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

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

Ok so what's your response to only 20 schools making money from their athletic department?

UAB's football program was costing them so much money they just had to cut it. 0 D2 or D3 programs make any money.

 

[Walt]

0 D2 or D3 programs make any money.

Are you troll or a college student who has never learned to think critically? If the latter, you have my pity. In either case you still wouldn't get me to waste my time arguing with you.

 

[boskey]

They'll just jack up tuition more on students. They're not touching those profits

Sports is already contributing to tuition increases

Winning football games = more applicants/more demand = tuition increase

@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.

Damn both the course and the results sounds interesting

Was the change gradual or did that Trump effect happen overnight?

 

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

Are you troll or a college student who has never learned to think critically? If the latter, you have my pity. In either case you still wouldn't get me to waste my time arguing with you.

U keep acting like I don't know what I'm talking about but u have yet to explain why or how we would pay players. Only the teams making profit get paid? Only the players putting up stats get paid? Explain please I'd like to know from a brilliant man like urself.

 

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

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

 

[JahBuhLun]

@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.

Did you get a sense that the students reasoning had a racial tinge to it?

 

[TUA TAGOVAILOA]

If you are suggesting that only the best teams and players get paid then I'm all for that! Would only make the top teams even stronger and leave a huge gape between the teams that don't make any money. Sound thinking all the way around from u. I like it

 

[Uitomy]

fukk that, as a student if they get paid then they need to give us other students a grant worth as much as they get paid, yeah they make money for the school but we give money to the school straight up and that's why it won't ever happen (on a large scale at least) there's gonna be protests everywherw

 

[JP_614]

Just allow them to make money off their name imo

 

[Big Boss]

That's what they wanna avoid. It's an all or nothing thing

Basically

 

[Uitomy]

But not all tuition is the same. This is the SEC tuition list:

Bruh a majority of the players on those teams are usually out of state

In the end at minimum most of their education would be worth like 20-30k in full and at most 100-150k, that's a huge fukking lick to make on a school cause you can play ball no matter what

 

[Steezy]

Athletes should be able to market themselves and get money but as far as a straight up check nah.. Just makes no sense and folks taking about free labor like the women's golf team are complaining about being slaves yall sound silly.

 

[Uitomy]

Now what I do disagree with is the fact they can barely do shyt to make money outside of school tho, that's bs

 

[boskey]

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

I will take this.

It will work the way 100% of other jobs in capitalist America work. Some guys get more, some guys get less. The ones that get less are free to search for better options. If they have no options, then they must deal with less. If a school is in the red then they will take loans/cut cost/ fund raise to improve their sports (all things that colleges already do regularly). If a school doesn't feel like raising money for sports then they can offer nothing just like they do today.

There is no parity in D-1 athletics and their never has been. Alabama has been a powerhouse for 60 years and Vanderbilt has never been one. Somehow Vanderbilt still attracts players...

 

[Walt]

Damn both the course and the results sounds interesting

Was the change gradual or did that Trump effect happen overnight?

The country has gradually drifted this way. We didn't arrive at this anti-human, anti-thought place overnight. We actually discussed that as well: the meaningless of terms from era to era. Obama as a socialist, etc. What the students deduced was reflexive obedience to corporate values shifted the supposed left so right, the right had litte turf to claim in opposition. The right had to get more extreme in order to have an agenda that really seemed oppositional. It seemed like this would leave the right with very little room to operate because it was being pushed to looniness. But the massive failures of our educational system and the erosion of crucial social institutions (like unions, to cite an obvious example) has created a population that is woefully undereducated and less financially stable. We're more susceptible to fact-free appeals to emotion than ever.

So yeah, it has been gradual but the shift still seemed sudden, if that makes sense.