Reilly Rightfully Raps NCAA

[Gopherguy0723]

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?

Read the link. I posted it already. But I will post it again. Read it. It is a long read. It will answer your questions. If you have more afterward, I'll be here. But I may require you to answer a few questions from the reading. That way I know you actually read it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...me-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true

 

[50PoundHead]

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.

Tremendous post. Saying anything more would be patronizing on my part. Just think this sums it all up.

As to the highlighted portion, I think this is why the NFL wants to keep the status quo instead of starting its own minor league. Football is a violent game and the attrition rate of athletes at the minor league level would likely be considerable, making the initial investment in players dicey. Plus, projection is difficult in any sport, but my guess is it would be even more difficult in football than in other sports. College football does the work for the NFL right now and they do it for free (as far as the NFL is concerned).

What I could see happening, especially if college football is reduced to a half dozen "super conferences" is that the NFL could enter into a working agreement with these conferences and draft rules could change considerably. It would be a mess, but money (of which the NFL has aplenty) seems to clear up a lot of messes.

As for the NCAA itself, I read the cited Atlantic Monthly article and it is damning. Add to that all the fat overpaid middle-aged white guys who maintain very comfortable lifestyles by being executive jock-sniffers and the NCAA, while perhaps necessary, simply further damns itself.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

One of the questions that might be answered is: is a scholarship income?

The answer is: it depends.

It is not income for income tax purposes, but it is income for household income purposes on the property tax refund and for FAFSA for a parent or sibling needing financial aid for higher education.

 

[Iceland12]

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.

"Other changes need to occur as well, but that's first. I can go into more later when I have more free time if you'd like."

So far all you've done is stated that the players should be paid and throw around a lot of buzzwords, many of which do not apply. Read the article when it came out. Re-read it this morning. It did a great job cataloging the litany of problems created by the NCAA and the "black hole" of amateurism in College Football. Even touched on how giving Olympic athletes money hasn't killed their sports on the college level.

Those sports swimming, skiing, wrestling (sorry, that's no longer an Olympic sport) gymnastics; make a sorry comparison expenses and revenue-wise to football and men's basketball. Even hockey, both men's and women's is a DRAIN on revenue at most schools in the NCAA.

So it goes back to the questions you don't want to answer.

1. Why should College Football be a showcase for future NFL'ers without the NFL paying for it.
2. How can you, or the writer, ignore negative ramifications of paying players at the college level beyond what they do now?
3. If it's as dangerous as it may be why shouldn't College Football just be banned?

 

[Gopherguy0723]

"Other changes need to occur as well, but that's first. I can go into more later when I have more free time if you'd like."

So far all you've done is stated that the players should be paid and throw around a lot of buzzwords, many of which do not apply. Read the article when it came out. Re-read it this morning. It did a great job cataloging the litany of problems created by the NCAA and the "black hole" of amateurism in College Football. Even touched on how giving Olympic athletes money hasn't killed their sports on the college level.

Those sports swimming, skiing, wrestling (sorry, that's no longer an Olympic sport) gymnastics; make a sorry comparison expenses and revenue-wise to football and men's basketball. Even hockey, both men's and women's is a DRAIN on revenue at most schools in the NCAA.

So it goes back to the questions you don't want to answer.

1. Why should College Football be a showcase for future NFL'ers without the NFL paying for it.
2. How can you, or the writer, ignore negative ramifications of paying players at the college level beyond what they do now?
3. If it's as dangerous as it may be why shouldn't College Football just be banned?

1. I never said college football should be a showcase for the NFL, but it's not the NFL's fault for how the NCAA operates. That's a complete non-sequitor and red-herring to NCAA labor practices. I also have some problems with the NFL draft, but the is more preferential and nothing to do with being illegal.

2. What do you see as the negative ramifications? The status quo will change and create other problems people don't like, but ending the abusive practices trump those concerns. The courts and the law don't care what college football fans want. If you don't like the law, either change the laws so that all other industries can also exploit their workers to the same degree, or get ready for a brave new world because the current system won't last much longer.

3. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to ban it 100 years ago. I don't want to ban it. Although, I do think football will decline as new parents of this generation won't let their kids play. Football will decline from the bottom up, not the top down. I want the NCAA to follow labor laws and for the courts to end the charade that is the NCAA and so called amateurism, which they seem likely to do, at least in part very soon.

 

[Iceland12]

1. Why should College Football be a showcase for future NFL'ers without the NFL paying for it.
2. How can you, or the writer, ignore negative ramifications of paying players at the college level beyond what they do now?
3. If it's as dangerous as it may be why shouldn't College Football just be banned?

-------

1. I never said college football should be a showcase for the NFL, but it's not the NFL's fault for how the NCAA operates.

2. What do you see as the negative ramifications? The status quo will change and create other problems people don't like, but ending the abusive practices trump those concerns. The courts and the law don't care what college football fans want. If you don't like the law, either change the laws so that all other industries can also exploit their workers to the same degree, or get ready for a brave new world because the current system won't last much longer.

3. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to ban it 100 years ago. I don't want to ban it. Although, I do think football will decline as new parents of this generation won't let their kids play. Football will decline from the bottom up, not the top down. I want the NCAA to follow labor laws and for the courts to end the charade that is the NCAA and so called amateurism, which they seem likely to do, at least in part very soon.

You can't directly answer the questions and you're claiming not to be a troll? You read an article from 2 years ago and it was all a revelation to you and you're surprised that it's not to everybody else.

"Bully" for you.

 

[dpodoll68]

You can't directly answer the questions and you're claiming not to be a troll? You read an article from 2 years ago and it was all a revelation to you and you're surprised that it's not to everybody else.

"Bully" for you.

Not only that, but his recent "nugget" from the article was not even accurate.

I'm not all of the way through the article, but it has answered zero questions I've posed and is incredibly biased and slanted in language, tone, and treatment.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

You can't directly answer the questions and you're claiming not to be a troll? You read an article from 2 years ago and it was all a revelation to you and you're surprised that it's not to everybody else.

"Bully" for you.

1. I disagree with the premise of the question. The NFL has nothing to do with it. College football can be a feeder system with reform, or a minor league can emerge. It doesn't matter what the feeder system is. The feeder system simply has to conform to the law. The NFL is a red-herring to the NCAA's problems.

2. I cannot read your mind, so I don't know all the ramifications you want addressed. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say you don't like the idea of unbalanced competition, but it's a straw man argument. I have no qualms with any competitive balance considerations because those problems already exist, and it will exist regardless. I also have no problem with players making a ton of money from anything they sell that belongs to them or endorsements they sign. If a booster is willing to pay $500K for a signature, then that means a market for that player at that price exists. I congratulate that player for being that good and encourage him to make the money. I could also care less if a booster straight up paid a player for going to a school. That means a market exists for it, and it's not illegal. It just seems unseemly because people have this idea of moral righteousness of collegiate sports that the NCAA has ingrained in people, but the current system is even more unseemly with how the NCAA operates and lies to keep its operation going.

3. I don't want to ban things because they're dangerous. I don't want to ban college football. I want college football to do what every other U.S. industry has to do, whether the industry is inherently dangerous or not.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you want to continue calling people names because you don't like the answers again?

 

[Iceland12]

1. I disagree with the premise of the question. The NFL has nothing to do with it. College football can be a feeder system with reform, or a minor league can emerge. It doesn't matter what the feeder system is. The feeder system simply has to conform to the law. The NFL is a red-herring to the NCAA's problems.

2. I cannot read your mind, so I don't know all the ramifications you want addressed. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say you don't like the idea of unbalanced competition, but it's a straw man argument. I have no qualms with any competitive balance considerations because those problems already exist, and it will exist regardless. I also have no problem with players making a ton of money from anything they sell that belongs to them or endorsements they sign. If a booster is willing to pay $500K for a signature, then that means a market for that player at that price exists. I congratulate that player for being that good and encourage him to make the money. I could also care less if a booster straight up paid a player for going to a school. That means a market exists for it, and it's not illegal. It just seems unseemly because people have this idea of moral righteousness of collegiate sports that the NCAA has ingrained in people, but the current system is even more unseemly with how the NCAA operates and lies to keep its operation going.

3. I don't want to ban things because they're dangerous. I don't want to ban college football. I want college football to do what every other U.S. industry has to do, whether the industry is inherently dangerous or not.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you want to continue calling people names because you don't like the answers again?

That wasn't so tough, why'd it take you so long? Odd that "calling names" drew a response when the other "civil" requests were ignored.

!. It's hardly a "red herring". For many player's it's ALL about the NFL.

2. Nice, that answer was ALL "straw man". Set up what youWANT the question to be and then answer it. The question was, again, what do YOU think would be the negative consequences of making the NCAA a de facto professional league. You've given this a lot of thought, why is this so difficult for you and why do you keep evading an answer?

 

[mplsbadger]

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.

No.

 

[mplsbadger]

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.

So form a competitive professional u22 league. There are upwards of 50 professional sports franchise owners who don't own an NFL team. Why do you think they haven't done this?

Nobody...will...answer...this...simple...question.

 

[Iceland12]

So form a competitive professional u22 league. There are upwards of 50 professional sports franchise owners who don't own an NFL team. Why do you think they haven't done this?

Nobody(?)...will...answer...this...simple...question.

Then...you...haven't...read...the whole...thread...


Sorry about that.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

That wasn't so tough, why'd it take you so long? Odd that "calling names" drew a response when the other "civil" requests were ignored.

!. It's hardly a "red herring". For many player's it's ALL about the NFL.

2. Nice, that answer was ALL "straw man". Set up what youWANT the question to be and then answer it. The question was, again, what do YOU think would be the negative consequences of making the NCAA a de facto professional league. You've given this a lot of thought, why is this so difficult for you and why do you keep evading an answer?

What one deems a negative consequence another wouldn't. I think it would be negative for the fans because the system would fall into turmoil and the enjoyment fans get out of it would change. I have no idea how the market would change, but college football would look drastically different. Maybe the programs would be spin-off or a subsidiary and funded and operated by the school, but the team wouldn't be linked academically. Maybe the NFL would partner up with conferences, schools, or the NCAA or individual NFL. I don't know how it would work as there are lots of different ways to do it, but the fans won't like it initially. But the fan reaction is of no concern to legality and doesn't come before the NCAA practices.

Well funded boosters may create super teams, but I don't see that as a negative as we already have super teams. The Gophers will never be able to compete for the title on a yearly basis right now, and they won't in the future if booster cash is what drives wins.

There are so many variables that it's hard to say what all the negatives could be.

 

[50PoundHead]

So form a competitive professional u22 league. There are upwards of 50 professional sports franchise owners who don't own an NFL team. Why do you think they haven't done this?

Nobody...will...answer...this...simple...question.

Risk is too high for possible reward. The only way it would ever get done is if each NFL franchise set up a string of minor league franchises similar to what is the case in baseball. One can't have as many games in football as baseball and roster sizes are larger, so ticket prices would likely be exorbitant in order to make any money. Thus, it is unlikely independent franchises could flourish. For it to have much of any chance, the NFL teams would have to own each franchise (which is also the case for many minor league baseball teams). That would take deep pockets. The NFL won't do that because the current system is free for them.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

So form a competitive professional u22 league. There are upwards of 50 professional sports franchise owners who don't own an NFL team. Why do you think they haven't done this?

Nobody...will...answer...this...simple...question.

It should be obvious but in brief. Football is extremely expensive to start, so you need capital. Once you have that, you need to pay the players, cover them for medical, workers' comp, various taxes, etc. Labor will be much more expensive than the NCAA. Then you'll need to compete against the NCAA. So you need to find a way to lure fans away from a league that's existed for more than 100 years that has ingrained loyalty due to people not only going to the schools that have the teams, but also due to ingrained interest. Do this, while trying to make a profit or break even. It's not possible to compete, especially with the NCAA labor cost being so cheap.

 

[dpodoll68]

So you need to find a way to lure fans away from a league that's existed for more than 100 years that has ingrained loyalty due to people not only going to the schools that have the teams, but also due to ingrained interest.

You're beginning to get it.

 

[mplsbadger]

It should be obvious but in brief. Football is extremely expensive to start, so you need capital. Once you have that, you need to pay the players, cover them for medical, workers' comp, various taxes, etc. Labor will be much more expensive than the NCAA. Then you'll need to compete against the NCAA. So you need to find a way to lure fans away from a league that's existed for more than 100 years that has ingrained loyalty due to people not only going to the schools that have the teams, but also due to ingrained interest. Do this, while trying to make a profit or break even. It's not possible to compete, especially with the NCAA labor cost being so cheap.

Hard to compete with NCAA labor cost being cheap? I don't understand, aren't you going to take all their players by offering them more than what they are getting now?

 

[Iceland12]

What one deems a negative consequence another wouldn't. I think it would be negative for the fans because the system would fall into turmoil and the enjoyment fans get out of it would change. I have no idea how the market would change, but college football would look drastically different. Maybe the programs would be spin-off or a subsidiary and funded and operated by the school, but the team wouldn't be linked academically. Maybe the NFL would partner up with conferences, schools, or the NCAA or individual NFL. I don't know how it would work as there are lots of different ways to do it, but the fans won't like it initially. But the fan reaction is of no concern to legality and doesn't come before the NCAA practices.

Well funded boosters may create super teams, but I don't see that as a negative as we already have super teams. The Gophers will never be able to compete for the title on a yearly basis right now, and they won't in the future if booster cash is what drives wins.

There are so many variables that it's hard to say what all the negatives could be.

There, that's probably the crux of it, and I agree with that. The only way out, if the courts agree with you, would be for the schools/NFL/others to form a minor or rival league for-or-to the NFL. The schools would have to beg-off for numerous reasons. The one you stated above was perfect. If there is no academic connection the schools have to reason to be involved.

Then the schools could either abandon football all together or go to a system where scholarships are awarded on a financial need or talent basis. The later could mean they are awarded the same way kids can get a music, chemistry, computer science etc. How they deal with the fallout for their other sports and non-curriculars would be the schools problem to solve.

You'd probably find out of people cheer for the player or the jersey. Don't know if it would work or if it will be legally necessary. You're probably right, in theory at least, about it being easier for the have-nots to compete with the haves. Still wouldn't be easier getting kids up to the tundra though. We just don't know.

Right now nobody does. All we know is the NCAA is going to change. How much? We don't know that either.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

It should be obvious but in brief. Football is extremely expensive to start, so you need capital. Once you have that, you need to pay the players, cover them for medical, workers' comp, various taxes, etc. Labor will be much more expensive than the NCAA. Then you'll need to compete against the NCAA. So you need to find a way to lure fans away from a league that's existed for more than 100 years that has ingrained loyalty due to people not only going to the schools that have the teams, but also due to ingrained interest. Do this, while trying to make a profit or break even. It's not possible to compete, especially with the NCAA labor cost being so cheap.

If the NCAA player cost is so cheap, and the players are so exploited, it should be easy to set up such a league. If the players really are getting ripped off, you would think that a competing semi-pro league would be able to attract them by offering even minimal salaries. If the players did not immediately flock to this new league, it would be because they appreciate what they get from the NCAA more than they value a $30k salary or whatever a semi-pro team paid.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

If the NCAA player cost is so cheap, and the players are so exploited, it should be easy to set up such a league. If the players really are getting ripped off, you would think that a competing semi-pro league would be able to attract them by offering even minimal salaries. If the players did not immediately flock to this new league, it would be because they appreciate what they get from the NCAA more than they value a $30k salary or whatever a semi-pro team paid.

Or because players wouldn't want to risk joining said league because it would likely fold within a year or two. Then they would be stuck going to the NCAA except they couldn't because they're "pros."

The market wouldn't react that quickly when there is already such a highly regarded product by the consumers that people literally cry and fight about. The risk isn't worth it for an owner of such a team or league. It would probably have to be done by the NFL. You'd need the NFL branding and all its backing to make it work. Then you'd immediately have your own television network. You'd have an easier time negotiating with the other networks as well.

Really, only the NFL could do it, but they have no reason to do it.

 

[Iceland12]

Or because players wouldn't want to risk joining said league because it would likely fold within a year or two. Then they would be stuck going to the NCAA except they couldn't because they're "pros."

The market wouldn't react that quickly when there is already such a highly regarded product by the consumers that people literally cry and fight about. The risk isn't worth it for an owner of such a team or league. It would probably have to be done by the NFL. You'd need the NFL branding and all its backing to make it work. Then you'd immediately have your own television network. You'd have an easier time negotiating with the other networks as well.

Really, only the NFL could do it, but they have no reason to do it.

Unless the courts throw out the present system in college, rather than modify it. Then there be no choice.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Unless the courts throw out the present system in college, rather than modify it. Then there be no choice.

Correct. But they won't throw out the system. They'll simply force changes.

Once that dam breaks though, then it could be a free for all.

 

[50PoundHead]

If the NCAA player cost is so cheap, and the players are so exploited, it should be easy to set up such a league. If the players really are getting ripped off, you would think that a competing semi-pro league would be able to attract them by offering even minimal salaries. If the players did not immediately flock to this new league, it would be because they appreciate what they get from the NCAA more than they value a $30k salary or whatever a semi-pro team paid.

But they don't get a salary. They don't get a cash payment with which they can purchase consumer goods. They get what is in effect a "bartered good." In exchange for their talent, they get a voucher to buy a product with an estimated worth of $30 K from one supplier. My guess is if you offered these kids $30 K to play semi-pro ball, they would, but given the initial costs, I don't think anyone would bother establishing a franchise. Even higher levels of football (USFL, XFL) failed miserably.

 

[cncmin]

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.

...

Um, to argue these players are exploited is quite ridiculous. They are all free to do whatever else they want, nobody is holding their lives hostage saying "you must play collegiate football!" They WANT to play, plain and simple.

 

[cncmin]

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.

you nailed it, dpo!

 

[cncmin]

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.

By this completely nonsensical argument, I can argue similarly: I was FORCED to go to graduate school and attain my Ph.D. to obtain the career I wanted, therefore the graduate school that I chose to attend exploited me and I was an indentured servant with no other choice in life.

HUH?!?!

I CHOSE my career path, and part of that career path was having to suffer through some things I didn't necessarily like to do, like working night shift for a summer at a hot, steamy cheese plant, studying my ass off in school while my non-engineering friends partied on weeknights. Similarly, these kids are CHOOSING to do what they want to do, even if it doesn't make them instant millionaires. The difference between them and I? I worked harder in school to get my degree, while they get a completely free education; while they work harder athletically and get paid to be in amazing physical shape and live and eat for free while I paid living expenses, meal expenses, and student fees to do the same.

 

[cncmin]

Or because players wouldn't want to risk joining said league because it would likely fold within a year or two. Then they would be stuck going to the NCAA except they couldn't because they're "pros."

The market wouldn't react that quickly when there is already such a highly regarded product by the consumers that people literally cry and fight about. The risk isn't worth it for an owner of such a team or league. It would probably have to be done by the NFL. You'd need the NFL branding and all its backing to make it work. Then you'd immediately have your own television network. You'd have an easier time negotiating with the other networks as well.

Really, only the NFL could do it, but they have no reason to do it.

All you're doing here is making a very good counter-argument to your own argument. The players are already making what the market holds that they should make; if that weren't true, someone would be "exploiting" those same players by setting up a new market and paying them more. But there is no market for that, nobody wants that. People, for the most part, support the collegiate team because they support that university, not because they support that player. To that end, both parties benefit from a mutual agreement and a relatively stable league to participate in under a given set of rules to ensure some level of parity, lest the league fall into shambles due to disinterest. All participants agree to those rules, the institutions and the players who accept free educations and four free years of housing to be thus associated.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

All you're doing here is making a very good counter-argument to your own argument. The players are already making what the market holds that they should make; if that weren't true, someone would be "exploiting" those same players by setting up a new market and paying them more. But there is no market for that, nobody wants that. People, for the most part, support the collegiate team because they support that university, not because they support that player. To that end, both parties benefit from a mutual agreement and a relatively stable league to participate in under a given set of rules to ensure some level of parity, lest the league fall into shambles due to disinterest. All participants agree to those rules, the institutions and the players who accept free educations and four free years of housing to be thus associated.

This is extremely ignornant.

If a practice is illegal it doesn't matter if all parties involved agree to the practice.

Also, the quality of football clearly matters in addition to the school loyalty.

 

[AO54]

All you're doing here is making a very good counter-argument to your own argument. The players are already making what the market holds that they should make; if that weren't true, someone would be "exploiting" those same players by setting up a new market and paying them more. But there is no market for that, nobody wants that. People, for the most part, support the collegiate team because they support that university, not because they support that player. To that end, both parties benefit from a mutual agreement and a relatively stable league to participate in under a given set of rules to ensure some level of parity, lest the league fall into shambles due to disinterest. All participants agree to those rules, the institutions and the players who accept free educations and four free years of housing to be thus associated.

As I've said before, Title IX has prevented new "markets" from opening up to compete with the NCAA. What if a few conferences decided to form a new college sports association that paid players a salary above the current scholarship arranagements? They'd get most of the recruits and the money from television would follow as well. Maybe the NCAA presidents would fear such a thing happening and start paying football/basketball players a stipend. The Big Ten is so wealthy that they've talked about paying the stipend to improve recruiting even though they'd have to pay it to every athlete regardless of worth. Imagine what they could pay if not burdened by title IX.

 

[dpodoll68]

This is extremely ignornant.

.

If a practice is illegal it doesn't matter if all parties involved agree to the practice.

What is the NCAA doing that is illegal?