6/9/2011 5:51 PM
Posted by livemike on 6/9/2011 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a few hundred thousand Africans were fortunate to be brought to America on slave ships since they were given the opportunity at freedom, education and prosperity here that they otherwise wouldn't have received.  Meanwhile European families had to save up their own money to afford such an opportunity. 
How does being forced to wok in harsh consitions even come close to being comparable to having the option to accept a free education and showcasing your talent for playing a game?  Huge difference
6/9/2011 5:57 PM
Posted by livemike on 6/9/2011 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a few hundred thousand Africans were fortunate to be brought to America on slave ships since they were given the opportunity at freedom, education and prosperity here that they otherwise wouldn't have received.  Meanwhile European families had to save up their own money to afford such an opportunity. 





...?
6/9/2011 6:19 PM (edited)
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
NCAA athletics are not a business.  The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution.  You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples.  Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year.  If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further.  As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.  

You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes.  Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship.  It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.  
 

The last argument I always find interesting.  Hey, the athlete is receiving a scholarship, room and board and should be thankful.  To me, this shows that the real debate is about the form and manner of receiving compensation---not whether you agree that they should be compensated?  

If you think a scholarship, room and board is the proper compensation for all NCAA athletes regardless of sport, talent level or school, what is the proper fixed compensation for all coaches and Athletic Directors regardless of sport, talent level or school?  Of course, including the experience and ability to show case their talents.  So trying to understand this logic, what is the same compensation package that fairly compensatres the field hockey coach at Penn State, the head basketball coach at UCLA and the head football coach at LSU?    

You cannot reasonably ignore the obvious.  If you are a woman swimmer, a scholie is probably a great deal for the services (if any) you provide.  School gives money to you to particpate in an activity that loses money for the school and, possibly, the tax payers.  For BCS football or basketball programs, it's a weak argument in comparison to the revenues those two sports generate and what the market dictates

The fact that an Athletic Department may use (or misuse) those funds to pay high salaries to coaches or ADs, or fund non-income generating sports, doesn't change the analysis.  If you were an employee in a company and you generated 90% of the businesses profit but received the same compensation as the employees that generated 10% of the profit (or, worse, consistently lost money for the company), you would probably quit or form a Union.  Unless, of course, there was a monopoly and that system applied to all the companies in your field.

Take salaries or stipends out of the debate.  If Coca-Cola wants to pay the collegiate Cam Newton to do commericals, why not?  If a kid wants to openly hire an agent or a corporate sponsor out of high school and the agent or corporate sponsor wants to openly fund him through college, go for it.  Get it out in the open, declare the money and provide education on the business-side of sports/money management.  

There are huge monetary incentives from all angles in the major NCAA sports.  If Coach K can make millions and do commercials for AmEx, why can't his players? 

The hypocrisy of the system is ridicluous.  And so is the naive ideal that its not a business and, rather, it is an educational endeavor.  Do you really think the University of Alabama gives a sh#t if it's players are going to class and getting a solid education?  Christ, Harbaugh talked about how Michigan tried to unsucessfuly steer him, and successfuly steer other players, into easy majors so as to not to interefere with their jobs---playing football.

The system needs to be scrapped and find new ways.  Get rid of the one-and-done in BBall.  Let players apply for the NFL draft without consequences out of high school (or while in college) and let the NFL decide if they want to take on project.  But stop the mock (or foolish) indignation when a player sells an autograph for a few bucks because it doesn't comply with an archaic rule.
   

Again, tail wagging the dog.  

If you were that employee making 90% of the profit, you would leave and find another job.  The student athlete can do the same.

If corporations/businesses/individuals want to sponsor or pay players, let them get together and form their own league.  The NCAA has been doing this for over a century and has always been about amateur athletics.  The money has changed, but it's always been about amateur intercollegiate athletics.  If you want a professional league, go for it.  But it's not on the NCAA to set up that league for you.  Find the right financial backers and have at it.  Good luck finding any kind of ROI for your investors when you consider salaries, coaches, trainers, transportation, equipment, securing fields, advertising, etc.  Good luck finding players who will think the salaries you can offer is a better value proposition than a full ride at a D1 school.  

Coach K can make millions because he is an employee of the school.  The student athlete is not.  They know this when they sign a scholarship offer.  Again, if you want to pay the players, find the backers and start a pro league.

I don't think it's hypocritical.  The athletic department is being paid now and the athletes are being paid in future revenues for their degree to the tune of $400+k of NPV when you consider the cost of education.  Again, if they want to get paid now, someone should found a pro league who will take them and they can be paid their market value.  

The current system works just fine for 99% of student athletes.  Allowing the 1% to dictate policy is idiotic.  The NCAA is providing a great platform for amateur intercollegiate athletics.  The tail wagging the dog never works.
6/9/2011 7:02 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
NCAA athletics are not a business.  The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution.  You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples.  Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year.  If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further.  As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.  

You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes.  Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship.  It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.  
 

The last argument I always find interesting.  Hey, the athlete is receiving a scholarship, room and board and should be thankful.  To me, this shows that the real debate is about the form and manner of receiving compensation---not whether you agree that they should be compensated?  

If you think a scholarship, room and board is the proper compensation for all NCAA athletes regardless of sport, talent level or school, what is the proper fixed compensation for all coaches and Athletic Directors regardless of sport, talent level or school?  Of course, including the experience and ability to show case their talents.  So trying to understand this logic, what is the same compensation package that fairly compensatres the field hockey coach at Penn State, the head basketball coach at UCLA and the head football coach at LSU?    

You cannot reasonably ignore the obvious.  If you are a woman swimmer, a scholie is probably a great deal for the services (if any) you provide.  School gives money to you to particpate in an activity that loses money for the school and, possibly, the tax payers.  For BCS football or basketball programs, it's a weak argument in comparison to the revenues those two sports generate and what the market dictates

The fact that an Athletic Department may use (or misuse) those funds to pay high salaries to coaches or ADs, or fund non-income generating sports, doesn't change the analysis.  If you were an employee in a company and you generated 90% of the businesses profit but received the same compensation as the employees that generated 10% of the profit (or, worse, consistently lost money for the company), you would probably quit or form a Union.  Unless, of course, there was a monopoly and that system applied to all the companies in your field.

Take salaries or stipends out of the debate.  If Coca-Cola wants to pay the collegiate Cam Newton to do commericals, why not?  If a kid wants to openly hire an agent or a corporate sponsor out of high school and the agent or corporate sponsor wants to openly fund him through college, go for it.  Get it out in the open, declare the money and provide education on the business-side of sports/money management.  

There are huge monetary incentives from all angles in the major NCAA sports.  If Coach K can make millions and do commercials for AmEx, why can't his players? 

The hypocrisy of the system is ridicluous.  And so is the naive ideal that its not a business and, rather, it is an educational endeavor.  Do you really think the University of Alabama gives a sh#t if it's players are going to class and getting a solid education?  Christ, Harbaugh talked about how Michigan tried to unsucessfuly steer him, and successfuly steer other players, into easy majors so as to not to interefere with their jobs---playing football.

The system needs to be scrapped and find new ways.  Get rid of the one-and-done in BBall.  Let players apply for the NFL draft without consequences out of high school (or while in college) and let the NFL decide if they want to take on project.  But stop the mock (or foolish) indignation when a player sells an autograph for a few bucks because it doesn't comply with an archaic rule.
   

Again, tail wagging the dog.  

If you were that employee making 90% of the profit, you would leave and find another job.  The student athlete can do the same.

If corporations/businesses/individuals want to sponsor or pay players, let them get together and form their own league.  The NCAA has been doing this for over a century and has always been about amateur athletics.  The money has changed, but it's always been about amateur intercollegiate athletics.  If you want a professional league, go for it.  But it's not on the NCAA to set up that league for you.  Find the right financial backers and have at it.  Good luck finding any kind of ROI for your investors when you consider salaries, coaches, trainers, transportation, equipment, securing fields, advertising, etc.  Good luck finding players who will think the salaries you can offer is a better value proposition than a full ride at a D1 school.  

Coach K can make millions because he is an employee of the school.  The student athlete is not.  They know this when they sign a scholarship offer.  Again, if you want to pay the players, find the backers and start a pro league.

I don't think it's hypocritical.  The athletic department is being paid now and the athletes are being paid in future revenues for their degree to the tune of $400+k of NPV when you consider the cost of education.  Again, if they want to get paid now, someone should found a pro league who will take them and they can be paid their market value.  

The current system works just fine for 99% of student athletes.  Allowing the 1% to dictate policy is idiotic.  The NCAA is providing a great platform for amateur intercollegiate athletics.  The tail wagging the dog never works.

Explain your definition of "employee."  Why is Coach K an "employee" of the school but an athlete generating money for a school is not an "employee." 

6/9/2011 7:03 PM

gah I said I was going to dismiss this inane thread from my mind but I can't do it. Everyone goes on and on about how much revenue is generated by BCS college football teams. No one is even considering expenses. So here are some numbers for you all to soak up and maybe get you to reconsider this whole "pay to play" thing. (I chose 3 big time universities randomly simply because they have had a great deal of recent success)

LSU

Football Gross Revenue: $40,107,764
All Sports Gross Revenue:$60,937,676
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $27,932,154
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $5,080,280

Ohio State

Football Gross Revenue: $51,810,607
All Sports Gross Revenue:$89,700,979
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $26,099,129
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $120, 674

Texas

Football Gross Revenue: $53.204,171
All Sports Gross Revenue:$89.651,662
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $39,294,908
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $7,250,853

Now, if you are going to try and argue that outside sources could subsidize the payment to players, that is a whole other can of worms. Again I ask.... where are you all planning to cut money to make these payments and where do you draw the line as to who gets paid?
 

6/9/2011 7:17 PM
Wow! How can you not know the difference between an employee and a student-athlete? The student just plays a sport for the school in exchange for a free education. An employee gets paid for his services.
6/9/2011 8:01 PM
The real question then is if a student athlete agrees to play football for a school for a scholarship which includes tuition, books/fees, room and board; where is the line the NCAA should draw on non-sport income. Can you be a professional snow-boarder and ruin your college football career? Can you get paid for advertising? Maybe a regulation which requires a scholarship athlete to return his scholarship money if he makes a non-sport income above the scholarship amount. I'm sure no one is looking at a scholarship assisted chemistry major who is able to land an advertising job. Why shouldn't football (basketball, baseball, soccer, fencing etc) players be able to do the same thing - as long as it is an acceptable amount for the task for which they are being compensated. (No $10K jobs watching the lights come on stuff).
6/9/2011 8:14 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 6/9/2011 8:01:00 PM (view original):
The real question then is if a student athlete agrees to play football for a school for a scholarship which includes tuition, books/fees, room and board; where is the line the NCAA should draw on non-sport income. Can you be a professional snow-boarder and ruin your college football career? Can you get paid for advertising? Maybe a regulation which requires a scholarship athlete to return his scholarship money if he makes a non-sport income above the scholarship amount. I'm sure no one is looking at a scholarship assisted chemistry major who is able to land an advertising job. Why shouldn't football (basketball, baseball, soccer, fencing etc) players be able to do the same thing - as long as it is an acceptable amount for the task for which they are being compensated. (No $10K jobs watching the lights come on stuff).
This already happens occasionally with baseball draftees.  I know Jake Locker was drafted by the Angels and was under contract (I think for ~$250k/year) during his senior season at UW (maybe his JR season as well?).  He had to pay his own tuition, etc (i.e. was no longer under scholarship) once he signed the contract.  I don't really know why that situation is ok and so many other types of payment are not....
6/9/2011 8:54 PM
Paying the players will have no effect on cheating.  If the option for free stuff is there, you're going to take it regardless if you have money in your wallet or not.  Tyrell Pryor wouldn't have turned down free tattoos (or trading a jersey for tattoos) even if he had the cash to pay for them.  Regular paychecks will have no effect on players accepting hundred-dollar handshakes, fishing & hunting trips (according to Colt McCoy's wife), free lease cars, jewelry, free dinner, or anything else.  It also won't affect how much rich alumni offer that stuff to the players.

Also, since recruits would get payed the same amount regardless of the school they choose, it will do nothing to prevent schools from trying to woo recruits with booster gifts just as they always have.
6/9/2011 10:39 PM (edited)
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
NCAA athletics are not a business.  The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution.  You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples.  Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year.  If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further.  As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.  

You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes.  Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship.  It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.  
 

The last argument I always find interesting.  Hey, the athlete is receiving a scholarship, room and board and should be thankful.  To me, this shows that the real debate is about the form and manner of receiving compensation---not whether you agree that they should be compensated?  

If you think a scholarship, room and board is the proper compensation for all NCAA athletes regardless of sport, talent level or school, what is the proper fixed compensation for all coaches and Athletic Directors regardless of sport, talent level or school?  Of course, including the experience and ability to show case their talents.  So trying to understand this logic, what is the same compensation package that fairly compensatres the field hockey coach at Penn State, the head basketball coach at UCLA and the head football coach at LSU?    

You cannot reasonably ignore the obvious.  If you are a woman swimmer, a scholie is probably a great deal for the services (if any) you provide.  School gives money to you to particpate in an activity that loses money for the school and, possibly, the tax payers.  For BCS football or basketball programs, it's a weak argument in comparison to the revenues those two sports generate and what the market dictates

The fact that an Athletic Department may use (or misuse) those funds to pay high salaries to coaches or ADs, or fund non-income generating sports, doesn't change the analysis.  If you were an employee in a company and you generated 90% of the businesses profit but received the same compensation as the employees that generated 10% of the profit (or, worse, consistently lost money for the company), you would probably quit or form a Union.  Unless, of course, there was a monopoly and that system applied to all the companies in your field.

Take salaries or stipends out of the debate.  If Coca-Cola wants to pay the collegiate Cam Newton to do commericals, why not?  If a kid wants to openly hire an agent or a corporate sponsor out of high school and the agent or corporate sponsor wants to openly fund him through college, go for it.  Get it out in the open, declare the money and provide education on the business-side of sports/money management.  

There are huge monetary incentives from all angles in the major NCAA sports.  If Coach K can make millions and do commercials for AmEx, why can't his players? 

The hypocrisy of the system is ridicluous.  And so is the naive ideal that its not a business and, rather, it is an educational endeavor.  Do you really think the University of Alabama gives a sh#t if it's players are going to class and getting a solid education?  Christ, Harbaugh talked about how Michigan tried to unsucessfuly steer him, and successfuly steer other players, into easy majors so as to not to interefere with their jobs---playing football.

The system needs to be scrapped and find new ways.  Get rid of the one-and-done in BBall.  Let players apply for the NFL draft without consequences out of high school (or while in college) and let the NFL decide if they want to take on project.  But stop the mock (or foolish) indignation when a player sells an autograph for a few bucks because it doesn't comply with an archaic rule.
   

The N.F.L. does not want to bite the hand that feeds it so we don't see them pushing to draft high school graduates or freshman/sophomore's. The collegiate system is the best farm system in the world. It showcases talent trains it and markets the talent on a grand scale. What is funny is the socialist agenda that one huge money maker has to support all the other programs and the thought that the women's badminton team is entitled to the same pay/ reward as the star QB.

Anyone with any business since knows better. 

The top coaches are employees so its ok they make 3 million a year but Sammy the QB needs to keep his mouth shut and take one for the team, I have meet players who played with injuries that in the end killed their shot at the Pro's. The very few who do make it to the Pro's doesn't make up for the 99.9% who don't.

Sammy should be able to sign jerseys and make appearances and other wise cash in on his work but that's wrong see it all belongs to the school.On the other hand let a English major write a best seller and who is cashing the check?

If they don't like it they can play some where else?? Where ?? With whom?? The reason schools are changing conferences is to get a bigger and better deal you think some upstart is going to compete with the SEC or Big 10 forget about it.Football is big business period. A simple rule change and the players could be employees just like the grounds keeper who also is taking classes.
6/9/2011 10:41 PM (edited)
If it was about the education Duke and Stanford would play in the championship game every year. Oh and by the way how much are they paying the swim team coach?
6/9/2011 10:50 PM (edited)
The rules won't change on player pay or endorsements because the schools don't want to change the role the N.C.A.A. plays, it works pretty well for them from the money perspective and it isn't in the players best interest either. What is funny is just how many of you drink the kool aid.
6/9/2011 11:05 PM
rmancil - You finally understand.  It's socialist, not capitalist.  Every educational institution is a non-profit.  That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them.  Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.  

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor.  It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you.  Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it.  Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete.  If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you.  If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too. 

Anyway, I'm done.  Believe what you want.  I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
 
6/9/2011 11:05 PM
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 7:03:00 PM (view original):

gah I said I was going to dismiss this inane thread from my mind but I can't do it. Everyone goes on and on about how much revenue is generated by BCS college football teams. No one is even considering expenses. So here are some numbers for you all to soak up and maybe get you to reconsider this whole "pay to play" thing. (I chose 3 big time universities randomly simply because they have had a great deal of recent success)

LSU

Football Gross Revenue: $40,107,764
All Sports Gross Revenue:$60,937,676
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $27,932,154
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $5,080,280

Ohio State

Football Gross Revenue: $51,810,607
All Sports Gross Revenue:$89,700,979
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $26,099,129
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $120, 674

Texas

Football Gross Revenue: $53.204,171
All Sports Gross Revenue:$89.651,662
Football Expense to Revenue Difference: $39,294,908
All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference: $7,250,853

Now, if you are going to try and argue that outside sources could subsidize the payment to players, that is a whole other can of worms. Again I ask.... where are you all planning to cut money to make these payments and where do you draw the line as to who gets paid?
 

Based on your figures LSU football took in 40 million and netted 28 million now you seem to think that some how will not allow a player to be paid?? You also don't wonder how they spent 13 million ok I know the coach got 3 mill or so but that still leaves 10 Mill wow somebody is paying some huge bar bills. Stadium rent?? You think the hotels are banging them that much?  

Again we see the football pays the way for all the rest ok we get it so what ? Doesn't the top revenue source need the most attention?? Does the mail room manger at Lowe's make the same as the CEO?
6/9/2011 11:11 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):
rmancil - You finally understand.  It's socialist, not capitalist.  Every educational institution is a non-profit.  That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them.  Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.  

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor.  It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you.  Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it.  Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete.  If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you.  If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too. 

Anyway, I'm done.  Believe what you want.  I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
 
You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.