View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 23rd, 2014, 8:28 pm



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools 
Author Message
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: September 5th, 2006, 12:30 pm
Posts: 726
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
I believe their scholarship allows them to live on or off campus, they might have to get a waiver from the coach to do so but it is allowable.

_________________
"When you eat crow, if you put barbecue on it, it's not so bad."-Brady Hoke


September 15th, 2011, 9:54 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
As well, it is CHEAPER tot live of campus an rent than the amount they deduct from your scholarship to live on campus. The mechanism is this:

You to to college, you book classes, you get a dorm room and pick one based on what you like and the cost of that dorm, you pick a meal plan.

They take the cost of the classes you chose, books your need, dorm room expenses from your selection, and meal plan then deduct any scholarships and federal loans you recieved. If there is + money left over they cut you a check for the rest and you can either pay it back into the loan right away or use it for living expenses like travel cost or other things you need beyond the minimal basics like other food (most meal plans don't cover all meals), transportation, etc. If it is -, the you have to cut a check to the school in full or get on a payment plan.

If you decide to live off campus, their is no dorm cost to the school, so they can cut you more money back that you use to pay rent. Example is at MSU dorm cost around $8000 for 9ish months. That is almost $900 dollars a month for rent in a crapy dorm room and a meal plan that covers 50% of your meals. Comparitevly you can rent a house for $600-900 a month with three bedrooms and share that cost 3 ways or rent a 2 bedroom apartment for $400-$600 and split it in half. Then take $200 for food and save yourself TONS of money.

All that and you are as well not sucked into the dorm rules and more free in the "real world."

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 10:03 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12053
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Hmm, must be nice to have the OPTION of whether or not to live on campus; I'd bet a lot of those in the US military would like that option, unfortunately for them they HAVE to live ON BASE and within the rules (damn rules anyway). Also sounds like a lot of it comes down to being able to effectively manage their finances, something which is needed in the 'real world'. I wonder where these kids could get information about handling their finances...perhaps the school might have a course or two in it? :wink:

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


September 15th, 2011, 10:17 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Wags, you are missing the point. The point is that yes, they do have to manage their finances and this little nip about having a "choice" is a complete red herring to the discussion. But the main issue is, there are X cost for the student athlete each year, they get Y which is opn average $3-$4k less than X. They earn the university through their sport Z which is twice to four times as much as Y.

This opens the door to a need, that need have the option to be filled by boosters and fans. Fill that need there is less reasons to take $ from the boosters.

But what you are doing is ignorantly playing off the fact that that $3-$4k isn't video games and hummers. We are not talking about kids who don't contribute to the school at a level that they are worth more their their compensation. These are you and me who are a consumer of the university, we are talking about kids who are a benefit to the university.

You are playing off their financials like they are mismanaging their money and premadonas. You are ignorantly saying that the $3-$4k is because they are the issue. The research was looking into ACTUAL cost for student, not one blosing money on strip joint and $40,000 cars. Don't be so flippant, it is not becoming. The FACT is that these are not just some random kids trying to get an education. They are kids that make the university so much money they pay for the athletic department budget and feed money into the university. They give the university more than they get.

All we are talking about is the university covering the real reasonable cost of living. You keep downplaying it like we should put them through the scchool of hard knocks because others have to. Screw that, that is a BS remark. Once others contribute to the university in a way that makes them that valuable then we can use them as an example. Until then I don't care what some poor kid had to do to get through college and get a good job. Heck, that was me and I wouldn't take the experiance back for anything, I learned a lot the hard way. I also will make sure my kids learn that as well.

But that is NOT the place for the NCAA to force. When they do, kids look for a way to fill it. I had no one offering me $200 here, $400 there. I wasn't worth it. They are... so let's compensate them for their living expenses so that they have no needs, no excuses. Let's do the BARE MINIMUM and cover their average living expenses.

But for a sec, let's compare them to someone who does add value. Many highyl valued grad students have the opportunity to go tto grad school, work as a teaching assistant (about the same hours total as a football player) and get paid $30-$40k a year and get free tuition. Why allow that? Why not put them through the scchool of hard knocks? Why not force them to "live in the real world?" Why do we make speccial cases for student athletes who porvide more financial benefit than 99% of the students on campus and compensate them LESS than others who provide little benefit?

It makes no sense and the arguments to date seem petty and "I didn't get mine so why should they!"

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 10:36 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9454
Location: Dallas
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
steensn wrote:
This opens the door to a need, that need have the option to be filled by boosters and fans. Fill that need there is less reasons to take $ from the boosters.


A small need that can easily be taken care of with a summer job. Or how about a part-time job in the offseason? There are ways to get this difference without turning to more money from the school or by boosters, funny how you never include other options where the kid is actually responsible for himself.

steensn wrote:
But for a sec, let's compare them to someone who does add value. Many highyl valued grad students have the opportunity to go tto grad school, work as a teaching assistant (about the same hours total as a football player) and get paid $30-$40k a year and get free tuition. Why allow that? Why not put them through the scchool of hard knocks? Why not force them to "live in the real world?" Why do we make speccial cases for student athletes who porvide more financial benefit than 99% of the students on campus and compensate them LESS than others who provide little benefit?

It makes no sense and the arguments to date seem petty and "I didn't get mine so why should they!"


OK, lets compare them. How about to other kids in undergraduate school like them. Many of these kids take internships, they add a lot more value then they get in return.

The arguments seem petty to you because you have zero'd in on folks using themselves as points of comparisons, and why not - we also struggled in college and can relate. How bout these arguments/questions:

1) How about other student athletes getting paid?
2) Why stop here, I can tell you in Texas their are some high schools pulling in a lot of $ from football - guess those players also need to get paid based on your value argument.
3) Will the boosters/athletes stop cheating the system? The answer is no, of course, so what are you really solving?
4) Do players at the bigger schools get more money? Or should it be even? If it isn't even, how many more players are going to want to transfer schools to get more money once they play well on the field?
5) We all go to see the QB, shouldn't they get the bulk of the money since they are the ones that people are paying to see?
6) If you redshirt as a freshman, you add no value thus get no money? What if you are on the team but don't play?
7) What about the fans? Are you so naive as to think ticket prices won't be raised as result? What about tuition prices, etc? The money is going to come from somewhere...
8) Do they get bonuses based on performance? What if the team makes it to a bowl and gets real big money - shouldn't that go to these players as well?
9) Once we start paying players, everything then changes. They are no longer amatuer, so lets open the door to endorsement deals, sponsorships, etc.
10) If a team gets put on probation, do they lose the ability to pay players much like they lose scholarships?

I could go on an on with potential unintended consequences that aren't considered at the surface level when you make arguments like this. Better start answering lots of questions and really understanding the full ramifications of a change like this.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 15th, 2011, 10:54 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Pablo wrote:
steensn wrote:
This opens the door to a need, that need have the option to be filled by boosters and fans. Fill that need there is less reasons to take $ from the boosters.


A small need that can easily be taken care of with a summer job. Or how about a part-time job in the offseason? There are ways to get this difference without turning to more money from the school or by boosters, funny how you never include other options where the kid is actually responsible for himself.



Many are offered that option, but I am asking why. Why make them make that difference up with a summer job? Honestly? They provide the school with millions of dollars of income, why would they not get their expenses paid?

I don't mention it as an option because it is honestly stupid. Why make special cases for athletes? That is my point. Their value is significantly more financially their their payment, why not just at minimum cover their expenses. I don't care if they could ge a job, the question that you can's answer is "why?" Why shouldn't they just get their expenses covered through the mechanism they get the school millions of dollars from?

Pablo wrote:
OK, lets compare them. How about to other kids in undergraduate school like them. Many of these kids take internships, they add a lot more value then they get in return.


Yes and as part of my internship I made $30-$40 k a year working for a company. Some don't get ng paid at all... but the company they work for is the one not paying them, not the school. This is not about companies not paying interns in some cases, but rather schools not covering expenses of the students making them millions and then telling them they can't benefit off of it...

Pablo wrote:
The arguments seem petty to you because you have zero'd in on folks using themselves as points of comparisons, and why not - we also struggled in college and can relate.


I'm one as well, my parents didn't pay a dime for my college. I am still paying it off. I had to work my way through. I'm not talking in ignorance, I am being objective here. It isn't about what I had to go through so other should to, that is petty and self righteous. It is about what makes sense for the situation they are in.

Pablo wrote:

How bout these arguments/questions:

1) How about other student athletes getting paid?


If their value is high enough that they earn it, sure. If not, then no one is goig to offer them money because no one cares about them. AKA me on the track team. I could have won the javalin throwing for Toledo in the MAC every year and no one would care or offer me money. But Chester Taylor, everyone new him on campus and students wanted to buy him lunch. I shouldn't have gotten more of a scholarship because I didn't add any financial value, I actually cost the school money so they cut the whole team.

Pablo wrote:
2) Why stop here, I can tell you in Texas their are some high schools pulling in a lot of $ from football - guess those players also need to get paid based on your value argument.


No because you are now showing you don't get the point. These kids are not moving out of their parents homes and going to a university where they have to now have enough money to survive away from their parents. We aren't talking about giving out spending money to compensate them. We are talking about covering the expenses of the player to actually go to the new location and live.

High school athletes are supposed to play in the school district their parents/gaurdian live in. Playing football doesn't add expense to the student, the school pays for the equipement and transportation to the games. Their parents were supposed to feed them and give them a place to live with or without football in that location per the law. Playing football doeesn't add cost to the student where the school is bringing in enough money to cover the cost.

You are clearly not seeing the poin here if you think this is at all relevant.

Pablo wrote:
3) Will the boosters/athletes stop cheating the system? The answer is no, of course, so what are you really solving?


No, but it gives the student LESS reason to take something from a booster because the university has properly filled their needs.

Pablo wrote:
4) Do players at the bigger schools get more money? Or should it be even? If it isn't even, how many more players are going to want to transfer schools to get more money once they play well on the field?


Still have to sit out a year. Wee are talking $3-$4k. Good players already change schools if they play better so they have a chance at the pros. Nothing changes if the schools are allowed to offer $3-$4k more a year. We are not talking alot of of money... just enough that it clearly covers most infractions we see per player. There is still the 1 year sit-out rule for transfers between D1 schools. This is a non issue...

Pablo wrote:
5) We all go to see the QB, shouldn't they get the bulk of the money since they are the ones that people are paying to see?


Again, are you being purposefully ignorant? Where did I suggestt PAYING players? Stop playing the stupid game here, you know full well we are talking about $3-$4k, not paying on performance or worth. Think a bit, it helps understand things when people are being uber clear.

Pablo wrote:
6) If you redshirt as a freshman, you add no value thus get no money? What if you are on the team but don't play?
7) What about the fans? Are you so naive as to think ticket prices won't be raised as result? What about tuition prices, etc? The money is going to come from somewhere...
8) Do they get bonuses based on performance? What if the team makes it to a bowl and gets real big money - shouldn't that go to these players as well?
9) Once we start paying players, everything then changes. They are no longer amatuer, so lets open the door to endorsement deals, sponsorships, etc.
10) If a team gets put on probation, do they lose the ability to pay players much like they lose scholarships?


Again, all proof you are not even trying here...

Pablo wrote:
I could go on an on with potential unintended consequences that aren't considered at the surface level when you make arguments like this. Better start answering lots of questions and really understanding the full ramifications of a change like this.


We could, if we were actually talking about the same thing. Take a second... read a bit, get bacck to me when you can prove you are even attempting to read what I a-m suggesting.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 11:15 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9454
Location: Dallas
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
steensn wrote:
We could, if we were actually talking about the same thing. Take a second... read a bit, get bacck to me when you can prove you are even attempting to read what I a-m suggesting.


I have, problem is what you are suggesting and why does note correlate. You argue that they bring in all this money for the school and talk about their value but your solution isn't based upon the value they bring to the school. Therefore the reasoning you use to claim it would be fair doesn't tie into the solution you propose. I suggest you try to tie the two together or you are going to get feedback that also deals with both why we should do this and the proposed solution.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 15th, 2011, 11:23 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
There is your unreasonable hang-up... I provided data to justify a stance. The data I provided cleary overly justifies my stance. End of story...

Now, if you want to talk about paying players which is what someone else could use the same data to justify doing, don't argue with me about it as that is NOT my stance. I like the college game being amature. I think that the players in college provide more value in a college system than an amature football system. Outside the NFL, no other football league created comes close to the money the NCAA draws in. If those players didn't go through college they would get as much attention as the minor league baseball teams.

There is a magical perfect storm with college where we all feel a link to a shool for some reason. These players in a minor league wouldn't come close to the fame they get in college to have fans pay lots of money to watch them. Making it a pay for play where bigger schools can pay more because they have more money suddenly makes it different and fans would revolt... look at your nonsensical responces to just covering their expenses.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9454
Location: Dallas
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
steensn wrote:
There is your unreasonable hang-up... I provided data to justify a stance. The data I provided cleary overly justifies my stance. End of story...

Now, if you want to talk about paying players which is what someone else could use the same data to justify doing, don't argue with me about it as that is NOT my stance. I like the college game being amature. I think that the players in college provide more value in a college system than an amature football system. Outside the NFL, no other football league created comes close to the money the NCAA draws in. If those players didn't go through college they would get as much attention as the minor league baseball teams.

There is a magical perfect storm with college where we all feel a link to a shool for some reason. These players in a minor league wouldn't come close to the fame they get in college to have fans pay lots of money to watch them. Making it a pay for play where bigger schools can pay more because they have more money suddenly makes it different and fans would revolt... look at your nonsensical responces to just covering their expenses.


First, it is paying them - doesn't matter what they use it for. You seem to take that out of the equation UNLESS you are going to dictate what they are spending the money on and paying those institutions directly.

Secondly, the players expenses are already covered - try room, board and tuition. You are just trying to compensate them more than they are already are.

Third, what data? I see absolutely no compelling data in any of your post. But I'm glad you are satisfied with it and see that it enforces your predisposition.

Fourth, you keep complaining about how much money the school is making off these players BUT missing what is really happening here. You point out the "magical storm" which is true, players will come and go but people support the schools. The only reason we route for most players is because they go to OUR school, not the other way around which you seem to imply in your argument.

Answer me this, take away any given player and does the school still make a ton of money off of football? Actually, you don't have to answer because we all know the answer is yes. The school will prosper regardless, it is the player who benefits from the opportunity with a free eduction, free room and board, and a free place to showcase their talents with the chance to earn millions of dollars. You PAINT a picture like these kids are getting totally screwed, and that isn't close to the case.

$3-$4k in expenses, which as I can back up with data can easily be made up with a summer or part-time job, is well worth it. In fact, I suspect the vast majority of these players would take on another $3K-$4K in debt on top of their non-paid expenses for the opportunty for the benefits stated above.

Want REAL data? The average cost per year for a Public In-State College was $20339 for 2010, that is $81,356 over four years assuming no increases. Not bad, now lets see what that translates to a lifetime of earning with a degree vs a high school diploma - try $900K.

So now we are looking at basically a million dollars in benefits for playing football. But I'm sure your data trumps that so please share how bad they are getting taken advantage by the college again.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 15th, 2011, 3:10 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Pablo wrote:
First, it is paying them - doesn't matter what they use it for. You seem to take that out of the equation UNLESS you are going to dictate what they are spending the money on and paying those institutions directly.


Then we already pay for play because they get a little more back than those three things and aren't dictated. Line already crossed in your opinion so who cares?

You know the intent, stop trying to find ways to make is sound screwy. In the end they still have to be responcable either way...

Pablo wrote:
Secondly, the players expenses are already covered - try room, board and tuition. You are just trying to compensate them more than they are already are.


No, they have travel expenses to go see their family and other things that are normal. Are they necessary for life, no, but they are normal for the US.

Pablo wrote:
Third, what data? I see absolutely no compelling data in any of your post. But I'm glad you are satisfied with it and see that it enforces your predisposition.


I've posted many reports to date on this board and no one looked into them. I'm not going to do the work for you guys...

Pablo wrote:
Fourth, you keep complaining about how much money the school is making off these players BUT missing what is really happening here. You point out the "magical storm" which is true, players will come and go but people support the schools. The only reason we route for most players is because they go to OUR school, not the other way around which you seem to imply in your argument.


And that is why I have consistently said that I do not support paying the players their "worth." Just what their normal expenses are during a year as a student to reduce the "needs" they have that boosters can take advantage of. Feed the poor, they don't steal as much and crime goes down. Same idea...

Pablo wrote:
Answer me this, take away any given player and does the school still make a ton of money off of football? Actually, you don't have to answer because we all know the answer is yes. The school will prosper regardless, it is the player who benefits from the opportunity with a free eduction, free room and board, and a free place to showcase their talents with the chance to earn millions of dollars. You PAINT a picture like these kids are getting totally screwed, and that isn't close to the case.


No, you keep reading it that way. I'm saying the students earn the university enough money to at least cover their reasonable expenses for the year. That is all... not what you want to make it. Read what I actually say, not what you want me to say.

Pablo wrote:
$3-$4k in expenses, which as I can back up with data can easily be made up with a summer or part-time job, is well worth it. In fact, I suspect the vast majority of these players would take on another $3K-$4K in debt on top of their non-paid expenses for the opportunty for the benefits stated above


So what, that is where they have to make mature decisions and think about real life. I'm saying do what should be the mininum, cover their expenses and they are responcable for using it right and not taking more money. I don't care if a summer job could cover it, they contribute enough so that it makes no sense to force them to do that. Heck, they could spend all their free time during the school year at a job and we could give them less, why not go that far? Because it doesn't make sense.

Pablo wrote:
Want REAL data? The average cost per year for a Public In-State College was $20339 for 2010, that is $81,356 over four years assuming no increases. Not bad, now lets see what that translates to a lifetime of earning with a degree vs a high school diploma - try $900K.


And that is great, that is why people go to college! They are getting benefits, but why not just cover their expenses since they earn it?

Pablo wrote:
So now we are looking at basically a million dollars in benefits for playing football. But I'm sure your data trumps that so please share how bad they are getting taken advantage by the college again.


Again, serisously, stop being a douche and painting what I am saying completely wrong. You are honestly just making up your own crap right now just to argue against points I'm not making. You just even asked me and you STILL decided to go back to this nonsense. Why not make things easy and address what I am really saying?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 3:39 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9454
Location: Dallas
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
steensn wrote:
Why not make things easy and address what I am really saying?


OK, back to what you are really saying.

steensn wrote:
Student athletes are documented coming up short about $3k per year. They are not given the ability to work a well paying job to make that difference while they are raking in the money for the school and adding much more value to the budget than any other student. I don't care how they do it, but the students need to be compensated so they need to come out with no debt. They earned it, plain and simple, more than almost any other employee in the school.


First, you start with a false and misleading statement - "They are not given the ability to work a well paying job" so lets address that.

1) You go to college to get "ability to work a well paying job", funny how you try to reverse this into the total opposite. Also, exactly how is the college STOPPING the ability of these playes to work another job. Finally, who the hell IN COLLEGE works a "well paying job"?

So many problems right off the bat steensn!

2) Your premise is built around the fact that they EARNED it, and that is the crux of my disagreement. No matter how I put it, you don't seem to get it. Exactly how did they earn it?

By playing football? If they earned it by playing football, well then by simple logic we should also pay other non-pros playing football.

OR

By the school making money from the football program? Again you argument doesn't hold up because it is the football prorgram that earns the money, NOT the individual players. Tickets are purchased to watch TEAMS. TV contracts are given out to TEAMS/CONFERENCES. Funny how the price of these revenue streams are determined well before any players are on said team.

AND

3) Once again (beating the dead horse), they are compensated very well as pointed out to the darn near $1M in benefits stated in my previous post.

AND

4) "I don't care how they do it, but the students need to be compensated so they need to come out with no debt." - Why? You wonder why we put our own personal situations into this tread - try looking at this statement. Did you come out of college with no debt? Did I? Do million of other students each year?

So I have more than address what you REALLY are saying. Now that I have totally destroyed what you were saying, care to revise it?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 15th, 2011, 3:57 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Pablo wrote:
First, you start with a false and misleading statement - "They are not given the ability to work a well paying job" so lets address that.

1) You go to college to get "ability to work a well paying job", funny how you try to reverse this into the total opposite. Also, exactly how is the college STOPPING the ability of these playes to work another job. Finally, who the hell IN COLLEGE works a "well paying job"?

So many problems right off the bat steensn!


Well, if you consider well paying to only be in context of full time employement then sure you conclude this nonsense. I'm strictly speaking reasonable college part time jobs. Not minimum wage...

They can't work during the Summer camp, Spring camp, or Fall/Winter season. Their schedule is too fixed with school and football. Their likelyhood ot ge hired to the more demanding primier part time jobs is greatly reduced. They have a very small window. To make the $3-$4k in the sttrict 2 month window they actually have free they would need to make $12 and hour untaxed (which we all know doesn't happen). Who is going to be able to find that within reason? Not hardly any, therefore the jobs that a college kid without the committments of a football player would have a hard time getting is likely impossible for someone so restricted.

Please, start thinking of this stuff in CONTEXT... it helps a lot.

Pablo wrote:
2) Your premise is built around the fact that they EARNED it, and that is the crux of my disagreement. No matter how I put it, you don't seem to get it. Exactly how did they earn it?

By playing football? If they earned it by playing football, well then by simple logic we should also pay other non-pros playing football.

OR

By the school making money from the football program? Again you argument doesn't hold up because it is the football prorgram that earns the money, NOT the individual players. Tickets are purchased to watch TEAMS. TV contracts are given out to TEAMS/CONFERENCES. Funny how the price of these revenue streams are determined well before any players are on said team.


Don't tell me the talent level of the NCAA doesn't factor into the whole thing. The NCAA is so dynamic because it is seen (and CONFIRMED practically by Goodell) as the developement league. These players are the creame of the crop and a school getting the most talent and putting it to together in a well oiled machine gets more money and draws attention. Big time players like Andrew Luck, Reggie Bush, etc. all make the game exciting. It is "the perfect storm" because you have overly loyal fans and the next big thing factor with huge talent level. Without these top talented players, the NCAA would be big but not as big as it is. With a developement league, the players would be big, but not as big as they are. The NCAA needs these players to hit the level they hit and the players need the NCAA to hit the hype they hit.

I watch Stanford play because of Andrew Luck, not the team. They get advertizing money because of the players. Both are required to increase the hype.

Pablo wrote:

AND

3) Once again (beating the dead horse), they are compensated very well as pointed out to the darn near $1M in benefits stated in my previous post.


I don't care Pablo. The kids have a need now, they will find ways to fill that need. They are being offered money for it, if they need it, they are more likely to take it. Clear as day, end of story. Promoise me 10 trillion dollars in 30 year and I will still be concerned about the next 30 years. They have to pay bills TODAY, not tomorrow. You are ignoring the CONTEXT all together and not focusing on the hole of the issue. You break everthing apart into pieces and can't see the whole picture.

Pablo wrote:
AND

4) "I don't care how they do it, but the students need to be compensated so they need to come out with no debt." - Why? You wonder why we put our own personal situations into this tread - try looking at this statement. Did you come out of college with no debt? Did I? Do million of other students each year?


No I didn't but I also gave zero benefit to the school to earn going out of it with no debt. Hwo cares what millions of other student have to do, they don't create a significant positive impact on the school like they do. They need to be compensated because they earened it, that is why. End of story. If you disagree, just say so, don't jumble up your real contention with all this other nonsense you've completely made up.

Pablo wrote:
So I have more than address what you REALLY are saying. Now that I have totally destroyed what you were saying, care to revise it?


No, you've proven you didn't give it much thought... look at this stuff in context wholistically, not individual idea per individual idea...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9454
Location: Dallas
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Deflections and no data - shock....

Part I. OK, If I give you the "two-month" window argument, then lets do the math and reduce the debt (because I provide data, not anidotical nonsense). Worst case scenario: Debt = $4K. Two months of work = 320 hours (40 X 8). Min wage = $7.25. That is $2,320 in income. And lets be real, college athletes might get paid a little more than average students but we don't need to get into that discussion. These are worse case numbers and the context that you failed to mention so if you are going to put CONTEXT in bold, please use it in your response (data would help also).

Part II. You watch Stanford because of Andrew Luck, an extreme case with the best college prospect since Manning - not a very good example when you are proposing to cover the expenses of ALL players. Look, Michigan has sucked and still sells out over 100K seats every week. I'm not saying the players have no impact, but the VAST majority of the revenue is school based and not player based. I've got tons of Michigan State gear, not a single one has a player name or number. I watch MSU regardless of who is playing because it is my school. Same with Michigan and pretty much any big ten school. Throw in Texas and a few other schools.

PART III. Get a job to pay a few living expenses, dead horse.

PART IV. Earned, end of story. If you say so. And please point out what I "completely made up" please. And before you respond, please make sure that you don't have any similar "scenarios" in any of your previous responses that you might have come up with.

PART V. I've given it much deeper thought than you. I've looked at just a few unintended consequences which you never seem to bring up. You are doing surface level thinking along these lines.

Football players EARN money for football program THUS deserve to have all their expenses paid and leave school with ZERO debt.

Where is the deep thought there? What problem are you solving? What problems are you now opening if you enact this?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 15th, 2011, 5:51 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
Uggg... I've laid this out over and over. One last time and I am done with this nonsense.

Cost > than income.
Benefit to school > compensation from the school
Need exist
Need will get filled
boosters and others offer a way to fill need to enhance program talent
student have more reason to mess up
fill that need, they have less reason to

I'm sorry Pablo, but this "tough stance" on what they COULD do is crap when the easy obvious answer is that they could easily fill the need of the student athlete with all the money they are raking in. You are being stubborn and acting like they get enough and need some tough love. This is nonsense... your solution that they should "just get a job" ignores the fact that there might not be any jobs.

The all enclusive, clear answer is to just extend the scholarship by a LITTLE more... what is so agreevise about that? why are you so against it? The resistance level seems so asinine I really cannot put it into words.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 15th, 2011, 6:12 pm
Profile
Color Commentator - John Madden
User avatar

Joined: January 19th, 2007, 3:21 am
Posts: 1919
Location: A2
Post Re: NCAA Could Allow More Scholarships to Schools
:-({|=

Some of these guys would qualify for a Pell Grant, that's $5550 that they can use for school, fees, or living expenses. And so what if they have to take out a student loan to pay for the gas in their Range Rovers. Almost every student in college has to take out a loan. Those that aren't, good for them, but the vast majority do.

These players are like a woman with a Virginia ham under her arm, crying the blues 'cause she has no bread.

_________________
Forward down the field!


September 16th, 2011, 12:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.