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

Bill Maher's Take On The NCAA
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
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
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/15/15 2:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Typical.

Who is forcing these kids to play for nothing?

Is it the NCAA? Or is it the NBA that denies them the opportunity to play for pay and forces them to go to college when they don't want to?


Just do what MLB and NHL do, and then there's nothing to whine about.

Why exactly should the NCAA change its approach just because the NBA and NFL want to force colleges to serve as their farm system?


How does the recent change in stipend allowance for student-athletes sit w. your previously expressed appreciation/preference of "amateur" athletes in college?


There is no "stipend". What can be covered has been adjusted to cover other costs that were previously ignored in athletic scholarships but were already being paid in non-athletic scholarships and financial aid.


Correct. My bad choice of word. How large of an increase is ok (in your mind) that would still retain amateur status?

Is whatever is given to non-athletic schollies/aid the limit?

I'm just trying to assess what your definition of amateur really is.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/15/15 7:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So what makes "amateur" sports amateur is that they are not being paid directly for participation regardless of what monies are being made from their efforts? So since they're amateurs, why give them anything? They are not professionals. So you're saying out of the benevolence of their heart these universities and athletic organizations are gifting these amateur athletes scholarships but don't really have to because after all they are mere amateurs and not professional who chose to give their talents free of charge to the universities?
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/15 9:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sorry, missed this question:

>Yes or no, are HS baseball players who have a choice - turn pro and get paid or go to college, get a free education but don't get paid - and freely choose college treated "unjustly"?

Yes or no answers are always tricky. Let's try this question:

>Yes or no, are HS baseball players who have a choice - turn pro and get paid or go to college; get a free education but don't get paid; but cannot choose to get a free education and get paid as well, while administrators and institutions make millions. Does the lack of option three impinge on the concept of "justice being served"?

I think by artificially narrowing the options you create a situation where "rules" supersede the admittedly vague concept of "justice." Just as there is no such thing as an "open" or "free" market (all are restrained in some manner (if only by culture and tradition, though some, are more free than others)), the limitations imposed on young athletes that are in place to benefit the powerful who are above them in the food chain constrain available choices.

For you -- and this is your feeling, and it's a reasonable one -- the cost of these constraints is the price of maintaining the structure of collegiate sports as it now exists, and thus the constraints should be maintained.

Others feel that cost -- the imposition of outside controls that limit the financial options of young athletes in order to preserve college sports as they are -- is too high.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/15 9:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Sorry, missed this question:

>Yes or no, are HS baseball players who have a choice - turn pro and get paid or go to college, get a free education but don't get paid - and freely choose college treated "unjustly"?

Yes or no answers are always tricky. Let's try this question:

>Yes or no, are HS baseball players who have a choice - turn pro and get paid or go to college; get a free education but don't get paid; but cannot choose to get a free education and get paid as well, while administrators and institutions make millions. Does the lack of option three impinge on the concept of "justice being served"?

I think by artificially narrowing the options you create a situation where "rules" supersede the admittedly vague concept of "justice." Just as there is no such thing as an "open" or "free" market (all are restrained in some manner (if only by culture and tradition, though some, are more free than others)), the limitations imposed on young athletes that are in place to benefit the powerful who are above them in the food chain constrain available choices.

For you -- and this is your feeling, and it's a reasonable one -- the cost of these constraints is the price of maintaining the structure of collegiate sports as it now exists, and thus the constraints should be maintained.

Others feel that cost -- the imposition of outside controls that limit the financial options of young athletes in order to preserve college sports as they are -- is too high.


So as I understand it, the one and only controlling factor in your world is the "financial options" of the players. Colleges have no option, no say, no control, no rights whatsoever as to how they choose to operate their athletic programs. Colleges have an obligation to pay their players as well as provide them a free education. No matter how many other options the player may have to play his or her sport for money, the player has some sort of right to go to my college, get a free education, and get paid too. Am I understanding you correctly?


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/15 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not quite. Your college can choose to pay players or not pay players. Your college can choose to play Division I or not to play Division I.

And though there are obviously other things in life than finances, for a young person growing up in a poor and dangerous neighborhood, finances are the most important thing. Being able to move your family to better surroundings is a positive, and in our system, only occurs with more money.

To me, this is the key difference: Colleges have more unrestrained choices than young athletes, as do administrators (ADs, coaches, etc.). The system they have designed limits the options available to the athletes who generate the income.

Again, a college can choose to participate at whatever level it would like, and try to gain whatever benefits, financial or otherwise, that choice might deliver.

Athletes are constrained from making a choice that would allow them to share in the revenue generated by their skills, over and above an arbitrary limit set, not in the free market nor by any kind of labor negotiations, but by those who have the most to gain by exploiting their talents.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/15 2:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Not quite. Your college can choose to pay players or not pay players. Your college can choose to play Division I or not to play Division I.

And though there are obviously other things in life than finances, for a young person growing up in a poor and dangerous neighborhood, finances are the most important thing. Being able to move your family to better surroundings is a positive, and in our system, only occurs with more money.

To me, this is the key difference: Colleges have more unrestrained choices than young athletes, as do administrators (ADs, coaches, etc.). The system they have designed limits the options available to the athletes who generate the income.

Again, a college can choose to participate at whatever level it would like, and try to gain whatever benefits, financial or otherwise, that choice might deliver.

Athletes are constrained from making a choice that would allow them to share in the revenue generated by their skills, over and above an arbitrary limit set, not in the free market nor by any kind of labor negotiations, but by those who have the most to gain by exploiting their talents.


So colleges can CHOOSE not to pay, and only to provide scholarships, or even not provide scholarships, and they can join together with other like minded schools and choose to play only against other schools that CHOOSE to do the same thing, and that's ok with you?

And when all of the schools choose to not play players and to play against other schools who also don't pay players, isn't that exactly what the situation is today?

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say the schools can choose, but then complain when they do choose, and have chosen.


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
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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