StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Many cases? No. Not even close. A few anecdotal cases, yes. The vast majority of these people would never see a dime from their likeness, nor do they generate money for their schools. We are talking about an elite group, within an elite group. Ok. So where is the argument against allowing them to be paid or from signing outside endorsement deals? Some will sign lucrative deals, some won't. This is no different than the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) Plus there is also the fact that they don't have to go to the NCAA if they want to get paid. They can strike out on their own, or they can go places that will pay them, like Europe or a semi-pro league. This doesn't actually justify the NCAA, though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) lol, ok. Go ahead and backtrack now that you got called on how absurd your statement was. At the surface, it is a $25,000, or more, per year payment. That is the equivalent of a $12.50/hr job, given to you. That price goes up depending on if you got to a good school. That isn't counting interest not paid on student loans either. Then add to that the million dollar of extra lifetime earnings that are out there for the 99.9% of players who never do go pro. Handwaving away the value of the education here is silly. BTW this is a better argument against the absurdly high cost of college tuition these days in general. Subsidize the education for everybody, not just the ones generating billions of dollars for NCAA.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) lol, ok. Go ahead and backtrack now that you got called on how absurd your statement was. Please note what I said: Athletes are often 'encouraged' to take easy majors and easy classes in order to keep eligibility, as playing their sport is a full-time job. Graduation rates at many programs are abysmal. If they get injured, they can lose their scholarship. I've still yet to hear a reason why colleges shouldn't be able to pay athletes if they want to or why athletes shouldn't be allowed to profit off of their own name and likeness and why they should be frozen out of the multi-billion dollar revenue stream they generate. What is it about the multi-billion dollar college sports industry that makes it necessary that the bulk of their labor force go unpaid? Why should thousands of NCAA athletes be completely barred from negotiating for pay or from signing endorsement deals? The schools, media companies, apparel companies, etc. certainly aren't barred from profiting off of them. Even if we accepted a parity argument as a legitimate reason, it doesn't seem like the current model serves that end goal very well. I've been told in this thread that, really, it's the coaches and AD's and trainers and facilities and media deals that are the most important parts of the program and, really, the athletes are just incidental, easily replaceable. The NCAA doesn't limit schools from spending huge sums of money on any of those things. The same schools typically dominate year after year after year. The professional sports, with free agency and, in the case of baseball, no salary caps seem to do a much better job at producing parity than the NCAA.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) A college degree has minimal worth? Now I know you are just trolling. In no way, shape, or form, does a college degree have minimal worth. If that is the case, dismantle all college funding. I did not make as broad a statement as "college degrees have minimal worth."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 5, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) OK, Notre Dame haters, I'm going to serve one up on a platter for you: One discussion board I belong to is a professional board for ND alums. I've been getting hammered on there for blaming the Republican House for the shutdown. I pointed out that my family was without 100% of our income and one of the irreversible effects is having to 'furlough' our babysitter during the shutdown. One response: "You're lying. If you need a babysitter then your wife is working and you aren't losing 100% of your income. If your wife isn't working then you don't need a babysitter." I'm guessing Soxtalk can outsmart the ND alum and figure out at least one circumstance where my wife is neither gainfully employed nor available to take care of the kids. If reality doesn't conform to their ideology, clearly reality must be a lie.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 6, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) Despite the terrible drop by Bennett on 4th down and Lance Briggs jumping offsides I am still very pleased with what Jeffrey has been doing.

losing another d-line man would be brutal

Woo!

Pretty laughable tackling on this series

A major cause of the skewing was the part of the SC ruling that allowed states to reject the Medicaid expansion.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 09:07 PM) So...same goes for every other industry in the world? No, because in this industry, the major source of labor isn't paid for it's work because the NCAA (which is by definition a cartel) forbids payment to them. What I'm arguing is that college athletics really isn't any different from any other industry and that the main source of labor, the athletes, should be allowed to be compensated for their work.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 08:50 PM) No, but you implied they're overpaid for their meaningless, easy jobs. So, my response to your implications is f***ing get one. No, I used the framework of someone else's argument to criticize that same argument. I didn't say their jobs were meaningless or easy. I said that their jobs are valueless without the people who actually do the work fans pay to see, the athletes.

That doesn't justify not paying athletes, and I haven't said anywhere that coaches shouldn't be paid.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 07:35 PM) I still think we're seriously undervaluing what it means to go to college for free. I'm happy to make some tweaks, increase some benefits, but I don't think they should be getting compensated like professionals. They are getting a tremendous benefit already. I think we should make sure they can make the most of the value of being in college, but I'm not particularly fond of turning college students into a college's highest paid employees. I think it harms the student community. People often don't like the special privileges given to athletes, but knowing that the athletes are doing something that ends up benefiting the school in general usually evens things out. Turning college students into free market assets is not what college is about, IMO. College students being a college's highest paid employees is bad, but college coaches being the state government's highest paid employees is good? Turning college students into free-market assets isn't what college is about (wait, I thought the whole drive these days was for 'marketable' STEM degrees valued by businesses?!?), but college sports, at least the big money-making ones for teh NCAA, aren't really about college. It's a multi-billion dollar industry staffed by well-paid professionals, major apparel providers, media outlets, TV and radio networks, advertisers etc. etc. in every regard, except they don't pay the players. Many of these students who are going to college "for free" 1) don't actually have the full costs covered and have a hard time making ends meet because they're generally forbidden from outside revenues 2) are 'encouraged' into easy programs that will be of little value post-graduation, if they even make it all the way to graduation. NCAA sports are a huge business, and pretending that this is not basically identical to professional sports is really just a fantasy. For whatever tremendous value student-athletes are getting from a scholarship, they are often generating far more value that is just going into the pockets of their coaches, ADs, NCAA, apparel companies, EA, etc. College sports hasn't really been amateur and 'pure' in ages.

Whether or not insurance companies are the sole problem, they are clearly, based on the real-world experience of many other countries, an unnecessary added cost. Health care access can be and is subsidized directly by the government in almost every developed country in the world, and even a lot of developing countries.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) Is House of Cards all politics talk?? I'm not into politics and don't know any of the lingo so I never really started that. It's as much about politics as something like game of thrones. It's just the backdrop for a story about drama, alliances, deceit, backstabbing, etc.

Btw if a major part of a coach's value is their recruiting ability, then obviously the athletes matter.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) The NCAA isn't like any other job market, just like professional leagues aren't either. They can make their own rules. If you want to join, you agree to abide by those rules. If you don't like it, start up a minor league for football. That's not an argument in favor of why those rules are just or fair. A minor league football...league would be competing against an ncaa cartel with artificially suppressed labor costs as well as fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the nfl. Monopolies are hard to break, even more so when they don't have to pay their labor.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) It sounds like they did their jobs very well, actually. The bad guy is gone, and the kid that she put in danger is safe. And LOL to the "shooting the tires out" remark from earlier. Shows just how little people understand. they should have just shot her ankle so she could push the gas pedal

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:47 PM) As a general response to all of this, here's where i'm at: if you pooled together the coaches, trainers, admins, etc and everything else that goes into a program, they still end up making the university more based on their skills than a player does with his. Yes, the occasional RGIII type player is, in a sense, a huge reason for the draw to a game. But the reality is the coach who has excellent recruiting ties/abilities landed him and brought him there. He coached him and trained him and developed him. If anything, the player is a small part in the greater success of a college program. To that end, 99.9% of athletes wouldn't be worth more than the amount of their scholarship and extra benefits put together. So I don't think the system really exploits all but the rare few transcendent players. You're making assumptions that just lead you right back to the conclusion you started with. If coaches and AD's are really where all of the money is made, fine. Let players be paid and sign endorsement deals and hold jobs and profit from their likeness. If there isn't competition for them, they won't be getting paid much. This should be like any other job market on the planet. Because he liked playing football but also wanted to go to UIUC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) how come a free college scholarship isn't considered as having any value here? In many cases it has minimal worth. In many cases its worth is vastly disproportionate to the value they could otherwise get. Why is it okay to not pay these athletes with the billions of dollars in revenue they generate, but it's okay to make millionaires out of their coaches?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) I don't even know what you're arguing. I live in the real world. And in the real world basketball is played at colleges and universities across the country every year. In that real world a guy like Boeheim has value above, beyond and separate from the players that he RECRUITS, TRAINS, COACHES and DEVELOPS into athletes good enough to make a living playing a game. Basketball is played by basketball players at colleges every year. It generates hundreds of millions of dollars. Coaches and AD's get millions of dollars. The players, for some reason, get none of it. I'm not saying the Boeheim is worthless or that NCAA coaches should work for free. On the contrary, they should be paid for their work. I'm saying that the athletes, the people actually playing basketball, should be paid as well. Boeheim is a giant hypocrit, though, when he claims he never got into it for the money and that it's idiotic that his players should be paid for their work. I don't see Boeheim willing to work for room and board and some free classes. And college athletics are nothing without athletes. Why doesn't your argument apply to NFL players? To people working in a factory? After all, they wouldn't be producing anything if the company didn't run the plant. What makes these athletes working in a multi-billion dollar industry so different? Boeheim is paid almost $2M/year. His players are not. The NCAA is an incredibly one-sided relationship.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) I don't disagree that they have an argument. But very few college athletes (including the hundreds of thousands who don't play premiere sports) generate sufficient revenue for their school or the NCAA to warrant being paid BEYOND their scholarship and additional benefits. Let's lowball it and assume a scholarship, room and board, and extras cost a school 50k per athlete. How many players are actually worth that much to a team based on the money they generate for the school? I don't know, nor do I particularly care. If no one wants to pay them money, then they won't be paid money. They shouldn't be barred from outside sources of money, endorsement deals, outside jobs, etc. I had a friend who was a walk-on WR at Illinois. If WR's aren't getting scholarships, 3rd string kickers aren't, either. The compensation is minimal. Many of these athletes are there primarily to play a sport. They're encouraged to take easy classes and get all sorts of extra "help." They're barred from getting jobs and internships that would otherwise prepare the vast majority of students for non-sports-playing career after school. If they are rigorously pursuing a degree and get hurt, they can lose their scholarship. As I said before, the scholarship and stipends typically don't cover the cost of living. I'm sorry, how does this argument not apply to every other sports league that actually pays its players? How do MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc. etc. teams figure out what to pay players, and how do players figure out their market value? How do colleges figure out what coaches are worth? Yes, exploits. Makes some people into multi-millionaires while not paying the people that are actually making the product that generates the revenue. Bars them from getting any form of compensation while making tons of money off their names and images and work. Why shouldn't they be able to be "king of campus" and also get some of the enormous revenues they generate? Why should they be playing for extremely wealthy coaches and getting paid nothing in return? Really, what is the actual argument for why it is okay not to pay these athletes for their labor? Why is it necessary that they don't get paid for you to enjoy watching them play their sport?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) Go back and read what I wrote. I'm saying that no insurance =/= death. 30 million uninsured doesn't mean 30 million are dead tomorrow. Coincidentally, neither was anyone else, beyond some silly one-liner inserted into NSS's purposefully silly story. I already tempered it myself. I'm not accepting your claim that there aren't millions of people that go without adequate health care in this country because they lack health insurance, though. You're aware of some free programs and clinics in a major metropolitan area. Great. Are there no people in the Chicagoland area that would like medical care but have to go without? I am doubtful. I am even more doubtful that your limited knowledge of some programs in a major urban center are applicable to millions of people who don't live in these areas. We see what happens when Doctors Without Borders hold one of their yearly free clinics in Appalachia. That means sick people will be paying hugely expensive premiums. If you're already sick, then the insurance company knows exactly what it's going to cost them. The entire point of insurance is that everyone else who is healthy subsidies those who are sick. Essentially, if you want to guarantee coverage, you can either have an individual mandate if you insist on a private for-profit insurance model or you can have a single-payer system if you want it to be a public service. I suppose you could enact significant taxes elsewhere and use those funds to subsidize these expensive pre-existing condition plans, but that inserts a pretty unnecessary step.