russ_watters said:
Ok - what does that have to do with the quote you were responding to or this thread in general? Ok, you've mentioned several times now that most schools lose money on athletics: what about those that don't lose money? And what about individual athletes who could make money on their own (via endorsement deals)?
You're trying to argue that the schools are screwing over the athlete. I'm saying no, other athletes are screwing over the athlete. You're picking the university as the bad guy because it's easier to point at an entity that seems to have a lot of money and say "They're the one holding down the little person" rather than point at other students on scholarship and note that they're the ones actually taking the money. If you're going to argue that schools shouldn't be making so much money off their athletes, you have to argue that they, well, make money off their athletes first, which you have yet to do successfully
And "most" is not the opposite of "nobody", of course. The opposite of "most" is "some". If "most" schools (school administrators, coaches, etc.) don't get rich off sports, that means some do. So what about them?
Ok, schools still aren't for profit entities. School administrators aren't raking in money hand over fist when their schools do, so I don't think that's a good comparison. On the other hand football coaches get paid tons of money regardless of whether the school is making money or not. If you want to argue that football coaches are overpaid, I will agree with you. That is all.
You are not responding to the things I'm saying. Ok, yeah - that's how "the system" works...well I'm asking if "the system" makes sense and arguing that it doesn't. You aren't really responding to that or providing your own arguments.
No, you're asking if the system is the college screwing over the athletes. I'm responding no. If you want to argue if college athletics will be
improved by allowing professional athletes, you haven't really said much about it besides school administrators make too much money
To go back to the Tim Tebow thing, Tebow had a choice: Go into the NFL draft and make money or stick it out in college for another year. He found college football to be so rewarding that it was worth putting off the NFL for a year, so it seems to me that there is some value to the players in this process beyond gaining eligibility to join a pro league. Arguing about the risk of injury is kind of moot because while existent, most people who are surefire first round picks get insurance that protects them against loss of expected income due to injury.
I'll also add my personal opinion that college athletics would not be worth nearly as much money if the athletes got paid (because it would ruin the concept for the students at the schools, and the schools would have no way to afford this) but obviously I have no way of proving this.
If you want to argue that the NFL and NBA (which does have a development league, called the NBA development league actually) is screwing over young athletes, that's another issue. Don't blame colleges that going to one is the most effective way of getting a job in the NFL or NBA.
To bring up another counterpoint, Tim Tebow is only really worth so much because of the Florida brand name. The best player in the world could be at a small name school and would get little press coverage. And you have yet to demonstrate that any individual player is worth actual money to a college. Can you explain how Tim Tebow generates the school and the NCAA so much more money than if he did not exist? If not, then you haven't explained why he deserves to get paid in the first place