NCAA = Slavery You can't make this stuff up

#226
#226
TUSKtimes said:
I'm not interested in getting into more of your theory of economic relativity.
Click to expand...

I've never said a word about "economic relativity." In fact, I have said, more than once, that it's unreasonable to expect players to make what coaches, administrators, or the school itself make.

You seem to quickly choose that over specifics when pushed for your blueprint.
Click to expand...

I am responding to your posts, typically using your wording so as to make sure I'm addressing your argument.

I want to see checks and balances that can help the players economically as well as obligate the players to the University they decide to make their home.

"Show me the money" doesn't seem like much of a gameplan.
Click to expand...

I posted my idea earlier in the thread: Let the kids use their names and likenesses. I'm not opposed to letting them operate independently. But, if one thinks that free rein is going too far, the next best option is to let the school contribute to an escrow account that is payable to the player upon the expiration of his eligibility. From there, the school will pay the player directly every time they use his name or likeness.
 
#227
#227
bamawriter said:
I've never said a word about "economic relativity." In fact, I have said, more than once, that it's unreasonable to expect players to make what coaches, administrators, or the school itself make.
Click to expand...

You also said. "I'm not at all concerned with who makes what. I am concerned with allowing people to do only what is reasonable and fair."

You speak often in terms of economic relativity.

bamawriter said:
I am responding to your posts, typically using your wording so as to make sure I'm addressing your argument.

I posted my idea earlier in the thread: Let the kids use their names and likenesses. I'm not opposed to letting them operate independently. But, if one thinks that free rein is going too far, the next best option is to let the school contribute to an escrow account that is payable to the player upon the expiration of his eligibility. From there, the school will pay the player directly every time they use his name or likeness.
Click to expand...


In that, you're not concerned with who makes what, why not an economic program that allows all the football players to prosper? Without agents involvement?

Why try to emulate and turn college football teams into the haves and have-nots of economic societies, past and present? Is there something about the knowledge that wealth is in the hands of only 4% of the people that makes you long for a working model in college?
 
#228
#228
TUSKtimes said:
You also said. "I'm not at all concerned with who makes what. I am concerned with allowing people to do only what is reasonable and fair."

You speak often in terms of economic relativity.
Click to expand...

It seems like you are confusing the equality of opportunity with the equality of outcome. I am a proponent of the former, and not terribly concerned with the latter.

In that, you're not concerned with who makes what, why not an economic program that allows all the football players to prosper? Without agents involvement?
Click to expand...

I don't really care if agents are involved or not. You've mentioned it a couple of times, but it's never been my position.

Why try to emulate and turn college football teams into the haves and have-nots of economic societies, past and present? Is there something about the knowledge that wealth is in the hands of only 4% of the people that makes you long for a working model in college?
Click to expand...

College athletics has been divided into the haves and have-nots for decades. My preferred solution would do very little to change that.
 
#229
#229
The answer is for the colleges to eliminate athletics and make these kids go to farm leagues like they do in baseball. Athletics are becoming more and more of a liability for the schools anyway.

That way the alumni could spend their money on what is really important and could contribute to a better society.
 
#231
#231
RDU VOL#14 said:
I agree that you should be able to go straight to the pros from high school, but isn’t this more of an NBA rule/issue than an NCAA ?
Click to expand...
The NCAA should make scholarships a three year minimum commitment. If a kid signs on for a scholarship, that slot is closed for 3 years. 1 and done Calipari? Guess what, you don't get another scholly to fill the void for 2 more years.
 
#232
#232
bamawriter said:
No, it didn't. Schools have been offering some form of incentives to student-athletes since at least the 1870s, and the NCAA formally defined the athletic scholarship in 1950.
Click to expand...
You start paying football players, and the schools with the real money will eventually rise to the top. And Bama ain't one of those.

Give them a stipend for living... walking around money as it were, because they do work and don't get paid. But if it becomes a business for the kids, then why bother with the charade that they are students?
 
#233
#233
SpaceCoastVol said:
You start paying football players, and the schools with the real money will eventually rise to the top. And Bama ain't one of those.
Click to expand...

Which schools do you think have more money than Bama? Bama is at or near the top in revenue every year. Bama football is where it is because they make money and are willing to spend it.
 
Last edited:
#234
#234
onevol74 said:
The answer is for the colleges to eliminate athletics and make these kids go to farm leagues like they do in baseball. Athletics are becoming more and more of a liability for the schools anyway.

That way the alumni could spend their money on what is really important and could contribute to a better society.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s not the answer.
 
#235
#235
n_huffhines said:
I wonder what the lowest salary is for profitable football programs.
Click to expand...

moving target isn't it? especially if you add the cost of paying players, and negotiations. also typically someone is going to get paid more if they are profitable than if not.
 
#236
#236
bamawriter said:
I get your point, but I don't think it's an apt comparison. There are certain professions that require advanced education before one practices, for obvious reasons. It would be detrimental to the community to let someone practice medicine, law, or architecture without sufficient education because a lack of education could have disastrous results.

I think you'd agree that sports, in general, do not require advanced education. The NFL's three year rule isn't in place because football players need a college education in order to safely and effectively perform their craft. The NFL could operate a developmental league should they choose to do so. But they won't, because it doesn't cost a dime to let NCAA member schools do it for them.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that they don't need the experience, sure they don't need a degree, but as you pointed out the NFL doesn't require that. tackling properly, and concussions are a huge concern. players aren't going to learn without doing. its double edged because they are still doing damage at the time they are learning.

the XFL has died once already. arena football has never really taken off. seems like you think its necessary to have an operation than runs at a loss to be fair, or only a slight profit.
 
#237
#237
bamawriter said:
So you're in favor of the current system, which encodes greed and selfishness and maximizes economic inequality?

I'm not at all concerned with who makes what. I am concerned with allowing people to do only what is reasonable and fair.
Click to expand...

paying them isn't going to shift that meter. the big dogs in the sport will continue to eat while the small schools suffer even more. seems like you are making it worse for most of the "system" so that it is better for the top.
 
#239
#239
LouderVol said:
the XFL has died once already. arena football has never really taken off. seems like you think its necessary to have an operation than runs at a loss to be fair, or only a slight profit.
Click to expand...

Well, no. It's not an issue of whether or not the team/program makes money. There are many college football programs that lose money, and they still operate under the unfair system that exploits the player's name and likeness and doesn't allow the player to do the same. I'm not giving a pass to those who simply suck at running their programs.
 
#240
#240
LouderVol said:
paying them isn't going to shift that meter. the big dogs in the sport will continue to eat while the small schools suffer even more. seems like you are making it worse for most of the "system" so that it is better for the top.
Click to expand...

You are taking my reply to someone who was griping about economic inequality and conflating my view with his. I never once said that players could or should make any particular amount of money. I want them to be able to do some of the stuff the schools do to make money, but which the schools currently prohibit them from doing. That's it.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
 
#241
#241
LouderVol said:
seems like you are wanting to double down on the bidding. formalizing it won't remove boosters from the equation giving $1000 handshakes.
Click to expand...

If a person wants to legally transfer $1000 of his own money to a college athlete, what's that to me?
 
#242
#242
bamawriter said:
If a person wants to legally transfer $1000 of his own money to a college athlete, what's that to me?
Click to expand...

pretty much any organization is going to have a set of standards about code of conduct of its members. Non-profit, for profit, government, little league baseball, college sports, NFL, etc etc.

whats it to you that the organization says they can't?

seems to me what you want is a PROFESSIONAL league. that's not what the NCAA is. no one is forcing you to buy into it, no one is forcing the schools to buy into, no one is forcing the students to buy into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#245
#245
LouderVol said:
pretty much any organization is going to have a set of standards about code of conduct of its members. Non-profit, for profit, government, little league baseball, college sports, NFL, etc etc.

whats it to you that the organization says they can't?

seems to me what you want is a PROFESSIONAL league. that's not what the NCAA is. no one is forcing you to buy into it, no one is forcing the schools to buy into, no one is forcing the students to buy into it.
Click to expand...

The NCAA can prohibit a kid taking money from a booster. But I'm sure it happens fairly regularly, and I can't think of a single reason why I should care.
 
Last edited:
#246
#246
bamawriter said:
The NCAA can prohibit a kid taking money from a booster. But I'm sure it happens fairly regularly, and I can't think of a single reason why I should care.
Click to expand...

I am sure it happens quite a bit in bama land. That would help explain why bama recruits so well, since most gumps probably agree with you.
 
#248
#248
bamawriter said:
The NCAA can prohibit a kid taking money from a booster. But I'm sure it happens fairly regularly, and I can't think of a single reason why I should care.
Click to expand...

this should go for the whole thing.

but you brought it up. seems simple and fair to me that if you voluntarily join a group you should be expected to hold up to its standards.

are they still going to do it? yes. but that doesn't mean we should get rid of all the rules that get broken. as that would be all the rules.
 
#249
#249
n_huffhines said:
It's a bad analogy for the most part, but slaves were compensated too. They had health care, room and board, even educated them, and brought them to Christ. Can't beat salvation.

There are parallels because a system has been created that denies people the ability to negotiate fair compensation for the product of their labor. In that sense, it is like slavery.

It's a bad comparison because they are free to do other things and actual slavery was 100x more distasteful.
Click to expand...

Not all were schooled in the ways of the lord. Some were beaten and sold away from their families.

Dang right it's a bad analogy.

I get tired of stupid people saying stupid things. The acid test would be time travel. It's no longer 1840 for the slaves, they are now in the year 2018.

Ask them if they'd rather play basketball than "be a slave", and 100% of them would say yes.

Take Wendell Carter, his mom and those that compare basketball to slavery. Transport them to 1840 and ask them whether they would take the slave lifestyle over college basketball. A couple might do it to prove a point, but most of them would hot-tail it back to the 21st century and hit the gym.

These folks are cheapening the term slavery and the struggle is actually was. I'm sure, if those former slaves were able to hear that, they'd be (as so many say here on VolNation...STDH)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#250
#250
ptcarter said:
Not all were schooled in the ways of the lord. Some were beaten and sold away from their families.

Dang right it's a bad analogy.

I get tired of stupid people saying stupid things. The acid test would be time travel. It's no longer 1840 for the slaves, they are now in the year 2018.

Ask them if they'd rather play basketball than "be a slave", and 100% of them would say yes.

Take Wendell Carter, his mom and those that compare basketball to slavery. Transport them to 1840 and ask them whether they would take the slave lifestyle over college basketball. A couple might do it to prove a point, but most of them would hot-tail it back to the 21st century and hit the gym.

These folks are cheapening the term slavery and the struggle is actually was. I'm sure, if those former slaves were able to hear that, they'd be (as so many say here on VolNation...STDH)
Click to expand...

Equating it to slavery is obviously a ridiculous comparison. It is exploitation. For all races of atheletes. Well football players really.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top