(01-03-2019 04:05 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: How is it a "slavemaster mentality" to expect someone to fulfill their contractual commitment?
If I sign a contract to install 13 sheets of drywall in a new McDonald's, will they pay me if I only install 12? Of course not. And their refusal to pay would NOT be indicative of a "slavemaster mentality."
You appear to think that their pay isn't fair for some reason. But there's not a single line of logic that supports that.
First, it's not a free market, but that doesn't mean the pay isn't fair. They get roughly $30,000 per year in compensation. No other 20 year old can earn that type of money for working 20 hours a week.
Second, UC's athletic department loses $20 million a year, so you can't argue that UC is profiting off them.
Third, and most damning: it's not "labor" for most of the players at UC's level. It's an extracurricular that most of them would gladly pay to be able to do. 80% of them know they have no shot at the NFL.
There is no provision in their scholarship "contract" that requires players to play every game no matter what. Currently, these players don't lose their scholarship or room and board for skipping the bowl game; that's what you folks are upset about and want to change. So who exactly isn't living up to the bargain?
If their compensation were "fair" or adequate, no players would sit out. By definition. That some players choose to sit rather than play shows that they are not adequately compensated for the risk of playing.
And LOL, UC does not lose money on football. That's preposterous on its face. You can't possibly be so naive. In any case, UC is not a for-profit enterprise, so whether it's making money on football doesn't tell you much about whether it's taking advantage of its football players.
As for your third point, I'm not talking about most players, I'm talking about pro prospects on the cusp of being drafted. Those guys wouldn't pay to play football as an extracurricular activity, as you say. Indeed, they are unwilling to play in the bowl game for free. That's what you seem to be upset about.
To me, this is no different than a player with a concussion refusing to play in a game. He is able to play, players did it all the time in the past. But the risk of serious injury is too high; the costs outweigh the benefits. If you're a potential first round pick, the costs of playing in a bowl game outweigh the benefits. The only rational decision is to sit out. If coaches actually gave a damn about their players' futures, they would sit them. But they don't, they care about winning the Sugar Bowl, so the players are left to look out for themselves.
As for the slavemaster mentality, uh, yeah man, I guess players should just be happy that they get a place to live and fed and a scholarship. Once they are no more use to the school, GTFO.