Oliver on NCAA amateurism

[NYWarrior]

He's really good, John Oliver.

http://thebiglead.com/2015/03/16/john-oliver-amateurism-ncaa-video/

[NavinRJohnson]

At the end he really does nail what I've been sayings or years...at least have the decency to call it what it is, and give up trying to sell this sham of amateurism.

[warriorchick]

I love it when some Nancy Boy Brit comes across the pond and decides to tell us what is wrong with our country, especially where manly American sports are involved.

'Murica!

[Tugg Speedman]

If you have been following this story, he just rehashed the well known arguments with a funny spin.

There is no better signal that an issue is completely understood and known by everyone than a TIME magazine cover.  This one is now 18 months old.

Everyone knows the issue and the what he failed to mention is how the NCAA is moving, yes slowly but moving.  They are offering 4 year and even lifetime scholarships.  Medical insurance and easing on other restrictions.  Change is happening.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

At the end he really does nail what I've been sayings or years...at least have the decency to call it what it is, and give up trying to sell this sham of amateurism.

Thank you. Yes. This is my biggest objection as well. The branding of big money college athletics as some kind of 1950's amateurism is pathetic.

[Benny B]

I like Oliver, but he missed the mark here.  Sure, it's trendy to bash the NCAA, but the only sham going on here is that the naysayers are targeting the NCAA instead of the member schools who make up the NCAA.

I will give credit though, Oliver just spun his story to make UNC look like the victim of the NCAA, and people are eating it up.  Well done, Ollie.

[NavinRJohnson]

I like Oliver, but he missed the mark here.  Sure, it's trendy to bash the NCAA, but the only sham going on here is that the naysayers are targeting the NCAA instead of the member schools who make up the NCAA.

I will give credit though, Oliver just spun his story to make UNC look like the victim of the NCAA, and people are eating it up.  Well done, Ollie.

I have no idea what sort of justification you are attempting to provide here. The NCaA is the schools that make up the NCAA. In no way was UNC painted as a victim. They were painted as a symptom...of their own making.

[Tugg Speedman]

I have no idea what sort of justification you are attempting to provide here. The NCaA is the schools that make up the NCAA. In no way was UNC painted as a victim. They were painted as a symptom...of their own making.

If you assume that the typical Oliver crowd knows nothing about the subject he is talking about (which is why he needs his funny analogies), then they think their is this NCAA is a separate organization ruling over the schools and it is run by evil fat old white guys that exploit both the schools and athletes.

They do not realize that the NCAA is the schools, they are essentially one and the same.  And yes, they left me with the impression that UNC offered paper classes and Swahili because it was forced to comply with the evil NCAA.  Like companies that have to comply with old or inefficient regulations simply because they are the law.

 

[brandx]

If you assume that the typical Oliver crowd knows nothing about the subject he is talking about (which is why he needs his funny analogies), then they think their is this NCAA is a separate organization ruling over the schools and it is run by evil fat old white guys that exploit both the schools and athletes.

They do not realize that the NCAA is the schools, they are essentially one and the same.  And yes, they left me with the impression that UNC offered paper classes and Swahili because it was forced to comply with the evil NCAA.  Like companies that have to comply with old or inefficient regulations simply because they are the law.

 

1. I don't know why you would make up an assumption out of thin air.
2. He needs his "funny analogies" because his profession is as a comedian. That is what they do. If they are not funny, they are fired.
3. It is, however, a good effort by you - you are almost as condescending as Chicos.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I found it tired and lazy with an audience that seemed like a cue card was going on "laugh \ applaud".  I doubt John Oliver knew a basketball was round 2 weeks ago.  He clearly doesn't understand that there are 400,000 student athletes and the money goes to pay for all of them to be able to compete via scholarships, championships, etc.  He's a funny guy, makes some good points in many of his diatribes, but he is out of his league on this.  As bad as Mark Belling talking sports.

He does the same thing that too many people do, focus on football and basketball, but even worse only on a small fraction of those areas.  Most programs lose money or go through heavy subsidies. 

I'd love to see his liberal views on what happens if 390,000 kids no longer have the ability to compete because the money is no longer there....or to be less dramatic, 150,000 are gone because programs are eliminated so that .1% can be paid.  He won't dare touch that one right now, but he certainly would if it happens.

[brandx]

I'd love to see his liberal views on what happens if 390,000 kids no longer have the ability to compete because the money is no longer there....or to be less dramatic, 150,000 are gone because programs are eliminated so that .1% can be paid.  He won't dare touch that one right now, but he certainly would if it happens.

You really wanna say something that uninformed in public?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have no idea what sort of justification you are attempting to provide here. The NCaA is the schools that make up the NCAA. In no way was UNC painted as a victim. They were painted as a symptom...of their own making.

The vast majority of people have no idea how the NCAA operates or that it is made up of member schools.  They think it is an autonomous entity that just rules to make their lives miserable.  They have no idea.  I would wager based on the comments on MU Scoop alone, which is a sports site, that 50% here don't have an inkling of what the NCAA is, does, how they operate, what they do with the money, etc.  50% is probably generous.

[jesmu84]

Why does everyone always get so pissed at the NCAA over this issue? The pro leagues all have rules that don't allow players to go straight from high school to a career (ok, not all pro leagues). Why is that the NCAAs fault?

[Pakuni]

I found it tired and lazy with an audience that seemed like a cue card was going on "laugh \ applaud".  I doubt John Oliver knew a basketball was round 2 weeks ago.  He clearly doesn't understand that there are 400,000 student athletes and the money goes to pay for all of them to be able to compete via scholarships, championships, etc.  He's a funny guy, makes some good points in many of his diatribes, but he is out of his league on this.  As bad as Mark Belling talking sports.

He does the same thing that too many people do, focus on football and basketball, but even worse only on a small fraction of those areas.  Most programs lose money or go through heavy subsidies.  

I'd love to see his liberal views on what happens if 390,000 kids no longer have the ability to compete because the money is no longer there....or to be less dramatic, 150,000 are gone because programs are eliminated so that .1% can be paid.  He won't dare touch that one right now, but he certainly would if it happens.

Which begs the question .... why is it necessary for some 400,000 kids to get free or subsidized college tuition - funded through the labor of others - because they're good at unpopular sports? These kids' athletic ability is providing no real economic benefit to the university, and only marginal indirect benefits  (the pride of winning the Big 10 field hockey crown - yipee!). What's the point?
I would guess there are a handful of kids who truly need an athletic scholarship to attend college, but by-and-large Colton on the lacrosse team and Dakota on the women's golf squad have parents who can foot the bill like anyone else. Or they can, you know, go in debt like the rest of us.

The whole thing seems downright socialist to me.

[muwarrior69]

Which begs the question .... why is it necessary for some 400,000 kids to get free or subsidized college tuition - funded through the labor of others - because they're good at unpopular sports? These kids' athletic ability is providing no real economic benefit to the university, and only marginal indirect benefits  (the pride of winning the Big 10 field hockey crown - yipee!). What's the point?
I would guess there are a handful of kids who truly need an athletic scholarship to attend college, but by-and-large Colton on the lacrosse team and Dakota on the women's golf squad have parents who can foot the bill like anyone else. Or they can, you know, go in debt like the rest of us.

The whole thing seems downright socialist to me.

There are a lot of folks who feel the same way about football and basketball too...yipee! What's the point.

[NavinRJohnson]

Which begs the question .... why is it necessary for some 400,000 kids to get free or subsidized college tuition - funded through the labor of others - because they're good at unpopular sports? These kids' athletic ability is providing no real economic benefit to the university, and only marginal indirect benefits  (the pride of winning the Big 10 field hockey crown - yipee!). What's the point?
I would guess there are a handful of kids who truly need an athletic scholarship to attend college, but by-and-large Colton on the lacrosse team and Dakota on the women's golf squad have parents who can foot the bill like anyone else. Or they can, you know, go in debt like the rest of us.

The whole thing seems downright socialist to me.

This....My other major issue with the whole thing. If correcting the system means the death of both major and minor sports, so be it.

Those against fixing the system, paying the major sport athletes, etc., are against that for one main reason, they know it would mean the end of their beloved college football and college basketball, their Saturday afternoons, MU games at the Bradley Center, NCAA tournament etc. In other words, they don't really give a rip about the various athletes involved, they aren't willing to give up their own entertainment. As with the entire system, let's just call it what it is.

[NavinRJohnson]

There are a lot of folks who feel the same way about football and basketball too...yipee! What's the point.

Agreed, and if those sports also die off as a result of correcting the system, so be it.

[Pakuni]

There are a lot of folks who feel the same way about football and basketball too...yipee! What's the point.

This is true.
But at least there are tangible benefits to having a successful football or basketball program (money, exposure, alumni donations, increased applications, etc.).
What's the benefit of being really good at cross country or tennis?
Maybe there are legitimate benefits, but I'm not aware of them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Which begs the question .... why is it necessary for some 400,000 kids to get free or subsidized college tuition - funded through the labor of others - because they're good at unpopular sports? These kids' athletic ability is providing no real economic benefit to the university, and only marginal indirect benefits  (the pride of winning the Big 10 field hockey crown - yipee!). What's the point?
I would guess there are a handful of kids who truly need an athletic scholarship to attend college, but by-and-large Colton on the lacrosse team and Dakota on the women's golf squad have parents who can foot the bill like anyone else. Or they can, you know, go in debt like the rest of us.

The whole thing seems downright socialist to me.

You tell me.....TitleIX....we're all equal...remember.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is true.
But at least there are tangible benefits to having a successful football or basketball program (money, exposure, alumni donations, increased applications, etc.).
What's the benefit of being really good at cross country or tennis?
Maybe there are legitimate benefits, but I'm not aware of them.

What's the tangible benefit of having someone play the flute well in the music school to get a scholarship? 

I'll bet someone could come up with some benefits.  Just as I could say playing those sports that you are unaware of any benefits that come from them because they are simply not as well known.... maybe they teach life lessons of leadership, perseverance, etc, that sets them up well to be captains of industry, or leaders in their field.  I had a Yale intern who was on the fencing team.  She was great across the board, confident, sharp, analytical, thoughtful.  Were any of those attributes a result of years competing in fencing?  I don't know.  Or maybe we just want to do well every 4 years in the Olympics.  Who knows.

We could say this about a lot of things that we subsidize, reward, etc. 

Since you seem to be questioning the value in all of this,  let's start with your side first and Title IX....remember the Bush administration tried to overhaul it in 2006 and the howls of gender discrimination couldn't fly off the tongues faster from Nancy, Dianne, Barbara, etc.  It was shot down. 

Remember, we're all equal.

[Tugg Speedman]

What's the tangible benefit of having someone play the flute well in the music school to get a scholarship? 

I'll bet someone could come up with some benefits.  Just as I could say playing those sports that you are unaware of any benefits that come from them because they are simply not as well known.... maybe they teach life lessons of leadership, perseverance, etc, that sets them up well to be captains of industry, or leaders in their field.  I had a Yale intern who was on the fencing team.  She was great across the board, confident, sharp, analytical, thoughtful.  Were any of those attributes a result of years competing in fencing?  I don't know.  Or maybe we just want to do well every 4 years in the Olympics.  Who knows.

We could say this about a lot of things that we subsidize, reward, etc. 

Since you seem to be questioning the value in all of this,  let's start with your side first and Title IX....remember the Bush administration tried to overhaul it in 2006 and the howls of gender discrimination couldn't fly off the tongues faster from Nancy, Dianne, Barbara, etc.  It was shot down. 

Remember, we're all equal.

My understanding is Colleges find kids that can take on the load of competing in a sport and college are better overall students, more successful after college and bigger donors to the college later in life.

Restated, student athletes, even in sports no one watches, are the ideal students.

[Pakuni]

You tell me.....TitleIX....we're all equal...remember.

Try again.
Nothing in Title IX says colleges have to operate athletic programs.

[Pakuni]

What's the tangible benefit of having someone play the flute well in the music school to get a scholarship? 

I'll bet someone could come up with some benefits.  Just as I could say playing those sports that you are unaware of any benefits that come from them because they are simply not as well known.... maybe they teach life lessons of leadership, perseverance, etc, that sets them up well to be captains of industry, or leaders in their field.  I had a Yale intern who was on the fencing team.  She was great across the board, confident, sharp, analytical, thoughtful.  Were any of those attributes a result of years competing in fencing?  I don't know.  Or maybe we just want to do well every 4 years in the Olympics.  Who knows.

We could say this about a lot of things that we subsidize, reward, etc. 

Since you seem to be questioning the value in all of this,  let's start with your side first and Title IX....remember the Bush administration tried to overhaul it in 2006 and the howls of gender discrimination couldn't fly off the tongues faster from Nancy, Dianne, Barbara, etc.  It was shot down. 

Remember, we're all equal.

Chico's .... why is it you insist on this "your side" business. How do you know what my side is?
And how would changing Title IX address the questions I'm asking?

I will note that you utterly failed to answer my questions, or even try to answer my questions. Par for the course, I suppose.

That said, I'll try to answer yours:

1. Why music scholarships? Because colleges and universities are institutions of higher learning, and music is a legitimate academic pursuit. Also, having skilled and trained musicians offers benefits to society as a whole. I can't see how someone can make the case that cross country is an academic pursuit, or explain how society benefits from having good water polo players and fast rowers.

2. That's great if sports can offer life lessons in leadership, yada, yada, you once knew a fencer. But why should kids have to be subsidized through college to learn those lessons through sports? Thousands of Division III athletes learn those lessons without the benefit of an athletic scholarship. Your Yale pal fenced without the benefit of an athletic scholarship. Why do we need to pay for some kids to learn these lessons, but not others?

I'm not suggesting the abolition of college athletics. I'm just asking why you believe it's fair for the wealth created some student athletes should be redistributed to benefit others. I would think a free market, libertarian, conservative, capitalist "let everyone earn their own damn keep," screw the 47 percent kind of guy like yourself would find such things abhorrent.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Try again.
Nothing in Title IX says colleges have to operate athletic programs.

Title IX absolutely says that if you do, you must have equitable treatment.  So if you're going to have football and basketball for the boys, then you have to do something for the gals.  Sorry, that's the law.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's .... why is it you insist on this "your side" business. How do you know what my side is?  Because I pay attention for 5+ years on what you write, it isn't hard.  
And how would changing Title IX address the questions I'm asking?

I will note that you utterly failed to answer my questions, or even try to answer my questions. Par for the course, I suppose. I did answer your question.

That said, I'll try to answer yours:

1. Why music scholarships? Because colleges and universities are institutions of higher learning, and music is a legitimate academic pursuit. Who said it is any more a legitimate academic pursuit than anything else?  Do they not offer physical education in schools?  How about the business of sports? Also, having skilled and trained musicians offers benefits to society as a whole.  Who decides this?  That is an opinion of yours and nothing more.  Society at one point needed rowers, runners, to survive.  Things change, but society would survive without flutists as well.   I can't see how someone can make the case that cross country is an academic pursuit, or explain how society benefits from having good water polo players and fast rowers.

2. That's great if sports can offer life lessons in leadership, yada, yada, you once knew a fencer. But why should kids have to be subsidized through college to learn those lessons through sports? Thousands of Division III athletes learn those lessons without the benefit of an athletic scholarship. Your Yale pal fenced without the benefit of an athletic scholarship. Why do we need to pay for some kids to learn these lessons, but not others?  You can ask the same question toward any other scholarships.  Why do we need to pay for some kids because they are simply female?  Simply African American?  Can they not learn on their own, or does their femaleness require female related scholarships or African American scholarships?  Those DIII athletes still benefit from the NCAA in terms of $$ for championships, etc.  

I'm not suggesting the abolition of college athletics. I'm just asking why you believe it's fair for the wealth created some student athletes should be redistributed to benefit others. I would think a free market, libertarian, conservative, capitalist "let everyone earn their own damn keep," screw the 47 percent kind of guy like yourself would find such things abhorrent.

I don't necessarily think it is "fair", that's a different story altogether.  I don't think Title IX is fair...it's like affirmative action, a bias prejudiced policy in an effort to fix a prejudice past.  That always works well.  However, I'm pragmatic and the law of this country is what it is.  Title IX exists and I'm not ignoring it like John Oliver and others are.  It's real, it has to be dealt with.   I also believe that without television, without many other opportunities that the NCAA, sports networks, etc present to the revenue generating athletes they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  For whatever reason, this other part of the equation is absolutely lost on people.  Completely.  

I never said screw the 47%...I said EVERYONE should pay.  That's a big difference.  No free rides.  Guess what, none of these student athletes in non-revenue sports are sitting around doing nothing waiting to go to the mailbox to collect their check.  They're working their arse off.  (for the record, many of the 47% aren't doing that either, but a more than sizable group is).  

Free market?  LOL.  You've been following me long enough, I have said forever there is no such thing as a free market.  It doesn't exist.  It's a facade.  

[forgetful]

1. Why music scholarships? Because colleges and universities are institutions of higher learning, and music is a legitimate academic pursuit. Who said it is any more a legitimate academic pursuit than anything else?  Do they not offer physical education in schools?  How about the business of sports? Also, having skilled and trained musicians offers benefits to society as a whole.  Who decides this?  That is an opinion of yours and nothing more.  Society at one point needed rowers, runners, to survive.  Things change, but society would survive without flutists as well.   I can't see how someone can make the case that cross country is an academic pursuit, or explain how society benefits from having good water polo players and fast rowers.

Chico's, you are way off base here.  Music is a legitimate academic pursuit, so is physical education, so is the business of sports.  The difference is that Music requires at least some of the majors to become skilled at playing an instrument.

Physical education or business of sports requires no ability whatsoever to play sports at a high level.

More importantly, there are academic scholarships for the flutist, Phy Ed. major or sports business/administration major.  Equating an academic scholarship to athletic scholarships is off base.

[Benny B]

Why does everyone always get so pissed at the NCAA over this issue? The pro leagues all have rules that don't allow players to go straight from high school to a career (ok, not all pro leagues). Why is that the NCAAs fault?

And we have a winner.

It's the NCAA's fault because the NCAA wants the blame.  Face it, the NCAA serves no greater purpose than as a "shell corporation" designed to not only absorb all the flak but to shield the identity of (and/or protect) those behind the "corporate veil."

If the pundits want to bring about change, they need to shift the blame to the BCS schools who are driving the NCAA bus... but that would mean spreading the blame out over 60 different schools across the country instead of one non-profit in Indianapolis, and nobody has time for that.

It's no wonder that these coaches, ADs, "special consultants to the athletic programs," etc. are making seven figures... these guys (and gals) are geniuses the way they have the system set up and people eating from their hand.

Oliver is a funny guy... I bet if you sat down with him over a beer, he couldn't give two sh\tz about NCAA amateurism.  It's a topic du jour for him.  Guys like Jay Bilas, though, are the ultimate hypocrites... they complain that the system isn't fair, that athletes are being exploited by the machine, that compensation is due, and they make their comparisons to indentured servitude... but as soon as the "human interest" cameras are turned off, they walk over to the "real life" cameras and help the machine make more money.  

If Bilas actually ate his own cooking, he'd walk away from the Mouse.  But he doesn't, because he collects a fat check doing exactly what the Mouse and NCAA want him to do... collect the money in one hand and point blame at the NCAA with the other.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's, you are way off base here.  Music is a legitimate academic pursuit, so is physical education, so is the business of sports.  The difference is that Music requires at least some of the majors to become skilled at playing an instrument.

Physical education or business of sports requires no ability whatsoever to play sports at a high level.

More importantly, there are academic scholarships for the flutist, Phy Ed. major or sports business/administration major.  Equating an academic scholarship to athletic scholarships is off base.

Do I, personally, value the music endeavor and consider it an academic pursuit? Yes.  Both my kids play an instrument, both my kids are very good athletes with my son having an outside shot at playing college sports.  My point was that not everyone agrees on that.

My bigger point is that we give scholarships for all kinds of things....many are not academic at all.  If we are going to question the merits of a scholarship for someone that works their tail off to represent their school on the athletic fields of play, then we can question the merits of all kinds of scholarships and what they do for society as a whole.

Plus there is this thing called the benefit for the school.  Does that flute scholarship bring the university community together at a large scale?  Does it draw people to apply to the university?  Does it drive fundraising for the school?  Does it help to brand the school and give it national visibility?  Do athletic scholarships? 

[GGGG]

Yeah, Benny you pretty much nailed that.  

[GGGG]

My bigger point is that we give scholarships for all kinds of things....many are not academic at all.  If we are going to question the merits of a scholarship for someone that works their tail off to represent their school on the athletic fields of play, then we can question the merits of all kinds of scholarships and what they do for society as a whole.

Actually I can't think of many scholarships given out directly by the educational institution that have no academic component whatsoever.  Especially full tuition plus.  Maybe some music or art performance related scholarships, but as has been said here, those are legitimate academic-related pursuits. 

[Pakuni]

Title IX absolutely says that if you do, you must have equitable treatment.  So if you're going to have football and basketball for the boys, then you have to do something for the gals.  Sorry, that's the law.

Right .... equitable treatment. Not equitable results.
So, if the NCAA wanted to allow football and basketball players to earn compensation for jersey sales, endorsements, etc., it could, so long as women athletes had the opportunity to do the same. It's not the barrier to compensating athletes that the defenders of the system want to argue it is.
Also, Title IX does not require colleges to operate non-revenue producing sports for men, and only a few for women. Basically, just enough to offset the 85 football scholarships. So, a football team, a men's and women's hoops team, and 2-3 additional women's sports. So, Title IX really isn't an excuse for the bloated athletic departments out there funding dozens of sports few care about.

[Pakuni]

Who said it is any more a legitimate academic pursuit than anything else?  Do they not offer physical education in schools?  How about the business of sports?

What does pursuing a business of sports or physical education degree have to do with playing sports? The two aren't linked.

Why do we need to pay for some kids because they are simply female?  Simply African American?  Can they not learn on their own, or does their femaleness require female related scholarships or African American scholarships?

We don't. But people - primarily through private donations - have chosen to fund such academic scholarships in hopes of offering opportunities to historically oppressed segments of society.
I don't see how that relates to schools spending millions of dollars - some of it out of student fees - funding a non-academic pursuits like wrestling and lacrosse that provide almost no tangible benefit to the university.

I don't think Title IX is fair...it's like affirmative action, a bias prejudiced policy in an effort to fix a prejudice past.

How is Title IX prejudiced? There are some things about Title IX I think don't make sense, but I fail to see how a policy that demands equal treatment (even when it doesn't make sense) is prejudiced.

[NYWarrior]

This....My other major issue with the whole thing. If correcting the system means the death of both major and minor sports, so be it.

Amen.  Blow it up ... colleges should not be exploiting one group of athletes to fund others, among many other ethical conundrums. Blow it up.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right .... equitable treatment. Not equitable results.
So, if the NCAA wanted to allow football and basketball players to earn compensation for jersey sales, endorsements, etc., it could, so long as women athletes had the opportunity to do the same. It's not the barrier to compensating athletes that the defenders of the system want to argue it is.
Also, Title IX does not require colleges to operate non-revenue producing sports for men, and only a few for women. Basically, just enough to offset the 85 football scholarships. So, a football team, a men's and women's hoops team, and 2-3 additional women's sports. So, Title IX really isn't an excuse for the bloated athletic departments out there funding dozens of sports few care about.

I'm pragmatic.  It's like the conservative nutjobs that say just deport everyone.  Not going to happen.  Just as there is no way in hell in this country you are going to be able to cut all of women's sports so that just men's basketball and football can be played and we have 3 or 4 women's teams to equal the scholarships. It's not going to happen.  That's political reality.  Plus it would be tied up in the courts for years, and yes on Title IX grounds.

[CTWarrior]

Amen.  Blow it up ... colleges should not be exploiting one group of athletes to fund others, among many other ethical conundrums. Blow it up.

Please, stop with the exploitation.  A college athlete receives tuition, room and board, tutors, preferential treatment when it comes to classes and schedules, access to top notch coaching, doctors, training facilities  and trainers, and an opportunity to showcase their skills to their potential employers.  That's a package worth much more than the average American makes and more than their pay would be as a minor league athlete except for a very, very few, not to mention that the majority of college football and basketball athletes wouldn't be able to even land a minor league position.

Now the fact that many of these kids have not prepared at all for the academic rigors of college is their own fault and the fault of their families.  The athletes at Lehigh or Bucknell or Yale aren't worried about being exploited because they are using their athletic abiilities to obtain a top-notch education that will serve them well for their entire lives.  

UNC doesn't educate its players and you want to be educated?  Don't go to UNC.  Go somewhere else where you will get an education.  You're not exploited because you don't get every little thing your heart desires.

[NavinRJohnson]

Please, stop with the exploitation.  A college athlete receives tuition, room and board, tutors, preferential treatment when it comes to classes and schedules, access to top notch coaching, doctors, training facilities  and trainers, and an opportunity to showcase their skills to their potential employers.  

Yep, and the same thing is true for a soccer, volleyball player , gymnast, etc.  as is for the football or basketball player that funds their ability to receive it, so of course they're exploited. People should not get hung up on the negative connotation of the word. On a relative scale, by definition, of course they are being exploited. That doesn't mean they aren't receiving anything in return, but by comparison to many of the non-revenue generating scholarship athletes who receive most of the same benefits, it is simply not commensurate to their contribution.

[CTWarrior]

Yep, and the same thing is true for a soccer, volleyball player , gymnast, etc.  as is for the football or basketball player that funds their ability to receive it, so of course they're exploited. People should not get hung up on the negative connotation of the word. On a relative scale, by definition, of course they are being exploited. That doesn't mean they aren't receiving anything in return, but by comparison to many of the non-revenue generating scholarship athletes who receive most of the same benefits, it is simply not commensurate to their contribution.

Well, I agree with you that the average football or basketball player brings more value to their school for their scholarship than does the average swimmer or cross-country runner.  But the vast majority are much better off than they would be if college sports scholarships weren't available.  I just don't like the word exploited in this instance, I guess.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Please, stop with the exploitation.  A college athlete receives tuition, room and board, tutors, preferential treatment when it comes to classes and schedules, access to top notch coaching, doctors, training facilities  and trainers, and an opportunity to showcase their skills to their potential employers.  That's a package worth much more than the average American makes and more than their pay would be as a minor league athlete except for a very, very few, not to mention that the majority of college football and basketball athletes wouldn't be able to even land a minor league position.

Now the fact that many of these kids have not prepared at all for the academic rigors of college is their own fault and the fault of their families.  The athletes at Lehigh or Bucknell or Yale aren't worried about being exploited because they are using their athletic abiilities to obtain a top-notch education that will serve them well for their entire lives.  

UNC doesn't educate its players and you want to be educated?  Don't go to UNC.  Go somewhere else where you will get an education.  You're not exploited because you don't get every little thing your heart desires.

Amen.  This exploitation stuff.....yes "they're exploited" so much it leads to million dollar contracts for some of these guys, free job interviews to play overseas, etc.

If we're going to blow it up, then let's really blow it up and they can play their games on no tv, in front of no one and then cry how exploited they are.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, I agree with you that the average football or basketball player brings more value to their school for their scholarship than does the average swimmer or cross-country runner.  But the vast majority are much better off than they would be if college sports scholarships weren't available.  I just don't like the word exploited in this instance, I guess.

Again, completely agree.  It's so over the top.  Little kids manufacturing shoes are exploited.  These student athletes are not exploited and it makes a mockery of the word.  Free education, free tutoring, free coaching, a chance to network with major $$$ alumni, free auditions for their next gig professionally, free gear.  Most of these players no one has a clue who they are.  Is a basketball player at UNC the same as a basketball player at Sam Houston State?  Are they both being "exploited"?

Crazy talk.

[Eldon]

If you feel that you are being exploited by the NCAA, why not just go to Europe for a year and make some money, Brandon Jennings-style?  Or if that, too, is exploitation, then why choose to go into basketball in the first place?

[MUsoxfan]

Again, completely agree.  It's so over the top.  Little kids manufacturing shoes are exploited.  These student athletes are not exploited and it makes a mockery of the word.  Free education, free tutoring, free coaching, a chance to network with major $$$ alumni, free auditions for their next gig professionally, free gear.  Most of these players no one has a clue who they are.  Is a basketball player at UNC the same as a basketball player at Sam Houston State?  Are they both being "exploited"?

Crazy talk.

Is it really a free education if they aren't really being educated at all?

I know you like to bring up the Olympic sport athletes, but lets take them out of it for a moment. I want to talk about the revenue generating athletes at the top 75 or so schools.

Very few of these athletes are smart enough on academic merit alone to be accepted into these schools. Once accepted based on physical ability alone, they're shuffled into classes and programs designed specifically for them where they're required to learn very little.

So maybe they have a degree after 4 years, but ultimately they're marginally more educated then they came in on Day 1.

2% on the high end play pro ball here and a few more % play abroad.

The vast majority walk away with no real education, no money and physical ailments.

But hey, they were on ESPN a dozen times and have some cool shoes, so it's alllll worth it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Is it really a free education if they aren't really being educated at all?

I know you like to bring up the Olympic sport athletes, but lets take them out of it for a moment. I want to talk about the revenue generating athletes at the top 75 or so schools.

Very few of these athletes are smart enough on academic merit alone to be accepted into these schools. Once accepted based on physical ability alone, they're shuffled into classes and programs designed specifically for them where they're required to learn very little.

So maybe they have a degree after 4 years, but ultimately they're marginally more educated then they came in on Day 1.

2% on the high end play pro ball here and a few more % play abroad.

The vast majority walk away with no real education, no money and physical ailments.

But hey, they were on ESPN a dozen times and have some cool shoes, so it's alllll worth it.

Thing is, you can't take away those 390,000 athletes with a wave of the magic wand.

Secondly, I think you are underselling the ability of many of football and basketball kids to get an education.  No question some do not belong in college, but a good number can do it and are helped, tutored, etc and they make it.  Sit down with Bo Ellis for a lunch sometime.  He worked hard, MU helped him, and he is a testament of what can happen.  DWade, Doc Rivers, etc.  A lot of kids have come through MU or other universities that would normally not have a chance to get a degree from that school, but athletics made it happen and changed their life as a result.

Hard to be simply marginally better educated 4 years later.  I would agree for a one and done that goes to school one semester and then blows things off.  I don't agree with someone that is there for four years.  Simply from the tutoring, the need to stay eligible, and the process of absorption, you will come out better educated.

They walk away with a college degree that is worth about $1.2M more than someone with a high school degree, some of the best years of their lives, great memories, great connections, no student loans or debt....that's a deal that the vast majority of students would take in a nanosecond.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exploited






Not Exploited

[MUsoxfan]

Thing is, you can't take away those 390,000 athletes with a wave of the magic wand.

Secondly, I think you are underselling the ability of many of football and basketball kids to get an education.  No question some do not belong in college, but a good number can do it and are helped, tutored, etc and they make it.  Sit down with Bo Ellis for a lunch sometime.  He worked hard, MU helped him, and he is a testament of what can happen.  DWade, Doc Rivers, etc.  A lot of kids have come through MU or other universities that would normally not have a chance to get a degree from that school, but athletics made it happen and changed their life as a result.

Hard to be simply marginally better educated 4 years later.  I would agree for a one and done that goes to school one semester and then blows things off.  I don't agree with someone that is there for four years.  Simply from the tutoring, the need to stay eligible, and the process of absorption, you will come out better educated.

They walk away with a college degree that is worth about $1.2M more than someone with a high school degree, some of the best years of their lives, great memories, great connections, no student loans or debt....that's a deal that the vast majority of students would take in a nanosecond.

I don't disagree with you on much of this.

Your Olympic sport athletes likely aren't getting into these schools without half a brain. They also more likely than not grew up in a social and financial atmosphere that allowed them to partake in often very expensive sports

There are also the few that come with the intense desire to truly get an education. But most are sold on the bill of goods that playing for a certain coach/program will automatically grant entry into their professional sport of choice.

Do you believe that Nick Saban, Les Miles or Tom Crean come knocking on a recruits door touting the academic benefits of their institution and laying out a realistic life plan? Or rather saying they're a gateway to the pros?

[CTWarrior]

There are also the few that come with the intense desire to truly get an education. But most are sold on the bill of goods that playing for a certain coach/program will automatically grant entry into their professional sport of choice.

Do you believe that Nick Saban, Les Miles or Tom Crean come knocking on a recruits door touting the academic benefits of their institution and laying out a realistic life plan? Or rather saying they're a gateway to the pros?

If you care about your academic career, don't just listen to the sales pitch, ask about it.  Get help.  Talk to other people who have gone to the school.  Do what every other regular friggin' high school senior does when selecting a college.  There are schools that will educate you.  If it is really important to you to get a good education, go to one of those.  People are not helpless.  Do a little research. 

[MU82]

What's the tangible benefit of having someone play the flute well in the music school to get a scholarship? 

Does the university (or the large organization made up of universities) prohibit the flute player from taking money from the local orchestra while on scholarship?

Does the school (or organization) own the rights to the flute player's likeness forever?

Does the school steer the flute player into sham classes to keep the flute player academically eligible?

[NYWarrior]

Thing is, you can't take away those 390,000 athletes with a wave of the magic wand.

Yes you can -- by not having revenue generating student athletes subsidize their peers while also driving literally billions in revenue for everybody else involved (after handing over a host of individual rights generally afforded the rest of the student and or working general population). Use the magic wand and start over - we'll likely see something drastic in the next decade. Break away, start over.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes you can -- by not having revenue generating student athletes subsidize their peers while also driving literally billions in revenue for everybody else involved (after handing over a host of individual rights generally afforded the rest of the student and or working general population). Use the magic wand and start over - we'll likely see something drastic in the next decade. Break away, start over.

Not a chance in hell it will be allowed to happen.  The lawsuits, political outrage, etc....not a chance.  I understand your argument, but I'm pragmatic.  Simply won't happen.  The NOW, the liberal caucuses, the trial lawyers, etc....it will just not happen.

The billions in revenue is just that, revenue, not profits...those billions in revenue pay billions in expenses, a ton of it for women's sports.  Those opportunities going away make it a political impossibility.


Incidentally, the deal is for barely $1 billion per year, not billions.  The expenses are nearly $1 billion per year. The revenue goes right back to the programs for scholarships, aid, run championships, etc.   Many opportunities for women, men, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Does the university (or the large organization made up of universities) prohibit the flute player from taking money from the local orchestra while on scholarship?

Does the school (or organization) own the rights to the flute player's likeness forever?

Does the school steer the flute player into sham classes to keep the flute player academically eligible?

The flute player isn't in a competition to stay eligible....false argument.

Does the local orchestra desire to pay the flute player while on scholarship?  No.  False argument.

Did the player get compensated in value for those rights?  Yes

It's amazing how abused these athletes are.  I mean, the exploitation is amazing. 

[MU82]

The flute player isn't in a competition to stay eligible....false argument.

Does the local orchestra desire to pay the flute player while on scholarship?  No.  False argument.

Did the player get compensated in value for those rights?  Yes

It's amazing how abused these athletes are.  I mean, the exploitation is amazing. 

As usual, you're wrong on this.

[Benny B]

Does the university (or the large organization made up of universities) prohibit the flute player from taking money from the local orchestra while on scholarship?

Does the school (or organization) own the rights to the flute player's likeness forever?

Does the school steer the flute player into sham classes to keep the flute player academically eligible?

They could.

They don't.  But they don't "own" basketball players' likenesses either.

Depends on how big of donors his/her parents are.


And it's not "flute player;" it's "flautist," you flutes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They could.

They don't.  But they don't "own" basketball players' likenesses either.

Depends on how big of donors his/her parents are.


And it's not "flute player;" it's "flautist," you flutes.

My son was a tromboner in junior high, I don't care that it is truly a trombonist, he was a tromboner