Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tooge
Whitlock makes it sound like a case of "the man" taking advantage of the black kids. He fails to mention two points. One, is that the kid gets a chance at post high school education where in many cases he would not have. Secondly, many of these kids go on to earn 10 times what the college administrator or coach make. How about they re invest in the highschool communities from which they came. I cal BS on this one.
|
If you read the article Whitlock does account for your first argument. His point is that a lot of the athletes don't truly have the opportunity to take advantage of the education they are being offered. You even seem to acknowledge that by suggesting that the NCAA re-invest in communities.
But JW realizes that even the money generated by NCAA football and basketball would not make that much of a difference spread across every poor community in the entire U.S. He acknowledges that athletes aren't the only ones who are unprepared. So his compromise is that at least those disadvantaged athletes who provide the talent (without whom the product would be less attractive and less profitable) should reap more of the benefits. It's basically your recommendation (invest at the high school level) plus a dose of merit-based benefit.
Your second argument is largely irrelevant. You use the word "many" where the words "very few" are more appropriate. The overwhelming majority of college football and basketball players will not go on to earn riches playing pro sports.