Oso planning to go pro
If it was a rule intended to protect student-athletes, it would probably apply to...I don’t know...most student athletes. But, since it’s a rule that applies to only a small minority of student-athletes, I have to wonder if the goal might be something other than to protect the student-athletes. If only I could put my finger on what the small group where it applies has in common, I might be able to figure out the rule’s intent. But I’m $tumped.
FYI ... people who know me in the real world would never describe me that way. And, fyi, even here I can't think of a time I've said anything 180 from a free market.Not to go too far astray, but nobody wants a truly free market. We all just puck and choose the level of freedom and for whom based on our values and biases.
I’m not a Republican, let alone stark. I have been a registered Dem and GOP in my life, have been neither for easily a decade. More libertarian than anything. I have many views on things that don’t fit into your identity politics....or policies...despite you labeling me as. I haven’t voted for the GOP pres candidate for multiple elections so how can I be a stark member as you claim? Now Stop with the politics.
Marquette will be fine, Me. Little. And why preserve a system that provides free college educations to primarily white upper- and middle-class kids (those in non revenue spprts) through the labor of primarily lower-class black kids (i.e. the football and men's basketball players)?
Unleashcain tried acted like he intimately knew things about posters on an online forum and got it completely wrong? Shocking.
What data do you have on this? What does 'primarily' mean? I think your claim is, how u say, FALSE.
It's a pretty simple concept, and not at all false.https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/13/the-height-hypocrisy-higher-education/ZKAalThMCKHUwJPBqhUFMK/story.htmlBlack students make up a vastly (13x) greater quantity of white students earning athletic scholarships in revenue sports.https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-black-families-have-struggled-for-decades-to-gain-wealth-2019-02-28This article cites the federal reserve that on average black families have 10 cents for every dollar of wealth held by white families.So the majority of revenue sport scholarships going to black students, the majority of black households being poorer than white households leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that Pakuni came to. This isn't something that's really debatable or controversial. It's just the numbers.
You’re displaying a horrible understanding of numbers and the claims Pak made. He was wrong.
Actually, I'm not. Football and men's basketball provides the revenue (both direct and indirect) that supports the other sports programs. The majority of the athletes in those sports are black. The majority of the athletes in non revenue sports are white.And that's not even getting into how many of the non revenue sports have socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult to impossible for kids of the working and poorer classes to excel in.
I wouldn't say his claim of a majority of d1 revenue athletes are black is wrong. It's actually factually correct. I'd say his claim of little representation of blacks in non revenue is wring however.
Coaches get paid. Trainers get paid. Administrators get paid. SIDs get paid. Ticket sellers get paid. Merchandise makers and sellers get paid. Universities get paid.But yeah, these are amateur athletics.
I'm not sure why you say that. I wrote that the non revenue sport athletes are primarily white. This is factually correct. I didn't write exclusively white or even predominantly white (though many are).What am I missing?
So what. Coaches get paid coaching 6 year old kids rapt the club, too. The theater charges ticket prices for the MU glee club. The school choir charges for tickets. Lots of teachers, coaches, facilities cpget compensated where the performers do not. Better yet, If I go to a MU cross country event there is no charge yet the coaches and trainers are paid...it is still sport, I can still be entertained as well as those kids earn a degree while on scholarship.
Aye but if those 6 year olds wish to change teams, or a glee club member decides to go to DePaul, or hell a cross country player transfers. They do not need to sit out a year. Hence the stupid hypocrisy we are talking about.
Not hypocritical at all. Free agency would destroy college sports, but I suspect you don’t care and like many things your team wants these days....destruction is worth it even if you have no idea what the other side bears. As long as it is FREEEEEEEEEEE and you feel good about it. Feeling good is the important part...unicorns and rainbow marshmallows...and feeling good until it hits the fan by your actions and the destruction caused by the feel good moments rear their ugly head.I’d ask you to interview the young black players at Prairie View A&M or any of 200 other schools that have zero chance of playing pro ball, but are receiving an education and a chance to play a sport they love, travel, etc under the current system.....ask them how great it will be when that is taken away from them. The interview the hundreds of thousands of female athletes, get their opinions on the matter. Ah, but we have to compensate the .5% and throw the baby out with the bath water even though the vast vast vast majority of those kids get paid after school anyway when they play pro ball. Brilliant.
You like the system of them being "amateurs".
It's a pretty simple concept, and not at all false.https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/13/the-height-hypocrisy-higher-education/ZKAalThMCKHUwJPBqhUFMK/story.htmlBlack students make up a vastly (13x) greater quantity of white students earning athletic scholarships in revenue sports.
like many things your team wants these days....destruction is worth it even if you have no idea what the other side bears. As long as it is FREEEEEEEEEEE and you feel good about it.
Oooooooook. So let's be real for one second. You don't care about the players. You care about the game and how the system is setup. Where finding a diamond in the rough guarantees him to your team. You like the system of them being "amateurs". You dont want the system to change. So you make these huge arguments about how letting kids transfer freely will end all life as we know it at the college level. Because you don't want your system to change.Thats what it truly is. And that's a fine opinion to have. But don't hide it behind "being best for the players" or "it'll ruin all the low level colleges". Just be real with it.
I worked almost 7 years of my life in multiple athletic departments caring very much for the student athletes. I still do. It is the VERY reason I am calling these insane ideas out because it will destroy the opportunities for many of those kids. Exactly why I am against it, because I do give a damn and do care...about the women’s vball team, soccer teams, track athletes, etc that will be harmed tremendously by some of the actions that people who have no idea what they are talking about will “unleash”.I did work with these kids daily, yearly, you and 99% of others here didn’t. I give a huge damn, the irony is that most here don’t give two shats about non revenue sports and only basketball...you can pretend to deny this fact, but you know it is true.Don’t say I don’t care about the students. They have an insanely great deal under the current system, including those most vulnerable that don’t generate any revenue or are immensely unprofitable and a drag on the athletic department.