Then pay the employees.
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.They're getting paid, just not in cash.
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.
Let's not get sidetracked from the topic of this thread, which is that Don Lucia is a crybaby beyotch.It's not a semantics lesson, it's a legal truth. I don't know what the adherence rate to the law is, but when you fill out a 1040 to file your taxes, there's a section about the dollar value of scholarships you've received. Not all players are on scholarship, so not all of them are being paid, but as we know, a number of them are.
Look for FBS schools
B1G
Notre Dame
BC
UConn?
Miami??
BGSU?????????? (this I doubt)
You view a paid (or mostly paid) college education as nothing? If a guy gets an 80% ride at SCSU and stays 4 years, that's worth about $71K, it ain't nothing, and it ain't semantics.Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.
Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.You view a paid (or mostly paid) college education as nothing? If a guy gets an 80% ride at SCSU and stays 4 years, that's worth about $71K, it ain't nothing, and it ain't semantics.
I do understand that a SCSU education would be worthless, you and your buddies keep demonstrating that on this board. ;-)Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.
Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.
I do understand that a SCSU education would be worthless, you and your buddies keep demonstrating that on this board. ;-)
The NCAA restricts age in all D-1 and D-2 sports. Waivers can be granted, of course, but eligibility begins to be affected the year after your high school class graduates. Hockey and Skiing currently allow for delayed enrollment until after your 21st birthday. In other words, Hockey has an exemption now to 21. Most all other sports don't.
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.
Which one of those doesn't mutually benefit the school? All of those are there to make sure the athlete performs at their best for the benefit of the school. If the athlete was paid, he could pay for those things on his own. If you gave the athlete the choice between the current system, and a system where they had to pay for their own tuition and housing but there would be a free market for his services, no football, baseketball or hockey players would choose the first one. And no school would offer less than the cost of tuition, because it doesn't cost them any extra money to let another person into a classroom to listen to a professor.Ok then; how about the free meals, coaching services, training services, medical services, and so on that are provided to an athlete?
Find me the family that can't afford college for their child that would be against their child being paid with money instead of getting a scholarship.Tell that to a family that can't afford college for their child.