Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should College Athletes be Allowed Pay

9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:46:34 PM, stubs wrote:
I am pro for this. I would be interested in debating this or simply hearing some peoples arguments.

it encourages them on and on...don't see much arguments against this. Plus, college almost equals adult...they're responsible enough.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:06:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can see both pros and cons to it.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:09:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:06:39 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
I can see both pros and cons to it.
I know... Loss of money from school and inability to keep up with the athletes, encouraging of use of steroids to keep on winning for more pay...etc, etc.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 9:23:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:04:23 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:46:34 PM, stubs wrote:
I am pro for this. I would be interested in debating this or simply hearing some peoples arguments.

it encourages them on and on...don't see much arguments against this. Plus, college almost equals adult...they're responsible enough.

They get scholarships, student-athletes, etc. I mean they are not allowed pay now so the arguments against this have won haha
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 9:25:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:09:36 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:06:39 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
I can see both pros and cons to it.
I know... Loss of money from school and inability to keep up with the athletes, encouraging of use of steroids to keep on winning for more pay...etc, etc.

I'm not sure the steroids is that much of an issue. With drug testing and strict penalties in most sports.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 8:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 9:23:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:04:23 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:46:34 PM, stubs wrote:
I am pro for this. I would be interested in debating this or simply hearing some peoples arguments.

it encourages them on and on...don't see much arguments against this. Plus, college almost equals adult...they're responsible enough.

They get scholarships, student-athletes, etc. I mean they are not allowed pay now so the arguments against this have won haha

How many athletes pay full price for their education?
Why is that not considered payment?

Further, should ALL athletes be paid, or just the good ones? Or just the ones that don't have full ride scholarships contingent upon their playing a sport? What about non-athletes or less revenue making athletes, like debate team, College Bowl, swim team, or wrestling?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 8:55:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How many athletes pay full price for their education?

To be honest not sure

Why is that not considered payment?

What if you're place of employment said that they would pay for your gas to get there and back? Would you consider that payment? Of course not, you would leave your place of employment and find work elsewhere. Furthermore, it is more of the issue that they do not get fair market value.

Further, should ALL athletes be paid, or just the good ones?

They should be allowed to get fair market value.

Or just the ones that don't have full ride scholarships contingent upon their playing a sport?

Same answer as above.

What about non-athletes or less revenue making athletes, like debate team, College Bowl, swim team, or wrestling?

non-athletes are free to get fair market value. That proves my point.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 11:56:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 8:50:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2014 8:55:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How many athletes pay full price for their education?

To be honest not sure

Why is that not considered payment?

What if you're place of employment said that they would pay for your gas to get there and back? Would you consider that payment? Of course not, you would leave your place of employment and find work elsewhere. Furthermore, it is more of the issue that they do not get fair market value.

Further, should ALL athletes be paid, or just the good ones?

They should be allowed to get fair market value.

Or just the ones that don't have full ride scholarships contingent upon their playing a sport?

Same answer as above.

What about non-athletes or less revenue making athletes, like debate team, College Bowl, swim team, or wrestling?

non-athletes are free to get fair market value. That proves my point.

And who says the fair market value is actual dollars?
Lessor sports and non-athletes are unlikely to get full ride scholarships, while big stars do.
Further, in the NFL, quarterbacks get paid big bucks, while linemen make some $50-150K. The market value for a sport's athlete is wholly dependant on the player.

Further, why isn't it fair market value?
Why is payment only compared in wages?

If I was paid in room and board, food, classes, and a bit of spending cash, that is no different than a butler, superintendant, or live-in nanny.
The fact that people are making millions is not relevant to the issue.

I do not believe that college athletes should be professional athletes, do you? If so, is it a problem if retired from NFL players go to school for ten years?
If they are being paid, do they need to attend school at all?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 11:22:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 11:56:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And who says the fair market value is actual dollars?

In America, that's how it generally works.

Lessor sports and non-athletes are unlikely to get full ride scholarships, while big stars do.

And...?

Further, in the NFL, quarterbacks get paid big bucks, while linemen make some $50-150K. The market value for a sport's athlete is wholly dependant on the player.

Lineman make about 10million a year. But you are right that market value is dependent on the player. That's also how it works in capitalism.

Further, why isn't it fair market value?

Because they are worth more than that.

Why is payment only compared in wages?

It's not, but in america that is how it generally works.

If I was paid in room and board, food, classes, and a bit of spending cash, that is no different than a butler, superintendant, or live-in nanny.
The fact that people are making millions is not relevant to the issue.

Of course it is relevant.

I do not believe that college athletes should be professional athletes, do you? If so, is it a problem if retired from NFL players go to school for ten years?
If they are being paid, do they need to attend school at all?

They are already rules about professional athletes going back to school so that is a non-issue. Does anyone need to attend school at all?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 12:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 11:22:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/29/2014 11:56:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And who says the fair market value is actual dollars?

In America, that's how it generally works.
So?
Most CEO make their money in stock options, which are not money at all. In fact, they have to SPEND money.

Lessor sports and non-athletes are unlikely to get full ride scholarships, while big stars do.

And...?
It's fair market now.

Further, in the NFL, quarterbacks get paid big bucks, while linemen make some $50-150K. The market value for a sport's athlete is wholly dependant on the player.

Lineman make about 10million a year. But you are right that market value is dependent on the player. That's also how it works in capitalism.
http://www.spotrac.com...
This guard is making about $500K, not millions/year.
It depends on the team, and the player.
You are basically comparing CEOs average salary (which is about $200K) to the big shots on the S&P 500 (where it's about $10 million).

According to this, the average (AVERAGE, not median) is $1.9 million for NFL players.
http://www.forbes.com...

This suggests the median is actually "low":
http://www.businessinsider.com...


Further, why isn't it fair market value?

Because they are worth more than that.
Says you!!!
On what grounds?
The fact that the ticket to the pros is through college, and the fact that I'd wager many many players would play for free, let alone free college, would do what, exactly to the wage of players? It would drive it down.

Why is payment only compared in wages?

It's not, but in america that is how it generally works.
Again, that's not.
People factor in benefits all the time.
Fringe benefits, insurance payments, wages, stock options, stock awards, bonuses. Only two of those are cash, and only one of those is a salary.

If I was paid in room and board, food, classes, and a bit of spending cash, that is no different than a butler, superintendant, or live-in nanny.
The fact that people are making millions is not relevant to the issue.

Of course it is relevant.
No, it's not.

I do not believe that college athletes should be professional athletes, do you? If so, is it a problem if retired from NFL players go to school for ten years?
If they are being paid, do they need to attend school at all?

They are already rules about professional athletes going back to school so that is a non-issue.
And there are already rules that you cannot be paid while there.
So, who care about the rules???....unless it helps your case, right?
If we are changing the rule about being paid, then why can't we make sure the players are good?

Does anyone need to attend school at all?
To play in the NCAA, yes.
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 2:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 12:05:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/31/2014 11:22:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/29/2014 11:56:14 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And who says the fair market value is actual dollars?

In America, that's how it generally works.
So?
Most CEO make their money in stock options, which are not money at all. In fact, they have to SPEND money.

That's not true. My uncle is a CEO haha.

Lessor sports and non-athletes are unlikely to get full ride scholarships, while big stars do.

And...?
It's fair market now.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. And if it is fair market value then why would anyone be scared to allow them pay. If they are already receiving fair market value than no one will pay them.

Further, in the NFL, quarterbacks get paid big bucks, while linemen make some $50-150K. The market value for a sport's athlete is wholly dependant on the player.

Lineman make about 10million a year. But you are right that market value is dependent on the player. That's also how it works in capitalism.
http://www.spotrac.com...
This guard is making about $500K, not millions/year.

He is a fourth string on a horrible team! I'm talking about people who actually play. The top guys make more than 10 million a year and that is just for lineman. Most other positions make much more than that.

It depends on the team, and the player.
You are basically comparing CEOs average salary (which is about $200K) to the big shots on the S&P 500 (where it's about $10 million).

Who is talking about any of that haha?

According to this, the average (AVERAGE, not median) is $1.9 million for NFL players.
http://www.forbes.com...

Doesn't have an effect on my arguments. They are all owed fair market value.

This suggests the median is actually "low":
http://www.businessinsider.com...

It is fair because they agree to terms through a players union on a salary cap
Further, why isn't it fair market value?

Because they are worth more than that.
Says you!!!

Says the numbers bruh. CBS has the rights to the NCAA mens basketball tournament through a t.v deal. You know how much that deal is for? 10.4 billion dollars. Why is it worth so much? People want to see the players play. Nothing says student athlete like someone willing to pay 10.4 billion dollars for the right to show your games on their station.

On what grounds?
The fact that the ticket to the pros is through college, and the fact that I'd wager many many players would play for free, let alone free college, would do what, exactly to the wage of players? It would drive it down.

Also has no affect on my argument. If that drives the price down then they are still getting fair market value.

Why is payment only compared in wages?

It's not, but in america that is how it generally works.
Again, that's not.
People factor in benefits all the time.
Fringe benefits, insurance payments, wages, stock options, stock awards, bonuses. Only two of those are cash, and only one of those is a salary.

Certainly there are many forms of payment. The most general is cash. No one can dispute that. Or at least no one who is logically speaking would dispute that.

If I was paid in room and board, food, classes, and a bit of spending cash, that is no different than a butler, superintendant, or live-in nanny.
The fact that people are making millions is not relevant to the issue.

Of course it is relevant.
No, it's not.

The fact that people are actually making billions of dollars off of these so called "student-athletes" and the athletes are not getting their fair share is a crime. In any other work place this would end up in a lawsuit under the anti-trust act.

I do not believe that college athletes should be professional athletes, do you? If so, is it a problem if retired from NFL players go to school for ten years?
If they are being paid, do they need to attend school at all?

They are already rules about professional athletes going back to school so that is a non-issue.
And there are already rules that you cannot be paid while there.
So, who care about the rules???....unless it helps your case, right?
If we are changing the rule about being paid, then why can't we make sure the players are good?

You're debating this so you must care about the rules.

Does anyone need to attend school at all?
To play in the NCAA, yes.

Of course.

Please debate me on this, or I can send you a debate request.
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here we go lol.....

Personally, I don't think that they should be paid. A lot of players receive scholarships which takes care of most of the expense. Not to mention, they ALSO have the route to take that your average college student takes... which is student loans. You can receive student loans or even personal loans for the things that these kids think they are missing.

Also not to mention that the NCAA has been changing things around. Before you would hear stories about kids going hungry at night because they are only alotted a certain amount of food. Well starting yesterday I believe, the NCAA changed the rules to allow student-athletes food WHENEVER. In my opinion, the NCAA should have allowed this the whole time, but there is a certain level of responsibility expected.

As soon as this was addressed you see these hypotheticals come out, like... well what if they want to take a girl or someone out for dinner? Well, I am sorry, but that is not student nor athlete related. You can figure that out on your own time with your own money. What if I need some new clothes? You should have respect for yourself and take care of your clothes or hit up some family for money. Not to mention that the school provides a lot of merch to their athletes.

Then there is the talk about wanting to send their parents or loved ones money so that they can come see them play. This I do believe should happen, but not in the form of money. Perhaps the parents are alotted a set amount of tickets they can pick up or put a system in place that allows parents the ability to go in and pick up plane tickets or gas vouchers. If you throw money at the situation, it will only get abused. Say a student knows his parents are hurting financially and he opts to send money though he says it is so they can come up to see him. Instead they use the money for whatever reason. I understand that helping people is not a bad thing, but it is not the universities job to provide the parents with money to live.

Now there is the argument of the amount of money these universites make from using the likeness of their players and the sort. To me this is simple. Sorry, there are no guarantees that a player will be a star or provide any type of figure to the program... hell they may get redshirted, injured, or simply not play that year or any year in the future... if that was the case, should they be paid for their likeness then? Or at least for that year? Is there a reasonable system in place to differentiate between marketability of players? Even if there was, what are the attributes for it? How would other players respond? Would everyone get paid the same (a redshirted or injured player vs an all-american or heisman winner)? If not then you have to bring up the complexity of fluctuating star power. There are too many intangibles. Not to mention the other sports. Football and basketball are the primary money makers for most universities... what about baseball? hockey? polo? track and field? swimming? volleyball? gymnastics? etc... What about back pay? Are old athletes all going to be clammering for money too?

There are already tons of reports on student-athletes grades being manipulated to allow the student to play. Dozens of cheating scandals specific to atheltes. The North Carolina one comes to mind.

Personally, I think a player should be happy to see someone wearing their number rather than wondering where their money is in this equation.

It is no wonder that this becomes a big issue in college athletics when this age of entitlement has befallen upon this new millennial generation. Now they feel that they need to be paid for something that is an extracurricular activity. This is a university first, much like these are supposed to be students first... sports and athletes are second to that. If you want to be paid, quit college and go try the pros or semi-pros. Much like any other college student... you want to be paid, quit school and go start your own business or try to get a high profile job. Thinking about it, a regular college student and a college athlete probably both have about the same chance of making it in their respective areas if they were to drop out or not even go to college... which isn't a good chance. Everyone wants money for doing the least amount of work, typical business model, but terrible personal character.

Now with that said, I think the NCAA did good by allowing the food to flow freely AND I also think that the NCAA should handle medical care for the athletes... ESPECIALLY if they were injured in the sport. Other than that, these "students" (not employees) should have to go through the burden of every other college student.

I am a premed student with a 2yo daughter, by the time it is all said and done (from the doctors I have been talking to), I am looking at anywhere from 300 to 400+ thousand dollars in student loans AND I put myself through college with absolutely no help from my parents (i worked AND took out loans). These kids are looking for an easy way out. College is not all sunshine and rainbows, most students have to work or take out massive student loan debt to get through it, they should be no different simply because they play a game better than I can.

In closing, some stuff does need to change IMO. The food was a good place to start. I think health care should be in the mix as well. Other than that, these students-athletes are not employees and should not be paid as such. Take out loans if need be. Hell, if you are good enough you will get drafted and be able to most likely pay off any and all student loans you accrue before you even play a snap in the pros. Student-athletes are already glorified among other students, stop feeding into their egoism.

Funny thing is that I am a MASSIVE College Football fan, but being in the specturm of college life as well as having a daughter... no these students should not be paid.
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The fact that people are actually making billions of dollars off of these so called "student-athletes" and the athletes are not getting their fair share is a crime. In any other work place this would end up in a lawsuit under the anti-trust act."

Who is making billions? It isn't one person or even a small group. The money is dispersed to keep up with accommodate building and facility needs. These things don't come cheap and are updating practically regularly to keep up with recruiting. Look at Texas A&Ms new rebuilt facility, if I remember right, they spent around 25 million on that ONE building.

Billions is also a combined estimate. There is not a SINGLE university out there that ranks in that much a year. I believe Texas typically makes the most and that is just over 100 million in total football revenue. Of course these top universities have anywhere from 5 to 35 million in expenses on football as well. Texas is a large exception though, they make more than anyone. The average is anywhere from 40-50 million in revenue while the average among the top univeristies in expenses is around 20 million. But as I mentioned, keeping up with the times in this expensive-a$$ economy is not the easiest. HOWEVER, I am not defending universities and what they do with their money lol, just wanted to point out a few things.

But one more thing... it isn't a work place. These are kids that participate in an extracurricular activity... mind you that it is NOT required!! They are more than welcome to leave the team and attempt to pay for college in another way.
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry all, I skipped around a lot and still have not read the entire thread yet. I just wanted to voice my opinion and follow up on a couple of things I saw.

"How many athletes pay full price for their education?"

I am not entirely certain of this either, but I believe that the universities are alotted 85 scholarships (if I remember right). Mind you that there are typically only 100-120 players on the team. I am speaking solely on football, I don't have a clue for any other sport.
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 9:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:04:23 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:46:34 PM, stubs wrote:
I am pro for this. I would be interested in debating this or simply hearing some peoples arguments.

it encourages them on and on...don't see much arguments against this. Plus, college almost equals adult...they're responsible enough.

If they were responsibile enough, we wouldn't be seeing all of these arrests every year during the offseason. The fact is they are NOT responsible. Here is the current (most recently updated listing I have found) on arrests JUST this off season per FBS conference.

SEC - 44
B1G - 11
B12 - 10
ACC - 9
P12 - 7
MAC - 6
MWC - 6
AAC - 2
Ind - 2
CUSA - 2
SunBelt - 2

Total 101. Most of these are drug or alcohol related incidents, which IMO come off as some of the most irresponsible and immature offenses. Some of these are very serious crimes. Nonetheless these are arrests from this year alone that have nothing to do with these players receiving money. Mind you that these are only college football athletes. I believe arrestnation.com has a more all inclusive list regarding other sports. And needless to say that these are simply the ones that have been caught, I am sure most of us can agree that it happens A LOT more than this, especially those of us that have been through a university.

I have repeatedly stated "this year" because it doesn't change much. If you filter through arrestnation you will see similar numbers every year. Keep in mind that these are only arrests. This is not including citations, warnings, etc...

These kids might be big and strong, but you have to remember that they are still kids. Teenagers and young adults are still irresponsible and immature without guidance. They demonstrate this not only with arrests, but also with the fights you see on the field every year, with the immature tweets and posts every year, with the jumping school to school, the locker room brawls that tend to happen at least once every year for at least one school, etc...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 11:56:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:35:31 PM, Value_LLL wrote:
Here we go lol.....

Personally, I don't think that they should be paid. A lot of players receive scholarships which takes care of most of the expense. Not to mention, they ALSO have the route to take that your average college student takes... which is student loans. You can receive student loans or even personal loans for the things that these kids think they are missing.

My issue is that they do not get fair market value which every other student is entitled to except for athletes. That is unfair.

Also not to mention that the NCAA has been changing things around. Before you would hear stories about kids going hungry at night because they are only alotted a certain amount of food. Well starting yesterday I believe, the NCAA changed the rules to allow student-athletes food WHENEVER. In my opinion, the NCAA should have allowed this the whole time, but there is a certain level of responsibility expected.

Yeah it was cause of Shabazz comments. I'm from Connecticut so I'm a UCONN fan haha. Still doesn't address my argument that they are not allowed fair market value.

As soon as this was addressed you see these hypotheticals come out, like... well what if they want to take a girl or someone out for dinner? Well, I am sorry, but that is not student nor athlete related. You can figure that out on your own time with your own money. What if I need some new clothes? You should have respect for yourself and take care of your clothes or hit up some family for money. Not to mention that the school provides a lot of merch to their athletes.

Still not fair market value.

Then there is the talk about wanting to send their parents or loved ones money so that they can come see them play. This I do believe should happen, but not in the form of money. Perhaps the parents are alotted a set amount of tickets they can pick up or put a system in place that allows parents the ability to go in and pick up plane tickets or gas vouchers. If you throw money at the situation, it will only get abused. Say a student knows his parents are hurting financially and he opts to send money though he says it is so they can come up to see him. Instead they use the money for whatever reason. I understand that helping people is not a bad thing, but it is not the universities job to provide the parents with money to live.

Still not fair market value.

Now there is the argument of the amount of money these universites make from using the likeness of their players and the sort. To me this is simple. Sorry, there are no guarantees that a player will be a star or provide any type of figure to the program...

I'm not arguing against any of that.

hell they may get redshirted, injured, or simply not play that year or any year in the future... if that was the case, should they be paid for their likeness then? Or at least for that year? Is there a reasonable system in place to differentiate between marketability of players? Even if there was, what are the attributes for it? How would other players respond? Would everyone get paid the same (a redshirted or injured player vs an all-american or heisman winner)? If not then you have to bring up the complexity of fluctuating star power. There are too many intangibles. Not to mention the other sports. Football and basketball are the primary money makers for most universities... what about baseball? hockey? polo? track and field? swimming? volleyball? gymnastics? etc... What about back pay? Are old athletes all going to be clammering for money too?

You pay them fair market value. Just like every other student is allowed to do while in school. Only athletes are not allowed this right.

There are already tons of reports on student-athletes grades being manipulated to allow the student to play. Dozens of cheating scandals specific to atheltes. The North Carolina one comes to mind.

Has nothing to do with my argument.

Personally, I think a player should be happy to see someone wearing their number rather than wondering where their money is in this equation.

Irrelevant.

It is no wonder that this becomes a big issue in college athletics when this age of entitlement has befallen upon this new millennial generation. Now they feel that they need to be paid for something that is an extracurricular activity.

They spend way more time in athletics than in academics. "Extracurricular" is misleading and dishonest.

This is a university first, much like these are supposed to be students first... sports and athletes are second to that. If you want to be paid, quit college and go try the pros or semi-pros.

Why only athletes? An accountant doesn't have to drop out to get fair market value? He can go to school and get fair market value. But an athlete can not. Why should that be?

Much like any other college student... you want to be paid, quit school and go start your own business or try to get a high profile job.

All other students can do that while going to school. Only athletes are limited.

Thinking about it, a regular college student and a college athlete probably both have about the same chance of making it in their respective areas if they were to drop out or not even go to college... which isn't a good chance. Everyone wants money for doing the least amount of work, typical business model, but terrible personal character.

All other students can get fair market value while in school. Athletes cannot.

Now with that said, I think the NCAA did good by allowing the food to flow freely AND I also think that the NCAA should handle medical care for the athletes... ESPECIALLY if they were injured in the sport. Other than that, these "students" (not employees) should have to go through the burden of every other college student.

I agree but they also deserve fair market value. When every other college student combines to make billions of dollars for the ncaa then they can be treated like the other students.

I am a premed student with a 2yo daughter, by the time it is all said and done (from the doctors I have been talking to), I am looking at anywhere from 300 to 400+ thousand dollars in student loans AND I put myself through college with absolutely no help from my parents (i worked AND took out loans). These kids are looking for an easy way out. College is not all sunshine and rainbows, most students have to work or take out massive student loan debt to get through it, they should be no different simply because they play a game better than I can.

You got your fair market value. You didn't bring in billions of dollars so why would the school pay you?

In closing, some stuff does need to change IMO. The food was a good place to start. I think health care should be in the mix as well. Other than that, these students-athletes are not employees and should not be paid as such. Take out loans if need be. Hell, if you are good enough you will get drafted and be able to most likely pay off any and all student loans you accrue before you even play a snap in the pros. Student-athletes are already glorified among other students, stop feeding into their egoism.

Irrelevant. Still don't get fair market value.

Funny thing is that I am a MASSIVE College Football fan, but being in the specturm of college life as well as having a daughter... no these students should not be paid.

I'm not saying they should be paid. I'm arguing they should be allowed pay just like you are and every other college student is.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 12:00:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:50:10 PM, Value_LLL wrote:
"The fact that people are actually making billions of dollars off of these so called "student-athletes" and the athletes are not getting their fair share is a crime. In any other work place this would end up in a lawsuit under the anti-trust act."

Who is making billions? It isn't one person or even a small group. The money is dispersed to keep up with accommodate building and facility needs. These things don't come cheap and are updating practically regularly to keep up with recruiting. Look at Texas A&Ms new rebuilt facility, if I remember right, they spent around 25 million on that ONE building.

And who were the ones that brought in all that money? You ever go see a college football game because of the Athletic Director?

Billions is also a combined estimate. There is not a SINGLE university out there that ranks in that much a year. I believe Texas typically makes the most and that is just over 100 million in total football revenue. Of course these top universities have anywhere from 5 to 35 million in expenses on football as well. Texas is a large exception though, they make more than anyone. The average is anywhere from 40-50 million in revenue while the average among the top univeristies in expenses is around 20 million. But as I mentioned, keeping up with the times in this expensive-a$$ economy is not the easiest. HOWEVER, I am not defending universities and what they do with their money lol, just wanted to point out a few things.

I was talking about the NCAA. Their tv deal for just the mens basketball tournament alone is for 10.4 billion dollars. That is just the tv deal for just the tourney.

But one more thing... it isn't a work place. These are kids that participate in an extracurricular activity... mind you that it is NOT required!! They are more than welcome to leave the team and attempt to pay for college in another way.

This reeks of jealousy. Every other student is allowed fair market value while in school. Athletes are not.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 12:01:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 9:27:03 AM, Value_LLL wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:04:23 AM, 9spaceking wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:46:34 PM, stubs wrote:
I am pro for this. I would be interested in debating this or simply hearing some peoples arguments.

it encourages them on and on...don't see much arguments against this. Plus, college almost equals adult...they're responsible enough.


If they were responsibile enough, we wouldn't be seeing all of these arrests every year during the offseason. The fact is they are NOT responsible. Here is the current (most recently updated listing I have found) on arrests JUST this off season per FBS conference.

SEC - 44
B1G - 11
B12 - 10
ACC - 9
P12 - 7
MAC - 6
MWC - 6
AAC - 2
Ind - 2
CUSA - 2
SunBelt - 2

Total 101. Most of these are drug or alcohol related incidents, which IMO come off as some of the most irresponsible and immature offenses. Some of these are very serious crimes. Nonetheless these are arrests from this year alone that have nothing to do with these players receiving money. Mind you that these are only college football athletes. I believe arrestnation.com has a more all inclusive list regarding other sports. And needless to say that these are simply the ones that have been caught, I am sure most of us can agree that it happens A LOT more than this, especially those of us that have been through a university.

I have repeatedly stated "this year" because it doesn't change much. If you filter through arrestnation you will see similar numbers every year. Keep in mind that these are only arrests. This is not including citations, warnings, etc...

These kids might be big and strong, but you have to remember that they are still kids. Teenagers and young adults are still irresponsible and immature without guidance. They demonstrate this not only with arrests, but also with the fights you see on the field every year, with the immature tweets and posts every year, with the jumping school to school, the locker room brawls that tend to happen at least once every year for at least one school, etc...

Have you seen the arrests for the NFL this season lol?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 1:39:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 2:36:49 PM, stubs wrote:

That's not true. My uncle is a CEO haha.
I meant those CEO's whose pay is splashed in newspapers.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. And if it is fair market value then why would anyone be scared to allow them pay. If they are already receiving fair market value than no one will pay them.

I think the issue is you expect them to be paid more than they are.
This may be true, but you have not demonstrated why they deserve to be paid more than the potential $100K they are making now.

He is a fourth string on a horrible team! I'm talking about people who actually play. The top guys make more than 10 million a year and that is just for lineman. Most other positions make much more than that.
He was the first lineman on the roster I found.

You are basically comparing CEOs average salary (which is about $200K) to the big shots on the S&P 500 (where it's about $10 million).

Who is talking about any of that haha?
It's an analogy.
I would wager most players, especially rookies, are not paid as well as established players. Farve was paid a few million per game for the Vikings when he played, I doubt any rookie from college is making that, let along the vast majority of them.

According to this, the average (AVERAGE, not median) is $1.9 million for NFL players.
http://www.forbes.com...

Doesn't have an effect on my arguments. They are all owed fair market value.
It should give you pause, since you are affirming they are not being paid market value, simply because you think they should make more.

This suggests the median is actually "low":
http://www.businessinsider.com...

It is fair because they agree to terms through a players union on a salary cap
Then it's fair because the player agrees to scholarships and other benefits.
The fact you believe it should/would be more does not make it necessarily true.

Further, why isn't it fair market value?

Because they are worth more than that.
Says you!!!

Says the numbers bruh. CBS has the rights to the NCAA mens basketball tournament through a t.v deal. You know how much that deal is for? 10.4 billion dollars. Why is it worth so much? People want to see the players play. Nothing says student athlete like someone willing to pay 10.4 billion dollars for the right to show your games on their station.

First, that is the NCAA, not the college.
Second, that is a 14 year contract (or 9, or 12), not one year.
I think you are assuming there is much fluidity in this revenue, which there isn't.

Think of it this way:
Domino's CEO might make $10 million, but that doesn't mean the franchisee is making that much, who is the one ACTUALLY paying the employees. Don't cite Domino's revenues as an example as to why the local manager makes $10/hr.

On what grounds?
The fact that the ticket to the pros is through college, and the fact that I'd wager many many players would play for free, let alone free college, would do what, exactly to the wage of players? It would drive it down.

Also has no affect on my argument. If that drives the price down then they are still getting fair market value.
Again, if might drive the price so low, that wages still wouldn't be paid. That is the issue I take with your assumption.


Fringe benefits, insurance payments, wages, stock options, stock awards, bonuses. Only two of those are cash, and only one of those is a salary.

Certainly there are many forms of payment. The most general is cash. No one can dispute that. Or at least no one who is logically speaking would dispute that.
And you cannot say the market value is higher than these benefits' cash value, can you? You assume.

If I was paid in room and board, food, classes, and a bit of spending cash, that is no different than a butler, superintendant, or live-in nanny.
The fact that people are making millions is not relevant to the issue.

Of course it is relevant.
No, it's not.

The fact that people are actually making billions of dollars off of these so called "student-athletes" and the athletes are not getting their fair share is a crime. In any other work place this would end up in a lawsuit under the anti-trust act.

Sounds like any other corporation in the world.
McDonalds pays near minimum wage to earn the millions it does. So does Walmart.
Your point is moot.

The anti-trust act is silly since the college chooses to associate with the NCAA and/or to play by its rules.

I do not believe that college athletes should be professional athletes, do you? If so, is it a problem if retired from NFL players go to school for ten years?
If they are being paid, do they need to attend school at all?

They are already rules about professional athletes going back to school so that is a non-issue.
And there are already rules that you cannot be paid while there.
So, who care about the rules???....unless it helps your case, right?
If we are changing the rule about being paid, then why can't we make sure the players are good?

You're debating this so you must care about the rules.
Yes, I do, since the debate is about changing them.
There are foreseen issues, like why do you have to be in school, or a certain age, among other consequences, like the kiddie tax.

Does anyone need to attend school at all?
To play in the NCAA, yes.

Of course.

Please debate me on this, or I can send you a debate request.
Tempting, but I'm not a big debator; I like the forums.
Plus, upon doing some research, I might actually agree a change is in order (payments need to be expanded, not necessarily wages paid), since one of my assumptions seems to be false.

But, let's not forget the X factor in all of this: the difficult to account for "opportunity" payment. Playing for a good school is likely to get your skills noticed (after all, if you are a QB and you linemen don't give you more than 1 second it's hard to exhibit your skills), along with that being the stepping stone to the pros, people do "pay" for that exposure and opportunity.....kind of like an intern.
My work here is, finally, done.
Value_LLL
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 2:57:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok well you need to specify what you are talking about. For starters, how do you place a "fair market value" on such a thing, especially on a player to player basis?

You say every other student is given their fair market value, but not athletes and you say this because a typical student does not bring in money for the University whereas athletes do. We can go in roundabouts with this... the athletes bring in money using what the school gave them to do so.

These are fluctuating circumstances. You can't truly, unbiasedly, and essentially "fairly" put an estimated worth on a player and specifically a player whose playing career/time/success is dependent on other factors and also largely (in success) dependent on other players. You could probably be more accurate with the players "likeness" but even that is a fluctuating circumstance as well. And if you used it that way (based on the market), well the market is completely biased in college athletics to begin with, the heisman trophy is a prime example. There is no one fair value of a player, specifically because the players ability, attention/marketability, essential value, and future are rarely, if ever consistent. Just to spitball a little, this could also effect the draft and how players are valued and assessed as a whole. Not to mention silly simple things such as scheduling and hype. That is something alone that can increase the money earned without players having any say, being any good, or anything from the players actually... but as it goes, the more money brought in, the more they should get as well as the coaches, ADs, and on down the line. A lot of these players get free education that costs anywhere from ten thousand and up varying from school to school, but you don't see your typical student getting that. Most scholarships that are out there for regular students are small amounts or at least in relation to the grand scheme, whereas a lot of these players have fullrides. So these players are basically getting a free education to play a game that "could" produce millions of dollars for them down the road and you want more? Obviously nothing is guaranteed, but name me a regular student that graduates and finds a job paying multimillions of dollars? It has rarely if ever happened. Though most of these athletes will not go on to the pros, they have the chance to and in turn make millions from it in a very short time and if they fail, as long as they graduate, they have the same opportunities as a regular college student in life. If anything, being a college football athlete has EXCEPTIONALLY more pros than cons whereas a reg student has what they have.

This is a team sport. Not one player shines purely because of themselves, but the market and the media (more like market because of the media) clearly identify with excitement standards and because of this, it quite often leads players being over looked and that is the current situation without applying some form on monetary value to a players ability but simply through promotional avenues.

Not to mention that you say things like "You got your fair market value. You didn't bring in billions of dollars so why would the school pay you?" (to which I understand and am not taking offense, just thought this was a fair example) but you presuppose that people watch the games, buy the merch, etc.. based on the players. Now obviously this all works together (there isn't a game without the players), but I can say wholeheartedly that I have never ONCE nor have I ever heard anyone say that they attended a game specifically to watch a player and take nothing else from it. Most fans attend for the tailgates, friends, parties, pride of the land, the game, etc... that they find in it. Also, these are the Universities providing these kids with the opportunities, not the other way around. These kids are wearing their colors, their logo/brand/name and they are doing something that is voluntary, but moreso something that they love to do. Where is the real risk factor for the players? The risk falls on the University. They are the ones that spend an average of around 20million a year, without truly knowing what they will receive in return.

And all college students have the ability to achieve money the same way. Regular students and athletes are allowed to open a business. Only difference being that the athlete is not allow to sell his likeness while still enrolled at school. This works to a similar line with a regular college student, as they don't have "likeness", so therefore they cannot sell it. Neither can sell or have a business that is tied to the school as a whole without approval.

Now that I am thinking about it, I suppose that I wouldnt' be opposed to allowing players to seek a deal with retailers and seeking some form of compensation for autographed memorabilia (could quite possibly create a collectors market as well for championship teams), but not the players charging people themselves. I understand that all of this is not what you were specifically talking about (especially this last part), I am moreless spitballing some thoughts here as well.

Nonetheless football has been around for over 100 years. When you look back, rarely do you ever see players calling for payment for play. Calling for health care? Now that has happened a fair amount, but I have already stated my opinion on that.

"I was talking about the NCAA. Their tv deal for just the mens basketball tournament alone is for 10.4 billion dollars. That is just the tv deal for just the tourney."

Feel free to correct me, but I am fairly positive the NCAA is a non-profit. These deals are made with the conferences themselves.

I am going to stop here, I don't even remember what I have typed up and feel that I have rambled a lot lol. I am a Nebraska fan btw... hence why I am big on football and not many other sports lol.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 4:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 2:57:59 PM, Value_LLL wrote:
Ok well you need to specify what you are talking about. For starters, how do you place a "fair market value" on such a thing, especially on a player to player basis?

How do they do that in the NFL, or NBA. For more examples how do they do that in literally any place that you work at haha. Does everyone at your place of employment make the same? Unlikely. Fair market value is determined on a person to person basis anywhere.

You say every other student is given their fair market value, but not athletes and you say this because a typical student does not bring in money for the University whereas athletes do. We can go in roundabouts with this... the athletes bring in money using what the school gave them to do so.

The school gave them the athletic ability?

These are fluctuating circumstances. You can't truly, unbiasedly, and essentially "fairly" put an estimated worth on a player and specifically a player whose playing career/time/success is dependent on other factors and also largely (in success) dependent on other players.

Sure you can. We do it in all the professional leagues. Not to mention every place of business as I already pointed out.

You could probably be more accurate with the players "likeness" but even that is a fluctuating circumstance as well. And if you used it that way (based on the market), well the market is completely biased in college athletics to begin with, the heisman trophy is a prime example. There is no one fair value of a player, specifically because the players ability, attention/marketability, essential value, and future are rarely, if ever consistent.

Same with all professional leagues and other places of employment yet they all get fair market value.

Just to spitball a little, this could also effect the draft and how players are valued and assessed as a whole. Not to mention silly simple things such as scheduling and hype. That is something alone that can increase the money earned without players having any say, being any good, or anything from the players actually... but as it goes, the more money brought in, the more they should get as well as the coaches, ADs, and on down the line. A lot of these players get free education that costs anywhere from ten thousand and up varying from school to school, but you don't see your typical student getting that.

I also don't see the typical student doing anything like bringing in millions through anything like a bowl game, or making the NCAA millions of dollars off video games.

Most scholarships that are out there for regular students are small amounts or at least in relation to the grand scheme, whereas a lot of these players have fullrides.

Again, market value. Those regular students are not bringing in millions of dollars. Why would they get as much as the athletes who are bringing in billions for the NCAA?

So these players are basically getting a free education to play a game that "could" produce millions of dollars for them down the road and you want more? Obviously nothing is guaranteed, but name me a regular student that graduates and finds a job paying multimillions of dollars?

Has nothing to do with them being allowed fair market value when in school while every other student is allowed that opportunity. Most athletes do not go professional anyways. Argument is irrelevant to debate.

It has rarely if ever happened. Though most of these athletes will not go on to the pros, they have the chance to and in turn make millions from it in a very short time and if they fail, as long as they graduate, they have the same opportunities as a regular college student in life. If anything, being a college football athlete has EXCEPTIONALLY more pros than cons whereas a reg student has what they have.

Also irrelevant. Does not address the fact they do not get fair market value like every other student is allowed to.

This is a team sport. Not one player shines purely because of themselves, but the market and the media (more like market because of the media) clearly identify with excitement standards and because of this, it quite often leads players being over looked and that is the current situation without applying some form on monetary value to a players ability but simply through promotional avenues.

So...

Not to mention that you say things like "You got your fair market value. You didn't bring in billions of dollars so why would the school pay you?" (to which I understand and am not taking offense, just thought this was a fair example) but you presuppose that people watch the games, buy the merch, etc.. based on the players. Now obviously this all works together (there isn't a game without the players), but I can say wholeheartedly that I have never ONCE nor have I ever heard anyone say that they attended a game specifically to watch a player and take nothing else from it.

Of course they go for not just the players. That is easily the main reason. Of course people go to see the players.

Most fans attend for the tailgates, friends, parties, pride of the land, the game, etc... that they find in it.

You can tailgate, see friends, and go to parties in your backyard. Why do people pay hundreds, sometimes thousand to watch these games? The players.

Also, these are the Universities providing these kids with the opportunities, not the other way around. These kids are wearing their colors, their logo/brand/name and they are doing something that is voluntary, but moreso something that they love to do. Where is the real risk factor for the players?

While this is totally irrelevant to the point I make there is much risk for the players. In professional sports contracts are guaranteed if injured. Scholarships are not.

The risk falls on the University. They are the ones that spend an average of around 20million a year, without truly knowing what they will receive in return.

And all college students have the ability to achieve money the same way. Regular students and athletes are allowed to open a business. Only difference being that the athlete is not allow to sell his likeness while still enrolled at school. This works to a similar line with a regular college student, as they don't have "likeness", so therefore they cannot sell it. Neither can sell or have a business that is tied to the school as a whole without approval.

Athletes practice 50-60 hours a week. You're going to claim if they want to achieve money they should open a business?? So practice 50-60 hours a week, be in school full time, and open a business? Okay...

Now that I am thinking about it, I suppose that I wouldnt' be opposed to allowing players to seek a deal with retailers and seeking some form of compensation for autographed memorabilia (could quite possibly create a collectors market as well for championship teams), but not the players charging people themselves. I understand that all of this is not what you were specifically talking about (especially this last part), I am moreless spitballing some thoughts here as well.

They are not currently allowed to do that.

Nonetheless football has been around for over 100 years. When you look back, rarely do you ever see players calling for payment for play. Calling for health care? Now that has happened a fair amount, but I have already stated my opinion on that.

What do you mean by rarely? This has been going on for years.

"I was talking about the NCAA. Their tv deal for just the mens basketball tournament alone is for 10.4 billion dollars. That is just the tv deal for just the tourney."

Feel free to correct me, but I am fairly positive the NCAA is a non-profit. These deals are made with the conferences themselves.

non-profit doesn't mean they don't make billions of dollars haha
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 1:39:26 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/31/2014 2:36:49 PM, stubs wrote:
Couldn't be farther from the truth. And if it is fair market value then why would anyone be scared to allow them pay. If they are already receiving fair market value than no one will pay them.

I think the issue is you expect them to be paid more than they are.
This may be true, but you have not demonstrated why they deserve to be paid more than the potential $100K they are making now.

They bring in billions....

I would wager most players, especially rookies, are not paid as well as established players. Farve was paid a few million per game for the Vikings when he played, I doubt any rookie from college is making that, let along the vast majority of them.

Yes because that is there fair market value.

Because they are worth more than that.
Says you!!!
First, that is the NCAA, not the college.
Second, that is a 14 year contract (or 9, or 12), not one year.
I think you are assuming there is much fluidity in this revenue, which there isn't.

I wasn't implying it was a one year deal haha

Again, if might drive the price so low, that wages still wouldn't be paid. That is the issue I take with your assumption.

Billions...

And you cannot say the market value is higher than these benefits' cash value, can you? You assume.

I can turn it around. You assume it is lower.

McDonalds pays near minimum wage to earn the millions it does. So does Walmart.
Your point is moot.

Those workers get fair market value. Doesn't effect my argument. You are not getting it. I does not matter what they are paid. It matters that they get far market value.

Please debate me on this, or I can send you a debate request.
Tempting, but I'm not a big debator; I like the forums.

Scared? :P just kidding

Plus, upon doing some research, I might actually agree a change is in order (payments need to be expanded, not necessarily wages paid), since one of my assumptions seems to be false.

But, let's not forget the X factor in all of this: the difficult to account for "opportunity" payment. Playing for a good school is likely to get your skills noticed (after all, if you are a QB and you linemen don't give you more than 1 second it's hard to exhibit your skills), along with that being the stepping stone to the pros, people do "pay" for that exposure and opportunity.....kind of like an intern.

What other intern brings in billions?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 5:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 4:44:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/3/2014 1:39:26 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/31/2014 2:36:49 PM, stubs wrote:
Couldn't be farther from the truth. And if it is fair market value then why would anyone be scared to allow them pay. If they are already receiving fair market value than no one will pay them.

I think the issue is you expect them to be paid more than they are.
This may be true, but you have not demonstrated why they deserve to be paid more than the potential $100K they are making now.

They bring in billions....
And, yet, apparently their "profit" is only a record $71 million.
That would be one million per school in the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and nothing to any other school or program.

I don't care what their revenue is, or their bottom line is, your argument is "they make so much, that the market value MUST be more than scholarships".
I vehemently disagree.


I would wager most players, especially rookies, are not paid as well as established players. Farve was paid a few million per game for the Vikings when he played, I doubt any rookie from college is making that, let along the vast majority of them.

Yes because that is there fair market value.
So, it stands to reason that college kids would make less than rookies, and their scholarships are worth about $100K.

Because they are worth more than that.
Says you!!!
First, that is the NCAA, not the college.
Second, that is a 14 year contract (or 9, or 12), not one year.
I think you are assuming there is much fluidity in this revenue, which there isn't.

I wasn't implying it was a one year deal haha
The fact you provided was misleading, as is saying they "bring in billions", when you:
i. ignore expenses
ii. assume that any one player brings in more than the rest

Again, if might drive the price so low, that wages still wouldn't be paid. That is the issue I take with your assumption.

Billions...
Revenue is irrelevant, why do you not see this?


And you cannot say the market value is higher than these benefits' cash value, can you? You assume.

I can turn it around. You assume it is lower.
If anything, I assume it is at market value; however, I am not making any assertions. You are.

McDonalds pays near minimum wage to earn the millions it does. So does Walmart.
Your point is moot.

Those workers get fair market value. Doesn't effect my argument. You are not getting it. I does not matter what they are paid. It matters that they get far market value.

So, let me get this straight:
A worker whose company makes billions, is entitled to a salary of $15K because that is their market value, but you automatically assume athlete's would be paid more, with the only evidence is because the NCAA (not the colleges (i.e. their employers), but the NCAA) makes billions. How is this not hypocritical?


Plus, upon doing some research, I might actually agree a change is in order (payments need to be expanded, not necessarily wages paid), since one of my assumptions seems to be false.

But, let's not forget the X factor in all of this: the difficult to account for "opportunity" payment. Playing for a good school is likely to get your skills noticed (after all, if you are a QB and you linemen don't give you more than 1 second it's hard to exhibit your skills), along with that being the stepping stone to the pros, people do "pay" for that exposure and opportunity.....kind of like an intern.

What other intern brings in billions?

What player brings in billions?

Stubs, I get what you are saying. It's just not convincing, because you make a huge assumption and have selective outrage.

By your logic, Walmart employees should be paid more, acedemic scholarships should be erradicated, and colleges should be forced to pay money on revenue they don't earn (i.e. the billions NCAA makes). But, you don't support any of that, do you?
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 5:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/3/2014 4:44:39 PM, stubs wrote:
And, yet, apparently their "profit" is only a record $71 million.
That would be one million per school in the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and nothing to any other school or program.

That math isn't right...

I don't care what their revenue is, or their bottom line is, your argument is "they make so much, that the market value MUST be more than scholarships".
I vehemently disagree.

If you really did disagree then you would not be worried about allowing athletes pay. If you think that there market value is scholarships than no college is going to pay them more than that. I am only arguing that they should be allowed pay just like any other student is.

So, it stands to reason that college kids would make less than rookies, and their scholarships are worth about $100K.

Clowney was the number one pick, he is a rookie this upcoming year and he just signed a deal for 22.3 million with a 14.5 million signing bonus. A rookie is worth 22.3 million plus 14.5million but a top college athlete is only worth 100k? Please

The fact you provided was misleading, as is saying they "bring in billions", when you:
i. ignore expenses
ii. assume that any one player brings in more than the rest

Certain players do bring in more than the rest. Why did people go see texas A&M games? Johnny Manziel

Revenue is irrelevant, why do you not see this?

Revenue is directly relevant to fair market value. That is exactly how it works in capitalism.

If anything, I assume it is at market value; however, I am not making any assertions. You are.

Who is responsible for those billions of dollars? Who is responsible for the millions in video game sales?

So, let me get this straight:
A worker whose company makes billions, is entitled to a salary of $15K because that is their market value, but you automatically assume athlete's would be paid more, with the only evidence is because the NCAA (not the colleges (i.e. their employers), but the NCAA) makes billions. How is this not hypocritical?

Of course that is fair market value. If it wasn't their union would go on strike and only work for more. People work for market value. College athletes are the only ones who are not allowed to. Does not make sense. If you think they are getting their fair market value that is fine but I am arguing that they should be allowed pay just like everyone else.

Plus, upon doing some research, I might actually agree a change is in order (payments need to be expanded, not necessarily wages paid), since one of my assumptions seems to be false.

Stubs, I get what you are saying. It's just not convincing, because you make a huge assumption and have selective outrage.

I assume everyone is entitled to fair market value. I am unsure why only college athletes are not granted this right.

By your logic, Walmart employees should be paid more, acedemic scholarships should be erradicated, and colleges should be forced to pay money on revenue they don't earn (i.e. the billions NCAA makes). But, you don't support any of that, do you?

Why would I think Walmart employees should be paid more? I am arguing for the right to get fair market value. Walmart employees get fair market value or else they wouldn't work for that little amount.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 8:19:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 5:13:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Source for a RECORD year of NCAA is $71 million "profit" (are they non-profit?)
http://www.usatoday.com...

That is surplus. That's after they pay everyone else but the athletes. That would be like me working and then buying two vacation homes, 6 new nice cars, a yacht, and send 4 of my kids to the best schools and then saying "well after that I only made $40,000" We don't accept that in any other workplace. Why the NCAA?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 8:32:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 8:19:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:13:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Source for a RECORD year of NCAA is $71 million "profit" (are they non-profit?)
http://www.usatoday.com...

That is surplus. That's after they pay everyone else but the athletes.
That's why I called it "profit", and profits are what pay employees. (you know, the money they have before they pay)

That would be like me working and then buying two vacation homes, 6 new nice cars, a yacht, and send 4 of my kids to the best schools and then saying "well after that I only made $40,000"
If those were business expenses, then you are right.
However, profit is after expenses.

We don't accept that in any other workplace. Why the NCAA?
Yes, we do. Do you know how business works?

Last I heard, NCAA is a non-profit.
That means there is not supposed to be excess cash. So, where is the money being spent? If it is being spent frivolously, then by all means, tell me how.
Actually, don't, since the issue isn't with the NCAA, it is with their RULES, and the colleges must pay, not the NCAA.
Who pays Eli Manning? The NFL or the NY Giants?
It's the latter, which is why your focus on the NCAA's income is irrelevant.
My work here is, finally, done.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 8:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 8:32:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/3/2014 8:19:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:13:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Source for a RECORD year of NCAA is $71 million "profit" (are they non-profit?)
http://www.usatoday.com...

That is surplus. That's after they pay everyone else but the athletes.
That's why I called it "profit", and profits are what pay employees. (you know, the money they have before they pay)

That is money after they pay the employees. Not before.

That would be like me working and then buying two vacation homes, 6 new nice cars, a yacht, and send 4 of my kids to the best schools and then saying "well after that I only made $40,000"
If those were business expenses, then you are right.
However, profit is after expenses.

None of that would have been business expenses haha.

We don't accept that in any other workplace. Why the NCAA?
Yes, we do. Do you know how business works?

So if your boss made say 100k but then told you that after he put a down payment on a beach house, a new car, put some money into the stocks, put some money into his saving account, and then said that he really only makes 20k you would accept that? Do you know how business works?

Last I heard, NCAA is a non-profit.
That means there is not supposed to be excess cash. So, where is the money being spent? If it is being spent frivolously, then by all means, tell me how.

That 71 million was after they gave it to everyone but the players. Did you even read the article you posted?

Actually, don't, since the issue isn't with the NCAA, it is with their RULES, and the colleges must pay, not the NCAA.
Who pays Eli Manning? The NFL or the NY Giants?
It's the latter, which is why your focus on the NCAA's income is irrelevant.

not the same. In the NFL along with all other major sports there is a union and a CBA. They get fair market value. College athletes are not allowed that. How come?