engages in illegality. A ghetto brother should be able to haggle to increase his pay and demand payment just like anyone else. A person can get educated at any time, and especially so with some hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in tow.

The potential antitrust money is capped at $5,000/year. If the decision makes it through appeals (good chance it won't without being overturned), the next step would be lawsuits for sports other than men's basketball and football. $5,000 per student-athlete at an institution is quite a hefty bill that NO institution wants to foot.

And that cap is arbitrary nonsense that won't stand in court after appeals. There's no legal argument that suggests there should be a 5000$ cap on NCAA athlete compensation. I could care less if other programs beside men's basketball and football sue institution. Colleges make far more money from football than they lose. But if some want to destroy their programs for principle's sale, let them.

Again, using the antitrust lawsuit as the example here, it isn't an issue now but most likely will be in the future.

I said from the first Title IX would stand as no obstacle. Gender equality has nothing to do with compensation so long as everyone has the express right to get compensation regardless of gender. And in any positive ruling for student athletes' compensation, everyone would have the right to be compensated.

I'm very familiar with it. Trust me. Both are separate issues that will be pertinent. Again, student-athletes are not employees and won't get paid millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars. That money will be capped at $5,000/year. Cost of attendance is potentially set to go into effect for higher resource institutions as soon as this weekend.

You are familiar with nothing. You were parroting the "Title IX" line until the day the federal judge threw the bullshyt out. There's no legal justification for the government capping anyone's compensation at $5000/year so long as the government concedes that person is an employee or acts like one in a capacity. Absent the long arm of cac corruption, legal battles will hash that out quick. You don't know what you're talking about, then as now.