http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../73453596/

I'll start off by saying I don't know the reason he's leaving for sure but he still has a chance to get an education at a world class institution. Why not stay and finish up his degree?

That's because he's not there for a degree. He was there to star at football at UCLA and use them for publicity and highlight tapes for the NFL.

What I'm saying is that this is a two-way street. The institutions exploit and rip off the student athletes but so do the athletes exploit the schools.

I'm all for arguments that the athletes should be paid in various ways beyond a stipend because it's sucks being a broke college student, especially one that can't get a job while attending (with plenty of these athletes coming from impoverished backgrounds) but it should also be recognized that in the high profile sports, the athletes are using the school as much as the other way around.

That is all.

How is he "exploiting" UCLA? They got a great athlete, a likely first-round draft pick, for free.

If I own a company and a superstar employee works more than two years for my company for free, I haven't been "exploited" just because the free employee doesn't give me one more year of free labor.

I'm not talking about Jack as much as I'm pointing out that the exploitation goes both ways. If he was in school to get a degree as his scholarship is, in theory, supposed to have him in school for then he'd stay there longer and try to get it (though obviously he could go back at some point). We all know many (not even close to all) of these athletes are not there for that but that is the purpose of these scholarships, not to get free publicity for a pro football league, especially the NFL.

The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible and it would appear (and I could be very, very wrong) he had no intention of wanting to take anymore classes (which he really didn't come for) and has decided to leave.

And again, I could be wrong about him but I use him as an example for a broader point.

If the athlete decides to leave early and does not get a degree, then they should have to pay back all the scholarship money....but hey, that's my opinion.

Colleges exploiting student athletes is a ridiculous notion. If you are an athlete from an impoverished neighborhood, a full scholarship is a life changing event. The real exploitation occurs at the football factories where coaches continue to pump up marginal athletes in order to steer them towards focusing disproportionately on FB or BB to the detriment of their studies. LOL at the "academic centers" argument that is sure to come this way, because we know what mist of them are about as well as the types of classes designed for jocks...

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm not talking about Jack as much as I'm pointing out that the exploitation goes both ways. If he was in school to get a degree as his scholarship is, in theory, supposed to have him in school for then he'd stay there longer and try to get it (though obviously he could go back at some point). We all know many (not even close to all) of these athletes are not there for that but that is the purpose of these scholarships, not to get free publicity for a pro football league, especially the NFL.

The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible and it would appear (and I could be very, very wrong) he had no intention of wanting to take anymore classes (which he really didn't come for) and has decided to leave.

And again, I could be wrong about him but I use him as an example for a broader point.

How is this an example of the athlete "exploiting" the school? The school may pay lip service to bringing in a "student-athlete" to get a degree, but they are really brought in to play a sport. When they do exactly that, they aren't exploiting the school?

(10-07-2015 05:54 AM)Otacon Wrote:  If the athlete decides to leave early and does not get a degree, then they should have to pay back all the scholarship money....but hey, that's my opinion.

That's only fair if the schools start giving four years guaranteed scholarships, which I've heard some talk of doing. Right now you can lose your scholarship anytime, if the players have to pay to not finish, then the schools should no long have to ability to pull a scholarship for anything less than a major disciplinary issue.

(10-07-2015 07:02 AM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 05:54 AM)Otacon Wrote:  If the athlete decides to leave early and does not get a degree, then they should have to pay back all the scholarship money....but hey, that's my opinion.

That's only fair if the schools start giving four years guaranteed scholarships, which I've heard some talk of doing. Right now you can lose your scholarship anytime, if the players have to pay to not finish, then the schools should no long have to ability to pull a scholarship for anything less than a major disciplinary issue.

Even there, you had the school giving the clearance to the ADs and coaches, and will soon have the institution making the calls and not necessarily the athletic director or coach, so I wouldn't expect the situation to fully remedy itself. Schools were always supposed to oversee this stuff. It looks a lot more controlled and fair on paper. In practice, though...SOS.

With the high profile athletes, I disagree about it being an equal two way street. The colleges fund entire athletic departments off of football success and get tremendous attention which helps attract regular students (more look at the school which results in more applying).

Regardless of the student motives, the colleges do not want the student atheltes there because they want good students, they want them there because football success is a very big deal. If the colleges are taking the kids primarily for reasons other than to be students, then regardless of the students goals, they are effectively operating as an employee on several levels. At a minimum, that means the athlete should be allowed to take endorsement deals and money from boosters above the table.

Put another way, if you go to work somewhere just to get experience and hopefully get a better job someday, that doesn't give your employer the right to not pay you (because you are using them). I'll grant it's more complicated here, but I think the colleges have become way too reliant on the athletes in major sports to not allow them to accept outside money.

Perhaps the issue is in the often loaded term of "exploited", just as the once essentially neutral term of "discrimination" (which basically meant no more than choice or selection) has become synonymous with ethically negative differential treatment of people based on some class of people to which they belong. But as the initial poster recognizes, while there could be some tweaks to the system, the idea that only the colleges benefit from the existing structure is a false premise. There are many ways in which student athletes also benefit from the current system.

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

(10-07-2015 05:54 AM)Otacon Wrote:  If the athlete decides to leave early and does not get a degree, then they should have to pay back all the scholarship money....but hey, that's my opinion.

So do you penalize all athletes for this then?

I did a sport in college for two years on scholarship. Then I transferred my junior year to another school that offered the major I wanted.

Under your rule I would have had to pay back the school all that money when I slaved for hours every day, devoted my entire weekend to the sport, and never even got to do something as simple as eating in the cafeteria at the same time as all the other students.

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

(10-07-2015 12:07 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So do you penalize all athletes for this then?

I did a sport in college for two years on scholarship. Then I transferred my junior year to another school that offered the major I wanted.

Under your rule I would have had to pay back the school all that money when I slaved for hours every day, devoted my entire weekend to the sport, and never even got to do something as simple as eating in the cafeteria at the same time as all the other students.

Did you get to go to school for free? If so, then, yes. The way I see things, the school is paying for you to attend and obtain a degree. If you fail to get a degree from said school, then I feel you should be obligated to return the money, you took, to the school. It should be noted that I think schools should offer full 4/5 year scholarships. I think it is only fair.

You may have slaved for hours every day, and even gave up all your weekends....but how is that different from non-scholarship kids having to work evenings and weekends, living in slums, just trying to eke by until they get a degree?

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

(10-07-2015 06:44 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  How is this an example of the athlete "exploiting" the school? The school may pay lip service to bringing in a "student-athlete" to get a degree, but they are really brought in to play a sport. When they do exactly that, they aren't exploiting the school?

Paying lip service is part of the exploitation and then, in turn, using the excuse that they're given scholarships as part of the reason why they shouldn't be paid.

(10-07-2015 08:23 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  With the high profile athletes, I disagree about it being an equal two way street. The colleges fund entire athletic departments off of football success and get tremendous attention which helps attract regular students (more look at the school which results in more applying).

Regardless of the student motives, the colleges do not want the student atheltes there because they want good students, they want them there because football success is a very big deal. If the colleges are taking the kids primarily for reasons other than to be students, then regardless of the students goals, they are effectively operating as an employee on several levels. At a minimum, that means the athlete should be allowed to take endorsement deals and money from boosters above the table.

Put another way, if you go to work somewhere just to get experience and hopefully get a better job someday, that doesn't give your employer the right to not pay you (because you are using them). I'll grant it's more complicated here, but I think the colleges have become way too reliant on the athletes in major sports to not allow them to accept outside money.

That much I agree with getting paid for endorsements but bringing in agents and outsiders to the sport scares the NCAA silly. It goes back to all of those point shaving scandals back in the 1950's and as recently as the 90's (Arizona State and Northwestern basketball and the latter's football team).

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

And some of them do, to some degree.

(10-07-2015 12:36 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:07 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So do you penalize all athletes for this then?

I did a sport in college for two years on scholarship. Then I transferred my junior year to another school that offered the major I wanted.

Under your rule I would have had to pay back the school all that money when I slaved for hours every day, devoted my entire weekend to the sport, and never even got to do something as simple as eating in the cafeteria at the same time as all the other students.

Did you get to go to school for free? If so, then, yes. The way I see things, the school is paying for you to attend and obtain a degree. If you fail to get a degree from said school, then I feel you should be obligated to return the money, you took, to the school. It should be noted that I think schools should offer full 4/5 year scholarships. I think it is only fair.

You may have slaved for hours every day, and even gave up all your weekends....but how is that different from non-scholarship kids having to work evenings and weekends, living in slums, just trying to eke by until they get a degree?

So using your logic then should all people even non athletes have to pay back scholarships they were awarded if they have to leave the school for whatever reason?

Let's say if a girl has a 4.0 and gets an academic scholarship and then gets married and has kids. Her husband gets a job in another city and it would be more convenient for the family if she transfers. How is it right for the school to do "Not so fast! You owe us $30,000 even though the money we gave you was not be be used as a loan!"

Scholarships are not loans.

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Are the practice rules consistent across all sports there? Do they get to enjoy all of the benefits of being a student at UCLA, meaning, total access to the entire course catalog, freedom to explore their academic interests? Are they assured of their place/scholarship at the school if they uphold their academics but not the favor of their coaches?

If any of the above is "no," then I think they are.

People want to peg these free rides as some form of payment. But, if you want to play pro ball, you have to put your time at the level. So, does that make athletics at the college level for those sports "pay for play?"

(10-07-2015 01:17 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Scholarships are not loans.

It appears I am 2 for 2 today... You are correct.