NCAA’s amateurism rule exploits black athletes as slave labor





2kool said:
Paying athletes means you're no longer a part of the NCAA, which means no more Title IX....
Click to expand...

Not sure how that is going to go over w/ the fed/state gov't supporting entities (grants?) which may go against its inherent principles of equality, 2kool.
 
I agree players need to be paid but where will the money come from?

Also, this means ALL athletes will be paid even the two or three folks on the golf and pin pong team.
 
The Founder said:
I agree players need to be paid but where will the money come from?

Also, this means ALL athletes will be paid even the two or three folks on the golf and pin pong team.
Click to expand...

Payments can come from sponsors. Get enough sponsors and they can help fund the other sports.

Dont have the sponsorship to pay golf or baseball players? Cut the sports within the limits of Title 9
 
2kool said:
Payments can come from sponsors. Get enough sponsors and they can help fund the other sports.

Dont have the sponsorship to pay golf or baseball players? Cut the sports within the limits of Title 9
Click to expand...

This isnt realistic in the least bit.
 
2kool said:
Payments can come from sponsors. Get enough sponsors and they can help fund the other sports.

Dont have the sponsorship to pay golf or baseball players? Cut the sports within the limits of Title 9
Click to expand...

If the NCAA mandates it I say give every athlete a FULL ride where they pay no fees. If you are part of a sport it’s a full ride then give them a stipend. Every athlete will be REQUIRED live on campus and will receive a $1000 stipend a month. Living on campus would alleviate the need for more money and giving every athlete a full ride decreases any need for outside fiscal sources.
 
The Founder said:
If the NCAA mandates it I say give every athlete a FULL ride where they pay no fees. If you are part of a sport it’s a full ride then give them a stipend. Every athlete will be REQUIRED live on campus and will receive a $1000 stipend a month. Living on campus would alleviate the need for more money and giving every athlete a full ride decreases any need for outside fiscal sources.
Click to expand...

When you say "every athlete", are you talking about all sports?
 
unknown1 said:
This isnt realistic in the least bit.
Click to expand...

You know, unknown1, that was the exact same thing that I was thinking. But then I thought, well, maybe 2kool knows something that I don't know and he is looking at this situation from a different prospective.
 
TSU/BAMA said:
You know, unknown1, that was the exact same thing that I was thinking. But then I thought, well, maybe 2kool knows something that I don't know and he is looking at this situation from a different prospective.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but cutting sports to be able to only pay basketball and football players is just downright silly. And even if most HBCU's did this, they STILL wouldn't be able to justify what it would cost. As as soon as you do this, so will the P5 schools and there is no way in hell you'll even be able to come close to matching what they can pay athletes. It's not a battle you're going to win, period. People may hate to hear it but it's a lot more realistic than this. Then, on top of that, you leave the NCAA you will now have to negotiate your own media deals to even get exposure regardless of what you're paying. I mean you got schools out here that can barely even afford to fill the full scholarship allotments and folks are talking about paying 65 football players 1,000 a month, as well as the basketball team. On top of that, people realize that there are schools that already give stipends right? So where do you really benefit here if you have to cut sports to do it?
 



unknown1 said:
Im sorry but cutting sports to be able to only pay basketball and football players is just downright silly. And even if most HBCU's did this, they STILL wouldn't be able to justify what it would cost. As as soon as you do this, so will the P5 schools and there is no way in hell you'll even be able to come close to matching what they can pay athletes. It's not a battle you're going to win, period. People may hate to hear it but it's a lot more realistic than this. Then, on top of that, you leave the NCAA you will now have to negotiate your own media deals to even get exposure regardless of what you're paying. I mean you got schools out here that can barely even afford to fill the full scholarship allotments and folks are talking about paying 65 football players 1,000 a month, as well as the basketball team. On top of that, people realize that there are schools that already give stipends right? So where do you really benefit here if you have to cut sports to do it?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to pay all football players. You could limit it to the 1st and 2nd string, or just the starters. Or just limit it to basketball.

The minute you open up the checkbook to players as a non-NCAA sanctioned program, you'll get better athletes. The media will follow.

Is it unrealistic? Sure is. Is it impossible? Not hardly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top