-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Laura Ingraham Schooled By Benjamin Watson And Awkwardly Tries To End Segment
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
Er, yes? Students above the age of employment can work at their school, I had friends who did that. And even for students below the age of employment, exemptions can and are made for hardships. Highschools can literally pay their students, and they are still students none the less.
No one is arguing that players don't offer value to a college. They wouldn't be playing if they didn't. But you are cherry picking here. These packages you are talking about don't include all college athletes.
So you're arguing that people whom you admit add value to a program shouldn't be compensated for their contribution, and your argument is that doing so is "ethically wrong" and "isn't fair"?
Talk about being all over the place
You again are confusing a job with an extra-curricular activity. I know you can pay students who are in school, I hire student workers in the summer every single year at my school. I'm not paying them to play baseball, I'm paying them to clean an iPad.
Students who maintain high GPA's also add value to a college. Should they be paid?
You accept his premise that players can offer a value (in a dollar amount) but then want to argue marginal popper qualifications about "not all players". I think you're just arguing for argument sake here.
Last edited:
The only reason highschools don't pay their football players, is because it violates NFHS (and in Texas, UIL) rules, which are set in accordance with NCAA regulations, i.e. if they pay their players, they lock them out of being able to go to college. None of this is law, these are all regulatory guidelines by non-governmental agencies.
It's all circular logic. There is no solid foundation for any of your beliefs, other than "that's how it is." Your definition of job or extra-curricular activities are all over the place.
Again, UT hired me to do Comp Sci work, not "clean ipods," while I was a comp sci major. It happens at every school, in every discipline except sports, because of double standards.
I didn't say anything about a dollar amount. Value doesn't always equate to money.
Are people paying $200 million dollars a year to watch someone with a high GPA take exams? Because if they are, then absolutely.
they are, yes. That doesn't mean they're all taking the hardest classes. But yes, they're going to classes.
Wow so insuring things and/or people/players for monetary amounts is not equating value for monies... Now I know you're just arguing for argument sake.
So a student isn't paying? High GPA's aren't keeping the value of prestige
thats not what I replied to with my value comment either.
Regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that value in this case is quite literally money, thems the facts. We're talking about money, the value college athletes bring to the table is literally shitloads of cash. Their compensation they are requesting is coming directly from their value, i.e. money.
This is some real "what does it have to do with the price of fish" scrabbling by you here.
Not to mention the sports scholarships that can be revoked on a serious injury the athlete might suffer playing.
Education first, my ass. It's just a revenue generator for the college.
yes. and not just in direct money for sales from tickets, but all the additional apparel sales around the world, increases in alumni donations, and increases in student applications which allows the college to be more selective and increase their rankings and prestige over time.
PS - college kids get kicked out of school who don't maintain a 2.0 gpa. some higher so. The value of the GPA for colleges is high. Even though you are paying them year salaries worth of cash to go to school, they will absolutely throw you out on your ass if you can't make a c- average in most cases.
"Sure, this thing you do is functionally identical to a full time, incredibly well paying job that you'll get in 3-4 years time, and sure, it generates billions of dollars in revenue for the slave owners college athletics departments, and sure, we're so concerned about lawsuits regarding exploitation that we'll take out multi-million dollar insurance policies directly related to your talent, and sure, the risk you take doing this thing at this level is just as real as the risk you take in the future 'real employment' version of this activity...
but paying you for doing it would just be so unfair. Think of the children! It's not like you HAVE to accept this offer, just go work at KFC for the rest of your life instead!"
but paying you for doing it would just be so unfair. Think of the children! It's not like you HAVE to accept this offer, just go work at KFC for the rest of your life instead!"
They aren't bringing in any more revenue than their fellow students. But sport players bring in revenue beyond their tuition.
Cap athlete salaries it at $100K. Done. If they are injured, their scholarship should be guaranteed. I was paid to work at my University's radio station. Ironically, covering athletics.
However, this would also work against HBCU schools. Many would simply not be able to afford talent like an Alabama would and the lack of notoriety from smaller schools would not attract endorsements. So paying students would work against the thesis of the article, I suppose.
However, this would also work against HBCU schools. Many would simply not be able to afford talent like an Alabama would and the lack of notoriety from smaller schools would not attract endorsements. So paying students would work against the thesis of the article, I suppose.
Last edited:
Nah. I do think colleges themselves shouldn't be the ones to pay athletes, BUT I do think athletes should be able to take endorsements, money from boosters, and in general get all the free shit they can get. The fact that college athletes can't profit off of their own likeness is fucking asinine in a country that's all about capitalism and getting paid.
Last edited:
Yes, how strange that Laura Ingraham, of all people, would for some reason argue that black people should exist only to make money for white people 🤔
I wonder what her motive could be 🤔
🤔
🤔🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
What's great is that his arguments has enough 'by your bootstraps' 'community taking care of itself' that if foxnews wasn't racist, just uber-conservative, they would have nutted on themselves
racists are always caught between "blacks should do for themselves" arguments but when black people actually do something for ourselves, racists become really uncomfortable (i.e. the reactions to Peele saying he wouldn't cast a white guy in his movies) or explosively violent(i.e. Greenwood, Oklahoma, Rosewood, Florida, etc)
