Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Note from Juanyeh Thomas
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Technut1990" data-source="post: 679247" data-attributes="member: 3774"><p>Not arguing just talking.</p><p></p><p>With that said, I guess the thing that blocks me is that it seems that we are ignoring the monetary impact that college has on regular students in favor of the impact it has (I think perceived) on the SA. There seems to be a trend toward hardship being associated with student athletes while we ignore the general hardships for any student. How do you qualify and differentiate between the two ? One student has to bust his/her *** through high school just to qualify for college ( a good one), deal with class and study schedules and a lack of money AS they assume student loan debt the entire time. The other may or may not have to bust their *** academically to qualify ( depends on the school ), often ends up with a softer schedule and a “mentor” as they choose to participate in a sport, which could make them hundreds of thousands of dollars after they get their free education. Applied evenly, The money disadvantage is the same going in for both students, the burden of long term debt (or any debt at all) is lifted by the scholarships, paying athletes effectively gives them favored status. This will essentially prioritize the SA over a regular student. How does that rectify financial burdens, if that’s the real goal, when the regular students are working toward a professional goal also ?</p><p></p><p>Why should you get a financial break for being an athlete that the perspective doctor, lawyer, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist or engineer doesn’t get ? Wouldn't all turn into alums who are likely going to turn into boosters and contributors to the school ? Don’t they all stand to make millions off of the same education ?</p><p></p><p>I mean I have no problem with relaxing or eliminating the NCAA rules but we should understand that both types of students likely face the same financial hardships going in. I don’t know the numbers but I’ll bet it’s likely that SA’s far outnumber academics in the number of free rides passed out at each college in this country.</p><p></p><p>I think in a world of hardships we are splitting the baby by giving people, who are already getting a free ride, the title of financially burdened, overburdened, needy or any other label that would indicate they are worse off than a normal student. We are also affixing a different value on the degrees, with the non paying degree holder getting more out attending school than the paying degree holder. Man wouldn’t it be nice if we could all obtain a free degree in Robotics and throw a baseball 100 MPH ?</p><p></p><p>I also think we could end up in a place where this closes the opportunities for the mid line student who doesn’t know the difference between a football and a baseball. Why wouldn't we pay the non student athletes also If hardship is the consideration ? Certainly we would all agree they are at least more financially burdened considering they are actually paying/expected to pay for their education. The school will likely get a financial benefit from their studies in the form of corporate or private contributions/aid which in effect uses the non athlete students as R&D employees for private corporate and scientific communities around the world. There is also the more nuanced aspect of ownership when a non athletic student discovers or invents something new in the school environment. Who owns the formula that cures cancer if it’s discovered at a college ? I think we all know who will claim to own it.</p><p></p><p>I’m not anti pay at all but I am anti disadvantage. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that a student is at a disadvantage by getting a $300,000.00 education free, so much so that they now need to actually be paid a salary, by the school who is giving them the free education, essentially for getting the free degree. Seems evident that the school is actively picking winners and loses. In this scenario you are actually the chosen loser if you aren’t able to play a sport. You get no salary and you have student debt.</p><p></p><p>It’s either free college for everyone, with pay ( given the theory of paying SA’s ) essentially making going to school a job or eliminate sports scholarships all together. If a non athlete can manage the financial burdens of college they all can.</p><p></p><p>BTW if SAs are paid do they qualify as employees ? Can they unionize ? Medical insurance ? 401s, paid leave ? OT pay ? All of that will at some point get litigated.</p><p></p><p>Man if this logic were only around when I was young, I’d be on top of my world !</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Technut1990, post: 679247, member: 3774"] Not arguing just talking. With that said, I guess the thing that blocks me is that it seems that we are ignoring the monetary impact that college has on regular students in favor of the impact it has (I think perceived) on the SA. There seems to be a trend toward hardship being associated with student athletes while we ignore the general hardships for any student. How do you qualify and differentiate between the two ? One student has to bust his/her *** through high school just to qualify for college ( a good one), deal with class and study schedules and a lack of money AS they assume student loan debt the entire time. The other may or may not have to bust their *** academically to qualify ( depends on the school ), often ends up with a softer schedule and a “mentor” as they choose to participate in a sport, which could make them hundreds of thousands of dollars after they get their free education. Applied evenly, The money disadvantage is the same going in for both students, the burden of long term debt (or any debt at all) is lifted by the scholarships, paying athletes effectively gives them favored status. This will essentially prioritize the SA over a regular student. How does that rectify financial burdens, if that’s the real goal, when the regular students are working toward a professional goal also ? Why should you get a financial break for being an athlete that the perspective doctor, lawyer, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist or engineer doesn’t get ? Wouldn't all turn into alums who are likely going to turn into boosters and contributors to the school ? Don’t they all stand to make millions off of the same education ? I mean I have no problem with relaxing or eliminating the NCAA rules but we should understand that both types of students likely face the same financial hardships going in. I don’t know the numbers but I’ll bet it’s likely that SA’s far outnumber academics in the number of free rides passed out at each college in this country. I think in a world of hardships we are splitting the baby by giving people, who are already getting a free ride, the title of financially burdened, overburdened, needy or any other label that would indicate they are worse off than a normal student. We are also affixing a different value on the degrees, with the non paying degree holder getting more out attending school than the paying degree holder. Man wouldn’t it be nice if we could all obtain a free degree in Robotics and throw a baseball 100 MPH ? I also think we could end up in a place where this closes the opportunities for the mid line student who doesn’t know the difference between a football and a baseball. Why wouldn't we pay the non student athletes also If hardship is the consideration ? Certainly we would all agree they are at least more financially burdened considering they are actually paying/expected to pay for their education. The school will likely get a financial benefit from their studies in the form of corporate or private contributions/aid which in effect uses the non athlete students as R&D employees for private corporate and scientific communities around the world. There is also the more nuanced aspect of ownership when a non athletic student discovers or invents something new in the school environment. Who owns the formula that cures cancer if it’s discovered at a college ? I think we all know who will claim to own it. I’m not anti pay at all but I am anti disadvantage. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that a student is at a disadvantage by getting a $300,000.00 education free, so much so that they now need to actually be paid a salary, by the school who is giving them the free education, essentially for getting the free degree. Seems evident that the school is actively picking winners and loses. In this scenario you are actually the chosen loser if you aren’t able to play a sport. You get no salary and you have student debt. It’s either free college for everyone, with pay ( given the theory of paying SA’s ) essentially making going to school a job or eliminate sports scholarships all together. If a non athlete can manage the financial burdens of college they all can. BTW if SAs are paid do they qualify as employees ? Can they unionize ? Medical insurance ? 401s, paid leave ? OT pay ? All of that will at some point get litigated. Man if this logic were only around when I was young, I’d be on top of my world ! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Note from Juanyeh Thomas
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top