OT: Celtics vs. Lakers

[davelj]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]How much is the education they are receiving worth? It’s not like they are taxed on that money and I don’t know if either of my kids will get anything like that. Hopefully some baseball money but even that is usually smallish as there are twice as many kids on the team as scholarships (so they divide them up).
[/quote]

I think the athletes should be able to sell their scholarships if they so choose. At many schools that would amount to a pretty big chunk of change. And, sure, they should be taxed on what they receive like any other income. Realistically, this would probably only apply to football and men’s basketball because these programs make all the money. My idea would be for the athletes to train full time for the four years they play – no classes – and THEN go to school after that four years is up. That way you can end the charade that anyone’s really getting an education while they play. Of course, if there are folks that want to do both at the same time – and are held to the same standard as non-student athletes – more power to ’em.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.[/quote]

Let the pro’s have the one’s that are football only right out of high school. If they don’t merit some minor league system or entry to the bigs tough. Revamp college sports so that it is more realistic to play sports and carry normal classes, do the work and get the grades. If you can’t you don’t play. The pro’s could recruit from this system instead of the schools acting as a proving grounds and player storage for them.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.[/quote]

Let the pro’s have the one’s that are football only right out of high school. If they don’t merit some minor league system or entry to the bigs tough. Revamp college sports so that it is more realistic to play sports and carry normal classes, do the work and get the grades. If you can’t you don’t play. The pro’s could recruit from this system instead of the schools acting as a proving grounds and player storage for them.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.[/quote]

Let the pro’s have the one’s that are football only right out of high school. If they don’t merit some minor league system or entry to the bigs tough. Revamp college sports so that it is more realistic to play sports and carry normal classes, do the work and get the grades. If you can’t you don’t play. The pro’s could recruit from this system instead of the schools acting as a proving grounds and player storage for them.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.[/quote]

Let the pro’s have the one’s that are football only right out of high school. If they don’t merit some minor league system or entry to the bigs tough. Revamp college sports so that it is more realistic to play sports and carry normal classes, do the work and get the grades. If you can’t you don’t play. The pro’s could recruit from this system instead of the schools acting as a proving grounds and player storage for them.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cardiff/Dave: I don’t have the numbers, but I’m pretty the revenue generated by the “Bigs” (Pac-10, Big-12, ACC, etc) is in high tens of millions annually, especially when you add in TV revenue and bowl appearance fees. As I understand, a large part of the revenue from football also subsidizes other athletics, including the Title IX revenue sharing with women’s sports as well.

Not arguing against offering collegiate athletes compensation, but I think those revenue dollars get spent fairly quickly, especially when you’re paying head coaches $4MM a year.

The cynic in me also believes there is plenty of “compensation” going around from alum organizations and “friends” of the program, too. Perhaps not as egregious as it was during the 1960s – mid 1980s, but its still there.[/quote]

Let the pro’s have the one’s that are football only right out of high school. If they don’t merit some minor league system or entry to the bigs tough. Revamp college sports so that it is more realistic to play sports and carry normal classes, do the work and get the grades. If you can’t you don’t play. The pro’s could recruit from this system instead of the schools acting as a proving grounds and player storage for them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russell: So, in essence, you’re arguing for the equivalent of a plantation labor system, right? If you have some physical specimens that are capable of playing for the NFL right out of high school, well, sign ’em up!

Ignoring the obvious bias against football (versus all other sports), what about the tens of thousands of student-athletes that play collegiate football and never even entertain the notion of playing pro ball?

Further, a simple glance at the numbers exposes your prejudice against football: There are 32 pro teams, each with a 53 man roster, so there are approx. 1,700 players in the pro ranks at any given time. In the BCS alone, there are 120 teams. This doesn’t count 1-A, 1-AA, Div II and NAIA teams. So, basically, you’re all for disadvantaging the tens of thousands of other football players, just because you don’t like football or the people that play it.

If you eliminate college football, you wouldn’t have to worry about revamping college sports, you could pretty much eliminate the 75 – 80% of college sports, men’s and women’s, that are financially subsidized by football and wouldn’t exist without it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russell: So, in essence, you’re arguing for the equivalent of a plantation labor system, right? If you have some physical specimens that are capable of playing for the NFL right out of high school, well, sign ’em up!

Ignoring the obvious bias against football (versus all other sports), what about the tens of thousands of student-athletes that play collegiate football and never even entertain the notion of playing pro ball?

Further, a simple glance at the numbers exposes your prejudice against football: There are 32 pro teams, each with a 53 man roster, so there are approx. 1,700 players in the pro ranks at any given time. In the BCS alone, there are 120 teams. This doesn’t count 1-A, 1-AA, Div II and NAIA teams. So, basically, you’re all for disadvantaging the tens of thousands of other football players, just because you don’t like football or the people that play it.

If you eliminate college football, you wouldn’t have to worry about revamping college sports, you could pretty much eliminate the 75 – 80% of college sports, men’s and women’s, that are financially subsidized by football and wouldn’t exist without it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russell: So, in essence, you’re arguing for the equivalent of a plantation labor system, right? If you have some physical specimens that are capable of playing for the NFL right out of high school, well, sign ’em up!

Ignoring the obvious bias against football (versus all other sports), what about the tens of thousands of student-athletes that play collegiate football and never even entertain the notion of playing pro ball?

Further, a simple glance at the numbers exposes your prejudice against football: There are 32 pro teams, each with a 53 man roster, so there are approx. 1,700 players in the pro ranks at any given time. In the BCS alone, there are 120 teams. This doesn’t count 1-A, 1-AA, Div II and NAIA teams. So, basically, you’re all for disadvantaging the tens of thousands of other football players, just because you don’t like football or the people that play it.

If you eliminate college football, you wouldn’t have to worry about revamping college sports, you could pretty much eliminate the 75 – 80% of college sports, men’s and women’s, that are financially subsidized by football and wouldn’t exist without it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russell: So, in essence, you’re arguing for the equivalent of a plantation labor system, right? If you have some physical specimens that are capable of playing for the NFL right out of high school, well, sign ’em up!

Ignoring the obvious bias against football (versus all other sports), what about the tens of thousands of student-athletes that play collegiate football and never even entertain the notion of playing pro ball?

Further, a simple glance at the numbers exposes your prejudice against football: There are 32 pro teams, each with a 53 man roster, so there are approx. 1,700 players in the pro ranks at any given time. In the BCS alone, there are 120 teams. This doesn’t count 1-A, 1-AA, Div II and NAIA teams. So, basically, you’re all for disadvantaging the tens of thousands of other football players, just because you don’t like football or the people that play it.

If you eliminate college football, you wouldn’t have to worry about revamping college sports, you could pretty much eliminate the 75 – 80% of college sports, men’s and women’s, that are financially subsidized by football and wouldn’t exist without it.

[Author]

Posts