erpowers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-31-07 02:21 PM
Original message |
|
The issues of paying college athletes has come up once again. Recently, people have been saying that title nine is one reason that colleges cannot pay athletes. The argument goes if you pay the guys you will have to pay the women and there most likely is not enough money to do that. Some say even if you only pay the college athletes who play in revenue producing sports title nine would stand in the way.
Does anyone think the issue of title nine is just a cop-out issue for the colleges? I tend to think title nine does not stop colleges from paying the athletes. I know title nine states that college must give equal treatment the men's and women's teams. However, it seems to me if administrators decided to pay only the students who play in revenue producing sports no one could use title nine in that the women's sports are not producing revenue. I tend to think schools just do not want to pay the athletes and are using title nine because they know noone would dare eliminate title nine. Therefore, they will never have to pay student athletes. So, what do other think?
|
BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-31-07 03:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Taking into consideration the cost of a College Education |
|
there can be no doubt that Athletes are getting paid for getting something that many consider priceless. I find title nine irrelevant in the argument.
|
Counciltucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-31-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Why pay them when they're already on scholarship? |
|
I don't have one ounce of athleticism in me, but I'm here for COLLEGE -- to learn -- and am paying my own way (more specifically taking out loans which I'll have to repay). If they have to get paid for playing a sport, I should get paid for learning my stuff.
|
VelmaD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-31-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message |
3. most men's sports don't make money... |
|
even football isn't revenue-producing at most colleges. So Title IX is utterly NOT the issue.
|
jakefrep
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-01-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message |
4. It would be easier just to get rid of the NCAA.... |
|
and all of their monumentally stupid rules about how athletes can earn and receive money. Let BillyBob the Booster pay a player $20/hr to empty wastebaskets if he so chooses.
|
Go Fug Yourself
(5 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-01-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Getting rid of the NCAA |
|
Edited on Sun Apr-01-07 04:38 PM by Go Fug Yourself
Fine, then lets get rid of ALL scholarships, athletic/educational and otherwise. Let there be no free rides for ANYONE. In fact, let's pass a constitutional amendment which says that college students must also work at a job at least 30 hours a week and the money from that job must be used to pay for their college education.
Now that I've responded to the crank side of things, here's a rational and sane response. The vast majority of colleges and universities don't make any profits from their athletic departments, in fact many athletic departments require vast subsidies in order to operate and survive, often at the expense of academics. And as for the athletic departments that do make a profit, if they had to pay athletes, they would run vast deficits..
And let's just say that the NCAA did pass a rule saying that athletes would receive a stipend of some sort. You couldn't just give it to the football/basketball/baseball players, you'd have to give it to every athlete right on down to the water polo and chess teams.
|
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-01-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 04:10 PM
Response to Original message |