Topay or Not ToPay?

This has come out in so many different threads, I think it's time to see where we all stand. 2 votes each!



I for one, feel paying college athletes is unethical behavior.

It all comes down to integrity. Some people have it, some people don't.

hawkwing wrote:
It all comes down to integrity. Some people have it, some people don't.

Correction: Some people have it. MOST people don't.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If you start paying the athletes. It becomes a professional sport. Kids won't even think twice about their education and that not only rips themselves off, but the other kids in that college as well.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ps. only 5% of athletic depts operate at a profit (only 1 operates for a Prophet).

hawkwing wrote:
ps. only 5% of athletic depts operate at a profit (only 1 operates for a Prophet).

BYUH still has a sports program right?



You fail to ask the question of whether it is right for state owned colleges to create a cartel to prevent payment to the athletes. If this were a bunch of private schools who received no benefits from the state I would have answered differently.



Also the fifth option, "No! Educational scholarships and stipdends coupled with the education IS fair market value and should continue to be the focus" is simply untrue. The free market certainly does not value each athlete the same, as can be seen by the extra incentives given some athletes (including those at BYU). You may want to edit the option to take the free market part out.

Don't you mean to pay MORE? They are paid quite a bit already in free schooling, books, food, board, tutors, etc...

ughhhh...why did you start this thread. It is like opening the door to that annoying neighbor that does not understand personal bubble space.

If the NCAA allows anything different, ti should simply increase stipends allowed to be paid to athletes. Problem is, schools can not afford it because the revenue sports support non-revenue sports. Start draining the revenue sports, and bye bye to many athletic departments. Not feasible, unless head coach pay gets cut--which I have no problem with, btw. Only people who argue otherwise are those who do not understand the finances of college athletics.

in my case it's toupe or not toupe. I'm going with not.

Mars wrote:


Do you want most football schools to drop the sport? Do you want schools to drop most of their sports? Do you want less competition in college football, where a couple teams are like the Yankees and go undefeated most regular seasons? Do you want NCAA football to look just like the NFL?



No, of course you don't. Dumb idea.

What is ethical and what you want are not the same things. At least make a relevant argument, even if it is flawed.

hawkwing wrote:
It all comes down to integrity. Some people have it, some people don't.

So ethics comes down to integrity or wholeness in one's philosophy? I'll buy that. Now complete the argument by explaining how paying (or getting paid) for athletic performance prevents one from being integral in the way they live their life.

Why don't you answer any of my counterpoints in the lounge thread jv?



You know, the one you started, supporting a communist - and haven't posted on since you've been proven wrong there 2 or 3 times, by sno and I.



If your argument isn't right, then just keep stating it and maybe someone will believe you.

hawkwing wrote:It all comes down to integrity. Some people have it, some people don't.

So ethics comes down to integrity or wholeness in one's philosophy? I'll buy that. Now complete the argument by explaining how paying (or getting paid) for athletic performance prevents one from being integral in the way they live their life.

Because they signed a contract agreeing not to be paid, (or their parents). It isn't about the money, or the amount. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BECOME A COUNTRY THAT NO LONGER RECOGNIZES THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS, and through those means, no longer recognizing personal property. The day people can stop honoring contracts and not be held accountable, is the day this world goes to the :utard: er.



That reminds me, JV. Do you want that $10,000 granite countertop job that I offered you. I only ask that you pay me $500 in advance, and that you allow me to use some of your arguments and reasoning (favoring Cam Newton, etc.) as admissable in court. I'll write up the contract right now. Care to sign? I'll give you my paypal account.



- One granite countertop of $10,000 value in exchange for a one time only $500 downpayment, to be paid upfront.

- Buyer (you) authorizes provider (me) to use any argument of the validity of honoring contracts used by you, that he may or may not have saved away in computer files and hard print.

- Buyer agrees that seller may be able to back out of contract - without penalty, or further compensation, and with no refund given, and no further action or recourse required of seller - as long as seller feels he is being treated unfairly. Or seller may deem that the contract entered into - willingly and willfully by both parties - is unfair, and therefore not hold up his end of the bargain, or may be entitled to breaching the contract without recourse for something more appealing.



signed: seller Brayden Green - dated 03/31/2011

signed: buyer (your name and date here)



(C'mon, put your money where your mouth is)

I'm fine with athletes getting paid for their talents as long as they are actually students pursuing a degree and they are not getting paid by school directly other than tuition, books, room and board.



If Jimmer wants to have a shoe deal in college, fine. If EA sports wants to use players' images in their video games, the players should be paid. If a player wants to use their fame to sell cars, great have at it.



I actually think it would make college sports better. A college football or basketball player might decide to stay 4 years and develop their game rather than hurry to the pros when they aren't ready. College tennis and golf could be REALLY interesting if players could accept sponsorships.



As far as the competitive landscape, it wouldn't be any different than it is now. A few teams will dominate which is how it works in every sport and success will primarily be based on how good your coaches are more than any other factor.

The main problem that I see with paying college athletes is that when people have this discussion they think of football players at Florida or men's basketball players at Kentucky, and they never talk about the hundreds of thousands of other college athletes at different schools and playing different sports that would never survive athletes getting paid.



If your football and men's basketball program can't pay for the rest of your athletic programs then what would happen, especially with Title IX.



The problem with saying that they can be paid but the school can't pay them is that it is the boosters with all the money anyway. Phil Knight would just give a school deal to any kid willing to play at Oregon and the school wouldn't have to pay a dime.



I think the biggest shame isn't that college athletes aren't paid, but that they are duped into thinking that they are going pro and so they don't pay attention to classes and the free education they are supposed to be getting.

Instead I would like to see schools held more accountable for low graduation rates. For example, a scholarship would be assigned to an athlete until they graduated, transferred or dropped out, and a drop out would cost you half a scholarship for 5 years or something.



That way a school would be forced to work with the student athletes until they completed their education instead of just using them for a few years and discarding them without the promised free education.

Isola wrote:
If your football and men's basketball program can't pay for the rest of your athletic programs then what would happen, especially with Title IX.



The problem with saying that they can be paid but the school can't pay them is that it is the boosters with all the money anyway. Phil Knight would just give a school deal to any kid willing to play at Oregon and the school wouldn't have to pay a dime.

That would be great. If Phil Knight picked up the tab on athletes then Oregon can use the money they save for other student grants, degree programs, etc. It's a win-win.

Good points Rasta, but you would need to separate the sports from the colleges, because I'll be damned if my taxpayer dollars are going to go to getting the "next big thing" for Utah State, or the U.



So if you privatize all sports, across the board (1) many sports won't be self sufficient, shutting them down. That is only fair, I think, as I am not a supporter of Title IX. But that means less kids getting scholarships.

(2) most colleges will shut down, because boosters will withdraw their donations, and without ticket sells, etc most colleges won't be self-supporting.

(3) most kids that are in college to "see if" they can make it pro, won't go to college anymore, they will go to farm systems. Which is fine if it is their choice, but I don't think that having kids not go to school is a good idea. We are already one of the least educated countries as it is.

(4) releasing the non-taxable status on colleges will give the government more money, which will ease them of the ridiculous burden they have created on all of us. Meaning, they wouldn't allow themselves to learn from their mistakes, they would go creating more entitlement programs, which would enslave more people and drain more money from people that actually want to create and prosper.



If you want a semi-pro league as a player, there is nothing stopping you from going to a place that will pay you to go. There is nothing wrong with expecting compensation for your services. And if a scholarship or college isn't for you, then it isn't for you. No one is forcing you to go to college. Like Brandon Jennings has shown:

"It's an alternative approach," said Valle, a L.A.-based family attorney. "It makes sense. We're trying to get the eligibility issues sorted out. The main thing is that he's considering doing something different."

...

Reached Friday, Vaccaro said he hasn't advised Jennings. But when told Jennings was considering the option, he said, "It makes sense. It's one of the smartest things I've heard. It's a viable thing. I have personally spoken to teams internationally in Europe, Asia and Africa who are interested in this [taking high school graduates]."

...

The NBA executives said that teams in Europe aren't designed to just sign up an 18-year-old American. They have junior programs where younger players go through a system to get to the primary club team. But if an agent were working for Jennings, then they might be able to secure a deal, although playing time might be an issue.



The other option for Jennings if he's ineligible for Arizona is to go to the NBA D-League. He would be eligible because he's a high school graduate, but he wouldn't be able to get called up to an NBA roster.



He would be able to play in the D-League and then go through the 2009 NBA draft. Former Iowa State guard Mike Taylor took that route after he was dismissed from school. He is eligible for the draft next week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3454157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The bottom line: If you want to get paid for your services, and not just "compensated" then that is fine. Go get paid! They are plenty of opportunities everywhere, if you are good enough! JUST DON'T SIGN A CONTRACT TO PLAY FOR SOMEONE SAYING THAT YOU WON'T ACCEPT MONEY, when that is exactly what you are doing. It doesn't matter if "everyone is doing it." It is on the individual to decide for him/herself what kind of integrity they personally have, regardless of what everyone else is doing.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Because they signed a contract agreeing not to be paid, (or their parents). It isn't about the money, or the amount. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BECOME A COUNTRY THAT NO LONGER RECOGNIZES THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS, and through those means, no longer recognizing personal property. The day people can stop honoring contracts and not be held accountable, is the day this world goes to the :utard: er.



That reminds me, JV. Do you want that $10,000 granite countertop job that I offered you. I only ask that you pay me $500 in advance, and that you allow me to use some of your arguments and reasoning (favoring Cam Newton, etc.) as admissable in court. I'll write up the contract right now. Care to sign? I'll give you my paypal account.



- One granite countertop of $10,000 value in exchange for a one time only $500 downpayment, to be paid upfront.

- Buyer (you) authorizes provider (me) to use any argument of the validity of honoring contracts used by you, that he may or may not have saved away in computer files and hard print.

- Buyer agrees that seller may be able to back out of contract - without penalty, or further compensation, and with no refund given, and no further action or recourse required of seller - as long as seller feels he is being treated unfairly. Or seller may deem that the contract entered into - willingly and willfully by both parties - is unfair, and therefore not hold up his end of the bargain, or may be entitled to breaching the contract without recourse for something more appealing.



signed: seller Brayden Green - dated 03/31/2011

signed: buyer (your name and date here)



(C'mon, put your money where your mouth is)

If I had robbed you of $500, I think you would perfectly within your rights to take that $500 back by the means you describe.

Also, it is funny blue, that you condemn me in supporting one thing a socialist/communist did and then give a 5 paragraph post about why socialism is okay with you.



Even funnier, this thread is about ethics and integrity.