It's very simple. If you're playing football at Alabama or Ohio State, or basketball at Duke or Indiana, and your team brings in a boat load of money to the school, then you should receive a fair financial compensation for your labor which directly correlated to the financial revenues for your school. But if you're on an athletic scholarship for water polo or synchronized swimming at a small Div III college, then you should by all means be grateful and take full advantage of the free education. Nick Saban getting $10 million a year while his Crimson Tide players are told that they should feel privileged to have a free education is total BS. The free market awards Saban his 10 mil, but the free market awards the players only tuition and room and board.

Holy shit, this no Free market without regulation is ridiculous

At 1:02:00, Elmore just contradicted himself. "Let's not pay athletes but let's pay them when the NCAA uses their images and likenesses for video games."

For an IQ2 debate, the against side was extraordinarily disappointing. They glossed over obvious arguments against paying athletes, argued from authority and incredulity, relied on anecdotes, repeatedly made the absurd claim that paying taxes is a burden, argued against themselves re: merchandise, and let Joe Nocera run all over them without challenge. They should have focused on the fact that the vast majority of athletic programs (including football programs), if viewed as businesses, *lose* tremendous amounts of money, that the very small percentage of athletic programs that "turn a profit" do so because they are supported by institutions, and that introducing profit-making into the lives of students engaging in college activities would have bizarre and deeply damaging consequences for student life (for example, the orchestra could refuse to play and go on strike the day before a concert unless they are paid a certain amount, effectively holding the college hostage because schools can't "fire" students and simply "hire/admit" someone else). Joe's arguments about the effects on minority athletes should have been challenged at once, because they prioritized the very small number of minority athletes on the field over the hundreds of thousands of minority students off the field, who are either forced to subsidize sports through tuition or would be deprived of revenue from the small number of revenue-generating programs. This was a fantastic topic but the against side totally dropped the ball.

Christine's closing statement could sum up her entire contribution to the debate: anecdotal ramblings that don't serve any purpose. She asks the viewers to 'trust her' many times, and fails to use evidence to support her position that money will spoil amateur sports, completely ignoring the fact that money is already a huge factor in the form of recruiting and boosting deals. The debate would have been more interesting with a more evidence-based 'against' argument, not to take anything away from Len because I think his court-case arguments held some weight until the question round.

@iloveyoumadhuri

6 жыл бұрын

Henry Spradley Christine is a shitty writer! Her ideas jumped the shark at the turn of this century. The woman is so dumb, she thinks that you can be a woman in broadcasting without glamour and good looks. What expertise in that area does she have?

@paxdriver

6 жыл бұрын

How did she make an argument about a statement she admitted wasn't being debated both in title and from principles described in the opening statements? She acknowledged they didn't disagree with her and noted that women's equality wasn't the topic. Seriously, how did she even get selected?

@HusseinDoha

4 жыл бұрын

@@iloveyoumadhuri You are the silly. Christine is a brilliant writer. And I don't care about look when I'm interested in reading or watching a pundit with good grasp on the topic they are talking about.

Seems like the female columnist doesn't know how to debate. Taking anecdotal evidence and stating that it is a fact. Wasting a minute of her time to address an off issue topic. Pretty weak arguments overall

The against side already had an uphill battle to fight, and the Attorney wasn't quite as convincing which is disappointing because you'd expect someone who was in a college sports team to share a better perspective, but his partner absolutely let him down, and acted all snug on top of it.

Great debate in my opinion other then Christine she was off topic and was all in her emotions towards wemons rights and students over all being rewarded which is silly.. With that being said I'm against wemons rights at all, it makes sense that who ever generates more gets rewarded more. If you pay a woman equal for generating less thats not equal rights for men if they produce more and vice versa. Athletes should be paid, I don't think they should get paid millions while in college but it's fair that all athletes of both sex bring in at least 35k per year tax free what ever sport your involved with with the capabilities of bonuses based on your performance.

the title ix issue is a red herring, colleges pay male sport coaches more than female sport coaches

Good debate.

1:09:00 End of argument

"What better than a degree to help you prepare [for] and resist the ravages of racism in a world that, essentially, is hostile to you because of the color of your skin?" Uh, money, and as a consequence, increased power and influence. Not to mention that the argument that paying college athletes denies them their education remains spurious anyway.

At 54:35, Brennan (Fake Northwestern Grad) shits on herself...again. Bye bye competitive balance? How is there competitive balance when the "Power 5" Conferences get all the TV money? When the Mountain West gets just a pathetic online streaming deal while others get a TV (ie the Power 5) and Bloody University of Texas gets its own channel from ESPN, there is no competitive balance.

What about the small sport's like girls table tennis. Emma Watson didn't act well at Brown.

Men's basketball and football players should be paid. Women's sports' athletes should not. If your sport is not generating revenue, you shouldn't be paid. That's simply being fiscally responsible.

Starting to doubt whether the opposition will ever address Schwarz' economic freedom argument - or if they even understand it. That argument assumes that the athletes are rational, but I'm still not sure if Elmore is saying it's OK to exploit them for the greater good, or if they will not respond rationally to the change (or that we are morally shaping them by not paying them). I'm open to those arguments, but the opposition only has stupid little quibbles like they would have to pay takes (most pay taxes already - out of touch much?), and open-ended questions "oh my, but what will this look like?!", and over and over the non-argument that they already get a lot of value (FINE, then most won't need to be paid, as Schwarz says. But the question is whether they should be ALLOWED to be paid)

@iloveyoumadhuri

6 жыл бұрын

It's okay. Elmore expressed how he thinks college athletes filling out tax forms is a bad idea. Wow! They're 18 years old and can't do adult things. Plus, our government love its economy to be based on jobs and growth. How does banning players from getting paid or seeking endorsements help out our economy when their payments & endorsements are forms of growth & are taxable for deficit repairs?

.... Len Elmore, if there's value then pay the players and let them pay you for those benefits... Len's argument is entirely premised on horse poop. What the hell is with Christine talking about? Her opening statement is entirely not what's being debated, and she even said so. Wtf? Stopped watching at 46 mins. Absolutely brutal, worst debate yet. Do you guys draw names from a hat or something?

the lady was is the worst!!!!!

Cut these sports completely out of education. If people want to play the sports they can support it themselves. Make it like Europe and their Football. Give scholarships to people that want to learn something.