It doesn’t pay to play Division I ball

[FedEx227]

College degrees don't really equate to jobs anymore though. Yeah, the unemployment rate for non-degrees is 8%, but even those with a degree is still 4%. Even if they have decent GPAs if it's obvious they have no working experience, internships, etc. they'll be hard pressed to find real good jobs in whatever field.

 

[FirstTimer]

College degrees don't really equate to jobs anymore though. Yeah, the unemployment rate for non-degrees is 8%, but even those with a degree is still 4%. Even if they have decent GPAs if it's obvious they have no working experience, internships, etc. they'll be hard pressed to find real good jobs in whatever field.

Most HR reps will tell you nowadays then unless you have a highly specialized degree field all they are looking for is that you graduated college and have a 4yr degree. Regardless of what it's in. They just want to know you have the degree and are trainable. A degree is still very valuable.

So degrees "don't equate to jobs" yet the unemployment % for people with degrees is a measly 4%?

:edlover:

 

[Atlas]

So degrees "don't equate to jobs" yet the unemployment % for people with degrees is a measly 4%?

:edlover:

pretty sure that is the highest its been since 1970... im still for not paying players, but that needed to be stated...

 

[FirstTimer]

pretty sure that is the highest its been since 1970... im still for not paying players, but that needed to be stated...

The national unemployment rate is over double that. I see what you are saying but excuse me if I don't hold a moment of silence for people with college degrees who can't find work.

And let's be realistic about this, those 4% of people with degrees stand a hell of a better chance at finding work when the job market recovers than people without degrees anyways so the point is moot.

 

[Atlas]

The national unemployment rate is over double that. I see what you are saying but excuse me if I don't hold a moment of silence for people with college degrees who can't find work.

And let's be realistic about this, those 4% of people with degrees stand a hell of a better chance at finding work when the job market recovers than people without degrees anyways so the point is moot.

its actually much worse for recent college grads:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey, the unemployment rate for college graduates between the ages of 20 to 24-year-olds soared five percentage points in the past month -- from 7.1 percent in May to 12.1 percent in June, compared with a three percent jump during the same period last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/college-graduates-jobs-unemployment_n_893495.html

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Anyway, it seems unjust that the NCAA and the universities profit more from the performance of the players than the players profit from their experience with the university. That said, the point has been very well made that it's very possibly more the NFL's fault than any other body's. I just find it very irresponsible of the NCAA when they're supposed to be a non-profit organization.

I'm all for the endorsement idea.

This is part of the problem in this debate, right here.

Why must everything be "fair" and "just"? Where did this idea come from that if somebody is making money, and you indirectly contribute, that you are entitled some sort of piece of that money?

The tradeoff is made clear to these athletes. You play for us, we won't charge you to come here. Whether the athlete values the education or not is irrelevent. If they don't think this tradeoff is fair, well, you know my answer to that. They have a bevy of options.

And again, too much focus on pro bound athletes here. Tiny percentage. Miniscule percentage. This idea that college athletes don't value the scholarship is ridiculous. Why are we so concerned with the Dwayne Wade's getting paid? They are going to get paid down the road, THANKS TO THE EXPOSURE THEY GOT FROM THE COLLEGE. And do you really think an of these players matter? They don't. There will be 100k at Michigan this week no matter who is playing.

But yeah, these poor kids, my god are they being scammed!


They aren't entitled to shit beyond what they already receive. Quite frankly, its not even their business how much money the schools or the NCAA generate.

 

[FirstTimer]

its actually much worse for recent college grads:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/college-graduates-jobs-unemployment_n_893495.html

Yes, the job market is bad. We get it, but again people with degrees stand a tremendously better chance of getting hired than those with no degrees once the job market turns. Plus, I always hate early-mid summer hiring projections. A lot of companies go into hiring freezes around July for tax/fiscal year reasons. I always prefer the numbers for an entire year rather than looking at a 2-3 month span when many companies aren't outwardly hiring anyways.

 

[Atlas]

Yes, the job market is bad. We get it, but again people with degrees stand a tremendously better chance of getting hired than those with no degrees once the job market turns. Plus, I always hate early-mid summer hiring projections. A lot of companies go into hiring freezes around July for tax/fiscal year reasons. I always prefer the numbers for an entire year rather than looking at a 2-3 month span when many companies aren't outwardly hiring anyways.

i agree with everything you said, but paying these kids for playing their sport in college will only make things worse...

these little fuckers expect to come out of college, having not had to deal with real world things (bills, 9-5 jobs, etc), and expect to make $90k a year...

the funniest thing i ever heard in an interview was when a former Ohio State FB told me he thought he was worth twice what we were offering to pay him (solely b/c he played football at OSU)... needless to say, he didnt get the job and was working at Disney World as a gate security guard (the wand waver) three months later (and is still working there, making $9 an hour)... but yea, lets pay them and make the whole thing much, much worse...

 

[FirstTimer]

these little fuckers expect to come out of college, having not had to deal with real world things (bills, 9-5 jobs, etc), and expect to make $90k a year...

the funniest thing i ever heard in an interview was when a former Ohio State FB told me he thought he was worth twice what we were offering to pay him (solely b/c he played football at OSU)... needless to say, he didnt get the job and was working at Disney World as a gate security guard (the wand waver) three months later (and is still working there, making $9 an hour)... but yea, lets pay them and make the whole thing much, much worse...

Fuck you and fuck your stories.

 

[Senser81]

the funniest thing i ever heard in an interview was when a former Ohio State FB told me he thought he was worth twice what we were offering to pay him (solely b/c he played football at OSU)...

I can't believe Keith Byars has fallen so far. Sad, really.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

This is part of the problem in this debate, right here.

Why must everything be "fair" and "just"? Where did this idea come from that if somebody is making money, and you indirectly contribute, that you are entitled some sort of piece of that money?

The tradeoff is made clear to these athletes. You play for us, we won't charge you to come here. Whether the athlete values the education or not is irrelevent. If they don't think this tradeoff is fair, well, you know my answer to that. They have a bevy of options.

And again, too much focus on pro bound athletes here. Tiny percentage. Miniscule percentage. This idea that college athletes don't value the scholarship is ridiculous. Why are we so concerned with the Dwayne Wade's getting paid? They are going to get paid down the road, THANKS TO THE EXPOSURE THEY GOT FROM THE COLLEGE. And do you really think an of these players matter? They don't. There will be 100k at Michigan this week no matter who is playing.

But yeah, these poor kids, my god are they being scammed!


They aren't entitled to shit beyond what they already receive. Quite frankly, its not even their business how much money the schools or the NCAA generate.

This is why the NFL and NBA are the real villains in all of this.

 

[FedEx227]

So degrees "don't equate to jobs" yet the unemployment % for people with degrees is a measly 4%?

:edlover:

I know you're just disagreeing with everything I say in this thread (while at the same time thanking people with the exact same opinions as mine) but you're smart enough to know that 4% unemployment rate is a huge deal...

My point is, the fact that they have a college degree without any work experience (because they were playing ball) or internships (because they were playing ball) doesn't really do much for them. It's the biggest difference between a college degree in the 80s and 90s and today. With so many degrees floating around, it's no longer prestigious so you have to stand out in the workforce. By and large you do that by going above and beyond your degree.

 

[FirstTimer]

I know you're just disagreeing with everything I say in this thread (while at the same time thanking people with the exact same opinions as mine)

:youmad:

but you're smart enough to know that 4% unemployment rate is a huge deal...

Not in relative terms to 8% for non-degrees or the national average of over 9%.

I love how the blanket statement of "a degree isn't really valuable/doesn't do much for them etc" is made with no context of what it's value is relative to.

Would you rather have a degree or not? Who do you think stands a better chance at getting a job when the job market improves? The 4% with a degree or the 8% without?

Even Lefty's reclusive ass could come out of his COD dungeon and have a better chance at a job simply because he has a degree.

My point is, the fact that they have a college degree without any work experience (because they were playing ball)

Ok, and offset that with some amazing networking chances they get by traveling all over the country that the normal college student doesn't get. A lot of it is who you know in this job market. Being an athlete for team allows you to possibly make mroe connections etc than the average student would. Especially in coaching, media, etc.

With so many degrees floating around, it's no longer prestigious so you have to stand out in the workforce. By and large you do that by going above and beyond your degree.

No one is saying it's prestigous to have this degree, but it's sure as hell better than not having one and sure has hell better than having to actually pay for one if it's not a sure shot to get work right away. Would you rather have a free degree or have a degree and 100k worth of debt while sitting around waiting for a job to happen?

 

[Senser81]

My point is, the fact that they have a college degree without any work experience (because they were playing ball) or internships (because they were playing ball) doesn't really do much for them. It's the biggest difference between a college degree in the 80s and 90s and today. With so many degrees floating around, it's no longer prestigious so you have to stand out in the workforce. By and large you do that by going above and beyond your degree.

I would disagree with the part-time work experience/internship versus the contacts you make simply by being a big-time collegiate athlete. Its a big advantage to be an athlete...you would at least get an interview or a "foot in the door" just from that alone. That doesn't even count the business contacts you make through boosters and alums. If I had my choice of either putting "Ohio State football player" on my resume or "summer internship at Sara Lee", its a no-brainer.

Having an internship or part-time work experience doesn't make you "stand out in the workforce". You should be using those experiences to develop direct contacts which will hopefully lead to employment. You shouldn't be doing an internship at Sara Lee, putting it on your resume, then thinking the people at Sony are going to be impressed. You should be doing an internship at Sara Lee to get a job at Sara Lee.

 

[Fox1994]

This is part of the problem in this debate, right here.

Why must everything be "fair" and "just"? Where did this idea come from that if somebody is making money, and you indirectly contribute, that you are entitled some sort of piece of that money?

Aside from argument, this is a genuine question: why do you consider it an indirect contribution to the NCAA and the schools making money and not a direct contribution? It will help me better understand your point.

The tradeoff is made clear to these athletes. You play for us, we won't charge you to come here. Whether the athlete values the education or not is irrelevent. If they don't think this tradeoff is fair, well, you know my answer to that. They have a bevy of options.

And again, too much focus on pro bound athletes here. Tiny percentage. Miniscule percentage. This idea that college athletes don't value the scholarship is ridiculous. Why are we so concerned with the Dwayne Wade's getting paid? They are going to get paid down the road, THANKS TO THE EXPOSURE THEY GOT FROM THE COLLEGE. And do you really think an of these players matter? They don't. There will be 100k at Michigan this week no matter who is playing.

I agree with everything except this here. I'm not really sure what you mean. Regardless of who is playing, they are contributing. So the same logic for the argument would apply regardless of who is playing.

Maybe the argument wouldn't exist if everyone playing in the NCAA came from a more-than-well-to-do family? Is that what this means? That people are only cuing on the gap between what the NCAA makes versus what the players are directly given because the players are [or at the very least are perceived to be] mostly poor black kids?

I agree that when kids squander their opportunities it is at the very least mostly their fault, and usually probably entirely. I agree that too much emphasis is given to the minuscule percentage of players that actually contribute financially to the schools primarily through football and men's basketball.

But yeah, these poor kids, my god are they being scammed!


They aren't entitled to shit beyond what they already receive. Quite frankly, its not even their business how much money the schools or the NCAA generate.

My whole point is that the schools and the NCAA make money off of them. If you see the exposure they get from college and their free education as a fair exchange for them playing, then that makes sense.

But stating you don't care at all isn't the same as saying you don't care because they get free education. The 'trade-off' implies the pursuit, if not necessarily the acquisition, of a fair exchange. Saying "they aren't entitled to shit beyond what they already receive" implies that you think 'what they already receive' is fair payment, which I consider a valid point...

The ideal of the scholarship for athletics is that the players are given free education because of their athletic prowess. So far as I can see, the argument stems from the fact that schools and the NCAA make so much money from the contribution of FB/MBB athletes.

Like I said, I would understand one-hundred percent if you said it's fair because they get free schooling. That's what you seem to be saying, and that makes sense. But it doesn't make sense to me that we wouldn't at least ideally be looking to do the fair and just thing.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Yes, I think the free schooling is fair compensation and a fair trade off. I'm assuming you haven't read the thread.

When I say they indirectly contribute to the school/NCAA making money off of sports, and when I say 100k people will show up at Michigan regardless of who is playing, that means that unlike pro sports, where quality of the athlete matters, it means absolutely nothing at the college level. Every school in the country can raise the academic standards tomorrow, and neither football nor basketball would lose a shred of popularity. The draw is the atmosphere, the school pride, etc, not the idea you are seeing future NFL players. That's why its an indirect contribution, because yes, while the athletes are the ones playing, the names on the jerseys are largely irrelevent. If we stopped letting people like Dwayne Wade prostitute the process, someone else would be the star, the Wade's don't matter as much as you think, so I believe that argument is flawed.

 

[stevsta]

I see a lot of this conversation about getting a free education, but not a lot of the fact that most of these kids would not have a chance of even getting into a good college or any one without an athletic scholly.

 

[Villain]

This is part of the problem in this debate, right here.

Why must everything be "fair" and "just"? Where did this idea come from that if somebody is making money, and you indirectly contribute, that you are entitled some sort of piece of that money?

The tradeoff is made clear to these athletes. You play for us, we won't charge you to come here. Whether the athlete values the education or not is irrelevent. If they don't think this tradeoff is fair, well, you know my answer to that. They have a bevy of options.

That is not always the case. Not every player on the team gets a scholarship and not every scholarship is a full ride.

 

[Fox1994]

Yes, I think the free schooling is fair compensation and a fair trade off. I'm assuming you haven't read the thread.

I read the thread, but your declared point seemed contradictory to what else you were saying, which is why I asked for clarification. Thanks.

When I say they indirectly contribute to the school/NCAA making money off of sports, and when I say 100k people will show up at Michigan regardless of who is playing, that means that unlike pro sports, where quality of the athlete matters, it means absolutely nothing at the college level. Every school in the country can raise the academic standards tomorrow, and neither football nor basketball would lose a shred of popularity. The draw is the atmosphere, the school pride, etc, not the idea you are seeing future NFL players. That's why its an indirect contribution, because yes, while the athletes are the ones playing, the names on the jerseys are largely irrelevent. If we stopped letting people like Dwayne Wade prostitute the process, someone else would be the star, the Wade's don't matter as much as you think, so I believe that argument is flawed.

That makes sense. I see your point that the individual player contributes more in the pros than in the college ranks.

I agree that the system is flawed on all sides, I just think that whoever is contributing to the team, whoever the player is, regardless if they think as highly of themselves as someone like Wade does or not, they're contributing to the money the NCAA's making.

It makes perfect sense to say that no one player matters any more than another or that the free education is at least an equal exchange for what the players give to the school in terms of athletics. I just think that a differing opinion on what is or isn't fair doesn't detract from the belief that fairness is the ideal.

But back to the players not being important, I think it does make a difference, however slight, that the athletes be good. You need good athletes to win and you don't sell tickets (or not nearly as many) without winning.

 

[ram29jackson]

there should be television insentive....if a team is on a major broadcast, players should receive compensation of a ..not big, but decent amount. Millions watch ND on NBC every week and the players dont get crap for it