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.