The Grand Irony - college football is socialist

#1
utgibbs

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#1
Okay, I've got to hear the arguments to the contrary.

I don't have the data, I'm hoping folks will provide.

Most BCS schools are state institutions, right? I don't think most of their ADs make money - I'm certain I've seen that pitched on VN. College football is, essentially, a socialist endeavor?

Now, I have no problem with this in the slightest.

Do any of you? If it isn't socialist, how is it not exactly? I'm simplifying this, but let's not get bent out of shape. The Post Office and British Telecom have private characteristics. Is it fair to say college football is subsidized by the taxpayer in major, direct ways? Are their football programs which don't depend upon the school and the taxpayer?

I'm interested in the responses.
 
#2
#2
I would bet that most college football programs are revenue positive. It is Title XI requirements that put ADs into the red.
 
#3
#3
of course, in order for it to be a convivial institution, the football program of a BCS school must rely on redistribution of wealth.

the 800 lb. gorilla demands it
 
#5
#5
utgibbs said:
Is it fair to say college football is subsidized by the taxpayer in major, direct ways? Are their football programs which don't depend upon the school and the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure State and Federal funding does not go toward athletics.
 
#6
#6
utvolpj said:
how does UT football depend on the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

I seen a interview back in the summer talking about the new renovations and they said that all renovations were completed through private donations. So UT does not depend on taxpayers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
Coach Grizz said:
I seen a interview back in the summer talking about the new renovations and they said that all renovations were completed through private donations. So UT does not depend on taxpayers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

one would think a UT fan as educated as utgibbs would know that
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
I would bet that most college football programs are revenue positive. It is Title XI requirements that put ADs into the red.
Click to expand...

Division 1, maybe, but what about FCS, Div 2, Div 3, NAIA that have considerably less attendance?
 
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
how does UT football depend on the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

In his defense, I didn't take it that he was speaking about all athletic departments, but he was just being general. I'm sure there are schools out there that rely on state funding for their athletic department. I just don't think Gibbs (in this case) was speaking including UT in the conversation.

VOID THIS POST
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
He's talking about the revenue sharing that the SEC does. I guess if you want to call that socialist then it pretty much is. Although they don't need the money to stay afloat. They do distribute the wealth throughout the conference. Vandy likes it.
 
#11
#11
utgibbs said:
Okay, I've got to hear the arguments to the contrary.

I don't have the data, I'm hoping folks will provide.

Most BCS schools are state institutions, right? I don't think most of their ADs make money - I'm certain I've seen that pitched on VN. College football is, essentially, a socialist endeavor?
Click to expand...


Good catch comrade Gibbinikoff, of course football
is capatilist consspiracy against the people.

End this barbaric practice and turn the stadia into
rice paddies to feed the poor hungry oppressed
people of the world.

newcivility.jpg
 
#12
#12
One key point: being profitable has nothing to do with socialism. Many of the world's great brands began as state-owned organizations.

UT is a land-grant university. I'm not as up on my social / economic history of Tennessee Football as I am results on the field. My feeling is the team has over most of its history has leaned heavily on the university and, consequently, taxpayer funds.

I think it's safe to say, UT football is an excellent marriage of both private and public interests - and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. When the marriage gets too one-sided, like when Hambone makes the students pay, I get upset. However there is no reason not to love UT football because of these truths.
 
#13
#13
utgibbs said:
One key point: being profitable has nothing to do with socialism. Many of the world's great brands began as state-owned organizations.

UT is a land-grant university. I'm not as up on my social / economic history of Tennessee Football as I am results on the field. My feeling is the team has over most of its history has leaned heavily on the university and, consequently, taxpayer funds.

I think it's safe to say, UT football is an excellent marriage of both private and public interests - and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. When the marriage gets too one-sided, like when Hambone makes the students pay, I get upset. However there is no reason not to love UT football because of these truths.
Click to expand...
OK... forget everything I just said earlier in this thread.
 
#14
#14
If "taxpayer" funds = Fans donating, buy tickets, merchandise, hot dogs, cokes.......and such.

He may have somewhat of a point.

Of course those are "gifts/purchases" and not demanded taxes. But I guess they do come from the same source.
 
#15
#15
There isn't much govt funding that goes into any level of college athletics.

I read a report a few years back about the trickle down affect of college sports, esp college football. Very interesting about how the pay for wins games supports lower division schools and it goes all the way down to naia d2.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
There's a difference between revenue sharing and socialism. These schools have made an agreement to do it. I see it more like a pot luck. We bring the burgers and vandy brings the chips. Everyone gets to eat.
 
#17
#17
Potluck sounds like socialism to me. Or is it comparative advantage? :)

Seriously, I was hoping someone would know off the top of their heads and provide some data. How exactly is UTAD incorporated? I'll be honest, I don't know. It's obviously not a charity, and yet the Tennessee Fund was created, certainly in part, to specifically to deal with the tax deduction issue!

It's therefore, heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, a part of a Land-Grant university, with a lot of "potluck" revenue sharing regardless of performance....

And it's GREAT! A marriage of public and private institutions working together to produce a convivial, cultural product.
 
#18
#18
utgibbs said:
Potluck sounds like socialism to me. Or is it comparative advantage? :)

Seriously, I was hoping someone would know off the top of their heads and provide some data. How exactly is UTAD incorporated? I'll be honest, I don't know. It's obviously not a charity, and yet the Tennessee Fund was created, certainly in part, to specifically to deal with the tax deduction issue!

It's therefore, heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, a part of a Land-Grant university, with a lot of "potluck" revenue sharing regardless of performance....

And it's GREAT! A marriage of public and private institutions working together to produce a convivial, cultural product.
Click to expand...

picard-face-palm.gif
 
#19
#19
utgibbs said:
Okay, I've got to hear the arguments to the contrary.

I don't have the data, I'm hoping folks will provide.

Most BCS schools are state institutions, right? I don't think most of their ADs make money - I'm certain I've seen that pitched on VN. College football is, essentially, a socialist endeavor?

Now, I have no problem with this in the slightest.

Do any of you? If it isn't socialist, how is it not exactly? I'm simplifying this, but let's not get bent out of shape. The Post Office and British Telecom have private characteristics. Is it fair to say college football is subsidized by the taxpayer in major, direct ways? Are their football programs which don't depend upon the school and the taxpayer?

I'm interested in the responses.
Click to expand...

It is not naturally socialist. You have a socialist blanket imposed on something that is very fundamentally free market...

Left alone, the best programs draw more fans and make more money.

But even under the limitations it isn't "socialist". Not all gov't dictated monopolies amount to socialism.

It becomes socialist when the gov't decides that every team should get the same results... the goal becomes everyone at 6-6... and as a natural outcome everyone is dissatisfied. Ingenuity and intiative are destroyed. The value of the product sinks to nothing. Why try if everyone is assured the same thing anyway?

Several years ago the NFL tried to create parity. It made the league very, very boring.
 
#20
#20
utgibbs said:
Potluck sounds like socialism to me. .
Click to expand...
I hope you aren't remotely serious about this statement.

"Potluck" involves voluntary sharing. Socialism involves imposed "sharing".

One is freedom. The other is bondage.
 
#21
#21
sjt18 said:
I hope you aren't remotely serious about this statement.

"Potluck" involves voluntary sharing. Socialism involves imposed "sharing".

One is freedom. The other is bondage.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize the revenue sharing scheme was "voluntary." Looks like it fits more with your (skewed) definition of socialism, sjt. I believe you are confusing Communism with Socialism. And I was being serious, is "potluck" more about comparative advantage?

I'll drop this as soon as someone holds their hands-up and says, "Yes, our beloved college football is a great marriage of both public and private enterprise." Which, after all, it is.
 
#23
#23
gasguy98 said:
This is the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen on this site.
Click to expand...

I hope I haven't touched a nerve.

I really wanted to see the counter-argument. No one wants to put any meat on the grill though. I'm going to assume it is a lock-tight case.

It doesn't bother me, but I hope I haven't tarnished the enjoyment of college football for anyone here. Yes, it is a gub'ment sponsored phenomenon in the main. That doesn't mean it's evil.
 
#24
#24
utgibbs said:
I hope I haven't touched a nerve.

I really wanted to see the counter-argument. No one wants to put any meat on the grill though. I'm going to assume it is a lock-tight case.

It doesn't bother me, but I hope I haven't tarnished the enjoyment of college football for anyone here. Yes, it is a gub'ment sponsored phenomenon in the main. That doesn't mean it's evil.
Click to expand...

Some of us are still waiting for you to prove your case.
 
#25
#25
utgibbs said:
I hope I haven't touched a nerve.

I really wanted to see the counter-argument. No one wants to put any meat on the grill though. I'm going to assume it is a lock-tight case.

It doesn't bother me, but I hope I haven't tarnished the enjoyment of college football for anyone here. Yes, it is a gub'ment sponsored phenomenon in the main. That doesn't mean it's evil.
Click to expand...

In no way does the taxpayer pay for college football at UT. If anything, college football pays for other programs through sales taxes that funnel into the state and through federal taxes paid by its employees.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top