Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johndoe

Askren owes Willie an apology

Recommended Posts

I think Askren owes Willie an apology. He called him plantation Willie a few times during the FRL podcast. He is accusing Willie of racism simply because Willie disagrees with him. I like Askren. I think he is entertaining. But that was pretty embarrassing display on Askren's part. Casual accusations of racism are disgusting.

 

Willie agreed that athletes should be able to go pro without going to college. If one can go pro instead of going to college, there is no basis for any athlete in the NCAA to get paid. If an athlete has better options than the NCAA, he can take them. If not, he plays for the NCAA. NCAA wrestlers that want to be paid are in fantasy land. With the cost of college these days, they will never make more than a college scholarship getting paid for camps or clinics. If they think they can, they can get paid, forgo the NCAA system, and join the senior freestyle circuit like Pico or Cejudo. In almost every case, the scholarships are much more valuable. If teaching camps was such a marketable skill, there wouldn't be so many broke wrestling coaches. The value of an athlete is in scoring points for a college team. The University brand is a major part of the value, not the individual wrestler. This is borne out every year when the All-Americans graduate. Wrestling as a skill becomes essentially worthless upon graduation.

 

Askren keeps talking about the free market. The free market has been quite clear: wrestling is a low value skill. If it was high value, his attempts at a pro league wouldn't have crashed and burned every time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Askren stated that most, if not all college wrestling programs operated in the red, and therefore college wrestlers would not be getting paid as they don't have much of a free market value. (He did, however, argue they should be able to make money off of their name and likeness.) He was talking primarily about basketball and football when referencing paying players. If he were a mainstream celebrity, he might get flak for his plantation Willie comment, but he wasn't calling Willie racist. He compared the NCAA to slavery and Willie appeared to be supporting the NCAA status quo.

 

Any college sport outside of basketball or football doesn't have much of an argument for being payed, as their scholarships are worth more than they bring in to the university. But those two sports bring in billions of dollars, and the athletes receive a very small fraction of their value to the school. The problem is that those two sports are so far removed from what the purpose of college athletics is. The core of that being simply playing a sport while earning a degree. They are in every sense except for the players not being paid, professional leagues.

Edited by Crotalus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Askren comparing the NCAA to slavery is plain stupid. That is a political statement, not reality. 

 

No one is being forced to play college football or basketball. And University brand names are also valued highly because of the engineers, doctors, lawyers, and teachers they produce, so if you are going to pay athletes to attend Universities you'd have to pay these other undergrads too. But then the whole system collapses. If you want to pay athletes, that money has to come from either higher ticket or TV contract value, higher tuition, or higher taxes, none of which I'd be willing to play along with to pay hoops and football players at the expense of, say, STEM, undergrads. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One might be able to argue that you call liken someone to a plantation owner that supports slavery, but you're not saying he is racist, but I think it would be an uphill battle. I like Askren, I've listened to every one of his podcasts with Rowlands. I have his technique DVDs. I'd send my kids to his camps if they were interested. He likes being provocative. But I think he simply owes Willie an apology for saying something dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was that the university wouldn't need to pay them above what their scholarships already amount to. You could however get paid for doing camps (which you are currently limited to what athletes can be paid for doing, though Penn State seems to have a workaround on this front). In theory a guy like Jason nolf shouldn't be able to charge more for camp services than say Tyler burger. Both great wrestlers, sure, but nolf should 100 percent be able to charge more to be a clinician because of who he is and the knowledge/skill set that he has. I think the argument becomes more interesting I cases like basketball where you literally have to attend a university for one year before you go pro. The ncaa claims it's for their academic benefit but that's an obvious load of crap and they do force them to play for free essentially (what does a one year scholarship actually do for a pro athlete?) Since they can't make money despite being 18 and having the capacity to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it ever end?

 

  "Plantation" means that you support the status quo from the empowered perspective while not being a member of the empowered class - in this case the NCAA.  Under no reasonable interpretation can it be construed as him calling anyone racist. 

 

  As a general policy, when you want to impugn someone at least try to be on firm footing.  Or better yet - don't hit Post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is being forced to play college football or basketball. And University brand names are also valued highly because of the engineers, doctors, lawyers, and teachers they produce, so if you are going to pay athletes to attend Universities you'd have to pay these other undergrads too. But then the whole system collapses. If you want to pay athletes, that money has to come from either higher ticket or TV contract value, higher tuition, or higher taxes, none of which I'd be willing to play along with to pay hoops and football players at the expense of, say, STEM, undergrads. 

It may not be a great analogy, because they are not literally forced into unpaid service, but if they want to play either sport professionally, it is almost the only realistic option. And the NCAA makes billions of dollars off of the monopoly they have on these kids.

 

Universities don't have to pay other undergrads because they are not worth anything (relatively speaking), until they have their degree, and the university isn't making money directly off of them. Also, they can make and or accept money from any legal source they want while attending college. I'm all for amateurism in college athletics, but for football and basketball, that ship sailed a long time ago.

 

 

One might be able to argue that you call liken someone to a plantation owner that supports slavery, but you're not saying he is racist, but I think it would be an uphill battle. I like Askren, I've listened to every one of his podcasts with Rowlands. I have his technique DVDs. I'd send my kids to his camps if they were interested. He likes being provocative. But I think he simply owes Willie an apology for saying something dumb. 

I was working on a response to this, then a better one popped up from another poster. So I'll leave it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be a great analogy, because they are not literally forced into unpaid service, but if they want to play either sport professionally, it is almost the only realistic option. 

 

How is that any different than the academic undergrad. If you want to become a doctor or engineer is there any other way to get into those professions that do not involve college? The STEM undergrad at a non merit based University, if his parents can afford it, must pay real money to attend college even if said student is brilliant. Why should his/her tuition increase to subsidize the hoops or football player who might not be able to even get into that school based solely on academics? 

 

The athlete in the above has the far BETTER deal than the STEM undergrad. 

 

 

 

And the NCAA makes billions of dollars off of the monopoly they have on these kids.

 

And the Universities make billions off the students too. Much of that largess already coming from taxpayers, the rest from parents of NON ATHLETE students and students themselves. They have endowments in the billions of dollars. Virtually all of them pay fairly lucrative pensions to their employees that are not available in the private sector. Paying athletes would serve to increase the burden on both tax payers, parents of college students, and the students themselves. All to subsidize future millionaires? Sorry, but no. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but it was still a dumb comment. What’s next, Hitler analogies? The man had a good point (which I do not personally agree with, but nevertheless, a good one). He made it with a dumb analogy.

He was referencing the post slavery era, and that went over everyone's heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was referencing the post slavery era, and that went over everyone's heads.

Ben is a very smart guy. He should’ve known not to make a massively loaded statement like that, no matter the era he was referencing. I get what he was saying. It was a good point, even if I don’t agree with it completely. But FFS, pick a better way to say it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that any different than the academic undergrad. If you want to become a doctor or engineer is there any other way to get into those professions that do not involve college? The STEM undergrad at a non merit based University, if his parents can afford it, must pay real money to attend college even if said student is brilliant. Why should his/her tuition increase to subsidize the hoops or football player who might not be able to even get into that school based solely on academics? 

 

The athlete in the above has the far BETTER deal than the STEM undergrad. 

 

 

 

 

And the Universities make billions off the students too. Much of that largess already coming from taxpayers, the rest from parents of NON ATHLETE students and students themselves. They have endowments in the billions of dollars. Virtually all of them pay fairly lucrative pensions to their employees that are not available in the private sector. Paying athletes would serve to increase the burden on both tax payers, parents of college students, and the students themselves. All to subsidize future millionaires? Sorry, but no. 

SOmebody once said  "The posturing on this msg board is priceless. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Universities make billions off the students too. Much of that largess already coming from taxpayers, the rest from parents of NON ATHLETE students and students themselves. They have endowments in the billions of dollars. Virtually all of them pay fairly lucrative pensions to their employees that are not available in the private sector. Paying athletes would serve to increase the burden on both tax payers, parents of college students, and the students themselves. All to subsidize future millionaires? Sorry, but no. 

If those pre-med or engineering undergrads want to take a job or take any kind of endorsements they may be offered while they are in school (within the bounds of the law), they are free to. Also, undergrads are not subsidizing basketball and football, basketball and football are subsidizing all of the other college sports. I'm not a fan of the idea of paying college athletes, but I'm not a fan of them being used to make billions while barring them from earning anything themselves. And they have virtually no choice but to contribute to the system if they want to play professionally. Baseball has a better system, where high school athletes have the choice to pursue a professional career over college if they so choose. But that system will likely never be utilized in basketball of football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If those pre-med or engineering undergrads want to take a job or take any kind of endorsements they may be offered while they are in school (within the bounds of the law), they are free to. Also, undergrads are not subsidizing basketball and football, basketball and football are subsidizing all of the other college sports. I'm not a fan of the idea of paying college athletes, but I'm not a fan of them being used to make billions while barring them from earning anything themselves. And they have virtually no choice but to contribute to the system if they want to play professionally. Baseball has a better system, where high school athletes have the choice to pursue a professional career over college if they so choose. But that system will likely never be utilized in basketball of football.

 

 

What you state about football and basketball funding other sports is 100% true. But if you pay the athletes in those sports then you are going to have to pay the athletes in those other sports as well, and then tuition costs or ticket prices are going to rise even more. 

 

The undergrads are why the school even exists to begin with, so they are in a way funding the athletics programs that come about because of the school's existence. Not directly, but indirectly.

 

Take away the school and then ask yourself if a young man known only in his AAU world has a market for endorsements? 99.9 percent of them would not. I'd like to see colleges get out of athletics altogether. This is the only nation where the Universities are part of big time athletics like this. If they want to be professional athletes instead of students, then that is a choice they can make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although my debating prowess was not incredibly persuasive on the show, i don't think Ben made any points to change my (or anyone else's) mind.

 

let HS athletes go straight to the pros if they want

OR

let college athletes make money on endorsements

 

i just don't agree with them getting paid from the university and i don't like that the value of what they already get being diminished or marginalized.

 

as far as Ben's 'plantation' comment - i took little offense to it. i knew what he meant. interesting choice of words, sure. but i'm not going to get sensitive about it. i don't think one person for even a second would think that either Ben or I were racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This is so, so stupid.

2. Also, it's a flat out lie.

 

 

Now how on earth would you know what my reaction would be in the event they start paying salaries to college athletes when you don't even know me? I watch very little NFL and no NBA what so ever.  Turning college kids into pro athletes, sorry but I am not interested one bit in that. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"as far as Ben's 'plantation' comment - i took little offense to it. i knew what he meant. interesting choice of words, sure. but i'm not going to get sensitive about it. i don't think one person for even a second would think that either Ben or I were racist."

 

I would agree that nobody thinks you or Ben are racist. It seemed completely out of left field when he said it. Ad hominem attacks are a classic logical fallacy in debate. If you don't think any apology is necessary, I'm not going to try to change your mind. 

 

I still think it was a terrible thing to say. I think it takes a great deal of willful ignorance to deny the racial overtones when you compare somebody to a plantation owner. Not long ago the owner of the Ravens was compared to a plantation owner for not signing Kaepernick. Since the debate was about paying football and basketball players, it doesn't seem like a stretch to think of recent news items like this:

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baltimore-sports-blog/bs-sp-ravens-ray-lewis-colin-kaepernick-20170905-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is going to get debated, we should establish a baseline of things we can agree on.

Thing 1:  College sports is not about college athletes.

Thing 2: Nick Saban makes a helluva lot of money.  In fact, he makes makes 3-4 times what 85 dudes risking life and limb get in scholarship money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...