Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

College Athletes Already Get Paid

zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a lot of talk about college athletes and whether they should be paid. Yet logically speaking, they already get paid - with scholarships.

While other students have to find a way to pay for the increasingly expensive costs of education, the athletes save thousands of dollars every year by getting a free education.

Education is about academics, so academic scholarships actually make sense.

There is no logical reason to give someone a scholarship to pursue academic purposes - going to college - just because they do something that isn't related to academics (sports).
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 3:03:58 PM, zoinks wrote:
There is a lot of talk about college athletes and whether they should be paid. Yet logically speaking, they already get paid - with scholarships.

While other students have to find a way to pay for the increasingly expensive costs of education, the athletes save thousands of dollars every year by getting a free education.

Education is about academics, so academic scholarships actually make sense.

There is no logical reason to give someone a scholarship to pursue academic purposes - going to college - just because they do something that isn't related to academics (sports).

Mostly agree with this. The one thing that would fix this whole mess is if we actually had real minor leagues in football and basketball instead of using college athletics as a developmental league. College sports should be for amateurs, those who want to go pro could go to the minor leagues. But the college ADs are making tons of money and they don't want to give it up.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 9:27:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If they are getting something that they are not able to turn into food when they go home hungry, then they are not being paid. They have rules that prevent players from being paid. If someone wants to pay a player for an autograph or to do a Viagra commercial, why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't a USC player get paid to sponsor condoms?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:42:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 9:27:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If they are getting something that they are not able to turn into food when they go home hungry, then they are not being paid.

First, most of these scholarships come with a food plan, so I doubt very many of these kids are ever going hungry.

Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

They have rules that prevent players from being paid.

They should also have rules that prevent them from getting a scholarship for anything but academics.

If someone wants to pay a player for an autograph or to do a Viagra commercial, why shouldn't they?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

Why shouldn't a USC player get paid to sponsor condoms?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:14:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:42:40 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/14/2014 9:27:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If they are getting something that they are not able to turn into food when they go home hungry, then they are not being paid.

First, most of these scholarships come with a food plan, so I doubt very many of these kids are ever going hungry.

http://mweb.cbssports.com...

Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.


Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.


They have rules that prevent players from being paid.

They should also have rules that prevent them from getting a scholarship for anything but academics.

That's not relevant at all. You're saying that because they get a form of compensation that you disagree with, that justifies them not getting any other compensation. How about you argue to allow them to get paid and take away the scholarship. They can then use their paycheck to pay for school.


If someone wants to pay a player for an autograph or to do a Viagra commercial, why shouldn't they?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

College is about more than academics.


Why shouldn't a USC player get paid to sponsor condoms?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

That has nothing to do with what I said.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:54:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 7:14:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

This is true. However in my opinion, there is a difference between having a job and playing amateur sports in college. Right now, the players are in this weird limbo where they are treated like professionals in some ways and amateurs in other ways. I agree that it is inconsistent as it stands. In my ideal world, the prospects who want to go pro wouldn't be playing college ball at all, so this wouldn't be an issue. But I can see the point of those who argue that the colleges are making money off the athletes so why shouldn't they be able to make money too.

College is about more than academics.

This is also true, although I would say that academics are the biggest and most important part of college. Should colleges have sports teams, I think yes. But they shouldn't have huge budgets and expensive stadiums and millionaire coaches because that detracts too much from the school's primary purpose, which is to educate people. Again, I wish the NBA and NFL had credible developmental league systems where all the top prospects could go and play. That way we wouldn't have this farce where everyone pretends college sports are amateur sports and the schools are genuinely interested providing their moneymaking athletes with an education.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 6:37:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.

That's a separate issue. If you have a problem with schools making money from TV deals, then argue against the TV deals.

Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

Now you're comparing amateur athletics to employment. Those two things are not in any way the same.

Playing sports isn't a job unless you are a professional. Playing for a college means you are not a professional.

They should also have rules that prevent them from getting a scholarship for anything but academics.

That's not relevant at all. You're saying that because they get a form of compensation that you disagree with, that justifies them not getting any other compensation.

No, I'm just making another point that would solve the issue. Don't give kids scholarships for anything but academics and you eliminate all of these problems.

How about you argue to allow them to get paid and take away the scholarship. They can then use their paycheck to pay for school.

College and school are about academics. Why should they get paid to do something for the school that has nothing to do with academics?

If you want to be a professional athlete, go do it. Don't go to school and pretend to be there for academic reasons instead.

If someone wants to pay a player for an autograph or to do a Viagra commercial, why shouldn't they?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

College is about more than academics.

No, it's not. Colleges exist to provide education. Everything else is secondary at best.

Why shouldn't a USC player get paid to sponsor condoms?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

It answers your question directly. What more do you want?
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 6:39:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Should colleges have sports teams, I think yes.

I disagree.

I think there never should have been sports teams directly associate with either high schools or colleges. Those places are about academics.

Let sports teams exist separately from high schools so taxpayers aren't footing the bill for kids to play sports.

Let sports teams exist separately from colleges so we don't have these issues.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 6:37:45 AM, zoinks wrote:
Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.

That's a separate issue. If you have a problem with schools making money from TV deals, then argue against the TV deals.

I have no problem with the money they make. Only that they should pay those responsible for making it.

Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

Now you're comparing amateur athletics to employment. Those two things are not in any way the same.

What I am saying is that because of the money made, there is no reason it should be amateur. It is professional in so much as it generates revenue. Let those that make the money actually have some of it.


Playing sports isn't a job unless you are a professional. Playing for a college means you are not a professional.

You're confusing "is" and "ought". They may not be professionals right now, but there is no reason that they shouldn't be.


They should also have rules that prevent them from getting a scholarship for anything but academics.

That's not relevant at all. You're saying that because they get a form of compensation that you disagree with, that justifies them not getting any other compensation.

No, I'm just making another point that would solve the issue. Don't give kids scholarships for anything but academics and you eliminate all of these problems.

That's fine as an alternative that can be debated seperately, but it doesn't relate to whether they should be allowed to be paid or not.


How about you argue to allow them to get paid and take away the scholarship. They can then use their paycheck to pay for school.

College and school are about academics. Why should they get paid to do something for the school that has nothing to do with academics?

Because colleges are not just about academics, they are more than that, as they should be. For high schools, there are countless studies that show the benefits of school sports, both from a discipline and educational standpoint.


If you want to be a professional athlete, go do it. Don't go to school and pretend to be there for academic reasons instead.

Cool, that's not a problem. But if schools are going to make millions off of someone else's work, they can't just stuff that money in their pockets and say "we can't pay the kids because it is about the education value!"


If someone wants to pay a player for an autograph or to do a Viagra commercial, why shouldn't they?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

College is about more than academics.

No, it's not. Colleges exist to provide education. Everything else is secondary at best.

False. College is to provide secondary preparation for life. That mostly comes from ace demons, but it also comes from life experiences and social learning, both of which sports provide.


Why shouldn't a USC player get paid to sponsor condoms?

Because college is about academics, not using your status as a student for financial gain.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

It answers your question directly. What more do you want?

A non-player can do that, but a player can't. That shows that your claim about college in general is completely off.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 6:49:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:22:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2014 6:37:45 AM, zoinks wrote:
Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.

That's a separate issue. If you have a problem with schools making money from TV deals, then argue against the TV deals.

I have no problem with the money they make. Only that they should pay those responsible for making it.

First, I do have a problem with the money they make. Academic institutions should not be profiting from non-academics. It muddies the waters of their purpose, which is academics.

Second, the university is the one responsible for making the money. Without the framework of the university, there is no team. Then the athletes can go play pickup ball in the backyard or under the driveway hoop or wherever.


Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

Now you're comparing amateur athletics to employment. Those two things are not in any way the same.

What I am saying is that because of the money made, there is no reason it should be amateur. It is professional in so much as it generates revenue. Let those that make the money actually have some of it.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the academic environment, as I've said. Then I have no problem with it.

I suggest if you do that, you lose any framework, and as I said, kids are in the backyard or the driveway. Unless you can get the major sports leagues to develop "minor leagues", there won't be any framework outside the university - so it is the university that is responsible for making money, not the athletes.

Playing sports isn't a job unless you are a professional. Playing for a college means you are not a professional.

You're confusing "is" and "ought". They may not be professionals right now, but there is no reason that they shouldn't be.

Sure there is - they are in college. Go get a job (in sports or whatever) if you want to be a professional. Don't be in college and demand to get paid for it.

No, I'm just making another point that would solve the issue. Don't give kids scholarships for anything but academics and you eliminate all of these problems.

That's fine as an alternative that can be debated seperately, but it doesn't relate to whether they should be allowed to be paid or not.

Sure it does. Scholarships are a payment as they are a form of barter - exchange of athletic services for education.

College and school are about academics. Why should they get paid to do something for the school that has nothing to do with academics?

Because colleges are not just about academics, they are more than that, as they should be.

Colleges should only be about academics. Problems arise when you try to make them any more than that, including issues such as the ones we are discussing here.

For high schools, there are countless studies that show the benefits of school sports, both from a discipline and educational standpoint.

So form teams outside the framework of the school, then.

I don't need a single study to tell me that the taxpayers are footing the bill for kids to play sports, and that's not right.

Cool, that's not a problem. But if schools are going to make millions off of someone else's work, they can't just stuff that money in their pockets and say "we can't pay the kids because it is about the education value!"

That's the thing, though - it's not "someone else's work". The university is the framework for the team.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the university and form your own framework.

College is about more than academics.

No, it's not. Colleges exist to provide education. Everything else is secondary at best.

False. College is to provide secondary preparation for life. That mostly comes from ace demons, but it also comes from life experiences and social learning, both of which sports provide.

College is not some rite of passage experience designed to teach people how to grow up, even if that is how some people use it.

College is supposed to provide an education. It is not responsible for making sure all the immature people grow up.

It answers your question directly. What more do you want?

A non-player can do that, but a player can't. That shows that your claim about college in general is completely off.

So the non-player can use their status at the university for financial gain?

Which college is that? As I understand it, most have policies against this sort of thing.

Maybe some don't, I haven't researched them all and don't plan to, but it seems ridiculous to allow college students to endorse products because of their status as a student at a particular school.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 11:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 6:49:15 AM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:22:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2014 6:37:45 AM, zoinks wrote:
Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.

That's a separate issue. If you have a problem with schools making money from TV deals, then argue against the TV deals.

I have no problem with the money they make. Only that they should pay those responsible for making it.

First, I do have a problem with the money they make. Academic institutions should not be profiting from non-academics. It muddies the waters of their purpose, which is academics.

Second, the university is the one responsible for making the money. Without the framework of the university, there is no team. Then the athletes can go play pickup ball in the backyard or under the driveway hoop or wherever.


Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

Now you're comparing amateur athletics to employment. Those two things are not in any way the same.

What I am saying is that because of the money made, there is no reason it should be amateur. It is professional in so much as it generates revenue. Let those that make the money actually have some of it.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the academic environment, as I've said. Then I have no problem with it.

I suggest if you do that, you lose any framework, and as I said, kids are in the backyard or the driveway. Unless you can get the major sports leagues to develop "minor leagues", there won't be any framework outside the university - so it is the university that is responsible for making money, not the athletes.


Playing sports isn't a job unless you are a professional. Playing for a college means you are not a professional.

You're confusing "is" and "ought". They may not be professionals right now, but there is no reason that they shouldn't be.

Sure there is - they are in college. Go get a job (in sports or whatever) if you want to be a professional. Don't be in college and demand to get paid for it.

No, I'm just making another point that would solve the issue. Don't give kids scholarships for anything but academics and you eliminate all of these problems.

That's fine as an alternative that can be debated seperately, but it doesn't relate to whether they should be allowed to be paid or not.

Sure it does. Scholarships are a payment as they are a form of barter - exchange of athletic services for education.

College and school are about academics. Why should they get paid to do something for the school that has nothing to do with academics?

Because colleges are not just about academics, they are more than that, as they should be.

Colleges should only be about academics. Problems arise when you try to make them any more than that, including issues such as the ones we are discussing here.

For high schools, there are countless studies that show the benefits of school sports, both from a discipline and educational standpoint.

So form teams outside the framework of the school, then.

I don't need a single study to tell me that the taxpayers are footing the bill for kids to play sports, and that's not right.

Cool, that's not a problem. But if schools are going to make millions off of someone else's work, they can't just stuff that money in their pockets and say "we can't pay the kids because it is about the education value!"

That's the thing, though - it's not "someone else's work". The university is the framework for the team.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the university and form your own framework.

College is about more than academics.

No, it's not. Colleges exist to provide education. Everything else is secondary at best.

False. College is to provide secondary preparation for life. That mostly comes from ace demons, but it also comes from life experiences and social learning, both of which sports provide.

College is not some rite of passage experience designed to teach people how to grow up, even if that is how some people use it.

College is supposed to provide an education. It is not responsible for making sure all the immature people grow up.


It answers your question directly. What more do you want?

A non-player can do that, but a player can't. That shows that your claim about college in general is completely off.

So the non-player can use their status at the university for financial gain?

Which college is that? As I understand it, most have policies against this sort of thing.

Maybe some don't, I haven't researched them all and don't plan to, but it seems ridiculous to allow college students to endorse products because of their status as a student at a particular school.

http://www.debate.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 11:01:01 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/17/2014 6:49:15 AM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:22:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/16/2014 6:37:45 AM, zoinks wrote:
Many do. And many that are largely responsible for these multi-million dollar TV deals that schools are getting.

That's a separate issue. If you have a problem with schools making money from TV deals, then argue against the TV deals.

I have no problem with the money they make. Only that they should pay those responsible for making it.

First, I do have a problem with the money they make. Academic institutions should not be profiting from non-academics. It muddies the waters of their purpose, which is academics.

Second, the university is the one responsible for making the money. Without the framework of the university, there is no team. Then the athletes can go play pickup ball in the backyard or under the driveway hoop or wherever.


Second, you think it's not enough to get a free education when what you do has nothing to do with academics?

No, if my employer took away my paycheck and instead paid me in a college education, that would not keep me alive.

Now you're comparing amateur athletics to employment. Those two things are not in any way the same.

What I am saying is that because of the money made, there is no reason it should be amateur. It is professional in so much as it generates revenue. Let those that make the money actually have some of it.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the academic environment, as I've said. Then I have no problem with it.

I suggest if you do that, you lose any framework, and as I said, kids are in the backyard or the driveway. Unless you can get the major sports leagues to develop "minor leagues", there won't be any framework outside the university - so it is the university that is responsible for making money, not the athletes.


Playing sports isn't a job unless you are a professional. Playing for a college means you are not a professional.

You're confusing "is" and "ought". They may not be professionals right now, but there is no reason that they shouldn't be.

Sure there is - they are in college. Go get a job (in sports or whatever) if you want to be a professional. Don't be in college and demand to get paid for it.

No, I'm just making another point that would solve the issue. Don't give kids scholarships for anything but academics and you eliminate all of these problems.

That's fine as an alternative that can be debated seperately, but it doesn't relate to whether they should be allowed to be paid or not.

Sure it does. Scholarships are a payment as they are a form of barter - exchange of athletic services for education.

College and school are about academics. Why should they get paid to do something for the school that has nothing to do with academics?

Because colleges are not just about academics, they are more than that, as they should be.

Colleges should only be about academics. Problems arise when you try to make them any more than that, including issues such as the ones we are discussing here.

For high schools, there are countless studies that show the benefits of school sports, both from a discipline and educational standpoint.

So form teams outside the framework of the school, then.

I don't need a single study to tell me that the taxpayers are footing the bill for kids to play sports, and that's not right.

Cool, that's not a problem. But if schools are going to make millions off of someone else's work, they can't just stuff that money in their pockets and say "we can't pay the kids because it is about the education value!"

That's the thing, though - it's not "someone else's work". The university is the framework for the team.

If you want it to be professional, take it out of the university and form your own framework.

College is about more than academics.

No, it's not. Colleges exist to provide education. Everything else is secondary at best.

False. College is to provide secondary preparation for life. That mostly comes from ace demons, but it also comes from life experiences and social learning, both of which sports provide.

College is not some rite of passage experience designed to teach people how to grow up, even if that is how some people use it.

College is supposed to provide an education. It is not responsible for making sure all the immature people grow up.


It answers your question directly. What more do you want?

A non-player can do that, but a player can't. That shows that your claim about college in general is completely off.

So the non-player can use their status at the university for financial gain?

Which college is that? As I understand it, most have policies against this sort of thing.

Maybe some don't, I haven't researched them all and don't plan to, but it seems ridiculous to allow college students to endorse products because of their status as a student at a particular school.

http://www.debate.org...

Sorry; I don't prefer that method of discussion.