Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JAHS

Will Paying Players Pay Off For Byu?

Recommended Posts

They only talked about football in the article. It would only seem fair that athletes in the other sports will also get paid?

Other sports have the amateur/Professional and Olympic competition thing that football doesn't.  

Share this post


Link to post

This is unfair. They get room and board and get to go to class. Their class choices are limited by the need to train. If they are in the big sports that means training roughly 3 times a day. Most do not get into the pro leagues. Most do not have enough time to study STEM degrees or the big moneymaking degrees. Throw in that a bad injury might cost them their scholarship and that they are stuck with the costs of medical insurance and there is no equivalent of worker's comp. God help them if the injury is debilitating in the long-term. I don't think they need to be making millions or six figures but when young people are putting their health and future livelihood on the line for the entertainment of others and those in charge (coaches) are raking in million dollar salaries some basic compensation is deserved for those actually taking the real risks.

 

Don't even get me started about the long term dangers of American football. I am not sure if players are brave or just don't care.

The honorable thing for a college to do in the case of an athlete injured so seriously that he can no longer play, would be to continue his scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post

The honorable thing for a college to do in the case of an athlete injured so seriously that he can no longer play, would be to continue his scholarship.

 

To be fair most of the time (though not all the time) they do. The student is stuck with the medical problem though and the long-term costs for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Other sports have the amateur/Professional and Olympic competition thing that football doesn't.  

I know athletes in other sports might worry about that but I think an argument can be made that the small stipends the college player gets to help with living expenses is not the same as the multimillion dollar salaries the professionals get. Rules could be adjusted to allow for the stipends and still maintain amature status. 

Share this post


Link to post

Only if they generate the kind of revenue that football does.

 

It seems to me for a variety of reasons like it would result in a minor league for the NFL. Would you intend to prevent the players to organize a union? Would you place limits on how much a school could offer? What of those schools who do not generate money though football? It seems difficult to envision 120 schools competing for professional talent. It will easily result in many schools not making money because they can't afford the talent.

 

What of schools that generate revenue through other sports? Is there a reason that the Univ. of Connecticut women's basketball players shouldn't be paid? Obviously, most women's sports lose money. But at UConn they already win year after year after year without being allowed to pay their players. Just think how great they would be if because they generate money, they can pay the players. Why would a talented young man or woman go to a program that loses money and that doesn't pay him or her to play?

 

I guess I see a lot of problems with contending that an academic scholarship, full medical benefits, and full room and board is inadequate wages in exchange for playing college football or other sports. You could never allow a free market. A free market would destroy college football except in maybe 20 or 30 top programs. If that is what you want...then presumably, you would allow the rest, who don't make money, to maintain amateur programs for the enjoyment of alumnus and students who simply have the old school spirit? But if it is a question of "the laborer is worthy of his hire", and these companies...er colleges, can't afford to pay....then presumably they should be outlawed merely offering a free education, health insurance, food, and lodging?

 

I wonder if the Little League World Series generates revenue? It doesn't? If it ever does, then do we have to pay the children?

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me for a variety of reasons like it would result in a minor league for the NFL. Would you intend to prevent the players to organize a union? Would you place limits on how much a school could offer? What of those schools who do not generate money though football? It seems difficult to envision 120 schools competing for professional talent. It will easily result in many schools not making money because they can't afford the talent.

 

What of schools that generate revenue through other sports? Is there a reason that the Univ. of Connecticut women's basketball players shouldn't be paid? Obviously, most women's sports lose money. But at UConn they already win year after year after year without being allowed to pay their players. Just think how great they would be if because they generate money, they can pay the players. Why would a talented young man or woman go to a program that loses money and that doesn't pay him or her to play?

 

I guess I see a lot of problems with contending that an academic scholarship, full medical benefits, and full room and board is inadequate wages in exchange for playing college football or other sports. You could never allow a free market. A free market would destroy college football except in maybe 20 or 30 top programs. If that is what you want...then presumably, you would allow the rest, who don't make money, to maintain amateur programs for the enjoyment of alumnus and students who simply have the old school spirit? But if it is a question of "the laborer is worthy of his hire", and these companies...er colleges, can't afford to pay....then presumably they should be outlawed merely offering a free education, health insurance, food, and lodging?

 

I wonder if the Little League World Series generates revenue? It doesn't? If it ever does, then do we have to pay the children?

 

Very good points, all of which needs addressed before paying college players more.  Also it must be decided what is the goal of college sports programs.

Share this post


Link to post

Very good points, all of which needs addressed before paying college players more. Also it must be decided what is the goal of college sports programs.

Thanks ERay. I didn't like to disagree with you. We see things the same ways much of the time and I respect your opinion.

You ask, "What is the goal?" If the players don't have time to go to class we must pay them money? No. The regulating body, the NCAA, needs to decrease the time given to sports so that the "student athletes" can also be students. If everyone has the same amount of limited practice time it would still be a popular spectator event and as competitive as ever. If the schools start paying players, the current idea of "student athletes" will be lost. It will just be colleges hiring minor leaguers hoping to make the NFL eventually, to somehow represent their schools. If we pay them knowing they can't study, why bother with the facade of considering them as freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors? They wouldn't be students at all anymore. Just football players. I see value to the student athlete vision and I would go a different direction that would allow studies as well as possible monetary reward.

The NCAA gets in the way of players making money...not the schools. Reggie Bush is about finished with a respectable NFL career...7 or 8 years maybe? At USC, boosters were always trying to give him some kinds of benefit, under the table, not criminally, but against NCAA regulations. Bush graduated, was drafted in the first round by the NFL, and the NCAA punished USC (mainly through limitations on scholarships) after he left for all these years until now because the coach allowed him to have "jobs" that were really just gifts. Oh...the coach left the school at same time as the "guilty" player and won a Super Bowl. Way to punish the "bad guys", NCAA. I see nothing wrong with letting boosters provide for the needs or wants of the players, and even to give special stuff to the extra good ones.

But to think of it as an ordinary employee/employer relationship? No. The laborer is indeed worthy of his hire as the Scriptures assure us. In my tradition, to defraud the laborer of his wages is one of only four sins that "cry to heaven for vengeance". It is a wicked sin comparable to oppressing orphans and widows. Maybe that is why I reacted so negatively to the notion that colleges have been defrauding laborers of their wages for these many many decades at least. If we are going to begin to pay players because of that precept, on what grounds would we refuse to consider individual or class action suits brought by former college athletes claiming their just due "as laborers"? Before we use the biblical precept as our argument, we need to be prepared to go all they way with it. I am not. I think the student athlete willingly agrees to a pretty fair deal and has no moral grounds to claim that the schools owe him or her beyond what the student and often his family, very happily agree to accept.

I would rather pursue a solution that would take account of a case to be made that the NCAA obstructs the legitimate rights of student athletes to receive gifts from alumni and others who might wish to give them. At this time, I do not see why the amateur student athlete should be prohibited from making money for making commercials or appearing at the local mall, or signing autographs, jersey sales, or any other activity that becomes lucrative on account of sports popularity.

Regards,

Rory

Share this post


Link to post

You ask, "What is the goal?" If the players don't have time to go to class we must pay them money? No. The regulating body, the NCAA, needs to decrease the time given to sports so that the "student athletes" can also be students. If everyone has the same amount of limited practice time it would still be a popular spectator event and as competitive as ever. If the schools start paying players, the current idea of "student athletes" will be lost. It will just be colleges hiring minor leaguers hoping to make the NFL eventually, to somehow represent their schools. If we pay them knowing they can't study, why bother with the facade of considering them as freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors? They wouldn't be students at all anymore. Just football players. I see value to the student athlete vision and I would go a different direction that would allow studies as well as possible monetary reward.

 

The idea of limited practice time is impractical. Getting around such a limitation would be child's play and once some do it the others have to follow suit to stay competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      Got back home last Sunday after 8 days in London, England, celebrating my 10-year wedding anniversary with my wife.  Our three kiddos stayed at home with her parents—which was awfully generous of them.  (Other guys may complain about their in-laws, but not I.)  It was a great trip, perfect walking weather, peak tourist season not yet started. 
      We stayed at The Grosvenor adjacent to Victoria Station, which meant we had pretty near the whole city within ~ 30 minutes via the Underground (and Buckingham Palace within a six minute walk).  And I’ll share one small observation with the board for any discussion:
      Aberrant theology notwithstanding, the Jehovah’s Witnesses work pretty dang hard.  
      A number of times we saw them working the street.  And unlike Seattle where they will occasionally occupy a corner & smile gently at passers-by—here they seemed to be anxiously engaged with the vast diversity of humanity that occupies greater London.  Yes, we saw a lot of old churches and even a new one that could have been an Acts 29 plant.  But in all our time, we never once saw any LDS missionaries. 
      Recently there was a thread about religious persecution in contemporary Russia.  And this has hit the JW’s hard—because they’ve worked vigorously to establish themselves after the fall of the Soviet Union and have built quite a presence (~100K active worshipers in Russia).   But on that same thread, we couldn’t even figure out how many LDS stakes there are today in Russia (somewhere between zero and three).  Some other stats were tossed about along with an LDS “Locator” app which, among other things, pointed the user to what could have been a boarded-up McDonald's.  After nearly three decades since the fall, LDS here don’t know or seem to care (but a few certainly enjoyed discussing/debating political aspects of Russia).  It’s a stunning contrast to all the fevered speculation when I was growing up (70’s – 80’s) about the missionary/membership opportunity for the LDS Church if Communism were to fall. 
      I realize it’s all anecdotal, and with a life-expectancy assumption of 110 for lost members, we can expect the LDS Church to continue to claim modest membership growth into the foreseeable future (loosing track of people makes *much* better numbers than knowing who actually dies or quits). 
      The question I have is this: Have we entered a period of retreat and retrenchment for the LDS Church where the focus will shift more to Utah and adjacent states (plus perhaps a few parts of the “third world” where record keeping and independent verification of membership will conveniently not be possible).  Even at the national level, we appear to see an example of retrenchment with BYU’s divorce from USAF ROTC.  And on the front page we have a thread about whether “slowing growth” makes any difference to the LDS Church and its adherents.  And again, the LDS here don’t seem terribly interested or concerned. 
      What do you think?  Has Mormonism peaked?  Any will LDS really care if it has?
      --Erik
      ______________________________________________
      You left
      Your tired family grieving
      And you think they're sad because you're leaving
      But did you see Jealousy in the eyes
      Of the ones who had to stay behind?
      --The Smiths "London"
    • By Five Solas
      Thinking about BYU losing the US Air Force ROTC program it has hosted, almost since the inception of the Air Force (as a separate service from the USAAC).  Although some will play down the move to UVU – I think this could prove a watershed moment for BYU and for LDS.

      For over half a century the Air Force played by the rules of the LDS authored “Honor Code” at BYU and found officers willing to work within its constraints.  In return, BYU supplied thousands of competent officers. 

      And whatever the exact equation of costs vs. benefits for Air Force officer recruitment/training, one thing is certain: The LDS Church and its flagship university aren’t as valuable as they used to be.  They used to be worth accommodating--and now they're not.  LDS influence stands diminished. 

      A couple years ago, Daniel C. Peterson wrote an article that was perhaps prescient—

      Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was easy to assume that American society respected Latter-day Saints. We might be out on the theological fringe, regarded as a bit quirky, but American civic religion was at least theoretically pretty much on our side. For example, Americans seemed to honor ideals of faithful, heterosexual marriage, with fathers taking the lead and mothers caring for children. Society was, in other words, largely in sync with, and supportive of, fundamental, practical Mormon values. In fact, Mormons seemed quintessentially American — which, in the postwar era of the Pax Americana, benefited our church not only in the United States but in Europe and Japan.

      Today, though, Mormonism and Western society seem to be parting ways in crucial respects.

      What do folks think?  Is the Air Force ROTC departure from BYU related to a broader trend Peterson wrote about in 2015?  
      --Erik

    • By SeekingUnderstanding
      http://news.byu.edu/news/news-release
      This looks to be a huge step forward and I applaud BYU for it. It will be interesting to see what exactly an amnesty clause looks like.
      Duplicate topic
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I'm very proud of BYU today. The advisory committee worked quickly to make their recommendations and BYU has accepted all 23 recommendations though some of them will be phased in gradually. Among the immediate changes will be that survivors of sexual assault who report to the Title IX office will receive amnesty for other violations of the honor code that occurred near the time of the assault. This will encourage more victims to step forward and report their assaults which will in turn help BYU get rid of the perpetrators and provide greater security on campus and among its students. This is great news.
      https://news.byu.edu/news/news-release
    • By phaedrus ut
      I came across something recently and I think it's interesting in light of the current criticisms of BYU's desire to join the Big 12.  Because of the ban on black members going beyond baptism in their church membership I had heard about some of the historical controversies. I knew about the Wyoming 14, the protests from UTEP, and Stanfords suspension of competition with BYU but I hadn't read about the protests at University of Washington and the church's public response.  I just recently read The BSU takes on BYU and the UW Athletics Program, 1970.  From the article:
      The interesting part of the article for me was that on March 31, 1970 BYU took out a full page ad in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Ernest Wilkinson wrote in rebuttal.   
      Which reads strangely similar to the statement from BYU spokesperson yesterday 
      There are some other interesting points in the article.  Quoting Brigham Young as a defender of the rights of "the negroes", saying there were no blacks living within a 35 mile radius of the university, confirming that the ban on those of black African lineage has been "confirmed by each Prophet of the Church".  But one of my favorite quotes is 
       
      Phaedrus 
×