Jim Delany: Rose Bowl might not exist if players are paid

Donate To GopherHole
Dean S said:
When did the concept of amateurism in the USA become the ideal? It is an offensive concept to the American idea of self determination, which includes getting as much for your value as you can muster.

The question of ownership of the game of football played by "amateurs" should be called into question. Who owns the amateur game? If the game is truly an amateur game, then all broadcast of that game must be free for all to watch if broadcast. No ticketing should be allowed as the game is just as open as a game being played in a public park. If you want to watch, it is part of the public domain.

If you think it is not part of the public domain, then it really is not an amateur sport. It is a business, which the US Supreme Court has ALREADY classified it as. So, to say that the BIG can kick out any school for recognizing the true employee status of the players would be an interference in trade. Jim is obviously trying to keep the amateur status thing going to keep the NCAA from imploding, which is a lost cause.

There are too many here who do not understand the definition of employee, human rights, public goods, etc.

I chalk that up to poor state of education on human rights of any type and the emerging cultural shift away from democratic values to plantation values.
Click to expand...

This all takes us back to my original post on this topic.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I would like to see the NCAA mandate less practice time and dramatically increased revenue sharing along with a coaching staff salary cap, for purposes of enhancing the education of thousands of young men that would otherwise lose out.

Finally, any point can be argued ad infinitum and it's ok to have differing viewpoints. Amateurism is an ideal, and an admirable one in the course of educating these young men.

Without the money angle we wouldn't be having this conversation. "Greed" is not an ideal.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Owners and employers want us to be grateful for what we have and shut up. They use employee jealousy to tear better compensated workers down instead of demanding to be paid like those employees. Owners and employers believe workers are motivated by making less money while the owners and employers are motivated by more money.
The NCAA is no different. It is probably worse.
Click to expand...

+1 Welcome to corporate America...
 

Pompous Elitist said:
This all takes us back to my original post on this topic.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I would like to see the NCAA mandate less practice time and dramatically increased revenue sharing along with a coaching staff salary cap, for purposes of enhancing the education of thousands of young men that would otherwise lose out.

Finally, any point can be argued ad infinitum and it's ok to have differing viewpoints. Amateurism is an ideal, and an admirable one in the course of educating these young men.

Without the money angle we wouldn't be having this conversation. "Greed" is not an ideal.
Click to expand...

I disagree that compensation is the equivalent to greed. Amateurism is a false ideal. It is not better than being compensated for doing what you enjoy. What I think is missing is the idea that when the student enters a relationship with a college through a contact, that before it is signed, the contract can be negotiated and the terms adjusted to the individuals demands. Right now, the student falsely believes that there is no reason or ability to negotiate for better terms. I believe boilerplate contracts are fundamentally flawed documents as they are designed to prevent individual negotiated terms.

In my ideal world, boilerplates would be outlawed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a fundamental human right to negotiate terms to any contract.
 

If we can just get rid of all the owners and employers, the world would be perfect.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Owners and employers believe workers are motivated by making less money while the owners and employers are motivated by more money.
Click to expand...

That's a fascinating theory. Tell me more. I've been working for 30 years and I've never seen an owner or employer behave in a way that indicated that they believe workers are MOTIVATED by making LESS money.
 


Anyone who believes that the minimum wage needs to be extremely low and should not be raised claims that by raising the minimum wage, the lowest paid worker will not be motivated to advance in his/her job by making slightly more money. These people claim that by raising the minimum wage, that the "lazy bums" on the bottom of the working food chain will lose all incentive to advance themselves.

By the same token, these people believe that management and owners are motivated by making more money. They make the case that management and owners will be less likely to invest in their business if they are not able to make more money in their pay package.

Just watch CNBC for a while and listen to Joe Kiernen, Larry Kudlow and a few of their favorite guests. I think it will open your eyes to this "theory" of management rather quickly.

It also seems to be the kind of an argument that the Commissioner of the Big Ten is making as well as the head of the NCAA in their testimony re: unionization for players. They have NO problems with paying coaches millions and millions of dollars, but are rather quick to lay the possibility of the end of college football on the backs of players who want a piece of the action that the NCAA, Conferences, head coaches, coordinators, position coaches and athletic directors are currently getting from the huge tv deals cut by the Conference Networks for the programming provided by the play of the student athletes.
 

imthewalrus said:
Anyone who believes that the minimum wage needs to be extremely low and should not be raised claims that by raising the minimum wage, the lowest paid worker will not be motivated to advance in his/her job by making slightly more money. These people claim that by raising the minimum wage, that the "lazy bums" on the bottom of the working food chain will lose all incentive to advance themselves. By the same token, these people believe that management and owners are motivated by making more money.
Click to expand...

I've never once heard this argument espoused by anyone opposed to raising the minimum wage. I think you made it up. Show me a link.
 

badgergopher said:
I've never once heard this argument espoused by anyone opposed to raising the minimum wage. I think you made it up. Show me a link.
Click to expand...

OFF TOPIC: I think this is an off-topic issue. It should not be discussed on this board.

Put this on the off-topic board, please moderators and then we will see what we will see. This is an "off-topic" subject if I EVER have seen one...

; 0 )
 

Here is wren at his best! First he posts this.

Quote Originally Posted by imthewalrus
Anyone who believes that the minimum wage needs to be extremely low and should not be raised claims that by raising the minimum wage, the lowest paid worker will not be motivated to advance in his/her job by making slightly more money. These people claim that by raising the minimum wage, that the "lazy bums" on the bottom of the working food chain will lose all incentive to advance themselves. By the same token, these people believe that management and owners are motivated by making more money.
Click to expand...

Then badgergopher post this:

Quote Originally Posted by badgergopher View Post
I've never once heard this argument espoused by anyone opposed to raising the minimum wage. I think you made it up. Show me a link.
Click to expand...

Next wren follows this up with the following:

imthewalrus said:
I think this is an off-topic issue. I earn enough, so why the "H" should I do any more with this? How much dol you pay for information? I will not be one of your "minimum wage" servants.

Put this on the off-topic board, please moderators and then we will see what we will see. This is an "off-topic" subject if I EVER have seen one...

; 0 )
Click to expand...

It is at time like this I swear wren must be on drugs!
 



mcal24 said:
Give high school kids an option other than essentially forcing them to college so that paying them isn't even in the conversation. Guys like Johnny Football lose millions of dollars because they have to go to college first. I don't think college athletes should be paid for the most part, but the 1% of elite players get screwed by the system.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

JFF wouldn't even have the opportunity to make millions if the NCAA didn't allow him to a stage to improve and showcase his talents to his current employers.
 

How is the agreement between a college athlete and their school different than the agreement between an American Idol contestant and the producers of that program (see link)? Outside the top ten you get expenses only (walk on?). In the top ten you get less than the value of a scholarship. Your family isn't compensated for travel to the competition. The show makes a fortune off of your name and likeness. The show is the only reasonable path for a no-name singing talent to make it big in a short period of time. You could make the parallel argument that the talent of the contestants is why people tune in.

How is this different. Is this too management exploitation? Should it also be deemed 'illegal'?

http://americanidolnet.com/american-idol-faq/
 

badgergopher said:
The show is the only reasonable path for a no-name singing talent to make it big in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

No...there are other shows that compete with that one.

And who in their right mind believes the way we should look at things is to "make it big in a short period of time". Sometimes success takes time and effort.
 

Rights under the law

badgergopher said:
How is the agreement between a college athlete and their school different than the agreement between an American Idol contestant and the producers of that program (see link)? Outside the top ten you get expenses only (walk on?). In the top ten you get less than the value of a scholarship. Your family isn't compensated for travel to the competition. The show makes a fortune off of your name and likeness. The show is the only reasonable path for a no-name singing talent to make it big in a short period of time. You could make the parallel argument that the talent of the contestants is why people tune in.

How is this different. Is this too management exploitation? Should it also be deemed 'illegal'?

http://americanidolnet.com/american-idol-faq/
Click to expand...

In any employer relationship, the employee has the right to negotiate for pay, benefits or other matters at any time during the relationship. It is a law of the US. Most people don't understand that right in the relationship as they feel retaliation is a real threat. The law also holds retaliation for opening a negotiation as an illegal practice. If all Americans knew of these two undeniable facts of law, they might just reverse the order of things.
 



Dean S said:
In any employer relationship, the employee has the right to negotiate for pay, benefits or other matters at any time during the relationship. It is a law of the US. Most people don't understand that right in the relationship as they feel retaliation is a real threat. The law also holds retaliation for opening a negotiation as an illegal practice. If all Americans knew of these two undeniable facts of law, they might just reverse the order of things.
Click to expand...

So, if a recruit were to say to a D1 coach, "I want $200 a week in addition to my scholarship", he might be reported to the NCAA for seeking an illegal benefit. If instead the coach just said "no". You'd be o.k. with it because a negotiation had taken place?
 

Depressingly, the Rose Bowl hasn't existed to me in my 28 years as a Gophers fan.
 

badgergopher said:
So, if a recruit were to say to a D1 coach, "I want $200 a week in addition to my scholarship", he might be reported to the NCAA for seeking an illegal benefit. If instead the coach just said "no". You'd be o.k. with it because a negotiation had taken place?
Click to expand...

First, the NCAA is cartel blocking individual rights. So, if a kid walked into the coaches office today and asked for an additional $200 bucks a week walkaround money, it would not be an illegal benefit. It would be a negotiated benefit. And, frankly, the U has no obligation to the NCAA to report those benefits. As I said, the NCAA is an illegal cartel and should be treated as such.
 

Dean S said:
First, the NCAA is cartel blocking individual rights. So, if a kid walked into the coaches office today and asked for an additional $200 bucks a week walkaround money, it would not be an illegal benefit. It would be a negotiated benefit. And, frankly, the U has no obligation to the NCAA to report those benefits. As I said, the NCAA is an illegal cartel and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

You guys keep throwing around terms without understanding their meaning. Some of you say that the NCAA is a monopoly. Some of you say that the NCAA is a cartel. But a cartel requires cooperation between multiple groups. Something can't be a monopoly and a cartel at the same time. So which is it? (Hint: the correct answer is "neither".)
 

dpodoll68 said:
You guys keep throwing around terms without understanding their meaning. Some of you say that the NCAA is a monopoly. Some of you say that the NCAA is a cartel. But a cartel requires cooperation between multiple groups. Something can't be a monopoly and a cartel at the same time. So which is it? (Hint: the correct answer is "neither".)
Click to expand...

Thanks dpodoll - As my personal close friend Grover would say "It tis to laugh."
 

The US Supreme Court already called the NCAA a Cartel. Get over yourself.
 


Dean S said:
The US Supreme Court already called the NCAA a Cartel. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

And had they said it wasn't, would you have been obligated to agree?

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2
 

DPO, see Oklahoma St v NCAA.


From Lester Munson

The key issue in the O'Bannon case is the NCAA's restriction on pay to college players for use of their names, images and likenesses in television broadcasts, video games and merchandise. The NCAA insists that its restriction is critical to integrating the athlete into the academic life of the university. If the restriction were eliminated, the NCAA says, the resulting payments to the athletes would isolate them from the benefits of a higher education.

When Wilken says she is interested in "less-restrictive alternatives," she is telling both sides that she feels that the NCAA is a cartel, that its restriction on pay for athletes is a violation of antitrust law, and that there must be a less-restrictive alternative of doing business.
Click to expand...
 



dpodoll68 said:
Wilken is not on the Supreme Court. What else ya got?
Click to expand...

Oklahoma State v NCAA dummy! That is the first time the NCAA was ruled as an illegal cartel by the Supreme Court. I referenced it for ya. You chose to ignore it. Having comprehension problems? By the way, Wilken is presiding over the case in consolidation over all cases related to the issue nationally. You might say she has supreme authority with national reach on this one. This will not be a district only case. It will apply to all districts in the United States. So, try to understand the implications of her ruling.
 

When was the court case "Oklahoma State vs. NCAA?"
 

Dean S said:
Oklahoma State v NCAA dummy! That is the first time the NCAA was ruled as an illegal cartel by the Supreme Court. I referenced it for ya. You chose to ignore it. Having comprehension problems? By the way, Wilken is presiding over the case in consolidation over all cases related to the issue nationally. You might say she has supreme authority with national reach on this one. This will not be a district only case. It will apply to all districts in the United States. So, try to understand the implications of her ruling.
Click to expand...

I assume that you meant NCAA vs. Oklahoma? Being the Constitutional law expert that you are, you could at the very least get the case name right. I have neither the time nor the desire to read the full decision, but I read the summary, and I saw zero mentions of the word "cartel". The burden of proof is on you to corroborate your claim, not me. Given that most everything you've typed on this subject is spurious at best, I'm going to assume that you either don't understand the decision in this case or are fabricating your claim out of whole cloth.

Further, as you're well aware, Judge Wilken is not on the Supreme Court, so her opinion, whatever it may be, is wholly irrelevant to your claim.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I assume that you meant NCAA vs. Oklahoma? Being the Constitutional law expert that you are, you could at the very least get the case name right. I have neither the time nor the desire to read the full decision, but I read the summary, and I saw zero mentions of the word "cartel". The burden of proof is on you to corroborate your claim, not me. Given that most everything you've typed on this subject is spurious at best, I'm going to assume that you either don't understand the decision in this case or are fabricating your claim out of whole cloth.

Further, as you're well aware, Judge Wilken is not on the Supreme Court, so her opinion, whatever it may be, is wholly irrelevant to your claim.
Click to expand...

Quiter! Have no perseverance! Too bad.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I assume that you meant NCAA vs. Oklahoma? Being the Constitutional law expert that you are, you could at the very least get the case name right. I have neither the time nor the desire to read the full decision, but I read the summary, and I saw zero mentions of the word "cartel". The burden of proof is on you to corroborate your claim, not me. Given that most everything you've typed on this subject is spurious at best, I'm going to assume that you either don't understand the decision in this case or are fabricating your claim out of whole cloth.

Further, as you're well aware, Judge Wilken is not on the Supreme Court, so her opinion, whatever it may be, is wholly irrelevant to your claim.
Click to expand...

The cartel has established a uniform price for the products of each of the member producers,
with no regard...
Click to expand...

Want more Jack!
 

Dean S said:
Quiter! Have no perseverance! Too bad.
Click to expand...

Dpod and I disagree most of the time, but I think he's right on this one. I looked at NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (which I assume is what you are referencing when you say Oklahoma St. v. NCAA, though correct me if I'm wrong, I certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth). In that decision, by my count (and by "my count", I mean I pasted the text from the decision into Word and used the "find" feature), the word "cartel" appears 5 times. All 5 of those are in the same paragraph, and all 5 of those are contained within direct quotations from the District Court. I could not find any instance of the U.S. Supreme Court using the word "cartel" on its own and outside of a direct quote of a lower court.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom