John Oliver on the NCAA and compensation for athletes

Why do people think bed actually leave this show to go to TDS?

That Napier interview always makes me cringe. People ate that up but its complete and utter bullshit.

I see what you're saying, but it's important to have some pocket money for eating expenses too. It's important to remember that as a student athlete they may have very different hours than other students. A regular student can usually make it to the dining hall before it closes around 9. If he's at the gym late one night for practice or such and can't make it to the dining hall before it closes, he may very well go hungry that night. Another example, a few years ago when I was at M, they didn't serve meals on Saturday nights because most students ate out, and not enough people came so it wasn't cost effective. They have since changed that policy, but it's very possible that still happens at other universities.

All I'm trying to say is don't be too quick to judge him on this, his statement probably raises eyebrows, but I'd wager it's more likely it was true than false.

The other side of the argument is along the lines of protecting the sanctity of college sports. It's just as hollow and ridiculous as other instances that line of reasoning shows up.

players you're fundamentally changing the amateur nature of college athletics.  You're turning the NCAA into a farm system for the NFL and NBA.

Part of the fan appeal of college athletics is the fact that the players aren't being paid.  Bo said it best, they're playing for The Team, not for money.

 

That free college tuition, room and board, athletic training and skill development for four to five years is still a pretty damn good deal for the vast majority of athletes. There is a ton that needs to be done around the edges but outright compensation is going to kill the whole enterprise. I doubt that's good for anyone.

people like you who are incapable of understanding the opponent's viewpoints. The other side's argument may not have much merit, but there is some merit. Their argument isn't "just because". It's this sort of thinking that is completely derailing our political system right now.

Yes, I believe players should be paid. But, the whole damn point of the NCAA model is this idea of a "student-athete". Now, this obviously is a laughable concept today given the amount of $$$$ in the college football/basketball business, the hilariously outdated rules and regulations, and the arbitrary punishments handed out by the NCAA while simultaneously turning a blind eye towards countless shady things. But let's not just bullrush a change without being very careful about potential remifications, especially if we want to keep considering these guys "student-athletes". We need to redefine the term, I think. But I don't think we should just get rid of it entirely. Plus, you have to consider the effects the new rules would have on the many other sports who are net revenue-losing. It's not as obvious of a change as some make it out to be.

First off, I think anyone who receives a scholarship and free room and board is getting paid.  If I received free housing and food as part of my compensation it would still be compensation.  Also, I understand that there are some other expenses that can be paid but i'm not an expert.  If it was decided to allow a bit more of that money get to athletes I wouldn't be too upset.

Still here's why I think that letting "the market pay these skilled adults what they're worth" is harder to determine than you might think.  No one buys a ticket to watch Marcus Mariotta or Melvin Gordon or whoever simply show of their skills by themselves.  They pay to see them perform in a certain environment with a certain set of traditions with and against other players.  Most of those other players -- the ones who will never make the NFL -- aren't getting that bad a deal in terms of the benefit they get from a free education plus other expenses.

One could argue that the players who will never go pro are still part of larger enterprise that generates a lot of money, but again I think that's not just because of the players' skills.  I don't think that minor league baseball or hockey generates much money and those players have similar skills as college athletes.  I think there's something -- perhaps false and hypocritical -- about college athletics (at least for football and basketball) that generates excitement that simply wouldn't be there if it were changed too radically.

Also, it's very existence depends on some degree of competition.  If Ohio State paid all of its football players and Indiana only a few how much more would be the competitive balance be destroyed, which would ultimately make the sport less popular since even fewer people would come to watch them play.

... it's incredibly complex, and I think Oliver did a very reasonable job in presenting a number of those complex pieces.  but yeah, my favorite part (aside from Jalen's points on coaching revenue vs. student income issues) was definitely the #soybeanwind

did you watch the video and learn that the term student-athlete was specifically invented as a work arounf for workman's comp claims?

I do, but from what I've seen of the show, it's just him talking for 20 minutes straight every time. Gets a little old.

Great

do you not like John Oliver?  That just doesn't make any sense to me.