John Oliver on paying athletes:

[Chizzang]

No he missed the point entirely...
Nobody is debating how Student Athletes are forced into anything
The debate is about two things:

1)
The NCAA uses college basketball and football players likeness to profit on video games to the score of tens of millions of dollars - and has absolutely no profit sharing for the very focal point of the profit center - players could be payed AFTER they graduate (Right..?)

That's ^ slimy by anybody's standards...

2)
The NCAA has the kids sign an employee contract with 400 pages of conduct and stipulations associated with performance etc. etc. (clearly an employee contract) and refuses to admit that is what it is

Chizz, do you understand why it's problematic to let college athletes profit off of their likeness? If you do, you're going to have wealthy boosters paying star players $3000 for their abstract crayon art. Player autographs and jerseys and such are only valuable because that player is a player is on a college sports team, anyways.

It's the same reason you have restrictions on athletes holding jobs, because if there weren't you will have athletes working for $50 an hour as an elevator operator in a one-story building.

So my post holds. When you sign the letter of intent, you agree to the terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign them. If you don't like it that your school makes a lot of money and you don't get a cut of it, don't sign with a big-money athletic department. Simple.

Why not have wealthy booster throw money at college athletes..?
Its their money let them spend it how they want

And:
I still don't see what the problem is paying a kid $50 an hour to be a imaginary figurehead employee..?
I don't see the problem with these kids sharing in the NCAA piles of money
I don't see why the POWER should remain in the hands of a TINY FEW BILLIONAIRES who use college athletics to generate hundreds of millions annually - the employees (athletes) should get paid

I'm all for paying athletes as much as any other entertainer...

[89Hen]

So still nothing on a real method for payment. Funny that people for paying have no idea how it can be done where it is meaningful to the athlete, won't break the budget, and will solve the problem of boosters trying to find a way to give more than what would be allowed.

[YoUDeeMan]

Why not have wealthy booster throw money at college athletes..?
Its their money let them spend it how they want

And:
I still don't see what the problem is paying a kid $50 an hour to be a imaginary figurehead employee..?
I don't see the problem with these kids sharing in the NCAA piles of money
I don't see why the POWER should remain in the hands of a TINY FEW BILLIONAIRES who use college athletics to generate hundreds of millions annually - the employees (athletes) should get paid

I'm all for paying athletes as much as any other entertainer...

Why isn't Google paying every American money?

They are using something that was invented by Al Gore with our taxpayer money. Google is making billions off the backs of Americans. When Google went public, everyone who was using Google (actually, Google was using everyone) played a part in making Google money. The IPO money should have been divided by the people using Google, instead of going to the NCGOOGLEAA "inventors", who were making money off a national treasure.

[Skjellyfetti]

So still nothing on a real method for payment. Funny that people for paying have no idea how it can be done where it is meaningful to the athlete, won't break the budget, and will solve the problem of boosters trying to find a way to give more than what would be allowed.

Pay them minimum wage for hours worked like any other student employee.

[89Hen]

So still nothing on a real method for payment. Funny that people for paying have no idea how it can be done where it is meaningful to the athlete, won't break the budget, and will solve the problem of boosters trying to find a way to give more than what would be allowed.

Pay them minimum wage for hours worked like any other student employee.

Well, that won't break the budget, but does nothing to solve the other points.

[Skjellyfetti]

Pay them minimum wage for hours worked like any other student employee.

Well, that won't break the budget, but does nothing to solve the other points.

Why wouldn't it be meaningful to athletes?

And why will boosters be able to give more than allowed? Boosters could still pay more than allowed... but, they'd be breaking the rules. It doesn't stop them now, and I'm not saying it will stop them then. But, you can't say because they could still pay them under the table that the system wouldn't work in theory.

[89Hen]

Well, that won't break the budget, but does nothing to solve the other points.

Why wouldn't it be meaningful to athletes?

And why will boosters be able to give more than allowed? Boosters could still pay more than allowed... but, they'd be breaking the rules. It doesn't stop them now, and I'm not saying it will stop them then. But, you can't say because they could still pay them under the table that the system wouldn't work in theory.

It wouldn't work to curb the under the table stuff. That's one of the pieces a lot of the people on the pay side like to pretend to fix. You'd have to show me the math to say whether it was meaningful. I'm sure there would be hard limits on the hours per day, week and season. Sounds like it would be close to a $5,000 stipend.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, I don't pretend like paying players will "fix" the under-the-table booster stuff. That's just not going to happen whether we pay players or not. There will always be an incentive to pay players as long as there are wealthy donors who care enough about the programs to offer money. So, I see this as simply a straw-man.


And, I know athletes work 40 hours per week during the season. They work less during the off season, but still a good bit. I don't feel like trying to come up with some calculation to the number of hours they "work" per year and then figure out their after-tax income so I'll just go with your $5,000 figure.

Why would that figure be insignificant?

Keep in mind - they'd also be employees and eligible for workers comp for sports related injuries. That's one of the most interesting things I learned from Oliver's video - a major motivation for having college athletics be "amateur" only was to keep from having to pay worker's comp.

Now an injury and a loss of scholarship means an 18 year old kid has to file bankruptcy to pay medical costs.

[89Hen]

Now an injury and a loss of scholarship means an 18 year old kid has to file bankruptcy to pay medical costs.

Very rare that a player loses a schollie from injury. You don't need to pay players to fix that, just change the NCAA rule that allows for it to happen.

[YoUDeeMan]

Now an injury and a loss of scholarship means an 18 year old kid has to file bankruptcy to pay medical costs.

Huh?

As a student, you can get insurance (at least you used to be able to).

Now, you can be on Obamacare...or your parent's Obamacare.

So, where does the whole bankruptcy idea come from?

[89Hen]

Why would that figure be insignificant?

Because $5000 is a drop in the bucket according to you and Cleets. Doesn't seem right that the NCAA makes hundreds of millions and only pays a kid minimum wage. You need to figure out why you're arguing for paying players in the first place.

[89Hen]

And, I know athletes work 40 hours per week during the season. They work less during the off season, but still a good bit.

IF they ever allowed for players to be paid per hour, they absolutely will control how many hours a student athlete can "work" in a day, week and season. Count on it.

[Skjellyfetti]

Now an injury and a loss of scholarship means an 18 year old kid has to file bankruptcy to pay medical costs.

Huh?

As a student, you can get insurance (at least you used to be able to).

Now, you can be on Obamacare...or your parent's Obamacare.

So, where does the whole bankruptcy idea come from?

You diddn't watch the video.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why would that figure be insignificant?

Because $5000 is a drop in the bucket according to you and Cleets. Doesn't seem right that the NCAA makes hundreds of millions and only pays a kid minimum wage. You need to figure out why you're arguing for paying players in the first place.

I'd rather they be paid more - but, I'm also for compromising to find a solution.

And, you say it doesn't seem right for the NCAA to make hundreds of millions of dollars and only pay kids a minimum wage? WHAT ABOUT PAYING THEM $0.00 and FORBIDDING them from receiving compensation?

IF they ever allowed for players to be paid per hour, they absolutely will control how many hours a student athlete can "work" in a day, week and season. Count on it.

There are already rules about how much an athlete can practice.
http://www3.nd.edu/~ncaacomp/countable_hours.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

And, you say it doesn't seem right for the NCAA to make hundreds of millions of dollars and only pay kids a minimum wage? WHAT ABOUT PAYING THEM $0.00 and FORBIDDING them from receiving compensation?

I was speaking for you there.

[YoUDeeMan]

Huh?

As a student, you can get insurance (at least you used to be able to).

Now, you can be on Obamacare...or your parent's Obamacare.

So, where does the whole bankruptcy idea come from?

You diddn't watch the video.

I did watch the video.

As 89 said, it is rare that a kid loses a schollie because of injury. If I am correct, a scholarship for an injured player doesn't count against the total. Plenty of schools keep injured players on as assistants.

When I watched the video, I thought it was shoddy journalism because they never provided details about that situation. Something odd probably happened to that kid. Perhaps he failed out of school after he got injured.

In any case, I don't believe a kid should receive workman's comp for injuries. Do we start making high schools pay their players?

[89Hen]

When I watched the video, I thought it was shoddy journalism...

It's a comedy show for 50% of the population.

[Skjellyfetti]

It's not journalism. I thought it was presented in a way so that people here would actually watch.

Here's a good long form journalism piece on the same issue. I don't think anyone will actually read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magaz ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

It's not journalism. I thought it was presented in a way so that people here would actually watch.

Here's a good long form journalism piece on the same issue. I don't think anyone will actually read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magaz ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, your version of a, "good long form journalism piece" begins with, "Mark Emmert, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the almighty overseer of American college sports..."



You have no idea of what a good piece of journalism is. It seems the New York Times has fallen a long way.

You do, however, like to post long pieces of crappy opinion, with few relevant facts, written by dopes with an agenda.

"That’s what I’m setting out to do here. Over the last few months, in consultation with sports economists, antitrust lawyers and reformers, I put together the outlines of what I believe to be a realistic plan to pay those who play football and men’s basketball in college."

It would take all day to bring up all of the crap he missed (or conveniently overlooked). This was a sales pitch...and a high ball sales pitch.

In the writer's plan, everyone in college basketball and football might as well be called professional athletes. In fact, he pisses on the real college athletes...doesn't want revenue shared with the other school sports. Racist fvck..."plantation" gets mentioned...but he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the MMA, pro tennis, pro golf, or any other pro sport except basketball and football.

Of course, the writer would not like college football and basketball going pro...after looking at how other pro sports' minor league players fare. Take away the college, "unprofessional" link, and the whole system probably collapses. Who watches the NBA developmental league? Nobody.

BTW, your, "good piece" didn't bother touching on the number of players injured and losing scholarships. In fact, his plan would not cover the injury accident that was brought up by the comedy piece (see if you can bother figuring out why).

In the end, you didn't make your case for college players being paid. Stick to graphs...at least they allow your reader to suffer through a shorter version of your whine party.

[89Hen]

Total evisceration of every argument against compensating players.

So as you can now see... nope.

[Chizzang]

I think we all understand that the NCAA will NEVER pay anybody anything
outside of the occasional lawsuit filed against them - but other than that....

This is just pissing in the wind

But the observation is still true:
A billion dollar industry built around free labor is awesome
and we'd all love to have free laborers