Jocephus wrote:...but thats the idea of going to college, getting a degree...
I'd argue the idea of going to college is to get a job.
that'd be an argument in semantics.
I don't think so, at least not in this case.
There's a small minority of athletes where graduating would actually cost them money. Sure, in the grand scheme of things and looking at your average student, it is semantics. People go to college to get a degree that will help them get a 'better' job and make more money. Degree = job.
But, college football is a billion dollar business and we are specifically talking about the small minority here, so degree does not equal job. Nobody cares what Clowney's GPA is, for instance. And, going further, we are not even talking about those billion dollars, we're talking only about players' safety in this attempt to unionize.
ndistops wrote:If players want to be paid for playing sports alone and there's a market for that, it should be on the pro leagues to make it happen, not on colleges and universities. Colleges weren't the ones who made the 'minimum 3 years out of high school' rule.
There you go.
Stop attacking the universities, and just do your own thing. They aren't obligated to play NCAA football.
Jocephus wrote:...but thats the idea of going to college, getting a degree...
I'd argue the idea of going to college is to get a job.
that'd be an argument in semantics.
I don't think so, at least not in this case.
There's a small minority of athletes where graduating would actually cost them money. Sure, in the grand scheme of things and looking at your average student, it is semantics. People go to college to get a degree that will help them get a 'better' job and make more money. Degree = job.
But, college football is a billion dollar business and we are specifically talking about the small minority here, so degree does not equal job. Nobody cares what Clowney's GPA is, for instance. And, going further, we are not even talking about those billion dollars, we're talking only about players' safety in this attempt to unionize.
i was talking about your average student (and i think you could argue that most college athletes are your average student, ie, not going to pros). im still not exactly sure what yer argument is, as your first paragraph basically combines what i said and what you said (at least in my mind)
clowney is in the 1% that will actually go to a pro league. i get that academics are probably the last thing on his mind and the minds of his handlers. it shouldn't be (a degree might be nice if he breaks a leg and never regains whatever he has) but i can understand if his focus is elsewhere (and based on his apparent/perceived lack of motivation this past season) it would seem it has been for awhile.
ndistops wrote:If players want to be paid for playing sports alone and there's a market for that, it should be on the pro leagues to make it happen, not on colleges and universities. Colleges weren't the ones who made the 'minimum 3 years out of high school' rule.
There you go.
Stop attacking the universities, and just do your own thing. They aren't obligated to play NCAA football.
Club sports in universities are fine. Are you familiar with those? They are put together mainly by students, often don't have a coach (if they do it is a volunteer). These really fit in well with the spirit of sports being extracurricular and a fun and good thing for students in college.
Football and basketball make so many millions that they probably SHOULD be split out from universities, especially public universities. Why is a public institution of learning involved in providing entertainment like this? At least with pro sports the public usually only builds the stadiums (which itself can be problematic as we have seen). The public doesn't normally operate the franchises, though. They are run by people who are in the entertainment business. Its really kind of bizarre that a university chancellor is the person that all these sports industry people have to report up to, ultimately.
Jocephus wrote:...but thats the idea of going to college, getting a degree...
I'd argue the idea of going to college is to get a job.
that'd be an argument in semantics.
I don't think so, at least not in this case.
There's a small minority of athletes where graduating would actually cost them money. Sure, in the grand scheme of things and looking at your average student, it is semantics. People go to college to get a degree that will help them get a 'better' job and make more money. Degree = job.
But, college football is a billion dollar business and we are specifically talking about the small minority here, so degree does not equal job. Nobody cares what Clowney's GPA is, for instance. And, going further, we are not even talking about those billion dollars, we're talking only about players' safety in this attempt to unionize.
i was talking about your average student (and i think you could argue that most college athletes are your average student, ie, not going to pros). im still not exactly sure what yer argument is, as your first paragraph basically combines what i said and what you said (at least in my mind)
clowney is in the 1% that will actually go to a pro league. i get that academics are probably the last thing on his mind and the minds of his handlers. it shouldn't be (a degree might be nice if he breaks a leg and never regains whatever he has) but i can understand if his focus is elsewhere (and based on his apparent/perceived lack of motivation this past season) it would seem it has been for awhile.
My point is that some people aren't going to school for a degree and the pay/production for those players is incredibly skewed in favor of the schools/NCAA. From some people a scholarship is worthless. You could pay them half what the scholarship is worth, not encumber them with the burden of attending classes, still allow them to play and they'd be better off for it.
Jocephus wrote:ok gotcha. yea, for sure. but then why even bother with NCAA football? why not go CFL or arena for 3 years?
(dont get me wrong, something needs changing)
I don't know if 18 year olds are physically mature enough to go to the CFL or arena football and play against 30 year old roided up guys.
A developmental league ala minor league baseball might be nice, but then the NFL will have to branch out to that. As it is, the NCAA does a great job of helping these guys get into prime physical shape for football as they grow. Which is nice for the NFL. At the same time, it does nothing for the players that a good minor league system wouldn't.
FWIW, I don't care if a minor league system replaces NCAAF. It wouldn't have as much fanfare, most likely, but it would likely be better for the players.
lukethedrifter wrote:Does someone here think that the major universities are looking to divest themselves of big time athletics?
Think they want minor league football and basketball to replace college sports?
They most certainly do not. But it's not major universities' fault that college sports is pretty much the only option for football and basketball players whose only real interest is going to the pros. I suspect that group of players isn't as large as popular narrative suggests, but they do exist. And the pro leagues made the rules making college sports the only avenue for those kids, not the colleges.
Jocephus wrote:ok gotcha. yea, for sure. but then why even bother with NCAA football? why not go CFL or arena for 3 years?
(dont get me wrong, something needs changing)
I don't know if 18 year olds are physically mature enough to go to the CFL or arena football and play against 30 year old roided up guys.
A developmental league ala minor league baseball might be nice, but then the NFL will have to branch out to that. As it is, the NCAA does a great job of helping these guys get into prime physical shape for football as they grow. Which is nice for the NFL. At the same time, it does nothing for the players that a good minor league system wouldn't.
FWIW, I don't care if a minor league system replaces NCAAF. It wouldn't have as much fanfare, most likely, but it would likely be better for the players.
i suppose i'd "argue" with the bolded...it does give them a free (or highly discounted) higher education. obviously, you only get out what you put in (and possibly student athletes don't put in much) but i feel like education is so important, particularly for young adults who may be on the verge of obtaining large amounts of money and/or fame/press...and while there may not be specific classes on "being a professional athlete" it could give them sharper critical thinking skills, which even could help on the playing field, but particularly in the game called "life" (corny i know).
i thought part of the attention ncaa athletics got was that it was "free from money" (for players) and thus, theoretically, more focus on the team aspect/playing a game you love. it just seems odd to have "ringers" on a college team. i realize that the powerhouse schools are basically nfl-lite teams and some of the players are in essence "ringers" but...i dunno...im losing my train of thought...i guess im a "in theory" person
id be interested in knowing though, if the ncaa is re-distributing funds, is that socialism?!?!
