College Sports = Extended Slavery

[Galway Eagle]

Name, image, and likeness.

Say the local restaurant or grocery store wants to pay a high school kid to be in their commercial or newspaper ad. If they want to give a HS kid $50 to appear, I have no problem with that. If it's the kid that works there part-time as an employee and they get extra to be in the commercial, fine. If it's the recognizable high school player who shoots a basket or scores a touchdown and says that's where they're going after the game, fine.

Gotcha thanks for clarifying that. I'd agree. Especially given how big some of those football stadiums for high schools are in the south. Tell me those kids don't deserve a chance to capitalize on their celebrity

[brewcity77]

Gotcha thanks for clarifying that. I'd agree. Especially given how big some of those football stadiums for high schools are in the south. Tell me those kids don't deserve a chance to capitalize on their celebrity

It's even the case to a lesser extent up here. When I went to Arrowhead 25 years ago, the football players were treated like superstars, and the program and money involved has only grown exponentially in the decades since. And that pales in comparison to how states like Florida and Texas treat high school athletes.

[muwarrior69]

Do regular students on scholarship generate revenue for the school?

Back in my day when I was a member of the MU Chorus, the Chorus was paid for performances at various alumni and community functions which went back to the University. Some member were on academic scholarships though none were for music or choral singing. Most of us were not on scholarships, we just liked to sing. The revenue generated was not much, but to your question; yes, regular students can generate revenue to the University.

[Lennys Tap]

College Sports = Slavery

High School Sports =The Gulag Archipelago.

Ban all sports.

[Galway Eagle]

College Sports = Slavery

High School Sports =The Gulag Archipelago.

Ban all sports.

Nah just the revenue producing ones

[dgies9156]

Ban all sports.

Good God. What would I do with winter without my Warriors? It's bleak enough in the Midwest without Marquette.

[MU82]

Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."

I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.

I wouldn't mind college athletes getting paid. They already do, both under the table and perfectly legally -- an example of the latter is the two-sport athlete who gets to maintain his "amateur" status even if he signs a pro contract to play a different sport.

But I'm mostly for incremental change, and the NIL thing is logical. I mean, of course each college student should be able to profit off his or her own likeness without losing the opportunity to keep doing the activity he or she was doing. Common sense.

No wonder why two-thirds of all Americans agree that athletes should be able to profit off their own likenesses.

[Jockey]

I stand corrected. I assumed (should have known that was trouble) the graduation rate for undergraduate students was higher than that. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the 6-year graduation rate at public institutions is 60%, and at private institutions it's 66%.

No prob. I assumed the same thing. It was only after my post that I crawled thru the google pipes to find out that fact.

[Jockey]

Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."

I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.

Actually, not a nitpick, TAMU. There is a very big difference. I think your 2nd point be agreed to by a majority.

[rocket surgeon]

slavery-college sports=really really bad analogy.  just as analogies to hitler, holocaust, death camps, etc make for bad analogies.  horrific incidences of the past usually diminish the term from which they really originated and trivialize those who actually experienced the worst of the worst

how about college sports=a tough but chosen adjunctive education

[Newsdreams]

Seton Hall sucks

ND sucks more

[Cheeks]

And you know this how?

My first sentence was a question, not a statement.

My second statement I know because the players said so.  Bo Ellis, whom I worked with for several years, told us.  Jim Chones, whom I worked with, told us.  Etc.  Not just told us, but said it publicly that without college basketball, they never would have gone to college to begin with.  That was the vehicle to college and they were thankful for it.

Not trying to be snarky, did that address your question as I am not sure what you are asking here.

[Cheeks]

Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now.  If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery).  Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?

They should try to outlaw the word bitch next...oh wait.

[Cheeks]

I wouldn't mind college athletes getting paid. They already do, both under the table and perfectly legally -- an example of the latter is the two-sport athlete who gets to maintain his "amateur" status even if he signs a pro contract to play a different sport.

But I'm mostly for incremental change, and the NIL thing is logical. I mean, of course each college student should be able to profit off his or her own likeness without losing the opportunity to keep doing the activity he or she was doing. Common sense.

No wonder why two-thirds of all Americans agree that athletes should be able to profit off their own likenesses.

False...selective poll chosen.

Show me all those non revenue athletes being paid under the table...can't wait to see them.  Or even 90% of the revenue athletes for that matter.

[Lennys Tap]

My second statement I know because the players said so.  Bo Ellis, whom I worked with for several years, told us.  Jim Chones, whom I worked with, told us.  Etc.  Not just told us, but said it publicly that without college basketball, they never would have gone to college to begin with.  That was the vehicle to college and they were thankful for it.

This is 100% true.

[dgies9156]

This is 100% true.

Also true of many of the guys that played for Al.

[MU82]

False...selective poll chosen.

Liar.

If the exact same poll said that 66% of Americans believed athletes shouldn't be able to profit off their likenesses, you'd be standing on top of a mountain screaming about it.

You were so desperate to try to find such a poll you lied about one existing.

[TheyWereCones]

Here we go again.  Can we just drop this whole stupid subject already?  We spent the whole summer arguing about this with everyone finally dropping it.  The season is here.  How about we talk about basketball stuff that matters at least a little besides some ridiculous clickbait headline?

[WhiteTrash]

Here we go again.  Can we just drop this whole stupid subject already?  We spent the whole summer arguing about this with everyone finally dropping it.  The season is here.  How about we talk about basketball stuff that matters at least a little besides some ridiculous clickbait headline?

Yup, everyone in this thread got punk'd (including me, by virtue of this post).

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now.  If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery).  Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?

IF  I remember my history correctly, approximately .02% of the U.S. population at the time owned slaves.
Some of these owners were people of color, like Michelle Robinson's ancestors. So most Americans did not own anybody and many thousands gave their lives to help end that injustice. So snarkly implying that white people would embrace slavery is offensive to me

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

   IF  I remember my history correctly, approximately .02% of the U.S. population at the time owned slaves.
Some of these owners were people of color, like Michelle Robinson's ancestors. So most Americans did not own anybody and many thousands gave their lives to help end that injustice. So snarkly implying that white people would embrace slavery is offensive to me

I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."

This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/

They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.

It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.

And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.

[Uncle Rico]

After digesting the article, it simply reinforces the sham of amateurism

Anyway, Xavier sucks

[rocket surgeon]

I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."

This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/

They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.

It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.

And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.

  people seem to want to ignore the fact that slavery still exists today.  why aren't people going after the drug and the sex industry with the same zeal.  it seems we, as a society have been leaning more to the diminishment of "bad behavior" than in the past.  either by giving it more excuses or just outright throwing their collective hands up.  we used to stigmatize bad behavior which i believe had at least some deleterious affects.  back in the "just say no to drugs" days, many will say that it had no affect.  today we don't even seem to bother. for heroin addicts, they are putting up "safe" places to inject, giving out "free" needles. that is not preventing people from dying.  not to detract from my main premise here, but i believe the legalization of pot is being majorly minimized.  so we are more concerned with kids vaping(leaving the straight THC out of it) than recognizing that it is legal to get high. the legalization of pot has had to have introduced it to many who would not have otherwise considered doing it on a semi-regular basis like "having a beer".  if you talk to those directly involved with the "side effects" of the legalization of weed, it's not working out nearly the way all the pot prognosticators told us it would...we didn't need one more substance to F'udge up society.   

[Galway Eagle]

  people seem to want to ignore the fact that slavery still exists today.  why aren't people going after the drug and the sex industry with the same zeal.  it seems we, as a society have been leaning more to the diminishment of "bad behavior" than in the past.  either by giving it more excuses or just outright throwing their collective hands up.  we used to stigmatize bad behavior which i believe had at least some deleterious affects.  back in the "just say no to drugs" days, many will say that it had no affect.  today we don't even seem to bother. for heroin addicts, they are putting up "safe" places to inject, giving out "free" needles. that is not preventing people from dying.  not to detract from my main premise here, but i believe the legalization of pot is being majorly minimized.  so we are more concerned with kids vaping(leaving the straight THC out of it) than recognizing that it is legal to get high. the legalization of pot has had to have introduced it to many who would not have otherwise considered doing it on a semi-regular basis like "having a beer".  if you talk to those directly involved with the "side effects" of the legalization of weed, it's not working out nearly the way all the pot prognosticators told us it would...we didn't need one more substance to F'udge up society.

Valley fields used to be littered with used needles. Lacrosse practice was terrifying because of it. There should be spaces simply to prevent needles from pricking unintended recipients. I feel that there's a bit of a poor equivalency between hard drugs and weed here and that you jumped right over legal drugs that are pushed.

I don't know enough about the side effect stuff but if legalizing it keeps cartels from lacing it with stuff like fentanyl and PCP then I'm for it 

[WhiteTrash]

I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."

This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/

They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.

It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.

And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.

You basically agree with and support his premise.

Let's all move on.