Current Events > Lol @ conservatives melting down over college athletes getting paid

(+) Yeah! (+)

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So basically the biggest thing in this article is that he backs it. Good

Except he doesn't. He doesn't want athletes to "drive around in ferraris" or having people who work to pay for college get offended, even though they want them to pay for college to begin with.

But he it's for it though, that's good

He's for it and he's for limiting the amount of money they make because "mah ferraris". You're conveniently ignoring the fact that a broken clock has a follow-up shitty opinion.

But he's for it. That's good
---

Seriously, why can't everyone just be happy with the NCAA's dumb restriction on student athletes getting paid in any way being dropped? There has to be more, according to some people.

If schools paid the athletes as well, should everyone on the water polo team make the same as everyone on the football team? Should the quarterback make more than everyone else on the football team? Should there be bidding wars to decide which school gets the best recruits?

Schools directly paying athletes leads to so many issues.
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So basically the biggest thing in this article is that he backs it. Good

Except he doesn't. He doesn't want athletes to "drive around in ferraris" or having people who work to pay for college get offended, even though they want them to pay for college to begin with.

But he it's for it though, that's good

He's for it and he's for limiting the amount of money they make because "mah ferraris". You're conveniently ignoring the fact that a broken clock has a follow-up shitty opinion.

But he's for it. That's good

But he's against them driving ferraris. This is bad.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Seriously, why can't everyone just be happy with the NCAA's dumb restriction on student athletes getting paid in any way being dropped? There has to be more, according to some people.

If schools paid the athletes as well, should everyone on the water polo team make the same as everyone on the football team? Should the quarterback make more than everyone else on the football team? Should there be bidding wars to decide which school gets the best recruits?

Schools directly paying athletes leads to so many issues.

For the millionth time, this is about athletes making money off of their own likenesses. This shouldn't be an issue.

Damn_Underscore posted...

What are you even talking about? Universities are non-profit.

And if a University is doing its thing now and then suddenly has an extra expense of X%, it will look to collect that X% back in increased tuition and fees.

non-profit doesn't mean revenue neutral. My alma matter's athletic department just had a $6.6 million profit last year, even after accounting for all of the accounting tricks that they use to incur more "expenses" or limit profits, such as selling tickets at face value but giving priority based on donations to "the foundation".

Esrac posted...

It sucks for the consumers and employees, but there is nothing weird about it.

I'm not saying it's weird for a company to act that way, I'm saying it's weird for the public to accept that and blame the people passing legislation, rather than blaming the company.

As an example, a decade ago I worked at Walmart. Their profits last year were 500 billion dollars. If in response to a minimum wage increase they were like "I guess we're raising the costs of all of our products", your response shouldn't be "**** you lawmakers", it should be "**** you Walmart, you have way more than enough revenue to cover this".
---

Southernfatman posted...

It's just another case of their warped thinking that only the people at the top (CEOs and the like) are the only ones who deserve money and success. They believe in hierarchies and that some people are the kings/queens and the rest of us are drones and workers who should be thankful to serve the blessed nobility.

Yep. Conservatism has always loathed social mobility, especially, especially, *especially* if its earned through hard work by minorities and the lower class.
---

I guess universities are like other businesses in that they expect to have a certain budget. And if they make enough money hat the budget can increase, then it is right of them to pass that along to employees and consumers. Universities mostly do that though by building new buildings instead of decreasing tuition, but that's another issue.

Going back to what you're talking about, though, if universities are suddenly required to pay x% to student athletes, the above doesn't apply. The money they have to spend instantly decreases by x%, so they are going to look to get that money back. And they will get it back by increasing tuition and fees,.
---

Ooh, I'd actually much rather universities just use the generated funds from sporting events into lowering tuition for students.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I guess universities are like other businesses in that they expect to have a certain budget. And if they make enough money hat the budget can increase, then it is right of them to pass that along to employees and consumers. Universities mostly do that though by building new buildings instead of decreasing tuition, but that's another issue.

Going back to what you're talking about, though, if universities are suddenly required to pay x% to student athletes, the above doesn't apply. The money they have to spend instantly decreases by x%, so they are going to look to get that money back. And they will get it back by increasing tuition and fees,.

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Seriously, why can't everyone just be happy with the NCAA's dumb restriction on student athletes getting paid in any way being dropped? There has to be more, according to some people.

If schools paid the athletes as well, should everyone on the water polo team make the same as everyone on the football team? Should the quarterback make more than everyone else on the football team? Should there be bidding wars to decide which school gets the best recruits?

Schools directly paying athletes leads to so many issues.

For the millionth time, this is about athletes making money off of their own likenesses. This shouldn't be an issue.

Dude, people in this topic are talking about schools paying athletes on top of the NCAA dropping this restriction.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Going back to what you're talking about, though, if universities are suddenly required to pay x% to student athletes, the above doesn't apply. The money they have to spend instantly decreases by x%, so they are going to look to get that money back. And they will get it back by increasing tuition and fees,.

As @Antifar pointed out earlier, this argument can be applied to not pay ANY employees.

Or to argue against basically any regulations on universities that costs money.

"If we require universities to build handicap accessible buildings, they're going to increase tuition, so we shouldn't require it"

If a university can only keep reasonable expenses off the backs of student athletes, then that itself is the problem.

Besides why do you tie the revenue losses to tuition and fees rather than e.g. athletic tickets, athletic merchandise costs, etc. ?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

If schools paid the athletes as well, should everyone on the water polo team make the same as everyone on the football team? Should the quarterback make more than everyone else on the football team? Should there be bidding wars to decide which school gets the best recruits?

It should be handled like all fucking other aspects of business are handled, according to the base tenets of capitalism, and that is you're paid based on the value you bring into a school. Why does it have to be equal at all? That's nonsense. Yes, the starting QB for a major program, especially when being a major name and attraction, will get more than a different player. And there's already "bidding wars" that happen, it's just dirty money and other services that isn't tracked that's happening.

Of course if we just allowed all athletes eligible for professional leagues at the age of 18, and let's be real, specifically the revenue producers in football and basketball, then we could avoid this bullshit as well. If players aren't physically ready then it's on the pro teams not to play them but develop them in their system, but getting paid for their worth. But that won't happen because there's too many rich assholes who can sit back and profit off of college football and basketball while sitting back and pretending "oh they are student athletes and amateurs, they don't deserve to be paid for their hard work and sacrifice".

---

Athletes don't deserve to get paid as much as they do.

Change my mind.

If college athletes get paid for playing college sports, pretty much anyone providing a service while learning should get paid in full, including internships, etc.

---

Fossil posted...

Athletes don't deserve to get paid as much as they do.

Change my mind.

Employees deserve a fair percentage of the profits their employers make.

Athletes are actually underpaid, including professionals.

Where are schools going to make the money back that they pay to student athletes, other than by raising tuition? Tuition costs now are with the current system of schools not paying athletes, and there is question about how profitable athletic departments are: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority

Don't forget that the reason universities exist is to be centers of higher education. Not to win sports games. So all their decisions should be made with students primarily in mind, not student athletes. Yes, having things like University Police Departments (or even basic things like electricity and heating) increase student tuition, but having them is so important that there is basically a consensus that they are worth the cost. There will not be a consensus that giving student athletes a salary is worth the cost for other students, on top of the other issues it will cause.

If business are becoming more and more profitable, but not increasing wages or decreasing prices, that is an issue to take up with those businesses. When you start talking about how businesses should pass their savings along to employees and consumers, you're no longer talking about the issue at hand. A lot more people are hurt than benefit from schools giving salaries to student athletes. And now that the athletes who are actually generating money can make money from their name (with the biggest money generators naturally making the most money), this shouldn't even be an issue.
---

NeuralLaxative posted...

If college athletes get paid for playing college sports, pretty much anyone providing a service while learning should get paid in full, including internships, etc.

I doubt many would disagree with this regardless. As a matter of fact, it seems like on the rare occasion anyone actually does disagree with this, it is usually when it comes to paying athletes. Strangely.

---

Schools aren't paying athletes. Athletes are able to make money off their name, image and likeness.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Where are schools going to make the money back that they pay to student athletes, other than by raising tuition?

For starters, increasing the pricing on ticket sales and merchandise.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Don't forget that the reason universities exist is to be centers of higher education. Not to win sports games.

Regardless of how it's "supposed to be" in the real world, how things actually go in certain schools is MUCH different. If schools cared so much about making sure the kids got their education, they wouldn't be accepting many of these athletes into their school in the first place, seeing as a very large percent of them unfortunately don't academically qualify to be at the schools they are at. And they wouldn't be sticking them in easy majors just so that they can get easy grades so they can qualify to play the games.

Also keep in mind that the athletics are often times a major draw for certain schools. It can be a factor in what makes one person pick one school over the other.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Where are schools going to make the money back that they pay to student athletes, other than by raising tuition?

Through their athletic boosters, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. You know, all of their revenue sources that are actually tied to athletics.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Don't forget that the reason universities exist is to be centers of higher education. Not to win sports games. So all their decisions should be made with students primarily in mind, not student athletes.

Damn_Underscore posted...

there is question about how profitable athletic departments are:

So let's just combine these two parts for a second. The argument that "Universities exist to be centers of higher education, not to win sports games" is also an argument to get rid of all of these athletic departments that lose the university money. Why don't they do that? It's because the balance sheet of those athletic departments goes beyond just their reportable losses/gains. For example, the athletic department is "charged" full price for every scholarship that they give out, even though the actual cost of that scholarship is a fraction of that to the university.

From your link, only 24 athletic departments made a profit. Let's look at the 25th highest paid NCAA football coach: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Wow there are a lot of coaches there making a ton of money from programs that lose money for places that allegedly are about higher learning instead of sports.

As long as universities are earning revenue from using their student athlete's images/likenesses/etc. they should be paying them. If they can't afford to pay them, then they can use student athletes that aren't worth as much, because after all, who cares about how good the team is? It's not about winning games!

In order to make your arguments, you need to believe that schools should do whatever they can to win games, as long as that thing isn't paying student athletes.
---

I don't think alot of people are getting what's going on
---

a lot of people like weighing in and complaining about shit that doesn't even concern them. especially when somebody is getting something that they aren't.

there are plenty people getting paid for something(or an amount) that they don't deserve, and I don't think college sports is one of those places. Congress, sure lol.
---

I'm only talking about the hypothetical of schools directly paying student athletes that someone mentioned.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Where are schools going to make the money back that they pay to student athletes, other than by raising tuition?

Through their athletic boosters, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. You know, all of their revenue sources that are actually tied to athletics.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Don't forget that the reason universities exist is to be centers of higher education. Not to win sports games. So all their decisions should be made with students primarily in mind, not student athletes.

Damn_Underscore posted...

there is question about how profitable athletic departments are:

So let's just combine these two parts for a second. The argument that "Universities exist to be centers of higher education, not to win sports games" is also an argument to get rid of all of these athletic departments that lose the university money. Why don't they do that? It's because the balance sheet of those athletic departments goes beyond just their reportable losses/gains. For example, the athletic department is "charged" full price for every scholarship that they give out, even though the actual cost of that scholarship is a fraction of that to the university.

From your link, only 24 athletic departments made a profit. Let's look at the 25th highest paid NCAA football coach: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Wow there are a lot of coaches there making a ton of money from programs that lose money for places that allegedly are about higher learning instead of sports.

As long as universities are earning revenue from using their student athlete's images/likenesses/etc. they should be paying them. If they can't afford to pay them, then they can use student athletes that aren't worth as much, because after all, who cares about how good the team is? It's not about winning games!

In order to make your arguments, you need to believe that schools should do whatever they can to win games, as long as that thing isn't paying student athletes.

Then complain about the salaries of coaches, they are most definitely adding to tuition costs. Adding to the problem by making the schools pay all athletes isn't going to help anything. I don't care enough to complain about coaching salaries because I enjoy college sports, and now that student athletes can seek sponsorships, there is no ethical question involved. Schools will still give out athletic scholarships (which was already a form of payment), and those who deserve more will make more. IMO if a student makes enough money (like well above the cost of the scholarship) then they should have to pay back the cost of the scholarship, but that's another issue.
---

Or , if it costs too much, just not have big budget sports teams, focus on academics, and revert athletics to student managef clubs.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Then complain about the salaries of coaches, they are most definitely adding to tuition costs. Adding to the problem by making the schools pay all athletes isn't going to help anything. I don't care enough to complain about coaching salaries because I enjoy college sports, and now that student athletes can seek sponsorships, there is no ethical question involved. Schools will still give out athletic scholarships (which was already a form of payment), and those who deserve more will make more. IMO if a student makes enough money (like well above the cost of the scholarship) then they should have to pay back the cost of the scholarship, but that's another issue.

I think you have a very short sighted view of how colleges and universities run. For example, I went to a public university for undergrad, and tuition represented less than a quarter of their revenue stream, and our athletic system was financially distinct from the university as a whole. The coaches' salaries had zero impact on tuition costs and there's little reason to think that a decrease in revenue due to athletic payments would suddenly spill over into the tuition bucket.

Athletic scholarships are basically just "company script" for the athletes most impacted by these policies. Do you actually think that anyone going into the NFL actually gets value out of their scholarship? They're just excuses to call these people "students".
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

No one has said anything about what will happen to scholarships though, as far as I know.

Those still have to exist. How else are they going to attract talent to their college?
---

From a lot of these posts you guys are all wrong.

The schools arent paying the students. It allows the athletes to get paid off their likenesses.

So any money they would get would be from a shoe deal or an autograph.
---

I4NRulez posted...

From a lot of these posts you guys are all wrong.

The conversation has moved on as has pointed out to every other person who said this.
---

Anteaterking posted...

I4NRulez posted...

From a lot of these posts you guys are all wrong.

The conversation has moved on as has pointed out to every other person who said this.

What's the conversation now?
---

1NfamousACE_2 posted...

What's the conversation now?

See post #22 by Great Muta and the comments following that.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Then complain about the salaries of coaches, they are most definitely adding to tuition costs. Adding to the problem by making the schools pay all athletes isn't going to help anything. I don't care enough to complain about coaching salaries because I enjoy college sports, and now that student athletes can seek sponsorships, there is no ethical question involved. Schools will still give out athletic scholarships (which was already a form of payment), and those who deserve more will make more. IMO if a student makes enough money (like well above the cost of the scholarship) then they should have to pay back the cost of the scholarship, but that's another issue.

In regards to your last point...why? Why should they have to pay back something that they rightfully earned? And would this apply to anyone else that received a scholarship? I see people suggest this every now and then but its never backed up by any actual reason. Off the top it just sounds like jealousy.

---

Because then more academic scholarships can be given. Simple as that.

I mean sure, if someone on an academic scholarship makes a large enough amount of money then they should have to give back their scholarship too. But that's so rare it's not even worth considering. I'm thinking hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Because then more academic scholarships can be given. Simple as that.

I mean sure, if someone on an academic scholarship makes a large enough amount of money then they should have to give back their scholarship too. But that's so rare it's not even worth considering. I'm thinking hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Why? Why should whether or not someone should be able to take advantage of a scholarship that they rightfully qualify and earned be paid back just because they made a lot of money doing something that, quite frankly, is none of the schools business? And does this spread to parents too? Like if a kid rightfully earns a full ride based on his academics, should he not be able to accept it if his parents are millionaires and can easily afford his tuition? Or maybe if his parents died and left him a bunch of money? Whether or not it's rare that a non athlete would be able to as easily make a lot of money is irrelevant. I'd bet that in the history of the world, there has probably been at least a few people that won a scholarship and then made a bunch of money while in school somehow and I'd wager no one was telling them that they should be forced to pay their scholarship back. And if it's never happened, I'd wager that if it did happen, again, no one would ever think of telling them to pay their scholarship back. Because for some strange reason, the ONLY time people try to put restrictions on this type of stuff comes up is when it's regarding athletes.

---

i have no real issue with athletes getting paid - but individual colleges and/or the ncaa should decide

with that said, as long as it doesn't adversely impact the quality or funding of education at institutions, why not

there are far more pressing and fundamental issues with colleges than whether or not athletes are paid
---