Reilly Rightfully Raps NCAA

[GopherinPhilly]

I am 100% confident that you all are wrong all or in part and that the courts will decide the fates of the NCAA and when this is all said and done, nothing said here today will mater on fu_cking ioda.

 

[AO54]

No, I'm not the one who's confused. It's not college sports anymore if you're paying cash to players. You're trying to turn college sports into pro sports. If you want to pay players, start a pro league. This isn't that complicated.

I played D3, I wasn't paid cash (well besides meal money during breaks). D1 players are paid. I don't car if they're given cash, cars, or college tuition, room and board, it all counts the same to the vast majority of players who would have to/want to go to college anyways.

What are college sports to you? There's nothing amateur about them.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

I played D3, I wasn't paid cash (well besides meal money during breaks). D1 players are paid. I don't car if they're given cash, cars, or college tuition, room and board, it all counts the same to the vast majority of players who would have to/want to go to college anyways.

What are college sports to you? There's nothing amateur about them.

The elephant in the room here is that most people who love college sports don't want to see the truth or acknowledge it because that means something they love will dramatically change. Some would rather have the exploitation to continue than give up something they love.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

You could be right, but I think your vitriol is at the very least misplaced. The NCAA doesn't have a sales arm that sells jerseys (of course they license their own logo). That's the domain of the University/college of the individual athlete. Moreover, they are selling the University's image; of which a individual may/or may not contribute, but individual athletes are not the sole reason for said University.

The University/College is then part of the NCAA; they could choose not to be. Part of that choice is subjecting to NCAA jurisdiction. NCAA jurisdiction requires participants to maintain amateur status. They set rules governing that status and if one violates said rules they are not allowed to participate. There is no jail time nor economic sanctions handed down from the NCAA to athletes.

Seems pretty grounded in law to me. Then again I have no legal training.

On the other hand, you have Johnny Manziel (we'll assume guilt for the thought experiment). He played football in an established system and now is trying to exploit that system for financial gain. Does he have the right? He didn't create the system, infrastructure, nor market. He used the University's image, one which has been cultivated over a century for his own gain. Heck, when stacked against everyone else (history of his school), Manziel's contribution is rather minute.

Doesn't his University have the right to recuperate their investment in him (selling apparel); or does Johnny Manziel have the right to capitalize on everyone else's contributions that came before him? Seems to me the University gave good and fair consideration to Johnny and every other athlete that played for them. This being akin to a corporation recuperating monies for a Widget patent that I developed for them. Where I would have no right to go out and market my image/likeness as the Widget man. The corporation would own that right (similar to the University owning a ball players right).

On another note, I'm not sure 1st amendment is accurate; I'd probably look into 13th. The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about property, but I suppose that's just my two cents too.

As you openly admit admit you have no legal training. The right of publicity and controlling your likeness are grounded in the 1st Amendment not 13th.

Additionally, as we are talking about those rights, professional teams don't have the right to any of the profits from autographs, endorsements, etc. Bill Clinton doesn't give us a cutof his $500K speaking fees.

It doesn't matter if one created the infrastructure of the system or not. It is simply about being able to control and profit from your name. No one gets a cut of that even if the system helped make you except for the individual. The individual gets the whole cut or licenses for a cut of derivative products like playing cards or posters.

If the system makes you rich the owners and creators of that system, be it sports; hollywood; etc., are not allowed even one percent of what I can make for my autograph, endorsements, or speaking fees.

 

[JMWZ]

The elephant in the room here is that most people who love college sports don't want to see the truth or acknowledge it because that means something they love will dramatically change. Some would rather have the exploitation to continue than give up something they love.

I think you're just bitter about something. This is not exploitation. I bet a scholarship player on the gophers football is paid well over a half of a million dollars in five years, if he takes a redshirt. Not only does he receive $150000 dollars in tuition. He receives five all expense paid trips a year. Including this year a trip to New Mexico. You can't tell me that's not tens of thousands of more dollars. That doesn't include potential trips to bowl games. They also get medical care way beyond something a normal college student gets for free. They get trainers who are worth thousands of more dollars. The list goes on and on.

A scholarship at a Duke or Notre Dame is worth even more! So don't tell me this is exploitation. At many universities normal students are being exploited and forced to pay for these numbskulls who don't understand what they're receiving because of negative athletic budgets.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

I think you're just bitter about something. This is not exploitation. I bet a scholarship player on the gophers football is paid well over a half of a million dollars in five years, if he takes a redshirt. Not only does he receive $150000 dollars in tuition. He receives five all expense paid trips a year. Including this year a trip to New Mexico. You can't tell me that's not tens of thousands of more dollars. That doesn't include potential trips to bowl games. They also get medical care way beyond something a normal college student gets for free. They get trainers who are worth thousands of more dollars. The list goes on and on.


A scholarship at a Duke or Notre Dame is worth even more! So don't tell me this is exploitation. At many universities normal students are being exploited and forced to pay for these numbskulls who don't understand what they're receiving because of negative athletic budgets.

I'm not bitter at all. What's happening is simply wrong, and I have something to say about it.

 

[atsgopher]

As you openly admit admit you have no legal training. The right of publicity and controlling your likeness are grounded in the 1st Amendment not 13th.

Point taken, I had to look it up, but I guess that's where the chain leads then fine. However, that is a tangent. I assume you 2L?

Additionally, as we are talking about those rights, professional teams don't have the right to any of the profits from autographs, endorsements, etc. Bill Clinton doesn't give us a cutof his $500K speaking fees.

I'll grant that about Clinton, but Bill Clinton is not a valid example in this instance. Your argument (or Reilly's and your's by extension) attacks the NCAA. That doesn't work, they are not the one using the images. The individual University is the controlling entity of those images/likenesses.

When EA makes their games they license the NCAA name and then the players and such are controlled by each U (I read from NCAA lawsuit response, via a link in another thread).

On pro teams; which law limits someone from selling to a pro team their image/likeness? I'll bet the answer is nothing. There would be no loss of control. For instance, say the Twins sign me. I control my autograph rights. However, my contract stipulates I have to appear at Twins fest. Under your argument I've lost control of my Publicity rights. In reality, I never lost control I sold them to the Twins for good consideration. Wouldn't an athlete trading their rights for the right to play on a college football team be doing the same thing? All elements of a valid contract are present. The O'bannons and Manziels of the world don't have to play in college; they do so in trade for training at a high level (in their sport) and an education. They are well aware of the limits;those rules are clearly public domain.

It doesn't matter if one created the infrastructure of the system or not. It is simply about being able to control and profit from your name. No one gets a cut of that even if the system helped make you except for the individual. The individual gets the whole cut or licenses for a cut of derivative products like playing cards or posters.

If the system makes you rich the owners and creators of that system, be it sports; hollywood; etc., are not allowed even one percent of what I can make for my autograph, endorsements, or speaking fees.

I think your right in regards to the Personality rights issue. However, I do think your off on that this is somehow limiting personality rights without giving valid consideration in exchange.

I guess then it would boil down to whether exploitation exists. I believe that is between each athlete and a University. If an athlete is a superstar and the U is selling his autographs beyond the normal course of business and forcing his hand in the matter, then there is exploitation (and the source of my error in thinking this was a 13th amendment issue).

For clarity, athletes are allowed to sell their autographs, they just are not allowed to play after doing so; they are free to take their games to the pro leagues then. Most, probably all in football, wouldn't make it, but there is no one stopping them from trying (besides each league, but a wholly different issue).

 

[atsgopher]

I'm not bitter at all. What's happening is simply wrong, and I have something to say about it.

Your going to have to spell out how this is wrong (beyond Reilly's argument). the claim there is injustice seems to be a stretch. who's being exploited, and more importantly by whom.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Your going to have to spell out how this is wrong (beyond Reilly's argument). the claim there is injustice seems to be a stretch. who's being exploited, and more importantly by whom.

Um, it is rather clear if you have read the thread and the links, like The Atlantic story. Alas, I guess it is too much to ask for people to actually read, follow, and comprehend before saying anything.

Read the thread and the links. If you don't get your answer I cannot help you.

 

[cncmin]

Read this. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

The NCAA and amateurism has been nothing but a rouse from the beginning as a way to make money from free labor.

The best line of the article falls on page one from infamous shoe guy Sonny Vaccaro.

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Doh! So let's say I'm Alabama football booster A, and I have nothing to spend my millions or billions on, but I do like Alabama football. So I'll pay blue chip Alabama linebacker a couple hundred $K for his autograph, or his jersey, or give him free tattoos, or free shoes, free meals, a little extra something something, hell throw in a few house strippers too I suppose, right?

Well, because all of this is quite likely with lax rules on things that SEEM innocent enough (but aren't!), THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE COLLEGE KIDS SELLING THEIR GOODS FOR MONEY. It provides an unfair advantage and an avenue for $$money$$ to run the entire asylum, as if it's not mostly broken the way it is already with schools piling gazillions into palaces for these kids to basically live in their entire careers...oh, to go along with a free education (that all too few utilize). And let's not kid ourselves; these kids aren't buying brand new sports cars their incoming freshman year with the savings they made working some part time job in high school.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Doh! So let's say I'm Alabama football booster A, and I have nothing to spend my millions or billions on, but I do like Alabama football. So I'll pay blue chip Alabama linebacker a couple hundred $K for his autograph, or his jersey, or give him free tattoos, or free shoes, free meals, a little extra something something, hell throw in a few house strippers too I suppose, right?

Well, because all of this is quite likely with lax rules on things that SEEM innocent enough (but aren't!), THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE COLLEGE KIDS SELLING THEIR GOODS FOR MONEY. It provides an unfair advantage and an avenue for $$money$$ to run the entire asylum, as if it's not mostly broken the way it is already with schools piling gazillions into palaces for these kids to basically live in their entire careers...oh, to go along with a free education (that all too few utilize). And let's not kid ourselves; these kids aren't buying brand new sports cars their incoming freshman year with the savings they made working some part time job in high school.

I've got news for you, money already runs the entire asylum, and it's the NCAA, schools, and corporations making it off the backs of the players. Even George Will admits that Karl Marx was right when Marx said capitalism erodes all social arrangements. The NCAA is certainly doing that with football, along with the media and others with more bowls, bigger conferences, etc.

Also, I don't believe for a second that anyone would spend that much on an autograph. However, if the market somehow bears it, then good for the players.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I've got news for you, money already runs the entire asylum, and it's the NCAA, schools, and corporations making it off the backs of the players. Even George Will admits that Karl Marx was right when Marx said capitalism erodes all social arrangements. The NCAA is certainly doing that with football, along with the media and others with more bowls, bigger conferences, etc.

Also, I don't believe for a second that anyone would spend that much on an autograph. However, if the market somehow bears it, then good for the players.

I think you are missing his point. He is not suggesting that that payment would actually be for the autograph. The payment would be to get Alabama to go to his school, and the autograph would be a "legitimate" front for the bribe. Its like when a company wants to buy a better rating for their bonds from one of the rating companies. They don't say they are paying for the rating, they are paying for consulting on how to improve the rating.

 

[mplsbadger]

False premise. What's stopping you from starting a professional league only for football players, or only for basketball players, etc., that allows 18-year-olds to play for pay?

Spot on.

I can't wait until someone tries it. The equity and value are tied to the institution - not the player. Why is this so hard for everyone?

Minor league baseball already competes with college baseball. Start a minor league football system. Nobody is standing in your way...crickets from all the deep pockets entrepreneurs capable of financing such a venture.

 

[ncgo4]

When discussing the NCAA and football it is important to start with the understanding that the NCAA is an almost complete monopoly. There are a handful of NFL players that did not attend college just as there are probably a handful of Nobel laureates that didn't attend college. But if you want to play in the NFL or win a Nobel, you really must attend college.

The reason is simple, football is an apprentice business with unbelievably expensive entry fees for training. In track you need shoes and a flat road or basketball you need a ball and a playground. In football you need thousands of dollars of equipment and skilled journeymen to teach the finer points and you need access to illegal drugs to grow to the massive size required of the NFL. The latter, I think was 60% a joke. To say that the high school athlete that wants to play in the NFL can choose not to go to college is not true if he wants to follow his dream.

The NCAA with this given monopoly, then determines that they will then enforce a system of indentured servitude by limiting the ability of an athlete to earn any income based in any manner on their football fame. Why is this? To keep a level competitive field. I guess the thought is that an Alabama player could sell his jersey to an alumni for thousands of $$$ whereas a player for NDSU could only get tens of $$$. This is, of course,. why the NCAA is today such a level playing field and why NDSU is able to compete so successfully with Alabama for the best athletes.

The fact that Alabama has an unlimited budget for playing and training facilities, gets the latest gear from Nike (or whoever) and is on national TV every week has no impact. The fact is that there are about a dozen "helmet" schools that with a few exceptions each year get to pick from the top talent, draw the biggest crowds and make the most money.

The only thing that is accomplished with the controls in outside income is the NCAA keeps control of their meal ticket athletes. Any employer that has indentured servants wants to keep them indentured. It was so in the coal mines, the cotton fields and the textile mills and it is so on college football fields.

Oh, but you say, there's no comparison between working conditions of a coal mine in the 1930's and today's NCAA football teams. Really? The coal miner faced black lung and collapsed mine shafts. Today's football players face cumulative trauma head injuries, crippling leg injuries and half of the players on each team are forced to contort their bodies into massive unnatural and unhealthy size. Look at the players the U of M has lost permanently to injury. College football is a dangerous life quality threatening game, and not on a theoretical basis.

But by God, it would be a tragedy if they signed a jersey for $10, or $10,000 or filmed a commercial for the local Jeep dealer in exchange or the use of a Jeep during the summer. The talk of a level playing field is an illusion and why shouldn't it be? Do you suppose Blackberry is competing with Apple on a level playing field for design engineers? Is the Mayo Clinic competing on a level playing field with the Mesabi Clinic in Hibbing for the same doctors?

The NCAA is a manipulative, self-serving, wealthy institution being run by a group of mostly middle aged, mostly men whose main objective is to keep the $$$ flowing in to themselves and their organization. There's nothing wrong with that, it's free enterprise. To the extent their actions infringe on the rights of their employees (the athletes), those employees have the right to redress the courts.

I expect huge changes in the system over the next few years as more and more athletes look to assert their rights as free people.

 

[dpodoll68]

I wish the anti-NCAA activists (who have legitimate gripes, in some instances) would stop using meaningless, nonsense buzzwords like "exploited" and "indentured servitude" and "manipulated" and "forced". Then we could have an honest discussion. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Any of these guys can leave today. If things were as bad as everyone claims them to be, they would be leaving in droves. They aren't, and in fact are competing diligently for the right to earn (and maintain) a scholarship. Jon Christenson's mother cried when he was awarded a scholarship. Is it because it's a worthless piece of paper that enables his continued "exploitation"? Get real and get some perspective. For some reason, it really burns people up to know that the NCAA is, by far, the best available model for almost everyone (particularly in football and basketball) to set themselves up to earn a living as a professional athlete. If it were so terrible, someone would have created a viable competitor by now. No one has, and likely no one will, because they know they can't compete with the business model. If there were a dollar to be made, someone would be doing it. No one can counter this, because they know it's true, and they can't reason against it, and it burns them up that they can't.

 

[ncgo4]

Related to FORCED

Synonyms
compulsory, mandatory, imperative, incumbent, involuntary, necessary, nonelective, obligatory, peremptory, required

See above. If an 18 year old wants to play in the NFL, he is "forced" to play college football.

 

[ncgo4]

Definition of INDENTURED SERVANT

: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance

In the case of college football players they remain "indentured" only as long as they continue to pursue their dream profession or until they demonstrate the ability to perform at a high level in that profession.

 

[atsgopher]

Um, it is rather clear if you have read the thread and the links, like The Atlantic story. Alas, I guess it is too much to ask for people to actually read, follow, and comprehend before saying anything.

Read the thread and the links. If you don't get your answer I cannot help you.

My question was a rhetorical device. There is nuance you are missing. I'm Simply trying to help you see it.

Instead, take a look at the NCAA Financials, Audited by Deloitte.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/finances/ncaa+consolidated+financial+statements

The NCAA made Revenue $864 and $838 Million in 12' and 11' respectively.

They paid $762 and $742 Million in 12' and 11' respectively, in expenses for Distribution to members, Championships, and Programs (see note 2).

Stated another way, they gave back to athletes 88% and 89% of revenues generated by those athletes, for the years examined.

How is that exploitation?

What more would you like the NCAA to pay? How would you increase the percentage, without decreasing the revenue generated?

Who do you think is being exploited? and by whom?

 

[ncgo4]

"For some reason, it really burns people up to know that the NCAA is, by far, the best available model for almost everyone (particularly in football and basketball) to set themselves up to earn a living as a professional athlete."

Thank you for making my point. This is exactly the reason that young athletes become "indentured" to the NCAA. There is no real effective alternative to achieve their professional aspirations.

 

[dpodoll68]

See above. If an 18 year old wants to play in the NFL, he is "forced" to play college football.

Nope. There are other avenues, including the CFL, Arena Football League, and any of a number of domestic and overseas minor professional leagues. They are not great alternatives, but, once again, if there were a market for a quality, high-paying domestic professional football league that could employ 18-year-olds and compete with the NCAA for players, someone would be doing it.

Definition of INDENTURED SERVANT

: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance

In the case of college football players they remain "indentured" only as long as they continue to pursue their dream profession or until they demonstrate the ability to perform at a high level in that profession.

The reason why this is silly and nonsense and unrelated is that because they are not bound to work any specified period of time. They are free to leave as they please. By your nonsense comparison, we are all indentured servants because we are bound to work until 65 (or whenever).

There is no real effective alternative to achieve their professional aspirations.

And how is that the NCAA's fault? They should apologize for having by far the best model and change because people whine about it?

 

[Iceland12]

Related to FORCED

Synonyms
compulsory, mandatory, imperative, incumbent, involuntary, necessary, nonelective, obligatory, peremptory, required

See above. If an 18 year old wants to play in the NFL, he is "forced" to play college football.

None of those apply. It's just the best and easiest way. They can try "Semi-Pro" ball, though only a handful of guys have made it. Or they can go to the CFL route and try to come down. Nope strike the last one. The CFL requires two years out of school rather than the three the NFL requires.

Many businesses have a minimum age requirement. Can't successfully challenge that. There's a labor agreement in the NFL so that make's it mute anyway. What you need is a true minor league that can feed the NFL. Then the NCAA can just take the kids who are willing to play under the present conditions.

The question that keeps coming-up is why aren't you pressing the NFL rather than trying to get the NCAA to dump or vastly underfund all sports but football and Men's Basketball?

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Nope. There are other avenues, including the CFL, Arena Football League, and any of a number of domestic and overseas minor professional leagues. They are not great alternatives, but, once again, if there were a market for a quality, high-paying domestic professional football league that could employ 18-year-olds and compete with the NCAA, someone would be doing it.

Me and a guy at work are putting together a startup league. Anyone who wants in on this ground floor opportunity should send me $20. Details to follow.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

My question was a rhetorical device. There is nuance you are missing. I'm Simply trying to help you see it.

Instead, take a look at the NCAA Financials, Audited by Deloitte.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/finances/ncaa+consolidated+financial+statements

The NCAA made Revenue $864 and $838 Million in 12' and 11' respectively.

They paid $762 and $742 Million in 12' and 11' respectively, in expenses for Distribution to members, Championships, and Programs (see note 2).

Stated another way, they gave back to athletes 88% and 89% of revenues generated by those athletes, for the years examined.

How is that exploitation?

What more would you like the NCAA to pay? How would you increase the percentage, without decreasing the revenue generated?

Who do you think is being exploited? and by whom?

The players, by everyone who makes money off of them.

Neither the NCAA nor the universities are required to pay workman's compensation insurance. Universities do not have to fund players for healthcare beyond their time as a player even when the injuries occurred while playing for said universities. The NCAA selling products like jerseys on players' names.

See this link. pic.twitter.com/N7KNvXIu24

Big business like the ABC (ESPN), Nike, EA Sports, and others making millions off the backs of players with no shoe deals, endorsements, or any real benefit with tv contracts and such expected to reach in the billions per conference. Using the amateurism defense, something completely made up, as a reason to keep the current system going and painting it as pure and moral when the whole defense is built on a lie in order to make more money and to convince the public the NCAA is doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, a player cannot sign his name on a jersey in order to make some money, but the player does get a scholarship that is renewed year-to-year, which some coaches use and abuse tremendously at the expense of the players.

You know, that whole exploitation thing.

A monopolistic entity like the NCAA acts as a cartel and exploits the athletes like indentured servants. In no other industry would we allow this to continue. But we allow it to happen in this instance because people love their alma maters, and they love sports. Mix the two together and people will find justifications to keep the racket going no matter the working conditions.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Nope. There are other avenues, including the CFL, Arena Football League, and any of a number of domestic and overseas minor professional leagues. They are not great alternatives, but, once again, if there were a market for a quality, high-paying domestic professional football league that could employ 18-year-olds and compete with the NCAA for players, someone would be doing it.



The reason why this is silly and nonsense and unrelated is that because they are not bound to work any specified period of time. They are free to leave as they please. By your nonsense comparison, we are all indentured servants because we are bound to work until 65 (or whenever).



And how is that the NCAA's fault? They should apologize for having by far the best model and change because people whine about it?

The best model! Laughable! If by best business model you mean, FREE LABOR. Give me FREE LABOR and I can out compete any business.

 

[Iceland12]

The players, by everyone who makes money off of them.

Neither the NCAA nor the universities are required to pay workman's compensation insurance. Universities do not have to fund players for healthcare beyond their time as a player even when the injuries occurred while playing for said universities. The NCAA selling products like jerseys on players' names.

See this link. pic.twitter.com/N7KNvXIu24

Big business like the ABC (ESPN), Nike, EA Sports, and others making millions off the backs of players with no shoe deals, endorsements, or any real benefit with tv contracts and such expected to reach in the billions per conference. Using the amateurism defense, something completely made up, as a reason to keep the current system going and painting it as pure and moral when the whole defense is built on a lie in order to make more money and to convince the public the NCAA is doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, a player cannot sign his name on a jersey in order to make some money, but the player does get a scholarship that is renewed year-to-year, which some coaches use and abuse tremendously as the expense of the players.

You know, that whole exploitation thing.

A monopolistic entity like the NCAA acts as a cartel and exploits the athletes like indentured servants. In no other industry would we allow this to continue. But we allow it to happen in this instance because believe love their alma maters, and they love sports. Mix the two together and people will find justifications to keep the racket going no matter the working conditions.

Similar to the the critics who depend on personal jingoism, hyperbole and pejorative phrases only? You're just trolling aren't you.

So, asking again, what do you want to replace it with and what drawbacks do you foresee?

 

[ncgo4]

"Stated another way, they gave back to athletes 88% and 89% of revenues generated by those athletes, for the years examined."

This is not "Stated another way.." It is "fictionalized". Giving back to the schools is not the same as giving back to the athletes.

The fact is that college athletes are prohibited by contract from using their names, likenesses or presence to earn income. The reason as stated is a fictional account of some kind of level playing field. It's BS.

College football is the singular most dangerous job in America, in my opinion. It's an opinion because the NCAA specifically allows football coaches to not release this information. As a retired Insurance executive, however, I can tell you that NO industry approaches college and professional football in lost time injuries. If the auto industry, for example had 10% or 20% of their employees out for at least 3 days a year Congress would be holding hearings and raising hell.

I'm a fan of college football. But I understand and would like to see changed, the conditions under which our athletes are asked to perform.

 

[Iceland12]

"Stated another way, they gave back to athletes 88% and 89% of revenues generated by those athletes, for the years examined."

This is not "Stated another way.." It is "fictionalized". Giving back to the schools is not the same as giving back to the athletes.

The fact is that college athletes are prohibited by contract from using their names, likenesses or presence to earn income. The reason as stated is a fictional account of some kind of level playing field. It's BS.

College football is the singular most dangerous job in America, in my opinion. It's an opinion because the NCAA specifically allows football coaches to not release this information. As a retired Insurance executive, however, I can tell you that NO industry approaches college and professional football in lost time injuries. If the auto industry, for example had 10% or 20% of their employees out for at least 3 days a year Congress would be holding hearings and raising hell.

I'm a fan of college football. But I understand and would like to see changed, the conditions under which our athletes are asked to perform.

That's a very sound argument to ban the sport, not change the NCAA.

 

[dpodoll68]

The best model! Laughable! If by best business model you mean, FREE LABOR. Give me FREE LABOR and I can out compete any business.

The LABOR's not FREE. What about that don't you understand? And if it's not the best business model, why are they a near-monopoly?

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Similar to the the critics who depend on personal jingoism, hyperbole and pejorative phrases only?

So, asking again, what do you want to replace it with and what drawbacks do you foresee?

Nope, not going there with you. I already gave you a start yesterday. After a post like that I will not entertain your queries. Maybe you should look up the definition of those terms in bold before you condescend, then then use critical analysis skills when applying those terms to the NCAA.

 

[dpodoll68]

Nope, not going there with you. I already gave you a start yesterday. After a post like that I will not entertain your queries. Maybe you should look up the definition of those terms in bold before you condescend, then then use critical analysis skills when applying those terms to the NCAA.

Perhaps you should actually attempt to rebut the arguments. You won't because you can't. You just want to make things up and whine - probably trolling while simultaneously attempting to show your "law" "expertise".