RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

A modest proposal

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/19 4:22 pm    ::: A modest proposal Reply Reply with quote

I just posted this on Facebook ...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157219275331928&set=a.10152559431771928&type=3&theater



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5734
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/19 10:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If GRAD Corporation's primary purpose is to pay college athletes, I doubt it would qualify as a tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation. If it doesn't qualify, donations to it would not be tax deductible, thereby hurting it's ability to raise money. Maybe it's not essential to your overall proposal.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/04/19 9:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
If GRAD Corporation's primary purpose is to pay college athletes, I doubt it would qualify as a tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation. If it doesn't qualify, donations to it would not be tax deductible, thereby hurting it's ability to raise money. Maybe it's not essential to your overall proposal.


One can write mission statements in many ways -- or of course a different 501(c) category could be created.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 13687
Location: Los Angeles


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/04/19 9:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Since you are in favor of paying and they are employees, where do you stand on paying for housing, paying for tuition, paying for food, paying for insurance, paying for gear. You mention they should be treated as employees, why for the most part employees have to pay for all of that, some schools offer discounts in tuition, but some they charge full price for tuition if they wanted to take classes, employees have to pay for their rent our housing out of their check, it’s not budgeted as part of a scholarship, for food a lot of teams offer free food options for athletes such as putting money on their student ID to pay for food on campus, and some off campus locations and that is not available to the coaches and staff. And in the last couple of years employees have now been taxed on a portion of all gear they receive, where as student athletes get it for free.

As an 18-19 year old with little to no financial stability and probably little to no credit, that is asking a lot of them and their families as I’m sure many families are unable afford all of their financial responsibility.



_________________
DeLisha Milton-Jones is my favorite player Smile

Win or Lose LA Sparks Fan for life!!!
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 10:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GEF34 wrote:
Since you are in favor of paying and they are employees, where do you stand on paying for housing, paying for tuition, paying for food, paying for insurance, paying for gear. You mention they should be treated as employees, why for the most part employees have to pay for all of that, some schools offer discounts in tuition, but some they charge full price for tuition if they wanted to take classes, employees have to pay for their rent our housing out of their check, it’s not budgeted as part of a scholarship, for food a lot of teams offer free food options for athletes such as putting money on their student ID to pay for food on campus, and some off campus locations and that is not available to the coaches and staff. And in the last couple of years employees have now been taxed on a portion of all gear they receive, where as student athletes get it for free.

As an 18-19 year old with little to no financial stability and probably little to no credit, that is asking a lot of them and their families as I’m sure many families are unable afford all of their financial responsibility.


As noted in the proposal, all the NCAA scholarship structure remains in place. The payments to certain players are completely voluntary and do not come from the university.

But please ... a college coach makes anywhere from $100,000 to several million, and those salaries go for food, housing, etc.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 13687
Location: Los Angeles


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 11:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
GEF34 wrote:
Since you are in favor of paying and they are employees, where do you stand on paying for housing, paying for tuition, paying for food, paying for insurance, paying for gear. You mention they should be treated as employees, why for the most part employees have to pay for all of that, some schools offer discounts in tuition, but some they charge full price for tuition if they wanted to take classes, employees have to pay for their rent our housing out of their check, it’s not budgeted as part of a scholarship, for food a lot of teams offer free food options for athletes such as putting money on their student ID to pay for food on campus, and some off campus locations and that is not available to the coaches and staff. And in the last couple of years employees have now been taxed on a portion of all gear they receive, where as student athletes get it for free.

As an 18-19 year old with little to no financial stability and probably little to no credit, that is asking a lot of them and their families as I’m sure many families are unable afford all of their financial responsibility.


As noted in the proposal, all the NCAA scholarship structure remains in place. The payments to certain players are completely voluntary and do not come from the university.

But please ... a college coach makes anywhere from $100,000 to several million, and those salaries go for food, housing, etc.


My point isn’t they coaches should get those things paid for by the university, my point is if you are paying the athletes those should be things that need to be considered. And not all college coaches make 6 figures, I looked at some college coaching jobs this summer and some were $40,000.



_________________
DeLisha Milton-Jones is my favorite player Smile

Win or Lose LA Sparks Fan for life!!!
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 1:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14930
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 1:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14930
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/19 5:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/19 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


I agree completely. The whole NCAA system makes no sense -- unless college athletics are a net positive for those schools that have them. And since no schools that I know of have dropped athletics entirely, and there are always schools moving up to Division I, it's pretty clear that athletics are good for colleges, despite the support for divers and gymnasts.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14930
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/19 10:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


I agree completely. The whole NCAA system makes no sense -- unless college athletics are a net positive for those schools that have them. And since no schools that I know of have dropped athletics entirely, and there are always schools moving up to Division I, it's pretty clear that athletics are good for colleges, despite the support for divers and gymnasts.


You seem to think university leaders are rational actors, with the good of their institution as their only goal.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/19 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


I agree completely. The whole NCAA system makes no sense -- unless college athletics are a net positive for those schools that have them. And since no schools that I know of have dropped athletics entirely, and there are always schools moving up to Division I, it's pretty clear that athletics are good for colleges, despite the support for divers and gymnasts.


You seem to think university leaders are rational actors, with the good of their institution as their only goal.


Of course some of them aren't rational actors ... but some of them are. And if no rational actors have eliminated sports, then sports must be good for colleges.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14930
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/19 11:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


I agree completely. The whole NCAA system makes no sense -- unless college athletics are a net positive for those schools that have them. And since no schools that I know of have dropped athletics entirely, and there are always schools moving up to Division I, it's pretty clear that athletics are good for colleges, despite the support for divers and gymnasts.


You seem to think university leaders are rational actors, with the good of their institution as their only goal.


Of course some of them aren't rational actors ... but some of them are. And if no rational actors have eliminated sports, then sports must be good for colleges.


I note you don't address the second part of the sentence.

College athletics are good for campus leaders, which is quite different than being good for institutions.


willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 791
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/19 4:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
A good point ... the total value, with room and board, is certainly greater than just tuition. Nonetheless, Alabama's QB is still underpaid.


And most athletes are overpaid ...


Perhaps ... but that's capitalism.


Well, no. It's the scholarship system that currently holds up virtually all of intercollegiate athletics. Almost all college athletes have skills that are worth essentially nothing on the open market. For every Alabama quarterback, there is the entire population of college divers, for example, who are dramatically overpaid just on the basis of their scholarships.


I agree completely. The whole NCAA system makes no sense -- unless college athletics are a net positive for those schools that have them. And since no schools that I know of have dropped athletics entirely, and there are always schools moving up to Division I, it's pretty clear that athletics are good for colleges, despite the support for divers and gymnasts.
That is the essense of my argument against paying college athletes. Their athletic skills would have no value in the open market place. The few that do can leave anytime they chose and become professionals.

In fact, if you took away the college brand name, which draws in most of the money, even the major college sports like football and mens basketball would not have much value. It is not the athletes that sell college sports but the name of the Universtities they play for. Take those athelets and put them on simi pro teams and no one would pay to watch them. Most simi pro teams are better than the college teams.

Relate that to womens sports, primarily basketball and it has no value what so ever. Those professional sports do not even support their cost let alone make a profit. The over seas teams are supported by either cities or private businesses.

In fact, what student athletes get via scholarships and benifits are way more than they are worth. Except for title 9 most wouldn't even be getting that. Two wrongs do not make a right. So just because some college coaches are over paid does not mean everyone has to be.



_________________
No one one is ever as good as their best game, nor as bad as their worst.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/19 9:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

First, the skills acquired by drama, history, philosophy and music majors have about the same market value as athletes.

Second, the point here is that the payments are voluntary. No one has to make them if they don't feel they're worth it. Of course, in the past 50 years, not one school that I know of has voluntarily dropped out of Division I, and few, if any, at any level, have dropped athletics entirely. Clearly, the programs have value or at least one administrator/board would have pulled the plug.

Of course, the vast majority of scholarship athletes do well, all things considered, but the colleges are doing pretty well too, as evidenced by the fact that they continue to invest in athletics. If athletics did not make financial sense, then there would be no investment.

I just don't get why people don't want the market to determine how much an adult's services are worth. No one is losing anything, and instead of under-the-table corruption, now the books are open.

It's just justice. Why should older males (usually) get so much more money -- and I include ADs and staffers with solid salaries, benefits, etc. -- than young athletes when it's the athletes who are generating the income? (When teams have inferior athletes, the value of athletics for that particular school goes down.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14930
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/19 9:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
First, the skills acquired by drama, history, philosophy and music majors have about the same market value as athletes.


I'm sorry, but that is the biggest bunch of nonsense you have peddled on here. Students with those majors are getting college degrees, which, regardless of major and regardless of what Republican politicians want you to believe, have massive economic benefit.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10066



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/19 2:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So you're saying athletes don't get degrees? If so, then of course I'm wrong.

But a student who essentially majors in their sport, and graduates, is at the same level as all other grads who lack a direct pipeline to the job market.

And I thought, though it's my failing memory, that athletes were slightly more likely to graduate than students who weren't intercollegiate athletes.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin