I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

Are they talking about scholarship athletes? You know, the ones that get free room, board and healthcare? This is poverty?

Free clothes, books, etc. There is a difference in what is given to kids between partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports and full scholarship athletes in football and basketball.
---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:

Are they talking about scholarship athletes? You know, the ones that get free room, board and healthcare? This is poverty?

---------------------------------------------

Meh...

define poverty? During school my income was a couple thousand bucks tops from summer jobs I worked. Same for most of the kids I knew.

And we had to buy books, clothes, etc. without parental debit cards.

They get scholarships most of us got loans, it's all the same.

That being said, I wasn't worth 100k+ to unc.

Some of these kids take some of there school money and send it home to help pay bills. It's one thing when your just looking out for yourself in college that's not poverty by any means.


---------------------------------------------
--- hams42 wrote:

Meh...

define poverty? During school my income was a couple thousand bucks tops from summer jobs I worked. Same for most of the kids I knew.

And we had to buy books, clothes, etc. without parental debit cards.

They get scholarships most of us got loans, it's all the same.

That being said, I wasn't worth 100k+ to unc.

---------------------------------------------

tutors, trainers, nutritionists...

Absolute Nonsense------The majority of college students would fall in this category------Garbage assumptions.




---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

How is it nonsense? I graduated from UNC and met several football players with whom I maintain contact. These guys didn't go pro and knew that pro football wasn't a viable option for their futures. These guys also came from hardworking middle class families. However, I went to high school with a football player whose best subject was "putting in tobacco". I'm from Pitt County which was a hotbed for tobacco production in the 80's. This friend missed the maximum days possible and took the absolute easiest classes offered which isn't saying much. I took all advanced level classes and we weren't even in the same part of the building. This guy got accepted to Duke University on a football scholarship. I couldn't believe it. Needless to say he didn't graduate. I don't even think he finished his sophomore year. His family didn't even own a car and worked solely on the farms as laborers. They lived in an unpainted, extremely old rented wooden shack. I can guarantee you that he lived a life of poverty while in college and continued a life of poverty after leaving college. This isn't something that I've heard, this is something that I know.

---------------------------------------------
--- raphael62610 wrote:

Absolute Nonsense------The majority of college students would fall in this category------Garbage assumptions.




---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Now, if 86% of their families are in poverty while they're in school, then this is a whole different story and a really sad one

Poverty is a statistical measure of household income based upon family size, as set by the government. When a student-athlete moves to college their family size becomes 1 and the only income used to calculate the figure is their own. Scholarships, grants, etc are not included in the calculation. So, yes, I would expect that a D1 student-athlete would technically have a family income (his income for his household of 1)that would be below the Federal poverty line.

Let me give you an example of someone else who would meet this criteria. Meet Bob and Ann. Bob is a highly successful entrepreneur and Ann is the head of a private foundation for at risk youths. Bob has built and sold many private businesses for many millions of dollars. Ann's foundation is a non-profit charity and she takes a salary of $500 per month basically to reimburse her for costs associated with her travel and speaking duties. They own a $2 million golf estate and a $2 million beach home, both without mortgages. They have 3 new cars, a motorhome, a boat and a motorcycle. Bob is a very conservative "investor" and keeps all of his liquid assets in money markets and savings accounts because he feels the stock market is too "frothy" right now, so his liquid assets are generating $0 in current income.

So Bob and Ann have a net worth of $5 million, two beautiful homes and lots of "toys". They are fulfilled, eat out every night, travel extensively and want for nothing.

They are, according to the Federal government, living in "poverty". Their household size is 2 and they have a combined annual income of $6000 (Ann's salary from the non-profit). They could qualify for food stamps if they applied under these rules.

This, like most "studies" of poverty in the US, is total bull shoi!!

Poverty in this country is high cotton to others..we, the government have created this level of poverty..we do nothing about available illegal drugs, we give people money without questions, we pay you g girls to have babies...we don't ask for a return on this wasted money.

Holding people to a standard and having them be accountable would be the very best we can do for them/us.

So the average cost out of pocket for them was like $3000/year?

Poor guys. Wonder how that stacks up with the average student... Not a fan of this type of lazy agenda-based reporting

your example of this family with multi-million $$$ assets / low current income somehow being eligible for food stamps could not be further from the truth .....

basically, if a family has more than $2,000 - $3,000 in cash or other savings - they are NOT eligible for food stamps .........so the family in your (rather contrived) example would far exceed the 'Resources' (assets) criteria to be eligible for food stamps .......

[a lot of families think they can get Grandma eligible for Medicaid so Medicaid will pay for Grandma's nursing home -- you basically have to totally impoverish Grandma and there are time limits, etc. -- it's not that simple]



from the US Dept. of Agriculture .... requirements to be eligible for food stamps:

For households in the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. To get SNAP benefits, households must meet certain tests, including resource and income tests:

Resources:
Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


They are, according to the Federal government, living in "poverty". Their household size is 2 and they have a combined annual income of $6000 (Ann's salary from the non-profit). They could qualify for food stamps if they applied under these rules.

This, like most "studies" of poverty in the US, is total bull shoi!!

---------------------------------------------

I could not open the report to see exactly how they define "poverty" in the context of student-athletes - I'm sure they said that for dramatic effect - but like others I'm weary as to exactly how they get to that specific claim .......

but their broader point on the 'value' or lost income to student-athletes is well taken ......

if you've followed any of the recent labor negotiations in various professional sports leagues in recent years, you will observe that in very rough numbers --> about 50% of the revenues of most pro sports leagues / teams end up going to the players ............

applying that to UNC --- the revenue for UNC Athletic Department is about $70 million .... virtually all of that comes from men's bball and football ..... let's say $65 million .... 1/2 of that = $32 million .... 100 football and bball players = $320,000 per player ...... now compare that to a scholarship worth maybe $25,000 ? ...... so their compensation - an 'athletic scholarship' is worth less than 1/10th what their compensation would be if UNC had to pay the athletes like a commercial business ...

and I think we all understand - 'like a commercial business' is exactly how just about every other aspect of college sports is run ......



while I don't think the NCAA / colleges will ever get to the point where the athletes are really compensated like the pro leagues to the extent we might discuss this issue, let's try to do so without too much of the all too common economic fallacies we see - a few of which have already crept in here:

+ comparisons to 'average' students
+ comparisons to interns
+ think about all the 'exposure' and 'coaching' etc. they get from college sports ... and the free Nike gear
+ fans root for the school not the individual players
+ they can go to Europe

I'll give you that this "rather contrived" family unit couldn't get food stamps if you will agree that they would meet the Federal definition of "poverty" as presented.
---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

your example of this family with multi-million $$$ assets / low current income somehow being eligible for food stamps could not be further from the truth .....

basically, if a family has more than $2,000 - $3,000 in cash or other savings - they are NOT eligible for food stamps .........so the family in your (rather contrived) example would far exceed the 'Resources' (assets) criteria to be eligible for food stamps .......

[a lot of families think they can get Grandma eligible for Medicaid so Medicaid will pay for Grandma's nursing home -- you basically have to totally impoverish Grandma and there are time limits, etc. -- it's not that simple]



from the US Dept. of Agriculture .... requirements to be eligible for food stamps:

For households in the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. To get SNAP benefits, households must meet certain tests, including resource and income tests:

Resources:
Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


They are, according to the Federal government, living in "poverty". Their household size is 2 and they have a combined annual income of $6000 (Ann's salary from the non-profit). They could qualify for food stamps if they applied under these rules.

This, like most "studies" of poverty in the US, is total bull shoi!!

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I think we're getting rather far away from sports here ....

there are two principal Federal definitions of poverty (and there may be many other definitions used in specific contexts) ....

1) Census Bureau - 'Poverty Threshhold' .... probably the number you see cited most frequently in discussion of poverty in America .... based on a somewhat archaic methodology set by the Dept. of Agriculture in the mid '60s and updated annually since then .... it's presently about $23,000 income for a family of 4 ..... this number understates the resources available to poor people because it excludes non-cash benefits like Medicaid and other subsidies to poor families .......

I couldn't open the article to see how the authors made their claim of poverty related to student-athletes ..... but FWIW - the Poverty Guideline for 1 person is $11,700 ...... so I could see how the athletes would have a cash income of less than $11,700 - but so would almost all students who didn't have a nearly full-time job ...... I would think you would to count the athletes in with their family .....



2) Health and Human Services ... has its own 'Poverty Guidelines' - used in the administration of many HHS means-tested programs .....



your example ignored the fact that most/(all?) means-tested programs (AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid) will have both an Asset criteria as well as an Income criteria ...... you have to be pretty damm poor to qualify for most of these programs ......

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


I'll give you that this "rather contrived" family unit couldn't get food stamps if you will agree that they would meet the Federal definition of "poverty" as presented.

I looked a the report last nite, had to do a bit of googling. It was comparing poverty in income terms, with their financial worth to the university...


Essentially the report was referring to poverty in terms of income. What the students received via scholly,tuition, meals, etc, viewed as income left them in poverty levels.

My college job, waiting tables a few nites a week, also left me in poverty levels... in fact, I'm guessing most full-times students would quality as living at poverty levels based on the these "income" measures.

Oops

great post ;)

---------------------------------------------
--- obxheel wrote:

Oops

---------------------------------------------

I can totally see how the life of a student could be interpreted as "poverty"... yet I expect most UNC alums remember it as one of the best times of our lives. I sure do.... for the girls alone if nothing else. You can't put a price tag or value on some things.

NCAA somehow manages to "put a price tag or value" on everything related to college athletes ....... in fact it takes 300 or 400 pages to define every particular about athlete scholarships, etc. ......

I believe I am correct in telling you that the NCAA even defines the condiments that a school may provide in connection with breakfast served to athletes or prospects ...... seriously .....

comparisons to the rest of us as simply students are not very enlightening in this context ..... the rest of us didn't sell thousands of tickets to Kenan Stadium or the Smith Center ........

as Cartman in the infamous South Park - Crack Baby Basketball League episode says: "Somebody's gotta eat all that bacon, Kyle." ......... there's a compelling argument to be made that in a more righteous world the athletes would get a bigger share of that 'bacon' ............


---------------------------------------------
--- BubbaOtis wrote:

I can totally see how the life of a student could be interpreted as "poverty"... yet I expect most UNC alums remember it as one of the best times of our lives. I sure do.... for the girls alone if nothing else. You can't put a price tag or value on some things.

---------------------------------------------

A scholarship, meals, and free housing, or a housing stipend are compensation. It costs over $15,000/year to attend a state college when you factor in food, books, a little spending money, etc. That means over 4 years, it's over $60,000 for college. It seems to me that most of these guys are getting a pretty good deal considering that >95% of them will never play a down in the NFL.

1) a 'pretty good deal' compared to what ?


2) 'never play a down in the NFL' ..... what does that have to with someone's value as a college football player ? ...... Marcus Lattimore may never play a down in the NFL - does that mean he made little contribution to SC Gamecock football ?******



*****this is a close cousin of the 'intern' fallacy ..... note - college sports - all by itself - is a large and highly profitable industry - totally separate and independent from the NFL or NBA ........


---------------------------------------------
--- heelsm108 wrote:

A scholarship, meals, and free housing, or a housing stipend are compensation. It costs over $15,000/year to attend a state college when you factor in food, books, a little spending money, etc. That means over 4 years, it's over $60,000 for college. It seems to me that most of these guys are getting a pretty good deal considering that >95% of them will never play a down in the NFL.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I would have expected the number in poverty to be a lot higher. Do the math. SEC athletes make up well under 14% of total college athletes.

College students live in poverty.

In other news, water is wet, the sun is hot, and the Cold War has finally ended.

When you are on full scholarship you are not living in poverty. Room, board, books, meal-plan, clothes, living expense checks, etc. The athlete nor their families should have to really spend anything out of pocket to cover their basic needs and necessities. Does the school profit off of the athletes? Yes, absolutely is the answer. At the same time, that is part of the trade-off for receiving a free education which is something that can never be taken from them. Their athletic abilities will leave them one day whether they play professionally or not.

what is the poverty level for people who get free food and lodging?

from Jason Whitlock ... Foxsports.com ......

Dec 11, 2010......

"For those of you who believe in the myth of “amateur” athletics, I have a solution for you:

Support NCAA legislation that pays the coaches and executives in education, too.

Yeah, let’s give Nick Saban and Dan Mullen books, room and board to law school or medical school or whatever higher degree of education they aspire to. Let’s level the playing field and give all the NCAA employees a shot at more education instead of more money.

Why not make the coaches special, too?"

Interesting story that does have some facts in it.....

After I paid tuition, etc lived on $150 a week and had to buy food. Never felt like I was living in poverty. Free education and full bellies all paid for scholarship athletes and never worried about the next tuition payment.. Cry a river somewhere else.

Honestly, so do many students who are not athletes. That's the life of a student, hence you graduate and get out into the workplace.

---------------------------------------------
--- amadeus wrote:

I make no excuses for athletes taking gifts and perks when they know that it is wrong. But what is worse, selfish athletes jeapordizing the integrity of the program that they committed to or schools that accept, keep eligible and graduate many of the "money" sport athletes and fail to educate them for the sake of winning? Many of which will continue a life of poverty once their college careers are over.

aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foot...ncpa-texas-duke

---------------------------------------------

It's the same tired argument, with a different spin. UNC has about 600 student athletes competing in 28 varsity sports. The revenue generated by football and men's basketball is also used to cover the cost for the other 500 students playing in the 26 non-revenue sports. If you feel football players and men's basketball players deserve more compensation, that's fine. Let's pay them and get rid of the other sports.

It's ludicrous and tiresome to continue to suggest that all of the money college players are making for the schools is going into someone's pockets. Most of that money is used to give many others an opportunity to compete as student athletes. Is that so bad?

is that so bad ? ..... good question ........ let's look at what's really going on here .......

the effect of the NCAA 'amateur' system is to 'underpay' the football and bball players and then take some of this money and use it to fund scholarships for Olympic or non-revenue sport athletes along with all the other costs of sponsoring their teams ........ 'underpay' is used here in comparison to what the football/bball athletes would make absent the NCAA's insistence on 'amateurism' ........

consider that ON AVERAGE it is almost certain that the football and bball players come from lower income families than the athletes in at least the country club/prep school sports end of the Olympic sports lineup -- golf, swimming, lacrosse, field hockey, etc. ........ we end up in a bottom line result where in aggregate NCAA/colleges are taking money from lower income athletes/families and giving it to higher income athletes/families ........ sort of Robin Hood in reverse ......

I let you decide whether that's good thing or bad thing ...... just don't kid yourself about the economics at play here - Joe Halfback from SE Greensboro/Dudley H.S. is subsidizing the education of Jimmy Fiveiron from Irving Park/Greensboro Day ......


---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

It's the same tired argument, with a different spin. UNC has about 600 student athletes competing in 28 varsity sports. The revenue generated by football and men's basketball is also used to cover the cost for the other 500 students playing in the 26 non-revenue sports. If you feel football players and men's basketball players deserve more compensation, that's fine. Let's pay them and get rid of the other sports.

It's ludicrous and tiresome to continue to suggest that all of the money college players are making for the schools is going into someone's pockets. Most of that money is used to give many others an opportunity to compete as student athletes. Is that so bad?

---------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I believe revenue sport athletes should be compensated in some form.

But be careful there. It's not just athletes who bring in revenue. What about the countless grad students who do most of the actual research under million dollar grants? And they're not on scholorship and in many cases not paid. The University keeps a big chunk and the professor gets the rest to run his research and line his pockets.

Oops. Can open - worms everywhere.


---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:


comparisons to the rest of us as simply students are not very enlightening in this context ..... the rest of us didn't sell thousands of tickets to Kenan Stadium or the Smith Center ........

grad students - many/most? of them do get paid .... my step-daughter is a PhD student in NeuroScience .... she gets a stipend along with tuition coverage .......

unlike the athletes there is no research world equivalent of the NCAA which enforces a monopoly 'price' on the compensation of grad students ....... therefore, unless you can show me otherwise, whatever they are paid presumably = the 'market' rate for someone with their credentials, experience, productivity, etc. ...... the research world may be like many other sectors of the economy where there is a huge difference in compensation to the 'rainmakers' (professors) vs. the 'worker-bees' (grad students and post docs) .........

whether that is 'fair' or 'right' or whatever - whonose ? ..... but if you have evidence that it is the consequence of some monopolistic collusion between different universities - like the NCAA is for the market for athletes - show us what ya' got ........ or better yet - anti-trust = triple damages - show the Justice Dept. what ya' got and collect a whistle-blower award - KA-CHING !!!! .......

---------------------------------------------
--- lazystateworker wrote:

Disclaimer: I believe revenue sport athletes should be compensated in some form.

But be careful there. It's not just athletes who bring in revenue. What about the countless grad students who do most of the actual research under million dollar grants? And they're not on scholorship and in many cases not paid. The University keeps a big chunk and the professor gets the rest to run his research and line his pockets.

Oops. Can open - worms everywhere.


---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:


comparisons to the rest of us as simply students are not very enlightening in this context ..... the rest of us didn't sell thousands of tickets to Kenan Stadium or the Smith Center ........

---------------------------------------------

I don't personally live in this world. All I know is that my business partner is a professor at GaTech who brings in millions of dollars in grants every year. He maintains a small army of grad students (masters degree mostly) who do most of the manual labor for no compensation at all. A few make $10 per hour, but most get nothing except things to put on their resumes. PhD candidates are another story and there are far fewer of them.

As I said, I believe the revenue athletes should be paid. But how? Do Gio and Devon Ramsey get the same amount? One was a true rainmaker and the other never saw the field this season. And where does Title IX come in? That's irrelevant to the NCAA monopoly issue.

Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread.



---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

grad students - many/most? of them do get paid .... my step-daughter is a PhD student in NeuroScience .... she gets a stipend along with tuition coverage .......

unlike the athletes there is no research world equivalent of the NCAA which enforces a monopoly 'price' on the compensation of grad students ....... therefore, unless you can show me otherwise, whatever they are paid presumably = the 'market' rate for someone with their credentials, experience, productivity, etc. ...... the research world may be like many other sectors of the economy where there is a huge difference in compensation to the 'rainmakers' (professors) vs. the 'worker-bees' (grad students and post docs) .........

whether that is 'fair' or 'right' or whatever - whonose ? ..... but if you have evidence that it is the consequence of some monopolistic collusion between different universities - like the NCAA is for the market for athletes - show us what ya' got ........

---------------------------------------------
--- lazystateworker wrote:

Disclaimer: I believe revenue sport athletes should be compensated in some form.

But be careful there. It's not just athletes who bring in revenue. What about the countless grad students who do most of the actual research under million dollar grants? And they're not on scholorship and in many cases not paid. The University keeps a big chunk and the professor gets the rest to run his research and line his pockets.

Oops. Can open - worms everywhere.


---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:


comparisons to the rest of us as simply students are not very enlightening in this context ..... the rest of us didn't sell thousands of tickets to Kenan Stadium or the Smith Center ........

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

so apparently, these grad students are getting 'experience' but no cash ...... absent any other information - I will assume that is a fair market price for their contribution to this research ...... otherwise - how does he get them to do it ? ...... if the professor is somehow 'abusing' his ability to corral these students into working for free in some inappropriate fashion, that is something they need to take up with Ga Tech .........

as an aside - until very recently we used to get unpaid interns in our office provided they were enrolled in some 'business internship class' at Elon or UNC-G ....... recently, there was a court case involving the Charlie Rose TV show which may have ended the whole idea of unpaid internships for everybody ..... no more unpaid positions at my company at least .........

the whole point of the NCAA and the lack of financial compensation for athletes gets back to the monopoly nature of the NCAA ..... if you want to bring comparisons - I suggest you look for other market constraints or distortions like the NCAA ....... simply because someone is lowly paid doesn't mean the market isn't working - in fact, a low price (wage) could very well be the natural consequence of a properly function market .......


---------------------------------------------
--- lazystateworker wrote:

I don't personally live in this world. All I know is that my business partner is a professor at GaTech who brings in millions of dollars in grants every year. He maintains a small army of grad students (masters degree mostly) who do most of the manual labor for no compensation at all. A few make $10 per hour, but most get nothing except things to put on their resumes. PhD candidates are another story and there are far fewer of them.

As I said, I believe the revenue athletes should be paid. But how? Do Gio and Devon Ramsey get the same amount? One was a true rainmaker and the other never saw the field this season. And where does Title IX come in? That's irrelevant to the NCAA monopoly issue.

Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

so apparently, these grad students are getting 'experience' but no cash ...... absent any other information - I will assume that is a fair market price for their contribution to this research ...... otherwise - how does he get them to do it ? ...... if the professor is somehow 'abusing' his ability to coral these students into working for free in some inappropriate fashion, that is something they need to take up with Ga Tech .........

as an aside - until very recently we used to get unpaid interns in our office provided they were enrolled in some 'business internship class' at Elon or UNC-G ....... recently, there was a court case involving the Charlie Rose TV show which may have ended the whole idea of unpaid internships for everybody ..... no more unpaid positions at my company at least .........

the whole point of the NCAA and the lack of financial compensation for athletes gets back to the monopoly nature of the NCAA ..... if you want to bring comparisons - I suggest you look for other market constraints or distortions like the NCAA ....... simply because someone is lowly paid doesn't mean the market isn't working - in fact, a low price (wage) could very well be the natural consequence of a properly function market .......


---------------------------------------------
--- lazystateworker wrote:

I don't personally live in this world. All I know is that my business partner is a professor at GaTech who brings in millions of dollars in grants every year. He maintains a small army of grad students (masters degree mostly) who do most of the manual labor for no compensation at all. A few make $10 per hour, but most get nothing except things to put on their resumes. PhD candidates are another story and there are far fewer of them.

As I said, I believe the revenue athletes should be paid. But how? Do Gio and Devon Ramsey get the same amount? One was a true rainmaker and the other never saw the field this season. And where does Title IX come in? That's irrelevant to the NCAA monopoly issue.

Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread.

---------------------------------------------

I did a lot of legwork for a well known UNC/Duke* professor when I was a UNC undergrad, in the form of an independent study. I was never even mentioned in the "thank you" section of his published work. That's life in the big city...

Yep. Statistics can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean.

Also most students including athletes are still listed as dependents on their parents tax return and are still on their parents health insurance.

---------------------------------------------
--- hams42 wrote:

Meh...

define poverty? During school my income was a couple thousand bucks tops from summer jobs I worked. Same for most of the kids I knew.

And we had to buy books, clothes, etc. without parental debit cards.

They get scholarships most of us got loans, it's all the same.

That being said, I wasn't worth 100k+ to unc.

---------------------------------------------

Wow! You're assuming that most fball and bball players come from lower income families than athletes from non-revenue sports? What would make you think that? I believe most fball/bball players you are referring to would be offended by the stereotype.

Be that as it may it sounds like your solution is to pay the fball and bball players what they would make "absent the NCAA's insistence on 'amateruism'". Then ask for the parents of the non-revenue student athletes, who clearly come from higher income families, to put up the money to fund these sports. I guess not offering these sports at all is another option.

I don't feel bad for Joe Halfback. He's being given an opportunity that most people would kill for. It's unfortunate if he comes from a "low income" family. But he's being given an opportunity to turn that around he would not have had otherwise. This should not be minamized or belittled.

The drub everyone says is that these guys are making so much money for the school that they deserve more compensation. I'm saying that comes at a cost that will affect others. It's not money the schools are putting into their coffers. I'll let people make up their minds themsevles if it's worth it or not.

For me? I don't want to take away opportunities for other student athletes to attend college and compete in order to pay Joe Halfback to play college football. That's like sacraficing many for the benefit of a few. The more kids we can get into college, by whatever means, the better off we all will be.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

is that so bad ? ..... good question ........ let's look at what's really going on here .......

the effect of the NCAA 'amateur' system is to 'underpay' the football and bball players and then take some of this money and use it to fund scholarships for Olympic or non-revenue sport athletes along with all the other costs of sponsoring their teams ........ 'underpay' is used here in comparison to what the football/bball athletes would make absent the NCAA's insistence on 'amateurism' ........

consider that ON AVERAGE it is almost certain that the football and bball players come from lower income families than the athletes in at least the country club/prep school sports end of the Olympic sports lineup -- golf, swimming, lacrosse, field hockey, etc. ........ we end up in a bottom line result where in aggregate NCAA/colleges are taking money from lower income athletes/families and giving it to higher income athletes/families ........ sort of Robin Hood in reverse ......

I let you decide whether that's good thing or bad thing ...... just don't kid yourself about the economics at play here - Joe Halfback from SE Greensboro/Dudley H.S. is subsidizing the education of Jimmy Fiveiron from Irving Park/Greensboro Day ......


---------------------------------------------
--- GOHEELS86 wrote:

It's the same tired argument, with a different spin. UNC has about 600 student athletes competing in 28 varsity sports. The revenue generated by football and men's basketball is also used to cover the cost for the other 500 students playing in the 26 non-revenue sports. If you feel football players and men's basketball players deserve more compensation, that's fine. Let's pay them and get rid of the other sports.

It's ludicrous and tiresome to continue to suggest that all of the money college players are making for the schools is going into someone's pockets. Most of that money is used to give many others an opportunity to compete as student athletes. Is that so bad?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------