Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The racial divide on paying players

131 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/03/28/racial-divide-public-opinion-paying-athletes#.UzgmhWxgbWY.twitter

Marist and HBO found that a slightly smaller proportion of the public – 29 percent – supports paying athletes. A similar proportion of white (28 percent) and Latino (29 percent) people agree. But ask black survey respondents, and the positive response nearly doubles, to 53 percent.
“I think it’s increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that you have an unpaid labor force that is predominantly African-American and an incredibly highly paid management system that’s predominantly white,” said Keith Strudler, head of the Marist Center for Sports Communication. “That divide is very pronounced, and it harkens images that get very uncomfortable.”
More than 60 percent of black respondents said top athletes are not paid because many are black; only 25 percent of white respondents (and 33 percent of Latinos) said the same.

“Race has become increasingly a big part of the narrative, and I think maybe the union question may be driving this a little bit,” Strudler said. “There’s a lot of people that seem to think that the athletes shouldn’t be allowed to have power, and I think power and race are very heavily tied together in this country.”




Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/03/28/racial-divide-public-opinion-paying-athletes#ixzz2y9FtM4LX
Inside Higher Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

just a bunch of welfare queens looking for a handout for doing all of that work and generating all those millions of dollars imo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Of course, race becomes an issue when the discussion of paying college athletes is limited to the 2 major college sports- football and basketball. However, I'm sure the argument of race becomes a non-factor if we continue to include sports other than those 2. The northern tier states where ice hockey is a major athletic program, volleyball schools on the west coast, baseball and women's softball....

 

Sorry, I think the notion of paying college athletes is yet another handy conservation piece that allows some proponents to simplify it to the easiest and most readily available argument: race. Nothing more and as far as I'm concerned, a non-factor.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

College athletics used to be dominated by white athletes as recently as 50 years ago, and there wasn't a word spoken about paying them. So that argument is totally bogus. Also, people who quote this idea that college athletics makes millions of dollars don't understand business at all. Those millions of dollars are REVENUE not PROFIT. Operating two or more stadiums; paying coaches, staff and facilities personnel; paying for tutors and academic support programs for athletes. Do everyone a favor and look up how many Division I athletics programs operate at a loss. You will be fuggin' stunned.

 

They want to get paid? Guess what, they get a FREE EDUCATION! You know how many regular, non-athlete student-students would love to graduate from college not $40,000-$200,000 in debt? And these athletes say that's not good enough? They want a free ride plus cash? GTFO!

 

The truth is as short time ago, they were student-athletes. Now they are athlete-students who use College as a gateway to professional sports. They don't take their education seriously. Classes and exams are their pain-in-the-ass chores that they need to do in order to keep playing in what is effectively the professional developmental leagues. So because they don't see the value in the free education, they think they should be getting paid. Excuse me for not balking at the idea of getting a college education at no cost.

 

Fact of the matter is, we just need to do away with this farcical idea of the student athlete. Create a Professional D-league attached to the schools. Pay young professional athlete hopefuls to play at Div. I schools for a couple years. Don't give them a scholarship and don't force those poor over-worked souls to educate themselves with meaningless degrees in criminology and physiology (that are being basically taken for them by tutors and the professors). And then let student-athletes play for free like they always used to at a sort of Junior Varsity level in the school. Problem solved.

 

The amount of greed and entitlement I hear coming from these players is sickening.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm OK with paying them, as long as the scholarships can be revoked.

 

If a player doesn't play up to their billing, you can start scratching them off the books earlier.

 

Treat it like a job, where you can be fired.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

if the NCAA was a little more common sense oriented this whole question would be moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As someone mentioned, it's a stupid premise.  Very very few colleges profit from athletics.  If team(s)/players unionize, truly unionize, there will be more loss of opportunities in athletics than gained.  I will say there should be restitution for players that get injured  during college that impacts their future.  Difficult to gauge, but needs to be a standard policy to cover health expenses and maybe cost of 4 year scholarship with no penalties/taxes on that received income. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd be more in line with giving them a livable weekly stipend across all sports. Athletes often cannot get a part time job due to the time commitment to sports. It should be paid out by the NCAA so that smaller colleges are not at a disadvantage.

 

The NCAA should be a nonprofit and their revenues should be turned around to support the athletes that bring that revenue in.

 

The issue is what sports are eligible. There are 463,000 student athletes and paying them 26 weeks of $250 is roughly $3billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

250 is reasonable. Maybe make it 100 for freshman and tier it up to 250 for a senior.
Maybe even give a kid the choice to use the stipend or let it go to a roth ira for later use.

I think captroop knocked it of the park on the sham of this "cause".


Sent from my SPH-L710 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm OK with paying them, as long as the scholarships can be revoked.

 

If a player doesn't play up to their billing, you can start scratching them off the books earlier.

 

Treat it like a job, where you can be fired.

You already can fire them. Scholarships are a year to year agreement. You can cut them at any time and not owe an athlete anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

College athletics used to be dominated by white athletes as recently as 50 years ago, and there wasn't a word spoken about paying them. So that argument is totally bogus. Also, people who quote this idea that college athletics makes millions of dollars don't understand business at all. Those millions of dollars are REVENUE not PROFIT. Operating two or more stadiums; paying coaches, staff and facilities personnel; paying for tutors and academic support programs for athletes. Do everyone a favor and look up how many Division I athletics programs operate at a loss. You will be fuggin' stunned.

 

They want to get paid? Guess what, they get a FREE EDUCATION! You know how many regular, non-athlete student-students would love to graduate from college not $40,000-$200,000 in debt? And these athletes say that's not good enough? They want a free ride plus cash? GTFO!

 

The truth is as short time ago, they were student-athletes. Now they are athlete-students who use College as a gateway to professional sports. They don't take their education seriously. Classes and exams are their pain-in-the-ass chores that they need to do in order to keep playing in what is effectively the professional developmental leagues. So because they don't see the value in the free education, they think they should be getting paid. Excuse me for not balking at the idea of getting a college education at no cost.

 

Fact of the matter is, we just need to do away with this farcical idea of the student athlete. Create a Professional D-league attached to the schools. Pay young professional athlete hopefuls to play at Div. I schools for a couple years. Don't give them a scholarship and don't force those poor over-worked souls to educate themselves with meaningless degrees in criminology and physiology (that are being basically taken for them by tutors and the professors). And then let student-athletes play for free like they always used to at a sort of Junior Varsity level in the school. Problem solved.

 

The amount of greed and entitlement I hear coming from these players is sickening.

 

I had to laugh at the line FREE EDUCATION. A lot of them don't care at all about the education, so to them it's pretty much worthless. Just look at UNC, and the recently revealed A- paper that one of their students got. He obviously didn't care about learning. 

 

I like your idea though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites