I dislike Jason Whitlock, but I think these are a must read...

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ I dislike Jason Whitlock, but I think these are a must read...
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 16, 2010 3:18 PM
I dislike Whitlock playing the race card, but with the Cam Newton issue still fresh, I read these today and was very compelled to side with Whitlock here...


http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/jason-whitlock-expose-ncaa-not-reggie-bush-072210

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Cam-Newton-pay-for-play-scandal-Auburn-Heisman-Trophy-120910


I'm not saying pay players, but the NCAA needs to re-evaluate itself and it's desire to follow money.
Dec 16, 2010 3:18pm
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Dec 17, 2010 10:48 AM
Another typical Whitlock tirade filled with racist innuendo. Anyone trying to equate today's college football landscape with America's treatment of slaves (...and Whitlock ain't the first SOB to do it ) is 1. extremely insensitive and misinformed about the enormity of what slavery did to this nation and 2. just about the dumbest prick ever to pick up a pen in the name of journalism.

Is there a need for changes in college sport compensation? Yes most definitely. But don't relate it to the overwhelming suffering and damage to human dignity slavery has wrought upon on America and in some sense continues to do so.
Dec 17, 2010 10:48am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Dec 17, 2010 10:51 AM
Tiernan;604002 wrote:Another typical Whitlock tirade filled with racist innuendo. Anyone trying to equate today's college football landscape with America's treatment of slaves (...and Whitlock ain't the first SOB to do it ) is 1. extremely insensitive and misinformed about the enormity of what slavery did to this nation and 2. just about the dumbest prick ever to pick up a pen in the name of journalism.

Is there a need for changes in college sport compensation? Yes most definitely. But don't relate it to the overwhelming suffering and damage to human dignity slavery has wrought upon on America and in some sense continues to do so.

I think this might be your best post ever. :) He makes a few good points, but he used a piss poor vehicle to do it.
Dec 17, 2010 10:51am
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Dec 17, 2010 11:00 AM
FatHobbit;604008 wrote:I think might be your best post ever. :) .
I didn't know we were being judged, or I woulda tried harder. Are there trophies given?
Dec 17, 2010 11:00am
THE4RINGZ's avatar

THE4RINGZ

R.I.P Thread Bomber

16,816 posts
Dec 17, 2010 11:16 AM
Sadly Jason Whitlock has less than ZERO credibility with me, he may have made some valid points, but he is certainly the wrong messenger.

Nice try though.
Dec 17, 2010 11:16am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Dec 17, 2010 11:24 AM
Tiernan;604024 wrote:I didn't know we were being judged, or I woulda tried harder. Are there trophies given?

Of course. The internet is serious business.
Dec 17, 2010 11:24am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:14 PM
Tiernan;604002 wrote:Another typical Whitlock tirade filled with racist innuendo. Anyone trying to equate today's college football landscape with America's treatment of slaves (...and Whitlock ain't the first SOB to do it ) is 1. extremely insensitive and misinformed about the enormity of what slavery did to this nation and 2. just about the dumbest prick ever to pick up a pen in the name of journalism.

Is there a need for changes in college sport compensation? Yes most definitely. But don't relate it to the overwhelming suffering and damage to human dignity slavery has wrought upon on America and in some sense continues to do so.

I'm talking about the message not the vehicle.

Obviously Whitlock is an overweight dude who was picked on by the white kids earlier in life for being fat and is now using his occupation to hate on the whitey. :rolleyes:

But I just agree with him that the NCAA is more to blame than the athletes.
Dec 17, 2010 12:14pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:23 PM
There is no way a system that pays college athletes could work.

For one, few colleges even make a profit from athletics (and that is largely due to football). The rest of the sports are non-revenue (they lose money). If that weren't enough of a problem, how are you going to pay everybody? Women will need a cut of the money too, even though they are largely responsible for eating away at revenue.

They get free schooling at the D-I level, that should be good enough. That's like getting paid $100,000, what more do they want? If they choose to be a dunce and major in things that won't allow you to get a job if you aren't one of the 1% make it to the big time... then that is their problem.
Dec 17, 2010 12:23pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:28 PM
Tiernan;604002 wrote:Another typical Whitlock tirade filled with racist innuendo. Anyone trying to equate today's college football landscape with America's treatment of slaves (...and Whitlock ain't the first SOB to do it ) is 1. extremely insensitive and misinformed about the enormity of what slavery did to this nation and 2. just about the dumbest prick ever to pick up a pen in the name of journalism.

Is there a need for changes in college sport compensation? Yes most definitely. But don't relate it to the overwhelming suffering and damage to human dignity slavery has wrought upon on America and in some sense continues to do so.
Well said.
Dec 17, 2010 12:28pm
Fly4Fun's avatar

Fly4Fun

Senior Member

7,730 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:39 PM
jordo212000;604136 wrote:There is no way a system that pays college athletes could work.

For one, few colleges even make a profit from athletics (and that is largely due to football). The rest of the sports are non-revenue (they lose money). If that weren't enough of a problem, how are you going to pay everybody? Women will need a cut of the money too, even though they are largely responsible for eating away at revenue.

They get free schooling. They get free schooling at the D-I level, that should be good enough. That's like getting paid $100,000, what more do they want? If they choose to be a dunce and major in things that won't allow you to get a job if you aren't one of the 1% make it to the big time... then that is their problem.
This is exactly it... if college athletics were a paid system it would effectively wreck the whole landscape and there's a chance a lot of schools would drop the majority of their non-revenue sports if they aren't one of the lucky FEW schools who actually profit over the biggest visibility sports. The majority of college football players and basketball players, and pretty much all other athletes DO NOT GO PROFESSIONAL. The fact that they are going to receive a free education and come out of undergrad without debt is a huge step up above the general student population. Even in the situation where colleges do make money off the students, it's not as if they are just saving it all... the majority of it goes back into the rest of the athletic department or some how invested in the school itself.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. The fact that someone tried to compare this to slavery is a mockery of a terrible part of American history.
Dec 17, 2010 12:39pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:46 PM
I'm not saying pay them (everyone), but I think that every player whose jersey is sold for money should receive a cut of that money. It's complete BS because the players good and popular enough to have their jerseys made are normally ones that are going to go pro, a good amount of which don't even end up getting their degree.

I remember reading an SI article in the Buckeyes 2002 championship SI book that Mike Doss thought the same thing (about the jerseys).
Dec 17, 2010 12:46pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:48 PM
Fly4Fun;604160 wrote: There is nothing wrong with the current system. The fact that someone tried to compare this to slavery is a mockery of a terrible part of American history.

Agreed. I'd love to see them actually elaborate a little more on how Boom Herron's (et. al) life resembles anything close to slavery. That is a slap in the face to people who actually suffered as slaves.

Others can vouch for me, I'm no avid supporter of college presidents. In fact I think they are slime. But if you actually use your brain and study the situation, you will see that this is utterly impossible in about 20 mins. It would be the death of men's cross country and rifle shooting and any other sport who doesn't carry its weight financially.
Dec 17, 2010 12:48pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 17, 2010 12:52 PM
lhslep134;604164 wrote:I'm not saying pay them (everyone)

Haha. You can't do this. Go study Title IX a little. You can't just pick and choose who you pay and who you don't pay.
but I think that every player whose jersey is sold for money should receive a cut of that money.
They are. It is called a scholarship and stipend.
a good amount of which don't even end up getting their degree.
Once again, that is their problem. I hate hearing this sob story. It is quite easy to graduate with a degree in college. I am paying back loans right now, I would have loved the opportunity to not be paying Sallie Mae for the next 20 yrs
Dec 17, 2010 12:52pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Dec 17, 2010 1:03 PM
If the NCAA were to say have a percentage of gear sales go into a fund that was used to contribute to charity I would be fine with it. You can't pay college kids...you just can't. The NCAA would absolutely crumble as it pertains to credibility. The problem with a charitable contribution though would mean divulging how much they actually generate from it, which might be problematic for them.
Dec 17, 2010 1:03pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Dec 17, 2010 1:04 PM
I read the first couple paragraphs of the first article. That was enough for me to know the rest wasn't worth reading.
Dec 17, 2010 1:04pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Dec 17, 2010 1:21 PM
I don't think a school needs to pay players, but I still have no problem with kids taking cash. I know one of the core issues is competitive balance - it would be a major advantage to a school whose boosters are willing to shell out more money than other schools - but the landscape hinges on powerhouses anyway. What changes if they start ignoring third party payments?

You would still have the 10-12 traditional powerhouses hovering above everyone else. You would still have a few crappy schools coming out of nowhere every few years. You'd still have some kids taking academics seriously and others not taking academics seriously (leave those as they are or maybe even tighten them up a little bit - you can make all the money you want, but you still have to do the school work to play).
Dec 17, 2010 1:21pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 17, 2010 3:17 PM
jordo212000;604174 wrote:You can't just pick and choose who you pay and who you don't pay.

Why not? Pay those who make money for the university.

I'm talking about the simple principle of rewarding those with something they can spend (because they can't spend a scholarship) if those are making massive amounts of money for the university (jersey sales).


I know OSU has a stipend, so I guess this would apply more for schools that can't afford a stipend. The money would come from jersey sales, not from the athletic department.
Dec 17, 2010 3:17pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 17, 2010 3:19 PM
enigmaax;604223 wrote:I don't think a school needs to pay players, but I still have no problem with kids taking cash. I know one of the core issues is competitive balance - it would be a major advantage to a school whose boosters are willing to shell out more money than other schools - but the landscape hinges on powerhouses anyway. What changes if they start ignoring third party payments?

You would still have the 10-12 traditional powerhouses hovering above everyone else. You would still have a few crappy schools coming out of nowhere every few years. You'd still have some kids taking academics seriously and others not taking academics seriously (leave those as they are or maybe even tighten them up a little bit - you can make all the money you want, but you still have to do the school work to play).


I guess this is more of what I mean, players taking money (I don't care where it's coming from).

These kids that play revenue making sports are a hybrid of professional athlete and amateur. They shouldn't get paid like professional athletes but at the same time they make tons of money for the university and anything associated with that sport (ie local bars, memorabilia stores, etc.).
Dec 17, 2010 3:19pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 17, 2010 7:54 PM
lhslep134;604329 wrote:Why not? Pay those who make money for the university.

Because you can't. haha. I'll say it again. Do some research on Title IX. Title IX essentially ensures that a pay to play system will never come into effect.

Like I said, look into Title IX and the ramifications it has on the collegiate level (revenue distribution and participation) and then you'll see what I'm talking about.
Dec 17, 2010 7:54pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Dec 17, 2010 8:16 PM
No college athlete should be paid......period. Their reward is their free education. If they make the university money on jersey sales, etc., then they will be making money when they move on to the NFL/NBA. They are a component, why should they deserve anymore than the next athlete?
Dec 17, 2010 8:16pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Dec 17, 2010 11:10 PM
jordo212000;604586 wrote:Because you can't. haha. I'll say it again. Do some research on Title IX. Title IX essentially ensures that a pay to play system will never come into effect.

Like I said, look into Title IX and the ramifications it has on the collegiate level (revenue distribution and participation) and then you'll see what I'm talking about.

Exactly. Can you imagine the backlash from the ladies with hairy arm pits over the fact that say, Terrell Pryor got $100K off jersey sales but the captain of the OSU women's field hockey team got zip.
Dec 17, 2010 11:10pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Dec 18, 2010 9:14 AM
Little Danny;604774 wrote:Exactly. Can you imagine the backlash from the ladies with hairy arm pits over the fact that say, Terrell Pryor got $100K off jersey sales but the captain of the OSU women's field hockey team got zip.

hahaha I laughed out loud but truthfully, I don't give two shits about title ix, and yes Jordo I know all about it, but since I disagree with it, obviously my suggestions will go against it.

Terrelle Pryor makes a shitton of money for the university and for Nike with his jersey being sold, whereas field hockey captain makes nothing for the university. Give Pryor a cut, even a small one.



Dwcrew, why do they deserve more than the next athlete? Because they actually make money for the university.
Dec 18, 2010 9:14am
Hb31187's avatar

Hb31187

Senior Member

8,534 posts
Dec 18, 2010 9:37 AM
Title IX is a crock of shit
Dec 18, 2010 9:37am
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
Dec 18, 2010 9:49 AM
Hb31187;604940 wrote:Title IX is a crock of shit

+infinity
Dec 18, 2010 9:49am
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 18, 2010 11:13 AM
lhslep134;604929 wrote:hahaha I laughed out loud but truthfully, I don't give two shits about title ix, and yes Jordo I know all about it, but since I disagree with it, obviously my suggestions will go against it.

I can see this is going nowhere. You are wasting your time with your suggestions. I actually kind of doubt you "know all about Title IX" or else you wouldn't be coming up with these random ways to compensate players.

Did you seriously think it was possible that you could slide TP a couple thousand for selling his #2 jersey and then turn around give nothing to the best volleyball player on the women's team? I'm just wondering.
Dec 18, 2010 11:13am