User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.8616 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
You guys should see him rant on the topic of college football players not being fairly compensated.
Won't SOMEONE think of the children?!?!?!?
You know, this might be the most thoughtful, not to mention completely honest, thing I've seen anyone say regarding the whole steroids issue yet.
If ever a story cried out for a thinkofthechildren tag, this is it. Repoz?
Based on pretty much everything I've read about his personality, Glanville is up there among players I'd most like to just hang out with. He's certainly the top player with no Met history.
Actually -- while I haven't read anything Telander has written about that -- that I agree with. There's no reason college athletes shouldn't be compensated (everyone else around them is). And the amount of deference the courts give the NCAA is pretty absurd, virtually treating the NCAA as if it's a government body.
Sure there is. They're amateur athletes.
Which means what, that they're not paid? That just begs the question: why shouldn't they be paid?
Yes, that's what "amateur" means. You compete in the sport for the sake of the sport, and not for pay. Once you accept pay, you're no longer an amateur.
You can also get there by noting that the institution team sport athletes play for is a not-for-profit endeavor, though that observation supports the point more than makes it.
Which means what, that they're not paid? That just begs the question: why shouldn't they be paid?
But it also raises the eternal question of what colleges should be doing in the professional sports business in the first place---which is most certainly what they are, regardless of the form of payment that the athletes are receiving.
The best argument for not paying them is the idea that colleges should not be professional as the school should be making a team to represent fun and the like. Of course, US college sports went way beyond that point many decades ago. In truth the football teams should be fully professional with an age limit and owned by the college but without a requirement for the players to be students as they really are not students for academics but just to learn football. Give it a decade or two more and we'll probably see this happen too.
And another rampart at least endeavoring to hold back the amoral and corrupting ethos of commerce will have crumbled.
Terrific. Boy, I can't wait.
Compare the salaries* of some of those "not-for-profit" institutions and then tell me in layman's terms where the "not-for-profit" applies, other than to graduate student teaching assistants. Major colleges and universities have had the trappings of big business for a long, long time, and it's only the peculiarities of the tax code that tells us otherwise.
* of college presidents, fundrasisers, head football or basketball coaches, superstar faculty members, etc.
EDIT: I'm certainly not complaining about this point, but in the upcoming year I'll likely make more money off college football by sitting at home playing on my computer than the guys who are protecting those Heisman Trophy candidates from getting killed, even allowing for their full scholarships. And the colleges who have granted my poster manufacturing company the licenses will be making even more money, simply by approving those licenses with the stroke of a pen. Not that there's anything particularly wrong or immoral about any of this, but I'm not exactly sure what it has to do with the purposes of higher education.
But "amateur" is just a word. It bears no relationship to the actual state of affairs. The NCAA pretends that they're "amateur" in order to get out of paying them a salary.
Wrong again. A college golfer who got paid by the school to play for it wouldn't be eligible for the U.S. Amateur and other major events open only to amateurs. He/she would have lost amateur status.
Your second claim is utterly unsupported by any real evidence.
Odd, then, that college athletes do often have their tuition paid for them, and get free room and board.
All while the NCAA pretends that they're against student athletes receiving benefits.
1. Is there anything particularly noble, admirable, or desirable about amateurism?
2. Even if there is, is it even remotely true that college sports are "pure" and "untainted" by professionalism?
3. Why is it OK for a computer science student to intern at Apple, or OK for a finance student to take a part-time job at Goldman-Sachs, or OK for a journalism student to take a paid position with the school paper, but not OK for a college football player to get paid to play?
* of college presidents, fundrasisers, head football or basketball coaches, superstar faculty members, etc.
Of course this is correct. But that observation leads me to the conclusion that the effort to keep bulwarks already in place to stop it, admittedly overmatched, should be redoubled.
Then what are you complaining about?
All while the NCAA pretends that they're against student athletes receiving benefits.
They are student-athletes receiving benefits. Where's the pretending?
Not for "profit"? Have you seen the ticket prices for these games, and the salaries of the coaches, and the tv deals and the like? Everyone gets paid except the ones most responsible for generating the revenue; the NCAA, of course, actively prevents these "amateurs" from earning income for what they do.
Well, I'd dispute the "for free," but, yes; most players get compensated (through scholarships and what not) up to the level of their value. But some players are worth far more than that.
2. Even if there is, is it even remotely true that college sports are "pure" and "untainted" by professionalism?
3. Why is it OK for a computer science student to intern at Apple, or OK for a finance student to take a part-time job at Goldman-Sachs, or OK for a journalism student to take a paid position with the school paper, but not OK for a college football player to get paid to play?
1. Yes. The nobility and desirability of many activities has nothing to do with how much, or whether, they are compensated.
2. Yes, except for isolated instances concentrated almost completely within football and basketball.
3. Because a college football player gets a free education, and because if you allowed payment above that, there would be even more cheating and corruption. If a free education isn't sufficient compensation, don't play.
I'm complaining that many of them are worth far more than what they're being compensated for, and that all of them are prevented from earning income from outside sources.
And are demonized if it's found that they are receiving outside income.
It's not "free" at all. Far from it. College football players work extremely hard for the scraps of compensation that they receive.
I disagree, and I'd hardly call it "corruption."
It's not free, and it's often not sufficient compensation, but the athletes often have no choice other than to find a different line of work. (And note I said "work.")
So we are in agreement. I fail to understand why I'm supposed to hold a particular activity in higher esteem because its practitioner isn't getting paid for it. You seem to concur. So let's stop pretending that amateurism is this pure, high ideal. It's essentially an artificial construct designed to keep some people from making money off their talents.
"Isolated?" That's...naive.
Does the institution support the player in his pursuit of his "free education"? If a basketball player wants to miss a road trip so he can study for his finals, will the college allow him to? Does the institution account for the extra time and fatigue demands of playing a revenue-generating sport, and, say, allow the student-athlete an extra year to complete his degree? If the student-athlete wants to major in something more substantial than basketweaving, will the institution provide the necessary support?
Has the current system of (ostensible) amateurism resulted in a bumper crop of well-educated student-athletes and cheating kept to a minimum? Is the system working?
Maybe they should transfer to a better school. Drop out of that big-time Miami program and go play football for Yale to take advantage of the increased value of the education you'll be receiving in exchange for chasing a football around. If you'd rather have the big-time program instead of the higher-quality education, well, you've made your choice.
And are demonized if it's found that they are receiving outside income.
So what. That doesn't mean a college is obligated to pay them their so-called worth. If a kid feels a free education isn't adequate compensation his remedy is simple: Don't accept the offer. Don't play. College basketball players have played for free for decades rather than turn pro.
"Demonized" is just another silly word you throw around that's devoid of meaning. Excessive, non-descriptive, and in the end, silly bordering on juvenile. I know you don't mind if people break the rules and get hysterical when people point out the rule-breaking; you've proven that many times over on the steroids threads.
Yes, they do, and when many of them look back on it, they view it as the best time of their lives.
Even though they weren't paid their "worth" as determined by ... you.
I disagree, and I'd hardly call it "corruption."
I know. Cheating to you isn't corruption. You've said that a thousand times in the steroid threads.
People who think like you are precisely the reason we need to keep amateur sports amateur as best we can. Your world isn't one I'd ever want to see become dominant.
It's not free, and it's often not sufficient compensation, but the athletes often have no choice other than to find a different line of work. (And note I said "work.")
Then don't take the compensation, and don't play.
Maybe they should be paid a salary at market value instead of simply being exploited. Odd that you would defend a system that does that.
The better athletes with a realistic shot at the pros often make the decision -- reasonable under the circumstances -- to maximize their chance at making the pros instead of maximizing their education. So they work for the school, get very little in the way of compensation, and have to hope that they don't get injured while working as an indentured servant.
This is ridiculous on its face. Why do people go to Yale, or Georgia Tech, or MIT, or wherever? Presumably b/c they believe it's the best place to pursue their goals (let's say business, engineering, and mathematics). If I want to be a football player, why wouldn't I go to Ohio State, or an SEC school instead? Of course, I would. The idea that they're doing something radically different than the rest of the student body - aside from the quality of the work (it's physical labor and thus long-term more damaging and potentially hazardous) AND the enormous money they're generating - is false: these young men go to these places to pursue sports careers; careers that eventually will pay compensate them well and thus make this a rational decision. Yet, for many, they'll never get that far and in the the meantime they get virtually nothing in return for their labor and risk; they get NO SHARE of the income they generate. That strikes me as unjust and ludicrous and the NCAA, which perpetuates this model, is a sham.
Right. Same choice baseball players had under the reserve clause.
But we know your bizarre views on Marvin Miller already.
Bingo. See Robert Maynard Hutchins for elaboration.
You said it. And gee, dropping big time football really destroyed the University of Chicago, didn't it?
Compare the salaries* of some of those "not-for-profit" institutions and then tell me in layman's terms where the "not-for-profit" applies, other than to graduate student teaching assistants. Major colleges and universities have had the trappings of big business for a long, long time, and it's only the peculiarities of the tax code that tells us otherwise.
* of college presidents, fundrasisers, head football or basketball coaches, superstar faculty members, etc.
Of course this is correct. But that observation leads me to the conclusion that the effort to keep bulwarks already in place to stop it, admittedly overmatched, should be redoubled
I couldn't agree with you more, SB, although I'm sure we'd agree that the operative words there are "admittedly overmatched."
Because a college football player gets a free education,
It's not "free" at all. Far from it. College football players work extremely hard for the scraps of compensation that they receive.
No question about that---they work at football a lot harder than I ever worked in my classes at Duke, that's for sure. But the question is what that "work" of theirs has to do with the overall purposes of higher education.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy watching big time college football as much as anyone, and even more so since I'm managing to make a decent residual income off it. And I can certainly grant your point about the work that the players put in, and not denigrate that in any way. And yet the overall question gets shouted down far more than it gets seriously addressed.
It's a great ideal -- indeed, it's the defining ideal of sport, properly understood -- and there's nothing artificial about it, other than to generally clueless cynics.
Does the institution support the player in his pursuit of his "free education"? If a basketball player wants to miss a road trip so he can study for his finals, will the college allow him to? Does the institution account for the extra time and fatigue demands of playing a revenue-generating sport, and, say, allow the student-athlete an extra year to complete his degree? If the student-athlete wants to major in something more substantial than basketweaving, will the institution provide the necessary support?
Has the current system of (ostensible) amateurism resulted in a bumper crop of well-educated student-athletes and cheating kept to a minimum? Is the system working?
Certainly at my alma mater, the answer is yes and scholarships are five years, often six. And the "system" is more than just football and basketball.
More generally, my answer to falling short of ideals isn't to bag the ideals, it's to continue to strive to reach them.
Free tuition, free room, free meal plan, free books - sounds like a nice support system to me.
If a basketball player wants to miss a road trip so he can study for his finals, will the college allow him to?
If a chemistry student on scholarship wants to blow off his work-study requirements so he can study for his finals, will the college allow him to do so?
Does the institution account for the extra time and fatigue demands of playing a revenue-generating sport,
If you want to compensate college athletes for "extra time and fatigue", those football-playing lummoxes would be chauffeuring the wrestling team around campus. Of course, football generates more revenue than wrestling, so perhaps the "extra time and fatigue" aren't such a big part of the equation after all.
If the student-athlete wants to major in something more substantial than basketweaving, will the institution provide the necessary support?
Like the free tutoring available to all the other physics and engineering majors through their pre-professional societies? Or do the jocks need extra-special care because they do, after all, excel and kicking balls and jumping? Getting through college is pretty rough for plenty of folks who don't get the kid-glove treatment afforded to the footballers and jump-shooters, let's keep our priorities in line.
What, now the compensation of college athletes is going to be negotiated with the school, and not just some sort of stipend? And if things don't go well, agents and Marvin Miller/Don Fehr-like fanatics?
You've lost your mind.
The better athletes with a realistic shot at the pros often make the decision -- reasonable under the circumstances -- to maximize their chance at making the pros instead of maximizing their education. So they work for the school, get very little in the way of compensation, and have to hope that they don't get injured while working as an indentured servant.
That's a stupid choice. And as a result ... what? ... we need to rip up the whole amateur system?
Please.
And "indentured servant" is another ignorant term. You're addressing intelligent people on this board.
Scores of professional-caliber football players matriculate at institutions other than OSU or an SEC school. And, believe it or not, a lot of them actually get an education beyond football. Many of course, don't, but that's their choice and their fault.
And they do receive a share of the income "they" generate -- they get a free education worth at some schools 200-300K or more.
You're overemphasizing football, also. It's one sport among many played by college athletes.
If they want to be paid market value they should join a professional team. The NBA takes players out of high school. Baseball too. If your problem is with the NFL's draft, then direct your ire there.
But don't waltz into an educational institution with your free ride for dunkmanship and then cry oppression. Ninja please.
OK, then that's their choice - remember, the comment I was replying to was, "most players get compensated (through scholarships and what not) up to the level of their value. But some players are worth far more than that." Fine, if being groomed for a shot at the NBA or NFL trumps your education then you make that choice and live with the consequences. What you seem to want is each college jock to get a bigger teat to suckle on - sure, you've got your free tuition, your free books, your room & board, tutoring, laundry service, and any other perks, now throw in some free money.
Screw that. You want money, go play for a pro team and leave college for folks who think education has value.
They're getting a free education. If you think a college education has little value, then sure, they're getting screwed. Of course, I argue otherwise - a college education is a fantastic investment in the next 70 years of your life, and if you can get one absolutely free simply because you can throw a spiral 70 yards you're getting a ripe plum for next to nothing.
The lessons of sport are not incompatible with the purposes of higher education, though I'm not silly enough to argue that they're identical. Some Greek somewhere said something about the ideal of physical and mental development in tandem, and some Brit somewhere said something along the lines of a big war was won on the playing fields of some public school. I like both those ideas.
This analogy is ludicrous on its face. You might note the term "work study" -- and that's not just an empty word, like "amateur" is in this context. Most work study jobs, at least the ones I had when I was in school, allow the student to, you know, study while he works. Sure, you're distracted as you're studying, but, then, I know of no work study job that is not flexible enough in terms of scheduling to accommodate various student needs.
The Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships.
The true problem is probably the NFL/NBA draft rules that require a certain level of collegiate standing (i.e. sophomore, junior status) or an equivalent minimum age. Otherwise, these top 18-year-olds would indeed be free to get their "market value" professionally. But the colleges, in bed with the government, in bed with the pro leagues, have conspired to prevent this.
And yet kids still play football there. And some go on to play in the pros.
Hmmmm.
Maybe the football scholarships I-A schools provide are above market value.
You want to quibble over terminology when the analogy is straightforward - students enter in to an agreement in which they receive free or reduced-cost college educations in exchange for their services. If you're merely smart, these services could include tutoring, washing dishes, shelving books, digging trenches, mowing lawns, or giving out parking tickets. If you're particularly blessed with a hyperactive pituitary and the ability to spin a basketball on your finger, well then you play basketball instead. The contract is the same, only the specific task differs.
That isn't my experience. Perhaps if you got assigned to the library you'd have some time to read a book, but if you're washing dishes at the cafeteria? Mowing grass? Ringing up sales at the college book store? I worked in a laboratory, which might seem to dovetail nicely with my majors in the sciences, but none of my biology or chemistry classes had any questions on the synthesis of sampangines, crossreferencing journal articles, or washing glassware, so the "work" part wasn't much help in the "study" part.
And golly, that's just what you want is the guy running the heated rotovap to be distracted.
If you know of none, and I know of some, where does that leave us?
Then I plead ignorance and apologize.
If I substituted "Duke" for "Yale" the general point would still hold (I do know an individual who received a football scholarship to Duke), with any minor disagreements on the matter best solved in a fight between alums.
Not all "work study" positions actually allow you to study while working, and I don't believe that's the intended meaning of term. You have a commitment to "work" a certain amount for the school, usually choosing from a variety of positions, and in return you receive financial assistance toward your "studies."
And not all positions offer great flexibility, although they do require fewer hours than sports programs (but then again, they also provide less in terms of financial benefit).
Both work study and athletic programs should have schedule requirements determined far enough in advance that the student or academic advisor should be able to anticipate such problems, meaning neither scenario is particularly useful in demonstrating our arguments.
I'll take your word for this. All of my work study jobs involved being some sort of a lab monitor, so I was free to study virtually the entire time.
Regardless, I think my point about flexibility still holds.
The lessons of sport are not incompatible with the purposes of higher education, though I'm not silly enough to argue that they're identical. Some Greek somewhere said something about the ideal of physical and mental development in tandem, and some Brit somewhere said something along the lines of a big war was won on the playing fields of some public school. I like both those ideas.
Babe Ruth once famously opined that "As Duke Ellington said, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Elkton." And it was hard to argue with him, even if he was a little fuzzy on the details.
But I think you'd agree that "the lessons of sport" can be imparted in a somewhat less intense form than 21st century big time Division I football.
So you agree that they are professionals. Then I guess the only question is how much should these atheletes make.
Yes, I would. Wholeheartedly.
Those of us who don't like the values and mores of commerce overtaking everything(*) and who believe there are pursuits and motivations superior to mere commerce are having a tough time of it now. No question about it.
But I hold out the hope, and believe, that fads and cycles come and go and that nothing's forever. The last thing we want to do is give in and make reform more difficult or even impossible when the zeitgeist is more favorable, as one day it will be.
(*) I have nothing against commerce per se and indeed make my living in a pursuit most see as commerce gone wild.
It seems the NCAA doesn't hold these beliefs.
So why do you?
Google "Duke Tuition." The first site that comes up will tell you that a year at Duke is 46K all in. Times 5, that's 230K. Football scholarships are five years; players red-shirt and are in school a fifth year.
And there have to be I-A schools that are more expensive than Duke. There are probably public schools that charge out of staters more.
So why do you?
The NCAA does hold these beliefs. They run amateur athletic programs by the dozens. You're confusing one sport, and a handful of people within that one sport, with all of college athletics. Others have pointed this out already and it's easy to see.
Charging ticket prices for your events and generating revenue does not make an enterprise primarily commercial, or mean that commercial values and the pursuit of profit are the primary aim or function of the enterprise. This is a self-evident concept, though apparently tough to understand by people with one-note minds.
Let's start slow: They pass collection plates around in Protestant churches. Some synogoges charge for holiday events.
Starting to get it now?
The only real question is: what is a fair amount? I the free tuition etc. enough? (Though ALL of the players DO NOT get free tuition.)
And $230k at Duke is still 70+ shy of "$300k or more".
If I were like some people on the board, I'd say, all happy with myself, "So you agree with me that $230,000 is adequate compensation."
I'm not, though, so I'll merely ask you whether the 70K makes a difference to you.
We can talk about all the revenue these athletes are generating, but that ignores the fact a huge percentage of the revenue is generated by the jersey they wear. They can't really just take their talents elsewhere (outside the NFL or NBA, where they may not even be good enough to make a roster) and expect to generate the same level of revenue for their employer that they do for their universities.
And Miami is a damn good school if you're actually looking for an education. Probably one of the best in big time football.
Not really, but I don't consider the waiver of tuition adequate or proportional compensation to the athlete since he's not really there for the education anyway.
In many ways, I agree with some of your points, and in particular with Andy's point that the real problem is the nature of the contemporary university. What you're describing can be found at some colleges, still, though not from intention, but rather some combination of incompetence and lack of funds. The modern university is an enormous scam. And I say that as an employee of one.
Free tuition, free room, free meal plan, free books - sounds like a nice support system to me.
Well then, if, as you argue, the free college education, room, meal plan, and books is fair compensation for the athletic contribution of student-athletes, then that's the winning bid that will attract said student-athlete.
That's an awfully dismissive attitude. Sure, sports like football and basketball tend to attract more than a fair share of ignoramuses, but as has been pointed out here previously, there's a good deal more to college sports than football and basketball. Why would someone seek a wrestling scholarship if not to get an education? "Professional wrestling" really isn't the natural progression from "amateur wrestling", after all.
If the rosters of this year's BCS teams had announced in early December that they weren't going to play in their respective bowls, but that they would be happy to entertain TV offers to play a set of games with similar matchups (e.g. the players formerly playing as the Ohio State Buckeyes vs. the players formerly playing as the LSU Tigers), how much money do you think they'd be offered? Obviously the revenue generated from such games wouldn't be anywhere near that generated by the "real" BCS system -- which relies on interest in the university as well as in the players -- but it sure would be interesting to see, wouldn't it?
It seems strange that everyone gets paid in amateur athletics -- the coaching staffs; the sports information departments; analysts, broadcasters, and journalists -- except the people who make it all possible.
And currently does.
I'd hope it would be a great deal, as their previous schools would have little recourse but to withdraw their free ride scholarships.
But then the players would be free to shop their wares on the market. Does the World League of American Football still exist? Can we bring back the XFL?
I'm sorry -- are you really gloating over the fact that certain athletes are prevented from selling their services to the highest bidder? Is that because a substantial number of these athletes are black, or is there some other reason?
In a one-off situation, the revenues would be enormous, due primarily to the curiosity factor. But if the best college players were to try to extend that into next year and go the whole season with collections of Counterfeit Buckeyes, Paper Tigers and Busted Trojans, then I think they'd find themselves playing before XFL-sized audiences before too long.
My answer to Mbvlckd's question is: "Not inherently, no." There is something noble, admirable, and desirable about honesty, though. If they're going to hold themselves out as amateur and hold out amateurism as a good thing, then that ought to mean something more than an excuse not to compensate the athletes with cash.
But at the moment, that's all it is. A slogan. There is nothing amateur about college sports other than the lack of cash payments. Everything else about it is professional. They charge people to watch the games. They hire coaches. They pay those coach huge amounts. They spend big bucks to advertise the teams. They spend big bucks to recruit players. And they pay the players, but not with cash.
Completely false, obviously, as noted above. Of course football and basketball are more lucrative than other sports, but the lack of amateurism is inherent in the setup. The only college sports that even resemble amateurism are the intramural sports. The fact that other sports often are unprofitable for the schools as a whole does not make them "amateur." "Bad business" is not the same as "noncommercial."
Shorter answer: no reason at all. As long as I can pretend that they're amateur, I don't really care about them.
Are they really? You seem to want to keep your Twinkie and eat it too; these college students are being given a free education in exchange for their participation in sports. If they'd like to go out on their own, well, there's avenues for that as well - Arena Football, the Italian Basketball League, even, yes, pro-wrestling. But you can't offer your services to the highest bidder AND expect the conditions of your contract with the University to stay intact.
Actually, I'm more motivated by my distaste of the Irish. Savages, the lot of them, with their drunken antics and fiddle-fueled jigs.
Of course, JC did not agree, just asked where you got the figure.
You did conveniently skip over your change in position regarding the amature status of NCAA atheletes.
And once it is recognized that the atheletes are professionals, it just becomes a question of how much should they get paid?
THis is a great point. We can't foist our ideals about "amateurism" upon people who, when given the chance, immediately pursue compensation for their sport. It's not "amateur" and therefore noble if things are set up to prevent these athletes from pursuing their professional (i.e., paying) sports. That's just dishonest and unjust.
Reggie, are you even reading what you're writing? You wrote that the students are being given a free education in exchange for their participation in sports. But of course that's the antithesis of "free"; something that is free is not "in exchange" for anything.
Some other reason. A lot of them, actually.
And so we have the obvious answer to Aristotle, Aquinus, Moses, Jesus, and all lesser minds who've heretofore struggled with the matter.
Except possibly the free and voluntary exchange of goods between two free and willing adulterers.
The effort to turn that statement into, "Since it doesn't matter whether or not they're paid, why not pay them," has been proffered before.
So I guess I'll have to put it in pop-up book form so it's all clear and what-not: "The nobility is in doing it for compesation other than monetary."
Hopefully, it's clear now. I can't do phonetics.
You're quibbling over semantics yet again. Is a full academic scholarship something less than a "free" college education because the recipient is required to maintain a 3.0 grade point average?
If you mean to argue "yes", then I'll happily concede the point. I consider the distinction to be so infinitesimal as to not be worth serious consideration.
They do. The view of it as a cover and excuse is a marginal opinion held by a rump of observers, generally in pursuit of self-perceived ideological purity.
And, of course, once you compensate the athletes for cash, it's no longer "amateurism."
Ok, upon reflection I'll concede this. Still, the point is that many student athletes are being compensated far less than their actual worth.
And churches pass the collection plate and many give the pastor/priest a house to live in. Some churches even ... gasp! ... pay the pastor/priest a salary.
Big deal.
Are you really this dense?
Why is cash different than other types of compensation?
You really should probably read some of -- or even one of -- Aristotle, Aquinas, Moses, or Jesus, though Moses and (despite what George Bush thinks) Jesus weren't exactly philosophers. You'd understand that an argument requires propositions connected by logic. It doesn't involve giving something a label and then making circular arguments based on that label. "It's good not to pay players because that would mean they wouldn't be amateurs, and it's good to be amateur because amateurism is good." is not an argument.First, cash is actually irrelevant. There's nothing magical about cash; it's just a means of exchange to make the economy run more smoothly than it would if we lived in a barter society. They are being compensated, which means that it's already not amateurism. They're just being compensated in a form useful to the school and less useful to them. (Worth noting that the NCAA used to agree with this; athletic scholarships were prohibited until the 1950s. Then they realized they could make more money for themselves if they upgraded college sports, which they could do by paying players with scholarships.) As the old joke goes, we've already established that they're prostitutes; we're just haggling about the price.
Second, as I pointed out just a second ago, if amateur simply means that players aren't getting paid, then why should anybody care? Why is that valuable to anybody other than the school itself, which saves money by lowering its player payroll?
If one wanted to make an an <u>aesthetic</u> argument -- amateurism is good because it's more enjoyable to watch people who are doing what they're doing because they love it rather than because they're being paid to do it -- that's one thing, but
(a) one should really learn to distinguish between aesthetic arguments and moral ones -- you're not the only one around here who has a problem with that, but you're one of the worst offenders; and
(b) it doesn't really have any applicability to college sports. For one thing, there's no reason to think that the players don't enjoy playing, and for another, we are just haggling about the price; they are playing for compensation.
Spoken like a gentleman.
Still, the point is that many student athletes are being compensated far less than their actual worth.
For most athletic endeavors, these youngsters are welcome to test the free market waters - if you can't get a major league baseball team to draft you, go play in the indy leagues. If the NBA doesn't regard you as the next Kevin Garnett or Darko Milicic, perhaps you can catch on overseas or ply your dope skillz on the AndOne tour. Footballers can try for the Arena League (which actually holds open tryouts, or at least did at one point) or one of the failed attempts at spreading their crappy game to Europe. And if you participate in any of the dozens of other sports for which various schools offer scholarships - wrestling, swimming, track, softball - well, good luck with that, I don't think the University system should compensate you for excelling in a sport with few professional prospects.
OR, you could take your chances with the current system and come out of it with a college education - the single best ticket to the American middle class. Seems like a good deal to me.
I'm glad I'm not a student athlete. I can work in my spare time and make money while I'm going to school. There's little risk for injury (I'm a technical facilitator for a statewide high school Chinese language broadcast class), I can practice my language skills (I'm a Chinese major), and I've got a full-tuition scholarship to boot. The school pays me and still gives me the freedom to do whatever I want with my free time. Were I a student athlete, I'd have no time for a job on the side, and precious little time for study. A full scholarship would be nice, but (as far as I understand) not all players are given full tuition AND room/board AND book expenses. By not participating in athletics and having a high GPA, not only do I receive a large scholarship, but I'm also able to make and save some money on the side. If you ask me, student athletes have it pretty rough.
SugarBear Blanks' discussion of "amateurism" is laugable. How is this any less of an "ignorant term" than "demonize" or "indentured servent"? How can you then turn around and misuse the term "Zeigeist," particularly when a clearer, more commonly used English equivalent exists? Wenn du Deutsch mit uns reden willst, spreche nur auf Deutsch -- ich höre gerne zu! ????????????, ???????
And ... road games. Those schools had my name in the program and they sold ads, too, I betcha and some of them had even bigger crowds. And our school probably didn't get a single cent of that money!!
The games were on local radio and for some of the bigger games, the radio stations were in markets that had to be serving 500,000 people.
I played a lot, too. My name got in the paper a few times ... some of the fans must have known who I was ... gosh, some of them ... is it possible? ... may have come out ... to watch me play?
I hadn't even thought of it in all these years, but ... was I the game?
Now I'm getting it. Thanks to those who helped me.
I highly, highly doubt it, as long as the university continues to put their name behind the team. Most college football and basketball fans don't care about the "student" part of student athletics.
Plenty of them do. Get out of your own little circles and you'll understand. No serious person understands a scholarship at an institution to vitiate amateur status. Tiger Woods participated in the U.S. Amateur while on scholarship at Stanford.
The word amateur has a well-established meaning, notwithstanding your efforts to deconstruct it.
First, cash is actually irrelevant. There's nothing magical about cash; it's just a means of exchange to make the economy run more smoothly than it would if we lived in a barter society. They are being compensated, which means that it's already not amateurism.
Then demonstrate that a scholarship for a school activity is properly denominated an "exchange" in other than the most literal and inane sense. It certainly is not an exchange for primarily commercial purposes. Until that's shown, I wouldn't even concede that the term is properly applied.
Do you understand that the presence of money does not make an activity primarily commercial?
If Tiger Woods's golf coach at Stanford got paid, which he did, that does not make Tiger Woods not an amateur. Nor did it make Stanford Golf a commercial enterprise, or any such thing.
Cite?
If this is the case, then in a free market, the college wouldn't offer anything more than an education.
Who said they were? I didn't.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main