I already addressed this issue, its just like internships, interships for engineers pay more than internships for sociology students. the same logic should apply to sports. why should the football players be subsidizing the golfers anyway? that's not an argument. students don't subsidize other students. and even if they do, it isn't necessary to keep golf around, especially if it isn't making money.
pgabriel.. Women's sports do not make money overall. You can't have the football team without at least several womens sports. It isn't as easy as just getting rid of those that lose money. Additionally, where do you think this "money made" goes? It most cases it is staying in the athletic department further benefiting the student athletes, correct?
I just watched my school cut the mens soccer team and add another womens team in order to comply with title ix. You can't have football legally, without having womens sports that mostly lose money.
how many times do I have to ask this question? why should football players and basketball players subsidize other athletes? I'm talking about a complete and total change in the system. why isn't it easy to get rid of non makers, companies across america do it all the time. this is the true nature of how unfair the system. the football team is a business, the diving team is a chance for someone to go to college based on a sport that no one gives a crap about but the football players have to subsidize the diving team? there is no reason someone should get to go to college because they were a good diver in high school.
pgabriel. title ix basically makes schools have an equal amount going to mens and womens sports. You can't legally get rid of all the womens sports that are losing money.
I don't give a crap about the law. com'on, you're smarter than that, tell me your opinion. the law can be changed.
I think you are going to have a lot of trouble getting rid of title ix. Personally, I like having different sports even if they don't make profits and I'm glad my school (Vanderbilt) has sports even if we aren't making huge profits. My point is though that the majority of schools aren't making huge profits. Yes, Texas etc are.. but a great number are not. I don't think we need to pay them, but I do think we need to educate them. If you are going to offer them a free education for being athletes, let them take the classes they need to take, give them time to study, etc.
You don't have to get rid of title IX. Just get rid of mens sports that don't make money. Soccer, track, wrestling, swimming, etc.
sam.. Even if you get rid of the mens sports that lose money. You are still going to have womens basketball, diving, track, tennis etc losing money
but I'd prefer my university have more than just football. I don't think you have to be making profit to justify having a free education. Anymore than a kid with a 1600 SAT that the school is spending 40k a year on to give a full ride to... Now you can argue about whether or not playing a sport is a good reason why a kid without good grades etc should get into college, but whether or not the sport is making the profit isn't my concern in that discussion
schools that have good football teams make money. that's their incentive to be good, that's why they lower standards. if your argument is that these kids should be required to meet standards and be treated as normal students, well what do you think would be harder to implement, my system, or making these kids live up to regular standards. that's a fantasy. and that's the point, we're already operating under a big lie when it comes to college sports. so why not just change the system so that these incidents won't be happening in the first place. i guarantee reggie bush made enough money for usc to pay for that house in the Rose Bowl alone.
I would agree with you if the NFL and NCAA didn't collude to keep these great young players from viable alternatives. The pro leagues even have special anti-trust exemptions. Further, the NCAA servely restricts insurance and doesn't allow endorsements. Sorry the system totally exploits players like VY and R. Bush, what if they got a Bo Jackson like injury at the Rose Bowl? Totally exploitive situation with little personal protections from my perspective. I wouldn't blame Bush and his family for getting sweetheart deals to protect their earning potential, though little to no rent for a year is hardly long term thinking. Under the table million bucks gift (pay me that much now on the condition if I get a 10 mil contract down the line I'll pay you 1.5 of it--not loans but gifts) I would have no problem with.
Only if you graduate. And that is the key portion of my line of reasoning that you conveniently left out: graduation rates. Education for play is a great deal, so long as you get a chance to do your school work and learn (which many athletes don't, with the help/collusion of the athletic dept.) and, most importantly, graduate. Without that, you didn't get the $100,000 sheepskin. For me the issue isn't about the Youngs and Bushes but the Joe Blows we never hear about, who don't get a quality education and/or don't even graduate.
But that's the player's choice. The universities give them more than enough assistance - free tuition, housing, etc. Free tutoring, whatever. It's up to the player to put in the effort to be successful. Like an internship/apprenticeship, you can choose to do nothing and get nothing out of it, or get a huge return if you work your ass off.
I beleived that too until I witnessed first hand the obligations and pressure those cats have to bear. The universities provide assistance both above and below the table. Its the below the table stuff that irks me most. Not all coaches hold their guys to a single high standard. Some coaches just exploit and move on. Yeah, you can always come back to the individualism argument, and that will always have merit. But you can't eschew the institutional critique for the individual (in this instance) operates within the institution.
pgabriel.. all i know is that my biggest problem with college athletics is the number of schools that do not have their players graduating. one of the motives behind my school getting rid of the seperate athletic department and putting it into student life was to make sure that the athletes are allowed to do more than just be athletes 24/7... the schools should make sure that the players have time to both do work and be athletes.. I agree with that part
If the allegations are true, Bush is dirty and probaby fit into the decision making process a little...The article about "extortion" is pretty damning, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty...If they didn't pay a dime, then shame on Bush...
A HUGE BUMp: Does anyone out there, like me, think that this had ANYTHING to do with selecting MARIO WILLIAMS???
