VICE: Does racial resentment fuel opposition to paying college athletes?

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

Companies lose money every day. The employees there aren't forced to pay the money back. Professional sports teams lose money, they don't get their money back. That's not how shyt works. So what the fukk would you even be talking about?

Yea allowing the top schools to create a monopoly on high school kids while the other 100 D 1 programs flounder and go "out of business" like a company would sounds like a great idea. That wouldn't hurt the game at all

 

[hayesc0]

It's the dumbest argument ever anyway. Just because you're gonna spend the money on bullshyt doesn't mean you don't deserve to get paid. You "blowing" the money isn't a reason for me to not pay you for the work.

Not to mention the vibe.​

 

[#1 pick]

Yea allowing the top schools to create a monopoly on high school kids while the other 100 D 1 programs flounder and go "out of business" like a company would sounds like a great idea. That wouldn't hurt the game at all

A scholarship still has value as does playing D1 football. But now the market has

 

[#1 pick]

Yea allowing the top schools to create a monopoly on high school kids while the other 100 D 1 programs flounder and go "out of business" like a company would sounds like a great idea. That wouldn't hurt the game at all

A scholarship still has value as does playing D1 football. But now the free market has value which it didn't before. This is good for the better recruits, the stud 3 star that you want at a smaller school and a scholarship just isn't enough, you need some money to land him.

 

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

A scholarship still has value as does playing D1 football. But now the free market has value which it didn't before. This is good for the better recruits, the stud 3 star that you want at a smaller school and a scholarship just isn't enough, you need some money to land him.

Yea not sure what u are arguing. If teams were able to pay players then every top player would be going to the same few schools even if they aren't getting playing time. Bama, OSU, a few others would be paying guys to come sit on the bench just so they don't go to certain schoolsThis would cause the level of competition everywhere else to slowly die

 

[Remote]

Exactly if they don't want to pay the athletes then the coaches should be amateurs also how bout dat.

 

[Remote]

Yea allowing the top schools to create a monopoly on high school kids while the other 100 D 1 programs flounder and go "out of business" like a company would sounds like a great idea. That wouldn't hurt the game at all

If the school can't afford to pay their athletes they simply won't have a program.

Schools drop sports all the time, b

 

[Remote]

Yea not sure what u are arguing. If teams were able to pay players then every top player would be going to the same few schools even if they aren't getting playing time. Bama, OSU, a few others would be paying guys to come sit on the bench just so they don't go to certain schoolsThis would cause the level of competition everywhere else to slowly die

Yeah. Innovation doesn't happen at any other companies because Apple and Google just hire everybody.

 

[PortCityProphet]

I used to think they should then I went to Bama and erreybody on the team was riding Meros and being the hating nikka I am I changed my mind and said fukk em they already getting paid
Then I graduated and was like yea they should get paid but how you pay everyone who does athletics including women a fair wage is above my level of economics in figuring it out

 

[Remote]

I used to think they should then I went to Bama and erreybody on the team was riding Meros and being the hating nikka I am I changed my mind and said fukk em they already getting paid
Then I graduated and was like yea they should get paid but how you pay everyone who does athletics including women a fair wage is above my level of economics in figuring it out

Fair enough but this seems to encompass the exact things that @Walt was saying:

1. Emotional response
2. Complexity isn't a good enough excuse to not pay them.

 

[JerseyBoy23]

After reading the first two pages, all I'm noticing from the contrarians is that they've never watched that commercial about NCAA student-athletes going pro in something other than sports.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Oh yea btw I think you guys over value the athlete a little bit. Look at the top money making programs they either have always been historically big money or have coaches who are the reason the program is what it is.
Their are outliers like money manzeil and tamu but do you determine his worth after the season is said and done?

 

[L&HH]

Yea it makes some sense in theory. But can u not see how this would kill college football over time? Only a few schools have the money to pay players. It would be an unfair advantage NCAA won't allow that to happen.

Come on man you're an Alabama fan, you should know more than anyone of us how much this is already going on and is already effecting the parity of the game because some schools are much more willing to go to those lengths and others aren't. But also a blind eye is obviously being turned onto certain schools while others schools like Ole Miss get fukked. As far as only a "few schools have the money"...You have no idea how it'd work in a free an open system. In fact I could argue the EXACT opposite would happen and it would make MORE schools competitive than presently. If it were allowed almost every major university will be able to get the funds to compete. Alumni and boosters would come out the woodwork pitching in money. Local businesses would offer money to their universities because they'd understand the economic impact having a competitive school would bring to their community. National corporations would come into play. Nike, Under Armor, Adidas, etc would have a straight up arms race offering money to as many schools as possible. Here I'll quote Adam Smith's description of the "Invisible Hand" since you need to know how this works (although it's the same basic economic principles that control every facet of your life)

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

@Raul
@Boesky

There's a course I used to teach on critical thinking, research, and writing. One of the "controversial" issues we engaged was whether or not college athletes should be paid. During the initial discussion, 70-80% of the students were against paying the athletes. They would catalogue their reasons as a group, and analyze them in terms of logic and emotion. Every single argument was emotional. Then they did research on their own, stripping out emotion and focusing only on facts and consistency of principles. The next week 70-80% of the class was adamantly in favor of paying the athletes. Last October -which was my final time teaching that specific course - was the first time, after research, 60-70% of the class was still against paying athletes. Their arguments and papers, regardless of the assignment, still leaned heavily on emotion. It was one of a handful of things that gave me a chilling feeling Trump was really going to win the election.

It's 100% emotion. I've had this argument with non-black people and the main retorts they'd have are: "they're just going to blow the money on dumb shyt anyways" "They're already out of control, imagine what would happen if they started getting paid" "Man if they're getting paid, I should get paid too" (it's funny I typed this last one before reading this thread and there was someone in here who made that exact post smh)

Not really. If u go into a smart field and work ur ass off then it will definitely pay off. Its the people that fail to do one or the other that end up not getting the most out of it.

You realize athletes are currently prevented from taking those majors that "will definitely pay off". Actually it isn't all athletes that are prevented from taking those majors only the ones that play the sports that provide the economic engine for the school. So why are those athletes ACTIVELY prevented from taking those majors while the other athletes that you're so worried about getting compensated aren't? Where's the outrage there?

Do we take the profit that Alabama gets to pay the 100+ D1 schools that lose moneyNeed answers @Walt

Isn't this already the case?
SEC revenues balloon to NCAA-record $455.8M

What if that free market involved pro teams paying you?

Isn't this already the case? Don't athletes jump ship as soon as they're eligible? Athletes are skipping bowl games so they don't get injured and can prepare for the combine. What's the problem with that?

 

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

If the school can't afford to pay their athletes they simply won't have a program.

Schools drop sports all the time, b

shyt will literally turn into a mini NFL over a long period of time. Will end up with only 30-40 D1 football squads

Yeah. Innovation doesn't happen at any other companies because Apple and Google just hire everybody.

How many companies are legit on their level competing with them?.. Exactly my point, thanks

 

[Anerdyblackguy]

Not really. If u go into a smart field and work ur ass off then it will definitely pay off. Its the people that fail to do one or the other that end up not getting the most out of it.

I agree to an extent with some of those degrees. There are only 4-5 fields I would go into expecting to get a good job. But thats plenty so yea no excuses tbh. So many ppl would kill for a free education to literally ANYWHERE in the country and any program at that school...


Ok so what do u purpose that they just pay the top guys and the rest get nothing? How do u think that would work? Like I've said a few times now it would just be unfair the top programs would dominate even more.

What does the weed argument have to do with this lol


How so?

A majority of these football and basketball players come from middle to low income families. You keep bringing up expenses( tuition, housing, etc,) but they wouldn't be paying that full tuition anyway. With Pell Grants, endowment scholarships, other forms of miniority scholarships these tuition prices that you stated is an overestimation.