Two different issues

Two different issues
by wpkirish (2023-03-24 15:42:08)

In reply to: Now add in all the losses from the women’s teams posted by airborneirish

First, we dont have the money to pay because schools established a system where they did not need to pay the players and then spent the money in other ways.

The question I would ask is why (ignoring title IX) you think it is right for basketball and football players to be required to work for the same scholarship the non-revenue athlete gets. If you owned a company that had 4 subs 2 made money and two lost money would you tell the employees of the profitable companies sorry I cant pay you more because I need to pay those people?

From your postings on other boards here I know that is not an idea you support.

If these issues are not dealt with well it may mean the end of college sports as we know it but that is more a refelction that college sports did not change its system to reflect the changes it went through.

strangely enough, whenever you or I or anyone else asks

that question about subsidizing other sports, there is never a good answer given as to why revenue producing sports should subsidize non revenue producing sports. Truthfully, there is never an answer at all. Here, your question is ignored and I've posted it several other times, notably to that dishonest poster irishdog80, and it is never addressed. Worse even, he doesn't note the difference between business partners (the NCAA member schools) distributing surplus amongst the partnership and athletes supporting other athletes who are in different sports and who are not partners in the slightest.

It's a very, very dishonest approach. There are reasons to not pay the athletes any more, but the horse is out of the barn now. You can't treat it as a big business on one hand and then amateur athletics on the other. It just doesn't work that way.