Mobile Paper: Phelon Jones transferring from LSU

I don't really have a problem with football players getting paid, but it would open a can of worms with all athletes wanting some jingle. As a senior elsewhere I am doing work for my senior project that is pretty valuable and I ain't getting paid jack for it. These football players have the opportunity to make it into the NFL and get paid to live out their dreams. There is a lot of value in that. Still, I know they make a lot of money for the school and wouldn't have a problem with them getting paid a modest sum.

 

Geez, what ever happened to being a team player, having a role, continuing to work hard to be ready for your opportunity? It sucks that we would be losing such quality depth.

 

With Phelon Jones gone and Jai eugene a maybe gone, how will that open the eyes of DB's we're recruiting now?

Seems to me that people already on the LSU radar will be thinking more and earlier playing time and people not on our radar will soon be causing some serious "blips". This could cause some to consider committing earlier to secure their position in the class. It could also cause the staff to be more selective to see what opens up as the year progresses. The defections could even raise red flags about the new staff in the eyes of some recruits, but I doubt it.

I have no idea what is going to happen. Does anyone else hear anything? I like recruiting gossip and speculation, me.

 

As far as paying the athletes, I think it is immoral not to do so because it's their efforts that produces the hundreds of millions of $'s that everyone but the athletes takes advantage of.

The commandment thou shalt not steal involves more than theft like we think. It involves employers paying a reasonable wage for workers' labor as well as workers putting forth a true effort in their work.

Baseball players are in a totally different situation because, with the minor leagues, college ball is truly elective. Basketball players are forced to go to college for at least one year of indentured servitude. Football players are true slaves to the NCAA because they have no option to earn in come at all.

Swimming, golf and lacrosse players don't produce enough revenue to even be considered for renumeration. but they should be recompensed in proportion to any profit they produce.

So it depends on the situation of the individual programs (sports). It's just that football produces so much revenue that it's like the goose that lays the golden egg... It's time to start paying the geese and treat them humanely!!

 

Deceks is for real.:thumb:

 

I'm not opposed to some level of compensation in terms of student salaries - it might end run some (but probably not most) of the BS that goes on in some locker room/dorm room situations.

But, dude. Your language and logic is over the top. What a crock of sh!t...:rolleye33:

 

Bandit, I'm not taking offense at your language because I realize that you probably didn't intend for it to be offensive. I'm treating it like we're sitting next to each other on barstools having a few brews between friends..

I'll explain my logic and language.

Slavery is forced labor in which people are considered property and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse work or to receive compensation for labor. (My great great grandmother was a slave in Haiti in the late 1880's - it still existed then, there.) In a very real sense, football players are forced to work for no compensation. My usage of the term slavery was a metaphorical use for a lesser form of forced labor. I've read posts in this forum that said CLM owns the players once they sign the LOI. The players even wear shirts that say "property of LSU football" admittedly the phrase refers to the shirt and not the person, but ask a player if the symbolism is off the wall and they'll probably tell you not at all. They produce the revenue and the NCAA has tons of regulations to assure that they get nothing even remotely considered a form of compensation. If you argue that they receive a college education in return, isn't that like saying the real slaves received food shelter and clothing in return for their work? And what do you think would happen if they refused to work; to go to practice, to get in a game, or even if they miss a team meeting? They also can't leave and play (work) somewhere else unless they're granted a release.

So 1) they are practically property, 2) they can't refuse work 3) they can't leave freely and 4) they can't receive compensation.

An indentured servant is under contract for a limited amount of time and work is exchanged for transportation, food, clothing, a place to live, etc. The main difference with slavery is the contractual nature of the work agreement and the limited time the contract is enforced. An indentured servant is a debt, bondage worker. Other than that the relationship has everything in common with slavery.

So my use of slavery is metaphorical, however my use of the term indentured servitute is just about really what it is.

I only referred to commandments to place it in moral perspective. You're right about it not being placed in better context. I was only trying to refer to something everyone has been exposed to. I'm not trying to endorse religion. It's just that the civil laws against stealing exist in America only because of the existance of natural, moral law. And metaphorical slavery is as immoral as real slavery. I'm not sure about indentured servitude.

I can see the benefits for me if a worker came to me and wanted to sign a contract to work for 4 years in exchange for room, board and my teaching him a trade. Heck, I'd probably make enough money to buy season tickets to LSU football games and start seeing the Tigers play again. Hmmmmm.....

As far as implying I'm full of $hit, if you had a few beers with me, you'd realize that you were a better judge of character than you previously thought before the second round. :lol:. By the way, that was a real invitation if you make it to Abita one day. Bring your "air Dardars"... the crock can only hold so much !!

 

I thought scholarships were given to student athletes? They get an education for free while playing a sport. I don't know how much it costs to go to school at a major college, but I'm sure it's expensive.

 

The scholarship and the education have value to you and me. Not to deride the players, but most of them wouldn't be in college at all if it weren't for the sport. If the education and scholarship had real value, their study habbits would be a lot different... they'd be ..."scholars".

 

They're students. Nobody made them play football. What do they need money for - to buy the books, chicks, food, and tuition that they already get for free?