Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › Whitlock equates NCAA to slavery?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whitlock equates NCAA to slavery? - Page 3

post #31 of 38
7/24/10 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post
So now who is bending definitions? Akin means closely related, not "a few parallels."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/akin

It seems Whitlock was using the second definition from the second section:
Having a similar quality or character; analogous.

I'd say that's appropriate

Quote:

The bolded portion is hardly astute. This is true for who isn't self-employed/on commission.

I don't agree with that. The NCAA goes beyond dictating what compensation the athletes can receive for their "work". They dictate what other people can give them, and who they can associate with professionally outside of their normal athletic duties.
I believe the scope is far enough beyond the typical employer-employee relationship that comment is acceptable.

Again, I'm not saying the athletes are being treated unfairly.

FWIW, I don't like the idea of college athletics at all. My University is top 10 in Engineering, Business, Medicine, Law, and much more, but what are we most famous for? Our football team.....
It annoys me
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 38
7/24/10 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComboOrgan View Post
FWIW, I don't like the idea of college athletics at all. My University is top 10 in Engineering, Business, Medicine, Law, and much more, but what are we most famous for? Our football team..... It annoys me
The only reason anyone knows about your school - the football program.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 38
7/25/10 at 7:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashaansafin View Post
Not to be a dick, but I, as did Reggie Bush, go to a college with a large enough endowment to support all their sports. This isn't state school or small liberal arts colleges. Im tired of thugs and literally criminals being recruited to good colleges and f' around with the kids who are there to learn.
The endowment at USC is huge. But the sport of football supports itself, so why would the university spend the money? Plus the football team is what put that university on the map back in the 1920s, hence contributing to the endowment. Understand, I'm not defending Bush, but there are kids at USC who are theater majors that get paid to be in movies, no one's complaining about that. Bush wasn't a thug, he was a jock who got paid to play football. Dula and others noted that coaching salaries are enormous, and are arguably justifiable by tickets sales. But they come to see the product, not the coach, but how the coach and AD get that product on the field should be as heavily scrutinized as the players behavior. A lot of the kids aren't choirboys, but they never have been. The bigger issue is that the system is broken, which most can agree upon.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 38
7/25/10 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by life_interrupts View Post
The bigger issue is that the system is broken, which most can agree upon.
I agree. It'll be interesting to see what changes the new president of the NCAA brings. He comes with a stellar reputation from being president of Washington.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 38
7/25/10 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher View Post
You might be able to sign a contract, but you can't in any way participate in a pro organization and still be NCAA eligible, scholarship or not. Hell, one of our former hockey players went to a training camp in street clothes for a pro organization and could only stay for something like an hour or two (he was just meeting with people). Any longer and he would have been declared ineligible. They're that serious about this.

Not true. You can be a pro athlete and play in NCAA sports. You just can't be a professional in the same NCAA sport you play. I remember there was a professional skiier that played football at the University of Colorado as a WR and there was Cedric Benson that played pro baseball while he was with the Texas Longhorns. Cedric actually paid his own way through college with his pro baseball salary and never actually cost the Longhorns a scholarship.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 38
7/25/10 at 5:03pm
Thread Starter 
^ right. Jake Locker got a 250K signing bonus from the Angels last summer, and is now technically a walk-on QB for the Huskies.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 38
7/26/10 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasmade View Post
Not true. You can be a pro athlete and play in NCAA sports. You just can't be a professional in the same NCAA sport you play. I remember there was a professional skiier that played football at the University of Colorado as a WR and there was Cedric Benson that played pro baseball while he was with the Texas Longhorns. Cedric actually paid his own way through college with his pro baseball salary and never actually cost the Longhorns a scholarship.
I feel like that rule might have changed. Remeber Jeremy Bloom, skier and WR for University of Colorado? Because he was a professional skier, he lost his eligibility for his junior and senior years.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 38
7/26/10 at 6:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by life_interrupts View Post
I feel like that rule might have changed. Remeber Jeremy Bloom, skier and WR for University of Colorado? Because he was a professional skier, he lost his eligibility for his junior and senior years.

That's who I'm thinking of. It wasn't because he was a professional athlete he had to give up elgibility. It was because the way skiiing money is paid out. I remember it had something to do with skiing not paying a flat salary with performance bonus but was instead based on appearances or something like that.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › Whitlock equates NCAA to slavery?