It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cali to allow college athletes to be paid

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

It matters if you're trying to create a fair playing field.

If one school if known for churning out rich doctors and lawyers while the other churns out prestigious professionals of its own but in fields that don't tend to pay as well ... then one school's boosters can buy the better team always and forever that way.

Because sports do bring in lots of money. It then is a matter of one school struggling to stay afloat because they just don't have the money like the other school does because they can buy it between buying the team and eleventy billion blue chip recruits who then destroy everything everyone else fields and bring in all that associated revenue.

Pretty poor fun for every other school in the US.



But they already do that... the playing field isn't level.




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

It matters if you're trying to create a fair playing field.

If one school if known for churning out rich doctors and lawyers while the other churns out prestigious professionals of its own but in fields that don't tend to pay as well ... then one school's boosters can buy the better team always and forever that way.

Because sports do bring in lots of money. It then is a matter of one school struggling to stay afloat because they just don't have the money like the other school does because they can buy it between buying the team and eleventy billion blue chip recruits who then destroy everything everyone else fields and bring in all that associated revenue.

Pretty poor fun for every other school in the US.



its allready like that. Always has been. the big schools get the big time players . The same teams are always in the top 10 .

How exactly is it helping the smaller schools?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

It's more level than it used to be before the scholarship rule were instituted.

Just imagine the NFL prior to the salary cap and then go back to consider the NCAA because that's where you're heading with this.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hyperlexic

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Bluntone22

why not use the endorsement money to put back into the school to lower tuition for all students?


I'm not sure how the money is distributed in the schools.
But I do know that a couple men's programs at these schools pays for all the women's scholarships so in that sense students benefit.


You say it pays for the womens scholarships like the school is actually out that money. The school risks nothing .



I don't understand what you mean by the school risks nothing.
I don't think I said anything about a risk.

Title nine requires colleges to give female athletes an equal number of sports scholarships as it does to men. Football has something like 60 scholarships.
Football and men's basketball in division one make money.
About three women's basketball teams make money and the rest lose money.
Women's sports in college would nearly disappear without men's sports paying the way.

So no, not a risk but definitely an expense.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: hyperlexic

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Bluntone22

why not use the endorsement money to put back into the school to lower tuition for all students?


I'm not sure how the money is distributed in the schools.
But I do know that a couple men's programs at these schools pays for all the women's scholarships so in that sense students benefit.


You say it pays for the womens scholarships like the school is actually out that money. The school risks nothing .



I don't understand what you mean by the school risks nothing.
I don't think I said anything about a risk.

Title nine requires colleges to give female athletes an equal number of sports scholarships as it does to men. Football has something like 60 scholarships.
Football and men's basketball in division one make money.
About three women's basketball teams make money and the rest lose money.
Women's sports in college would nearly disappear without men's sports paying the way.

So no, not a risk but definitely an expense.


I mean they risk nothing because it costs them nothing . Its not like they are doling out 75k up front to these kids. they just allow them to attend their school it costs them nothing.

And about it destroying womens sports .I dont know how a 20 year old getting paid to do a commercial or sign some autographs would ruin womens sports.

The school still gets paid right ? nothing changes for the school right? Why would they have to eliminate womens sports?

In some towns like in Connecticut the girls would be doing commercials and getting paid.

And in this PC culture I think the women would get alot of endorsements



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: hyperlexic

Because they knew what they were getting when they signed on. Playing for 4 years at Stanford would pay off $310,280 in your schooling. Everyone else who is working through college will be paying that back for a long long time. This is another can of worms that will kill college football as we know it.

When the sport dies, "It sounded like a good idea at the time" isn't going to bring it back...



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: hyperlexic

Because they knew what they were getting when they signed on. Playing for 4 years at Stanford would pay off $310,280 in your schooling. Everyone else who is working through college will be paying that back for a long long time. This is another can of worms that will kill college football as we know it.

When the sport dies, "It sounded like a good idea at the time" isn't going to bring it back...


The sport will never die. It makes way to much money .

I still havnt heard a good reason why people think they shouldn't be able to do a commercial that has nothing to do with the school?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: hyperlexic

Because they knew what they were getting when they signed on. Playing for 4 years at Stanford would pay off $310,280 in your schooling. Everyone else who is working through college will be paying that back for a long long time. This is another can of worms that will kill college football as we know it.

When the sport dies, "It sounded like a good idea at the time" isn't going to bring it back...


It will never ruin the sport . There is more than enough money to go around. They are handing out 100 million dollar contracts like candy in the NFL and it hasnt ruined that league at all.

The rich guys swore it would ruin it though if they had to share.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: hyperlexic

I didn't say women's sports was going to disappear because of this bill.
You are pulling my response out of context.
My response was to a question about endorsements paying for non athlete tuition.

And no, women athletes are not just students like every other kid.
They need coaching staffs.
they have travel expenses.
They likely have access to paid tutors.
Referees cost money.

Athletes come with expenses above and beyond regular students.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Bluntone22

Very stupid. Only California would make a move this stupid. They'll be in violation of NCAA rules and not allowed to play in any bowl games once this takes effect. I'm 99.9% sure every game they play in the regular season will be forfeited as well.

You said not to bring up the scholarship, but that's tens of thousands of dollars PER semester that's paid for. That should be more than enough.


So should an engineering student who is also on a scholarship be prevented from taking paid internships or working part time?


Getting a scholarship for Engineering is different than a scholarship in football. Paying the players is too easy to take for granted and take advantage of. For that reason, I don't see an issue with it.

Not only that, but most of their time is spent practicing, would they have a chance to even hold a job?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
What about women's sports that all lose money?
Should they get some of the money the men earn?


Why? They could get their own endorsement deals.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

College football is an absurdly profitable business, the people it's making money off of should be able to share in that equity.



What about women's sports that all lose money?
Should they get some of the money the men earn?


Herein lies the biggest issue. It's college, it wouldn't be two months before the women start complaining about their "fair" share.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: burdman30ott6

They could I suppose but if other states pass similar legislation the ncaa will have far less leverage. How the athletic conferences react is important too. If the SEC and ACC hop on board, it would put huge pressure on the ncaa.
The ncaa has become to big for its britches


The ACC wouldn't make a difference. The SEC would have the biggest impact, maybe the B1G and Big 12, too, but none of those conferences are interested in paying the players.


Tha ACC is huge in basketball so I think they matter.
This doesn't have much to do with what the conferences want as much as they would legally have no choice.


I was referring to football when I said that. I frequent a couple of football forums and this has come up before, to pay the football players. I didn't know it was other sports until later in the thread. I hope it continues to be in violation of NCAA standards.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Veryolduser

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: hyperlexic

California sure can't get upper tier athletes now...lol


That’s funny because most of the upper tier athletes come from California not Alabama.


No they don't, and the ones who do usually commit to teams outside of CA.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bluntone22
What about women's sports that all lose money?
Should they get some of the money the men earn?


Why? They could get their own endorsement deals.


This was your statement.
"College football is an absurdly profitable business, the people it's making money off of should be able to share in that equity."

My question is should only the football players get money off of their absurdity profitable business or does every athlete at the school get a share?

That has nothing to do with person endorsements.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: hyperlexic

I didn't say women's sports was going to disappear because of this bill.
You are pulling my response out of context.
My response was to a question about endorsements paying for non athlete tuition.

And no, women athletes are not just students like every other kid.
They need coaching staffs.
they have travel expenses.
They likely have access to paid tutors.
Referees cost money.

Athletes come with expenses above and beyond regular students.


Im guessing you either have or have had a daughter in college sports? Could be wrong probably am lol.

Assuming you do and lets say she played softball for OU or basketball for UCONN Or Volleyball for Nebraska.

There is really no chance of getting rich for those girls in any of those sports . But in those towns for those teams they could make hundreds of thousands of dollars on endorsements but really only for those 4 years and really probably only for 2 of those depending on when they started getting play time.

Shouldnt that girl be allowed to capitalize on that for her future?

I would think this whole scenario would be better for women college athletes



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Bluntone22

Very stupid. Only California would make a move this stupid. They'll be in violation of NCAA rules and not allowed to play in any bowl games once this takes effect. I'm 99.9% sure every game they play in the regular season will be forfeited as well.

You said not to bring up the scholarship, but that's tens of thousands of dollars PER semester that's paid for. That should be more than enough.


So should an engineering student who is also on a scholarship be prevented from taking paid internships or working part time?


Getting a scholarship for Engineering is different than a scholarship in football. Paying the players is too easy to take for granted and take advantage of. For that reason, I don't see an issue with it.

Not only that, but most of their time is spent practicing, would they have a chance to even hold a job?



If most of their time is spent practicing, then why are they even in school? In other words, they really aren't "student" athletes... just athletes that happen to play for a University.

I spent practically every waking hour studying. I barely had time for anything.

Schools already try to one up each other with the non-financial incentives so I don't really see how allowing the athletes to earn money would result in an unlevel playing field any different than it is now.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
My question is should only the football players get money off of their absurdity profitable business or does every athlete at the school get a share?

That has nothing to do with person endorsements.


Yes, it does, that's what the law allows them to profit from, just like the money grubbing schools they are attending. The schools sell the airing rights to broadcasters who in turn sell air time to advertisers who are using the brand recognition of the team to push their product. Now the athletes can brand themselves and pull in endorsement money.

Anyone who can make money doing this should be able to do so and I hope it ruins college sports to be honest, college is for learning, not a tax payer subsidized farm system for professional sports.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well let's be honest here.
Many colleges are actually football stadium with schools attached.....



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well let's be honest here.
Many colleges are actually football stadium with schools attached.....


Pretty much...




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join