The Atlantic: The Shame of College Sports

Donate To GopherHole

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”
Click to expand...

Interesting article for sure. I don't know how I feel about the whole issue yet, but I love how people always seem to ignore the part where the athletes are given a full scholarship for 4-5 years when they say the athletes get nothing in return. It isn't slave labor - the universities aren't forcing these students to play football for them and make them millions of dollars.
 


How you do it I don't know but,

This mess could be solved if the universities can stop being the minor leagues for the NFL. Baseball in the USA is essentially equal to football as a spectators sport. Yet college Baseball doesn't have these problems at least to the degree that football does.

The only way a High School player can get to the NFL is first go to college. Why can't the NFL develop a minor league system like baseball does? Yes it would take away some of the glamor but the end result bring football especially back down to the level it should be at the college level.
 

As a recounting of the NCAA's history, especially as it pertains to football, it is a useful and compelling read.

As a call to reform, it is completely and utterly worthless.

Did he even read his own article? He need go no further than his own text for proof that paying college players wouldn't make anything better. In fact, if anything, it would only make things worse.

For an historian, he certainly has a poor grasp of how to learn from the lessons of history and apply them to our current situation.
 


Obviously, Division III must be shut down. Division III athletes work hard, and get no compensation at all. Why should one group be paid for their work, while another is not. The standard answer is "But Division I sports make money, while Division III sports do not!" But since when has pay for work had anything to do with whether an entity makes money? If your business makes more money, this doesn't necessarily mean you make more money. Your employer could choose to offer bonuses, but doesn't have to. And if your employer loses money, that doesn't mean you don't get paid! But that's the standard that the advocates of paying college athletes are using. If it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, it is wrong not to pay D-III athletes.

We also have people competing for unpaid internships. These positions involve work, and people stand in line for a chance at one of them. These unpaid interns don't even have their room and board paid for. Clearly, if it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, then unpaid internships are also wrong.

Comparing Division I athletes to slaves is absurd, because "voluntary slavery" is an oxymoron. What sort of slavery is it when people actually compete for the opportunity to be enslaved? Real slaves can't leave. College athletes can quit at any time they wish. Obviously, the college scholarship is something the players want, and they find the compensation of a college scholarship (which is quite a lot of money) adequate, or else they would not persue it.
 

RodentRampage said:
But since when has pay for work had anything to do with whether an entity makes money? If your business makes more money, this doesn't necessarily mean you make more money. Your employer could choose to offer bonuses, but doesn't have to. And if your employer loses money, that doesn't mean you don't get paid!
Click to expand...

At every job I've ever had the compensation is a whole lot better when the company or division is doing well.
 

I found one passage that summed up my feelings well:
"I, too, once reflexively recoiled at the idea of paying college athletes and treating them like employees or professionals. It feels abhorrent—but for reasons having to do more with sentiment than with practicality or law."

Paying athletes isn't about whether it makes college football better or worse (that's sentiment talking). It ends up coming down to whether it's legal for a entity like the NCAA to keep athletes from making money while making lots of money for itself off the same athletes. So I find myself torn between the part of me that loves college sports (and knows the type of college sports he loves requires the veneer of amateurism) and the part of me that hates seeing basic legal frameworks discarded just because they can be.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
At every job I've ever had the compensation is a whole lot better when the company or division is doing well.
Click to expand...

But if they company lost money, you still got a paycheck, right? As I said, employers may choose to offer bonuses, but are under no obligation to do so.
 



RodentRampage said:
But if they company lost money, you still got a paycheck, right? As I said, employers may choose to offer bonuses, but are under no obligation to do so.
Click to expand...

At companies that do well employees receive pay raises, bonuses, etc. At companies that perform poorly employees receive pay freezes and pink slips. Sure you may work at an under performing company and keep your job and your paycheck but generally it will not be as much as if the company over performs or meets expectations. I guess that is the point I was getting at.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
At companies that do well employees receive pay raises, bonuses, etc. At companies that perform poorly employees receive pay freezes and pink slips. Sure you may work at an under performing company and keep your job and your paycheck but generally it will not be as much as if the company over performs or meets expectations. I guess that is the point I was getting at.
Click to expand...

You MIGHT get these at a company that does well. The company is under no obligation to provide bonuses. The point is that football taking in money isn't a valid reason that players must be paid. The company making more money doesn't entitle you to a bonus, and the company losing money doesn't entitle them to not pay you.
 

If the sports that make money pay their players, would the players in sports that lose money have to pay to play?
 

The thing that bothers me the most is probably the ongoing profiting off the likenesses of the players. I have a hard time believing that will stand up in court long-term. Our former governor Jesse Ventura won a landmark case on this issue against the WWF for not paying him for the use of footage when he was an announcer, long after he had left the company.
 



1gophergnu said:
If the sports that make money pay their players, would the players in sports that lose money have to pay to play?
Click to expand...

You have to pay to play high school sports, and millions of kids play every year.
 

RodentRampage said:
Obviously, Division III must be shut down. Division III athletes work hard, and get no compensation at all. Why should one group be paid for their work, while another is not. The standard answer is "But Division I sports make money, while Division III sports do not!" But since when has pay for work had anything to do with whether an entity makes money? If your business makes more money, this doesn't necessarily mean you make more money. Your employer could choose to offer bonuses, but doesn't have to. And if your employer loses money, that doesn't mean you don't get paid! But that's the standard that the advocates of paying college athletes are using. If it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, it is wrong not to pay D-III athletes.

We also have people competing for unpaid internships. These positions involve work, and people stand in line for a chance at one of them. These unpaid interns don't even have their room and board paid for. Clearly, if it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, then unpaid internships are also wrong.

Comparing Division I athletes to slaves is absurd, because "voluntary slavery" is an oxymoron. What sort of slavery is it when people actually compete for the opportunity to be enslaved? Real slaves can't leave. College athletes can quit at any time they wish. Obviously, the college scholarship is something the players want, and they find the compensation of a college scholarship (which is quite a lot of money) adequate, or else they would not persue it.
Click to expand...
If you can see the absurdity in comparing slavery to college scholarships, then you should also be able to see the absurdity in comparing D1 to D3. Just because someone works, doesn't mean someone is willing to pay for the product you produced. Title IX has prevented another system of college athletics from competing with the NCAA by using a free system that could pay players what they're worth or support only the sports they wish to.

I do not understand why we have a system where a poor kid from North Minneapolis who is a great athlete and I pay to watch play on Saturdays earns maybe $25k a year through room, board and scholarship, despite bringing in hundreds of thousands, which in turn gets spent on rich kids from Edina or Lakeville for tennis, golf, and rowing who don't bring in dollar one.
 

BleedGopher said:
Frank Deford declares this piece ‘the most important article ever written about college sports.'

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

And Frank Deford at best looks like a pimp, at worst looks like a gigolo. Good luck to him.

Each player gets about a half million dollars in benefits (school, room, board, books, tutoring, etc., etc., etc.) over 4 (5) years, plus massive marketability as a U of M grad. You play football at the U and graduate, you get a job, guaranteed.

More than I got. More than I make in a year.

Make the most of it and your life is layed out for you. F'-up and you can kiss the baby...
 

AO54 said:
If you can see the absurdity in comparing slavery to college scholarships, then you should also be able to see the absurdity in comparing D1 to D3.
Click to expand...

I would be able to see the absurdity if it existed, which it does not. Both the D-I and the D-III football player are doing the same work, but while the D-I player is compensated with tuition, room and board and books, the D-III player is paying his own way through college. If it is so bad that the D-I player doesn't get a salary in addition to the scholarship, then surely it is even worse to have someone doing the same work and not being compensated at all.

Title IX has prevented another system of college athletics from competing with the NCAA by using a free system that could pay players what they're worth or support only the sports they wish to.
Click to expand...

No, it has not. For one, much as some fans might like there to be, there isn't a movement to break away from the NCAA. Secondly, the ban on paying players predates the existence of Title IX by decades, so Title IX can't be the reason players aren't paid.

I do not understand why we have a system where a poor kid from North Minneapolis who is a great athlete and I pay to watch play on Saturdays earns maybe $25k a year through room, board and scholarship, despite bringing in hundreds of thousands, which in turn gets spent on rich kids from Edina or Lakeville for tennis, golf, and rowing who don't bring in dollar one.
Click to expand...

We had a thread a while back about the best players in the city transferring out to the suburbs to play sports. But the thing is, the ones most likely to be paid are the ones most likely to get the pros, and thus get the big pro payday. So you have to include the cost of the preparation for the pros.

Paying players would result in smaller rosters, so paying players might mean that player from North Minneapolis might well not even make the team. And the value of that college scholarship isn't just the cash equivalent of the scholarship (which is considerable itself, and more than most 18 year olds would make with just a high school degree) by will continue to earn that player more money each year of his life.
 

AO54 said:
If you can see the absurdity in comparing slavery to college scholarships, then you should also be able to see the absurdity in comparing D1 to D3. Just because someone works, doesn't mean someone is willing to pay for the product you produced. Title IX has prevented another system of college athletics from competing with the NCAA by using a free system that could pay players what they're worth or support only the sports they wish to.

I do not understand why we have a system where a poor kid from North Minneapolis who is a great athlete and I pay to watch play on Saturdays earns maybe $25k a year through room, board and scholarship, despite bringing in hundreds of thousands, which in turn gets spent on rich kids from Edina or Lakeville for tennis, golf, and rowing who don't bring in dollar one.
Click to expand...

Generalize much? I have known a number of division 1 student athletes who:

a) got far less than full ride scholarships (a "books" scholarship is quite common in sports like track and cross country and contrary to popular belief many hockey players at the U don't get full rides due to scholarship limitations)
b) are from disadvantaged backgrounds
c) appreciate the heck out of the opportunity to compete for their school and maybe even earn a chance to get to the next level, whether that be pro sports or the olympics

As has been mentioned, nobody is forcing athletes to go to college or to compete for no pay. It's a choice.
 

RodentRampage said:
I would be able to see the absurdity if it existed, which it does not. Both the D-I and the D-III football player are doing the same work, but while the D-I player is compensated with tuition, room and board and books, the D-III player is paying his own way through college. If it is so bad that the D-I player doesn't get a salary in addition to the scholarship, then surely it is even worse to have someone doing the same work and not being compensated at all.
Click to expand...
Same work, different worth. Same way that just because I go to the gym, workout and play in a city league, it's not worth the same as Kevin Love doing the same for the Timberwolves.
No, it has not. For one, much as some fans might like there to be, there isn't a movement to break away from the NCAA. Secondly, the ban on paying players predates the existence of Title IX by decades, so Title IX can't be the reason players aren't paid.
Click to expand...
College sports has gotten a lot more valuable since Title IX has passed. The NAIA wouldn't necessarily be going the way of the buffalo if they could change their rules to pay players what they're worth and not have to also support the equal number of female sports.

We had a thread a while back about the best players in the city transferring out to the suburbs to play sports. But the thing is, the ones most likely to be paid are the ones most likely to get the pros, and thus get the big pro payday. So you have to include the cost of the preparation for the pros.

Paying players would result in smaller rosters, so paying players might mean that player from North Minneapolis might well not even make the team. And the value of that college scholarship isn't just the cash equivalent of the scholarship (which is considerable itself, and more than most 18 year olds would make with just a high school degree) by will continue to earn that player more money each year of his life.
Click to expand...
The poor kid from North Minneapolis is already worth the money, or I wouldn't be paying to see him play. If the worth of a college scholarship needs to be factored into the athletes pay, why don't we pay CEO's 2 college scholarships rather than $2Million? Why can't some school charge millions of dollars if the education is really worth that? If it were worth millions, you wouldn't have to work after college to earn those millions.
 

AO54 said:
Same work, different worth. Same way that just because I go to the gym, workout and play in a city league, it's not worth the same as Kevin Love doing the same for the Timberwolves.
Click to expand...

Working in a city league is not the same as playing in the NBA. Playing in a city league, you put in only a tiny fraction of the time and effort that an NBA player does. By contrast, a D-III player does pretty much the same work as does a D-I player.

College sports has gotten a lot more valuable since Title IX has passed. The NAIA wouldn't necessarily be going the way of the buffalo if they could change their rules to pay players what they're worth and not have to also support the equal number of female sports.
Click to expand...

Let us try this again. You claim that Title IX is the reason that players aren't paid, because it prevents schools from leaving the NCAA and playing players. Two things would have to be the case if this were true. First, there would have to be a movement among college presidents and regents to leave the NCAA, but they are somehow prevented by Title IX. This movement simply does not exist. Secondly, it would have to be the case that players were paid before Title IX. They were not, this demolishing this claim about Title IX. Title IX is clearly not the reason that collegiate athletes are not paid.


The poor kid from North Minneapolis is already worth the money, or I wouldn't be paying to see him play. If the worth of a college scholarship needs to be factored into the athletes pay, why don't we pay CEO's 2 college scholarships rather than $2Million? Why can't some school charge millions of dollars if the education is really worth that? If it were worth millions, you wouldn't have to work after college to earn those millions.
Click to expand...

The CEO already has a college degree. No one gets paid what they are "worth", this criteria simply doesn't exist. People get paid what it takes to retain them. The CEO won't work for anything less than $2,000,000, while the recruit is working as hard as he can to get that college scholarship. Clearly, that recruit thinks this compensation is worthwhile.

I'm all in favor of letting the pros start developmental leagues for players who don't want to go to college. They can have the luxury lifestyle of minor league baseball players if they want to be payed to play.
 

RodentRampage said:
Working in a city league is not the same as playing in the NBA. Playing in a city league, you put in only a tiny fraction of the time and effort that an NBA player does. By contrast, a D-III player does pretty much the same work as does a D-I player.
Click to expand...
I think you've got yourself confused now. The city league player could be in 24/hours a day and it still wouldn't be worth as much as the D1 or NBA player. It's not simply the work or type of work the person does, it's the product produced. You seem to have trouble understanding the value of a college scholarship, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you can't understand the difference between the average D1 and D3 product and why Crown College hasn't built a stadium to match the Bank.



Let us try this again. You claim that Title IX is the reason that players aren't paid, because it prevents schools from leaving the NCAA and playing players. Two things would have to be the case if this were true. First, there would have to be a movement among college presidents and regents to leave the NCAA, but they are somehow prevented by Title IX. This movement simply does not exist. Secondly, it would have to be the case that players were paid before Title IX. They were not, this demolishing this claim about Title IX. Title IX is clearly not the reason that collegiate athletes are not paid.
Click to expand...
You're making a lot of assumptions about how people might think without Title IX. If they think the same way without Title IX, why did they pass it? Maybe you would support a repeal? Absent title IX, could the BCS conferences form a football and basketball college association that paid players as much as they wanted? The answer is of course, yes. Stating that they might not choose to, is simply an opinion.
The CEO already has a college degree. No one gets paid what they are "worth", this criteria simply doesn't exist. People get paid what it takes to retain them. The CEO won't work for anything less than $2,000,000, while the recruit is working as hard as he can to get that college scholarship. Clearly, that recruit thinks this compensation is worthwhile.

I'm all in favor of letting the pros start developmental leagues for players who don't want to go to college. They can have the luxury lifestyle of minor league baseball players if they want to be payed to play.
Click to expand...
If the recruit could choose to go to a college that paid him more than the scholarship, room and board allowed by the NCAA, don't you think they'd be likely to choose that school or conference? He is forced to pick from a list of colleges that aren't allowed by law to pay him and not the tennis player. It's effectively the law that tells him that if he chooses to go to college, his worth is limited.
 

Football needs a major junior system like hockey has. Hockey players have the option to get paid to play from the 16 until you are 21 (15 if you get an exemption). Once you hit that age of 21 you have to try and find a professional team to play for otherwise tough sh!t your career is done and you don't have a degree to show for it. Or you can get housing, food, and equiptment paid for by playing Junior A/College. Once done with college if you can't find a pro team to play for you should at least have a degree to fall back on. Its a choice players have to make when they are young and I think it would be beneficial for football to go this route instead of having the NCAA pay their players.
 

AO54 said:
I think you've got yourself confused now. The city league player could be in 24/hours a day and it still wouldn't be worth as much as the D1 or NBA player. It's not simply the work or type of work the person does, it's the product produced. You seem to have trouble understanding the value of a college scholarship, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you can't understand the difference between the average D1 and D3 product and why Crown College hasn't built a stadium to match the Bank.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all confused at all. The city league players do not work 24/7 on their game, but they don't. If they did spend all their time working on thir game, it would be on their own time. A city league is just a part time hobby.

People don't get paid for the profit the organization makes, they get paid what it takes to obtain their services. If your company makes more money, you are not entitled to more money. If your company loses money, you still get a paycheck. By your reasoning, if your company loses money, you shouldn't get a paycheck. But even if we say that D-III players shouldn't be paid a salary for their work, if you're going to play D-I players, shouldn't the D-III players get compensated with a scholarship at least?



You're making a lot of assumptions about how people might think without Title IX. If they think the same way without Title IX, why did they pass it? Maybe you would support a repeal? Absent title IX, could the BCS conferences form a football and basketball college association that paid players as much as they wanted? The answer is of course, yes. Stating that they might not choose to, is simply an opinion.
Click to expand...

I am making no assumptions. You are the one making assertions, I have simply provided facts. When you say "Why did they pass it" I can only assume you mean the NCAA and the heads of universities. They didn't pass it, Title IX is federal law, not an NCAA rule. We already have evidence that without Title IX, universities did not pay players. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is some movement among university presidents and regents to pay players, but they are prevented from doing so by Title IX.

If the recruit could choose to go to a college that paid him more than the scholarship, room and board allowed by the NCAA, don't you think they'd be likely to choose that school or conference? He is forced to pick from a list of colleges that aren't allowed by law to pay him and not the tennis player. It's effectively the law that tells him that if he chooses to go to college, his worth is limited.
Click to expand...

Sure, a player might well choose to attend a school where they get paid. That's not an argument that player should be paid.
 

RodentRampage said:
I'm not at all confused at all. The city league players do not work 24/7 on their game, but they don't. If they did spend all their time working on thir game, it would be on their own time. A city league is just a part time hobby.

People don't get paid for the profit the organization makes, they get paid what it takes to obtain their services. If your company makes more money, you are not entitled to more money. If your company loses money, you still get a paycheck. By your reasoning, if your company loses money, you shouldn't get a paycheck. But even if we say that D-III players shouldn't be paid a salary for their work, if you're going to play D-I players, shouldn't the D-III players get compensated with a scholarship at least?
Click to expand...
I think you get it, you're just too dense to realize you do. The city league player and the D3 player are similarly situated. They both can work for any amount of hours and still very few or no one will want to see them play or buy their jerseys, etc.. Therefore, they don't deserved to be paid like Kevin Love or Blake Hoffarber with a scholarship.
I am making no assumptions. You are the one making assertions, I have simply provided facts. When you say "Why did they pass it" I can only assume you mean the NCAA and the heads of universities. They didn't pass it, Title IX is federal law, not an NCAA rule. We already have evidence that without Title IX, universities did not pay players. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is some movement among university presidents and regents to pay players, but they are prevented from doing so by Title IX.
Click to expand...
There is quite obviously a movement within the Big Ten and SEC to pay all the athletes a stipend above what the scholarship currently gives. The movement is clearly there and is natural when you have competition between the conferences. School A will do what is legal to get more money. They are prevented from paying the football players more than the tennis players by law. If Title IX was repealed, I would say it's almost undeniable that schools would start to move away from the old laws and do things that give them a competitive advantage over their "pay everyone the same" rivals.
Sure, a player might well choose to attend a school where they get paid. That's not an argument that player should be paid.
Click to expand...
Your argument was that because they choose to go to schools where they currently aren't paid very well, they must be getting their full compensation or in your words "enough to retain them"---if this was true, then in a free market they wouldn't be any more likely to go to the school that offered them more money. This is obviously not the case.
 

AO54 said:
I think you get it, you're just too dense to realize you do. The city league player and the D3 player are similarly situated. They both can work for any amount of hours and still very few or no one will want to see them play or buy their jerseys, etc.. Therefore, they don't deserved to be paid like Kevin Love or Blake Hoffarber with a scholarship.
Click to expand...

Talk about being thick, D-III isn't comparable to a city league. It is false that city league players work for the same amount of hours as D-III players. You say that they could, but the fact is that they simply do not. If a city league player spends a lot of his free time practicing on his own, that's his own business.As I have demonstrated, nobody "deserves" to make more money. Employers may offer bonuses when the company does well, but are not obligated to do so. And when the company loses money, people still get paychecks. People get paid for the work that they do. If we followed your reasoning, people would have to forgo their paychecks when the company loses money, and bonuses would be required by law when the company makes money.

There is quite obviously a movement within the Big Ten and SEC to pay all the athletes a stipend above what the scholarship currently gives. The movement is clearly there and is natural when you have competition between the conferences. School A will do what is legal to get more money. They are prevented from paying the football players more than the tennis players by law. If Title IX was repealed, I would say it's almost undeniable that schools would start to move away from the old laws and do things that give them a competitive advantage over their "pay everyone the same" rivals.
Click to expand...

Nothing up my sleeve... we were talking about a salary, not stipends. There may be a movement to for stipends, but that's not a movement for paying a salary. You claim that it is undeniable that is a movement to break away from the NCAA and to pay athletes salaries, but that Title IX prevents this. Provide evidence for this, and not for a movement to provide a stipend. The fact that athletes were not paid prior to Title IX seriously undercuts your argument.

Your argument was that because they choose to go to schools where they currently aren't paid very well, they must be getting their full compensation or in your words "enough to retain them"---if this was true, then in a free market they wouldn't be any more likely to go to the school that offered them more money. This is obviously not the case.
Click to expand...

If they didn't find the compensation adequate, they would not seek an athletic scholarship. The fact that they would chose to be paid a salary in addition to the scholarship doesn't change that fact. If someone takes a job that has better pay than their previous job, that doesn't mean they didn't find the compensation adequate at their previous job.
 

Let's say a kid is a whiz at math and science in high school. He graduates, can he go right into a job and earn a good salary? No, he has to prove himself in college and graduate. Well in college on a full ride due to his academics, he helps develop a product that makes the school millions of dollars. Does he see any of this? No, it gets pumped back into the school because the school is a non-profit. Once he graduates, he puts that degree and his accomplishments on his resume and gets a really good job.

That same kid goes to school, doesnt accomplish much but works just hard enough to maintain his scholarship. Switches majors, and gets a job that pays an average wage.

How is this any different than a football player who goes to college, excels on the field on a full ride or just rides the pine?
 

RodentRampage said:
Talk about being thick, D-III isn't comparable to a city league. It is false that city league players work for the same amount of hours as D-III players. You say that they could, but the fact is that they simply do not. If a city league player spends a lot of his free time practicing on his own, that's his own business.As I have demonstrated, nobody "deserves" to make more money. Employers may offer bonuses when the company does well, but are not obligated to do so. And when the company loses money, people still get paychecks. People get paid for the work that they do. If we followed your reasoning, people would have to forgo their paychecks when the company loses money, and bonuses would be required by law when the company makes money.
Click to expand...
People do not get paid for all the work they do, only the work that people are willing to pay for. I don't know if I can say it much simpler than that. The D3 guy and city league guy are worth less than the D1/pro player. When the company loses money, people get fired and not hired.
Nothing up my sleeve... we were talking about a salary, not stipends. There may be a movement to for stipends, but that's not a movement for paying a salary. You claim that it is undeniable that is a movement to break away from the NCAA and to pay athletes salaries, but that Title IX prevents this. Provide evidence for this, and not for a movement to provide a stipend. The fact that athletes were not paid prior to Title IX seriously undercuts your argument.
Click to expand...
I would say the presidents are currently pretty happy using the money the athletes earn to spend on other things. The movement for the free market is coming from the bottom up. Bottom line is that we should be free to pay people what ever we want. There's nothing more American than the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and we do not have that in college athletics.

If they didn't find the compensation adequate, they would not seek an athletic scholarship. The fact that they would chose to be paid a salary in addition to the scholarship doesn't change that fact. If someone takes a job that has better pay than their previous job, that doesn't mean they didn't find the compensation adequate at their previous job.
Click to expand...
They would seek as much as they possibly could. Adequate is for North Koreans and Soviets. I don't go to work just so that I can be given a housing/food allowance. I expect to get paid above and beyond my needs according to my ability to produce goods and services of value.
 

DLguy said:
Let's say a kid is a whiz at math and science in high school. He graduates, can he go right into a job and earn a good salary? No, he has to prove himself in college and graduate. Well in college on a full ride due to his academics, he helps develop a product that makes the school millions of dollars. Does he see any of this? No, it gets pumped back into the school because the school is a non-profit. Once he graduates, he puts that degree and his accomplishments on his resume and gets a really good job.

That same kid goes to school, doesnt accomplish much but works just hard enough to maintain his scholarship. Switches majors, and gets a job that pays an average wage.

How is this any different than a football player who goes to college, excels on the field on a full ride or just rides the pine?
Click to expand...
ever heard of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or Richard Branson? the abscence of a college degree hurts your chances of getting hired, but it doesn't limit what you can produce.
 

Adequate is for North Koreans and Soviets. I don't go to work just so that I can be given a housing/food allowance. I expect to get paid above and beyond my needs according to my ability to produce goods and services of value.
Click to expand...

Nice try. I haven't said anything remotely comparable to North Korea or the Soviet Union. In North Korea or the Soviet Union, you simply accepted what you were told to accept.

When you're offered a job, you make a decision whether this offer is worthwhile (in other words, "adequate"). If not, you don't accept it and choose to do something else. It's the same way with college athletes. They are offered compensation, which is worth more than they could likely make as an 18 year old without a college degree, and they freely choose whether or not to accept it. No one will haul them to a Gulag if the do not.

The solution to paying players is to set up minor leagues. This works for baseball, there's no reason it wouldn't work for basketball or football.
 

AO54 said:
ever heard of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or Richard Branson? the abscence of a college degree hurts your chances of getting hired, but it doesn't limit what you can produce.
Click to expand...

You are getting desperate. No one ever claimed that it was impossible to make money without a college degree. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people will make a whole lot more money with a college degree than without one.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom