Benefits rule is un-American, illogical, and utter BS

[fivecent]

Basically they are all dumb and only good for your entertainment so they should be fine with taking whatever you give them and like.

Or just a fact.

Most guys on D1 scholarships wouldn't be able to get into the school they attend without playing football.

So they get hundreds of thousands of dollars of free stuff and a stipend and they go to better schools than they could reasonably get into on their own academic merit.

And yet they're exploited victims who needs cash.

Eaxctly. Since according to you its all the same, keep your "stuff" and give them the cash.

 

[JHallCanes]

Things like this always show who the real morons are around here

 

[SFbayCane]

There's a bizarre Hegelian Dialectic going on in this thread. Its all about the football athlete in a vacuum. To see the full reality, I suggest looking past athletics. Some examples:

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

Yet somehow people do not think that a scholarship athlete should be allowed to profit from their own given talents. These kids cannot work at a local high school camp in the off season, cannot teach private lessons to young kids wanting to learn football, etc... I find that disingenuous. And the only reason I've seen floated is because someone thinks "they get enough already." But the bottom line is that these rules are put in place to preserve the value of the NCAA, not the individual. No one has made the case that the UM skool of music is weaker because Sarah, who is on a scholarship to play cello is teaching lessons at the Miami Beach music store.

Moreover, when you look at the sum of revenue generated by some of these athletes to the universities, its clear that there is collusion among the universities to suppress their compensation by threatening to harm their market value if they decide to get a little too uppity. I, for one have a problem with that.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Eaxctly. Since according to you its all the same, keep your "stuff" and give them the cash.

Then they would have to spend their cash on their education. Thus making it a moot point altogether.

These guys have no market value without playing college football. If they think they do then they are welcome to sit out for three years and have an agent pay them to train for the NFL Draft.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.

 

[Chuckles]

There's a bizarre Hegelian Dialectic going on in this thread. Its all about the football athlete in a vacuum. To see the full reality, I suggest looking past athletics. Some examples:

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

Yet somehow people do not think that a scholarship athlete should be allowed to profit from their own given talents. These kids cannot work at a local high school camp in the off season, cannot teach private lessons to young kids wanting to learn football, etc... I find that disingenuous. And the only reason I've seen floated is because someone thinks "they get enough already." But the bottom line is that these rules are put in place to preserve the value of the NCAA, not the individual. No one has made the case that the UM skool of music is weaker because Sarah, who is on a scholarship to play cello is teaching lessons at the Miami Beach music store.

Moreover, when you look at the sum of revenue generated by some of these athletes to the universities, its clear that there is collusion among the universities to suppress their compensation by threatening to harm their market value if they decide to get a little too uppity. I, for one have a problem with that.

This argument would have more merit if the level of the school's investment in the kid playing in the band was the same as the investment behind the football player. Not saying there should not be some sort of reasonable accommodation for the player to earn some money on the side, but then complications arise and the majority of players are unlikely to benefit from the accommodation. Then there is the school and time limitations thingy.

The most valuable gain for the player that doesn't get the multi-million dollar NFL (just won the lotto) contract is the opportunity to get an education and resulting lifetime career. The odds for long-term success favor the later. Seems like most don't understand that.

 

[SFbayCane]

There's a bizarre Hegelian Dialectic going on in this thread. Its all about the football athlete in a vacuum. To see the full reality, I suggest looking past athletics. Some examples:

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

Yet somehow people do not think that a scholarship athlete should be allowed to profit from their own given talents. These kids cannot work at a local high school camp in the off season, cannot teach private lessons to young kids wanting to learn football, etc... I find that disingenuous. And the only reason I've seen floated is because someone thinks "they get enough already." But the bottom line is that these rules are put in place to preserve the value of the NCAA, not the individual. No one has made the case that the UM skool of music is weaker because Sarah, who is on a scholarship to play cello is teaching lessons at the Miami Beach music store.

Moreover, when you look at the sum of revenue generated by some of these athletes to the universities, its clear that there is collusion among the universities to suppress their compensation by threatening to harm their market value if they decide to get a little too uppity. I, for one have a problem with that.

This argument would have more merit if the level of the school's investment in the kid playing in the band was the same as the investment behind the football player. Not saying there should not be some sort of reasonable accommodation for the player to earn some money on the side, but then complications arise and the majority of players are unlikely to benefit from the accommodation. Then there is the school and time limitations thingy.

The most valuable gain for the player that doesn't get the multi-million dollar NFL (just won the lotto) contract is the opportunity to get an education and resulting lifetime career. The odds for long-term success favor the later. Seems like most don't understand that.

I take issue with the way you frame your rebuttal in the bolded part above.

1) the revenue to the university system is much greater for the athlete than for the academic or music scholarship student.

2) Its still an attempt to control the earnings potential of one person on scholarship versus another, simply because "the system" is benefited by the greater control of the athlete. Let the invisible hand tell each person what they are worth, just as it does for schools that charge higher tuition rates than others.

 

[SFbayCane]

BTW - I should add that no other scholarship student has to submit to drug testing. No one on academic scholarship has to take random drug tests. Can you imagine what would happen to the music school if everyone on a music scholarship had to take random drug tests? LMAO.

 

[dookie blaylock]

This is the problem we're having in society now. Everyone thinks every ******* rule shouldn't apply to them. Fvck off and move somewhere else. Good luck trying to find a more free society with less rules.

i hear that somalia is really nice in the spring.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Can you imagine what would happen to the music school if everyone on a music scholarship had to take random drug tests? LMAO.

To do what?

They're not competing in intercollegiate competition.

Football players who are no longer able to fulfill their end of the contact (through injury) have their tuition covered. Are musicians who can't play an instrument anymore allowed to continue free of charge?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

2) Its still an attempt to control the earnings potential of one person on scholarship versus another, simply because "the system" is benefited by the greater control of the athlete. Let the invisible hand tell each person what they are worth, just as it does for schools that charge higher tuition rates than others.

These guys have no worth before enrolling at these schools.

Even guys who we're told are so valuable (like Tebow and Manziel) can't get anybody to pay them to play football.

The arguments you're making fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Can you imagine what would happen to the music school if everyone on a music scholarship had to take random drug tests? LMAO.

To do what?

They're not competing in intercollegiate competition.

Football players who are no longer able to fulfill their end of the contact (through injury) have their tuition covered. Are musicians who can't play an instrument anymore allowed to continue free of charge?

absolutely not. buddy of mine was in on a music scholarship at um for guitar and broke his hand. lost his scholarship and had to transfer to a school in his home state.

 

[SFbayCane]

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]




This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.

 

[SFbayCane]

Can you imagine what would happen to the music school if everyone on a music scholarship had to take random drug tests? LMAO.

To do what?

They're not competing in intercollegiate competition.

Football players who are no longer able to fulfill their end of the contact (through injury) have their tuition covered. Are musicians who can't play an instrument anymore allowed to continue free of charge?

absolutely not. buddy of mine was in on a music scholarship at um for guitar and broke his hand. lost his scholarship and had to transfer to a school in his home state.

Its also worth noting that your buddy could have been offered another music scholarship at another university should he have been able to get an offer. A kid who signs with University A must get the permission of that skool if he wants to transfer to University B if they offer him another scholarship.

The system is clearly rigged against the student athlete.

 

[Chuckles]

There's a bizarre Hegelian Dialectic going on in this thread. Its all about the football athlete in a vacuum. To see the full reality, I suggest looking past athletics. Some examples:

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

Yet somehow people do not think that a scholarship athlete should be allowed to profit from their own given talents. These kids cannot work at a local high school camp in the off season, cannot teach private lessons to young kids wanting to learn football, etc... I find that disingenuous. And the only reason I've seen floated is because someone thinks "they get enough already." But the bottom line is that these rules are put in place to preserve the value of the NCAA, not the individual. No one has made the case that the UM skool of music is weaker because Sarah, who is on a scholarship to play cello is teaching lessons at the Miami Beach music store.

Moreover, when you look at the sum of revenue generated by some of these athletes to the universities, its clear that there is collusion among the universities to suppress their compensation by threatening to harm their market value if they decide to get a little too uppity. I, for one have a problem with that.

This argument would have more merit if the level of the school's investment in the kid playing in the band was the same as the investment behind the football player. Not saying there should not be some sort of reasonable accommodation for the player to earn some money on the side, but then complications arise and the majority of players are unlikely to benefit from the accommodation. Then there is the school and time limitations thingy.

The most valuable gain for the player that doesn't get the multi-million dollar NFL (just won the lotto) contract is the opportunity to get an education and resulting lifetime career. The odds for long-term success favor the later. Seems like most don't understand that.

I take issue with the way you frame your rebuttal in the bolded part above.

1) the revenue to the university system is much greater for the athlete than for the academic or music scholarship student.

2) Its still an attempt to control the earnings potential of one person on scholarship versus another, simply because "the system" is benefited by the greater control of the athlete. Let the invisible hand tell each person what they are worth, just as it does for schools that charge higher tuition rates than others.

Agree with your second point. I think "Brian Picollo" adequately rebutted the first. In addition, although "the system" is benefited by the greater control of the athlete, the athlete benefits from a system and infrastructure built long before he added his value to the system. Also, for the elite player--the tiny minority that makes the league--the earnings potential is not lost because of the revenue he brings to the school.

 

[TheEye]

If this weren't our school we would all be crying "foul. "
This is not a case of kids being fed or being housed. It is a case of kids being given flashy transportation. Not some junker to drive to class. Yes, these rules seem ridiculous considering the amount of money exchanging hands as a result of these talented athletes, but the rules are there for a reason.
Personally, I would like to see some exceptions to these rules when considering students' economic backgrounds.

 

[dookie blaylock]

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]




This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.

"immorally suppresses wages." what a crock. they get tuition free. they get housing free on campus, and a stupidly high housing stipend for moving off campus (they can pocket the difference too). they get food free, and better food than normal students. they get academic support that normal students don't get. they get brand new laptops and ipads. they don't have to pay for books that can easily total to over $1000/semester. they get benefits that kids on full academic rides don't get.

do i think they deserve a stipend since they can't realistically hold jobs to make some disposable income? absolutely. they work their asses off, and that's why the ncaa approved stipends, but let's not act like these guys aren't coddled from the day they arrive on campus.

 

[Chuckles]

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]




This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.

"immorally suppresses wages." what a crock. they get tuition free. they get housing free on campus, and a stupidly high housing stipend for moving off campus. they get food free, and better food than normal students. they get academic support that normal students don't get. they get brand new laptops and ipads. they don't have to pay for books that can easily total to over $1000/semester.

do i think they deserve a stipend since they can't realistically hold jobs to make some disposable income? absolutely. they work their asses off, and that's why the ncaa approved stipends, but let's not act like these guys aren't coddled from the day they arrive on campus.

Yup, ceteris paribus, without a football scholarship some of these guys would be standing on the corner playing with their ****, and without football some of them would be attending on an academic scholarship.

 

[fivecent]

Eaxctly. Since according to you its all the same, keep your "stuff" and give them the cash.

Then they would have to spend their cash on their education. Thus making it a moot point altogether.

These guys have no market value without playing college football. If they think they do then they are welcome to sit out for three years and have an agent pay them to train for the NFL Draft.

1)Who says they would spend all of it at UM.

2)And the school don't have a multi-billion dollar industry without these guys.

 

[Tad Footeball]

I guess they didn't know it was a violation to drive around in expensive *** luxury cars , at a small private school that's just off probation.

Poor kids

They obviously weren't majoring in logic. The premise of this entire thread is more retarded than the offspring of a Marshall fan and an Arky fan. Even Ol Jay Bilas wouldn't take the NCAA system to task over college athletes not being able to have access to *discounted luxury cars.