Comments on: Cash Rules Everything Around Me

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:24:47 +0000

Well, right now, the the user has a job from which a whole crap load of heroin is funneled into the dealer who can then sell it off.

By: A$$ & T!##!*$

A$$ & T!##!*$ — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:37:35 +0000

I think about your solution to student atheletes getting paid is like telling an addict they have to stay clean for four years and then you are going to reward them with 10 kilos of heroin! Sounds like fun at first…

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:19:11 +0000

Whatever. All the professors I know suck anyways.

By: Professor Professorson

Professor Professorson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:51:15 +0000

Keep in mind that it’s not just the students who may (or may not) have a problem with the idea of paying athletes. We lowly faculty members are notorious ball busters who–this may shock you–are perfectly happy to drone on and on about real or perceived injustices, and to spend untold time and energy fighting policies with which we disagree. Many faculty members I know already resent the special treatment that big-time athletes receive, seemingly at the expense of paying students. I would bet your favorite kidney that faculty reaction to a proposal like this would be swift and damning, even if students were okay with it.

One more thing about faculty members: they never know when to just shut up already.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:14:44 +0000

Do you mean participation as college students or as kids first learning the sport? Either way, I don’t see a problem. Are loads of kids participating in rifle or crew when they’re five years old? Or, will some kid who’s been a rifler his whole life be able to switch to football like that and play at a D-1 level?

And about this wedge, I think it’s overstated. Maybe using the GU student body is a bad example, but do you really see a full-scale revolt at Gonzaga if Steven Gray got a check after graduating and passing a general knowledge exam?

By: Caveman Lawyer

Caveman Lawyer — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:00:44 +0000

I am actually mostly agree with the Professor. I think if you pay atheletes you will cause a very large wedge between student atheletes and regular students. I also believe you are missing another result of your propsoal; the reduction in student atheletes participating in the non-revenue producing sports. By offering to pay athelete1 “X” for playing High Revenue Sports and paying athelete2 Y Non Revenue Sports. Which one do you think peopel are going to want to play? I am going to say in most cases they are going to play what is going to pay them the most amount of money. Remember this is just the opinion of a Caveman Lawyer.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:04:09 +0000

I think that would just make the problem as I see it (too much money-chasing in college sports) worse. Schools would use their teams as ways to get funding (which they try to do now but at which only a few actually succeed) rather than for recreation or whatever else.

And most every major conference team actually makes money off basketball (thanks to revenue sharing) already, while most small schools either lose money or break even.

I know you acknowledged there might be holes in your plan, so I’m not trying to point them out. Fundamentally, though, I have problems with giving money to anyone besides the players.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:50:23 +0000

After thinking about this a bit, I still don’t agree with paying players, but I have an idea on how that money collected might still be fairly distributed.

Instead of going to the players, have the money distributed to the athletic departments. First priority goes to paying the scholarships, then coach’s salaries, travel, facilities, etc. The NCAA gives each school a certain amount of money, some of it to use for specific reasons, and the rest may be used at the school’s discretion. The players still benefit (better facilities, better travel). Add bonuses for making it to the tournament (like what’s already in place).

I can think of two benefits to this: First, I believe that it would create competitive balance between the schools. I think the “big guns” (Duke, Kansas, etc.) will still be the top teams, but I think that mid- and low-majors will have a better chance of competing for recruits and coaches to make them better. Second, I hope it will funnel more money to the academics of a school. Since the athletic departments won’t need as much money, the boosters can write their checks to the college/university in general instead of the athletic department.

There’s probably some holes in my argument, but I think if you’re proposing revenue sharing, we might as well make it more like a professional sports league (I’m thinking kinda like Major League Baseball where there’s revenue sharing, but the Yankees still have far more income). In this scenario, I’m sure most of the mid- and low-major teams will get significantly more money for their athletic departments, but the majors will still have their other sources of income (apparel, TV, etc.) that will make them ahead of everybody else, but at least this way it brings the little guy a little closer.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:30:00 +0000

This is indeed a fundamental disagreement. You forget that I’m a teacher, too, and that I’ve spent most of my career teaching in a city where the schools are inherently effed up and work in a city now where they might be even more so. You want to talk about the devaluing of education, we can start there rather than with whether or not paying college athletes will cause the educational world to explode.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast.

By: Professor Professorson

Professor Professorson — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 00:13:54 +0000

I understand your point. I just don’t agree with you. And I think, once again, that your focus on money is making the situation seem less fair to you than it really is. I was griping earlier about the devaluation of education that is implicit in your plan, as if being educated for free wasn’t already a fantastic reward (both financially and otherwise) for a few years of playing ball. And now I’ll add that you’re assuming that an athlete gains nothing from appearing on TV, having his/her name on the back of jerseys that are sold to fans, etc. Even if the athlete never sees any of that money, the exposure itself is worth something, particularly if he/she aspires to play professionally or otherwise work in sports. Student athletes get a lot out of the deal even if they aren’t paid. And if you start from the premise that these are students first and foremost, and then compare their situation to that of students who aren’t athletes, the idea that they should be paid on top of everything else becomes downright unseemly. Just my opinion.

Basically, I feel like you’re arguing that the problems Hutchins identified can be remedied by reinforcing the aspects of college athletics that caused them in the first place. I’m really kind of baffled that this is the conclusion that you drew from Hutchins. But if your goal here was to be provocative, mission accomplished! I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.