Replies: 28
| visibility 700
|
All-In [25014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32323
Joined: 2/15/09
|
Why do political ideologies flip on paying student athletes?
Feb 21, 2019, 2:12 PM
|
|
I have always found it odd how people on both sides of the political spectrum flip their ideology when it comes to the issue of the NCAA paying players.
"Conservatives" who are usually in favor of free market capitalism, making as much money as you can etc. , suddenly don't believe that college athletes should have that same ability.
"Liberals" who are usually for a redistribution of wealth system, suddenly don't care about the smaller NCAA sports /athletes and believe that the bigtime athlete should be able to make as much as they can.
These are not 100% of course but it's almost always people who identify as conservative who are against paying players and people who identify as liberal who are for it.
what's the reason for this?
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
stars don't have to go to college
Feb 21, 2019, 2:21 PM
|
|
their aau guys or shoe guys could fund them for a year while the keep working out
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60051]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22507
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Re: Why do political ideologies flip on paying student athletes?
Feb 21, 2019, 2:24 PM
|
|
They are getting an education that many others are paying off for 20 years, sometimes in the case of a Duke they are getting nearly $250,000 for free. Opportunities are opened up to them due to being an athlete than a regular graduate and overally they receive free shoes, shirts, hats, pants, coats all stuff we pay $1,000 to support them and the team. And now they also have a stipend.
I think if they do not care about the diploma, dont show up and dont offer up to pay players just because they can do 2 and done or 1 and done.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73800
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Why do political ideologies flip on paying student athletes?
Feb 21, 2019, 2:26 PM
|
|
I had no idea this is what I was supposed to believe, thanks for letting me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64890
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Because liberals see them as being used by greedy capitalist
Feb 21, 2019, 2:27 PM
|
|
while they play for "free". The university makes millions off of them and only give them a scholarship. Not to mention liberals are generally averse to violent sports with the objective of territorial acquisition. Not to mention concussions and other injuries. Yada Yada.
Conservatives love football. They like the fact that players are playing it purely for fun, or for a scholarship, or for a chance to play in the NFL. Conservatives know that money corrupts, and the entire sport of college football WILL change if players are paid. They will unionize. Players will come and go and so will coaches. It will become a business instead of a pleasure.
This kinda explains it.
Message was edited by: Tiggity®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32323
Joined: 2/15/09
|
not only football
Feb 21, 2019, 2:32 PM
|
|
what I worry about as far as paying players is that it will greatly damage scholarship opportunities for thousands of prospective student athletes in all NCAA sports across all divisions.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Let me make a little edit for you.
Feb 21, 2019, 2:37 PM
[ in reply to Because liberals see them as being used by greedy capitalist ] |
|
"Conservatives and liberals and all people in between love football."
Seriously, how do y'all make up such ridiculous claims? Did you really sit there and pretend conservatives somehow have the market covered on football?
Christ, Tiggity, they aren't moving NFL teams to the middle of rural red states.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64890
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64890
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Also...much the same reason NASCAR is dying
Feb 21, 2019, 3:11 PM
|
|
Too much money flowed into the sport, the sport grew wings and went nationwide, leaving their roots, and now they're in decline. The mouth breathing redneck, rural Wal-Mart trump supporters founded the sport (I think I threw in enough stereotypes for you to understand). They don't particularly care for the sport leaving small towns like Rockingham, NC high and dry for a Vegas race, or young, clean shaven, GQ drivers from the west coast.
Toss in safer (slower) tracks, restrictor plates, and expensive tickets, and their base is gone.
https://thepioneeronline.com/36402/sports/youth-football-participation-on-the-decline/
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's on the decline because of head injuries not politics
Feb 21, 2019, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Here. Read up. ] |
|
You have former football players not letting their kids play and you want to attribute it to bleeding hearts?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: It's on the decline because of head injuries not politics
Feb 21, 2019, 3:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38822
Joined: 12/31/97
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Fail. Fail. Fail. Double Fail.
Feb 21, 2019, 3:28 PM
[ in reply to Here. Read up. ] |
|
1st link: You said "conservatives love football". You didn't differentiate between pro and college football.
2nd link: Has nothing at all to do with liberal vs. conservative. In fact, one person quoted in there shatters that idiotic (and I will repeat in all caps: IDIOTIC) belief that wanting more safety in football equals liberalism. How phenomenally dumb.
3rd link: Nothing at all about liberal vs. conservative.
4th link: Nothing at all about liberal vs. conservative.
Your claims was the height of absurdity, Tiggity. Football has ZERO to do with political ideology. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. It's America's most popular sport and shared by millions of all political persuasions.
Or are you going to tell me all those African American players are big Republicans?
C'mon. How does anyone actually believe this? Go ahead. Tell me how the base 4-3 defense identifies with lassiez-faire economic philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Point mainly b/c I loved that last line
Feb 21, 2019, 4:02 PM
|
|
New blog idea: "Economic theory as told through football." I think there's money in that idea for someone well versed in both.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38822
Joined: 12/31/97
|
LOL
Feb 21, 2019, 3:27 PM
[ in reply to Because liberals see them as being used by greedy capitalist ] |
|
"liberals are generally averse to violent sports with the objective of territorial acquisition. Not to mention concussions and other injuries."
This explains all the liberal Clemson/SC/GA/AL/TN/etc. fans protesting outside the stadium every Saturday across the southeast.
As to point two you haven't really explained how exactly conservative are squaring their belief system apart from explaining that conservatives believe that grown ### men who have a marketable skill worth millions of dollars should be legally excluded from using their skills to generate income until you've gotten enough enjoyment out of them giving that skill away for free.
I'm not even saying I disagree with it, because I ####### love college football and it's due to the fact that it still has heart at this point. I like that. But I also recognize that my wanting to watch a particular sport currently comes at the cost of athletes risking their most marketable skill so that I can watch them play as amateurs.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83135]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80163
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
They're probably not what you'd really call "liberal," tho***
Feb 22, 2019, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Because that’s a misrepresentation of the argument.
Feb 21, 2019, 2:57 PM
|
|
Most people like me who are conservative and staunchly oppose paying college players have absolutely no problem with players making money if they can. Go straight to the pros? Great! Go to Europe? Awesome! Join a developmental league? Go for it! Get rich if you can!
But what “pay the college athletes” people demand is that colleges change the way they wish to do business. No. You have no right to tell the NCAA institutions how they’ll maintain a sports program. They can do so as they see fit. So now the question is “Why don’t all these great players go make money, then?” Because they know darned well that the exposure that college gives them will pay huge dividends down the road. The name-recognition from playing for a team that has cultivated a fan base over decades...the development they get from having the best strength and conditioning, the best facilities, the best nutritionist and coaches...is too good to pass up. Well great...they are welcome to play college so long as they agree to do so as an amateur and maintain the minimum academic status. Don’t like it? Not the NCAA’s problem.
Zion choose to play at Duke instead of going to the G League or Europe because that was what he considered the best long term use of this year. He’s almost certainly correct, but the NCAA isn’t stopping him from getting paid. He chose this path.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why do political ideologies flip on paying student athletes?
Feb 21, 2019, 3:47 PM
|
|
If you think about it, the ideologies really arent shifting. Their positions on college athletes are pretty consistent.
Conservatives believe a "pull yourself by the boot straps" idea. "We went to college on our own dime or had to get loans, these athletes are blessed and are being fairly compensated with a free education!". They believe demanding more, such as financial compensation, is asking above and beyond what those athletes deserve as compensation. This is the extreme of this viewpoint.
Liberals believe in the redistribution of wealth for greater equity. They believe that these players are being exploited and deserve "their fair share".
In the case of athletes, I wholeheartedly take the "Liberal" position I explained above. Players should have the right to profit off of their image, as well as receive fair market compensation for the revenue they earn the school. However, to prevent schools from turning recruiting into a bidding war, I believe the NCAA should set compensation tiers so that the payouts schools offer are equal across the board. Meaning Alabama cant pay recruits more than Wake Forest, however, if an Alabama player wants to make money selling autographed jerseys, he can go generate his own uncapped revenue.
So we are looking at 2 sets of income for college athletes: 1. a fixed stipend paid by the school that is equal across all schools and heavily regulated by the NCAA, and 2. uncapped royalties profits the player earns off of their image.
My idea could probably be improved on though, thats just a crude theory I see as fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Again, it has nothing to do with what the athletes deserve,
Feb 21, 2019, 4:18 PM
|
|
it’s about allowing the Universities to run a sports program as they see fit.
Your plan, of course, would make college sports a free-for-all. Once you allow student-athletes to profit off of their image, the highest bidder wins. Boosters for Ohio State, Michigan and Bama will suddenly value a back-up lineman’s autograph at $100k.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Again, it has nothing to do with what the athletes deserve,
Feb 21, 2019, 4:40 PM
|
|
No, because schools would be mandated by NCAA regulations from paying players anything above a mandated NCAA stipend.
My opinion has 2 parts:
1. The NCAA mandates all payers earn a fixed stipend. 2. Players who become famous, like Trevor Lawrence, can independently earn profits from their image in business relations that are NOT with the school.
So for example on #2: Clemson university cannot sell a shirt with TL's name on it. TL can partner with Nike to sell jersey's with his name on it. TL gets royalty checks from Nike, and Clemson gets a royalty check from Nike proportionate to the same check TL gets. IcyHot wants TL to do a commercial for them, TL gets a check from IcyHot, and Clemson gets a check from IcyHot.
My #2 point is compensation that stems directly from the players publicity, and is no different than what the pro's or any other contractor makes. I work a salaried position for a company, but if I somehow become famous and see a way to endorse a product, my company doesnt have any restrictions on me doing that in my spare time.
Now that I think about, we could simply eliminate my Part 1 and just go with Part 2. Prohibit schools from giving any money to any players, and let the players make money off of their image in their own time. This means the player is 100% responsible for making any money in college. The schools, conferences, NCAA, networks, etc. profit off of these kids for the time they are in uniform. The players get to use their name to earn themselves a profit based on their individual reputation.
These kids are putting their bodies, physical health, mental health, and future career outlooks on the line for these schools. They get the #### kicked out of them on the football field, and while 99% will say it was worth it (even the ones that dont go pro), it has a hard impact on their bodies. If they are doing all of that to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to Clemson, the conference, the NCAA, sports networks, etc. they deserve to be compensated for generating the revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41424
Joined: 4/20/01
|
well, the Ohio States alumnae would make their players
Feb 21, 2019, 5:26 PM
|
|
millionaires...thats the point
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [345]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 413
Joined: 8/28/05
|
Re: well, the Ohio States alumnae would make their players
Feb 21, 2019, 6:03 PM
|
|
Agreed. If every school is paying the same but I can sell my Jersey or profit from my image, I want to go to the school with the most/richest fan base.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Right, nobody seems to want to explain "deserve"
Feb 22, 2019, 11:29 AM
[ in reply to Again, it has nothing to do with what the athletes deserve, ] |
|
I'm not sure why people deserve to make money off of playing football just because somebody else is making money off of it. There are other ways of compensating people, and for many, the competition and glory is itself a kind of competition (see, HS athletes- HS sports can also bring in quite a bit of money).
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Maybe it's not as simple as you think it is
Feb 22, 2019, 11:24 AM
|
|
Conservatives aren't libertarians who want everything monetized and subject to the market, after all. They usually side with institutions and would rather preserve the traditional structure of college sports, even if it results in apparent "inequality." They see that the specialness of college football could be ruined by corporatizing it.
Liberals are often motivated mostly by what they see as concern for little guy, and they frame things around equality. Also, their identity politics tells them that most of the college football players are black, while many coaches and administrators are white, so they side with the black players. You could also see this as an issue of labor versus employers, where liberals are, in their typical way, siding with the people they see as being the "labor."
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Maybe it's not as simple as you think it is
Feb 22, 2019, 12:12 PM
|
|
Liberals frame things around equity, not equality.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 700
|
|
|