NCAA is socialist, etc...

ABYUFAN wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever read a more ridiculous argument than that not paying football players is the same as communism.

Well what would you call it when one group of people does something that has great value and the proceeds are handed out to many others who do not produce the same value while the administrators of the system get filthy rich?

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/cafcorsair/Images/Airwolf/Airwolf%20Van%20Nuys%20Airshow%201986_Steve%20Hirst_640.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I was thinking the same. Better check some IP addresses.

Lawboy wrote:

You might to brush up on your political theory. That conculsion was a huge failure. I gave an anecdote, and you used it to misapply a conclusion.



The issue has nothing to do with if schools should pay student-athletes(they do--it's called an education, and is generally worth about $50k+ over 4 years to a kid), but should they give cash on top (they should not). First of all, go look up amateurism. Then go look up professionalism. If you can not figure it out based upon that, there is no reasoning with you. College athletics fall under the realm of amateurism in this country, and always will. You seem to forget the student part of the equation. Auburn should rot for this. As should any other school doing pay for play. Sadly, the lesson taught in teh Newton case is that getting an education is not worth much to some people--including the Rev. Cecil Newton. Wonder what cultural conclusions can be drawn from that.

My political theory is sound, but if you would prefer your anecdote reveals a socialist tendency of yours.



Amateurism is simply an excuse for advancing your socialist tendencies.



The athletes are compensated through tuition and room and board and everything else, why the great opposition to them being compensated what the market assesses as their true value? Why promote a price ceiling?

Here is the one reason I like this forum.... well there is more than one reason but today we have had an interesting discussion with one person who is a one note symphony.....steed??? and some very great, intelligent responses, well thought out and backed up by true stories of true people. Of course, we have a system of apprentices... it has been such since Adam. People have to learn a skill or trade. I am a nurse practitioner. Would you want me to hold the life of your child in my hand had I not paid the dues as a student with mentors and preceptors to guide me?? Holy mackerel what a crazy argument :bug:

Kbear wrote:
Here is the one reason I like this forum.... well there is more than one reason but today we have had an interesting discussion with one person who is a one note symphony.....steed??? and some very great, intelligent responses, well thought out and backed up by true stories of true people. Of course, we have a system of apprentices... it has been such since Adam. People have to learn a skill or trade. I am a nurse practitioner. Would you want me to hold the life of your child in my hand had I not paid the dues as a student with mentors and preceptors to guide me?? Holy mackerel what a crazy argument

I have no problem with a system of apprenticeship. I do have a problem when the masters prevent the apprentices from selling their wares. This is the problem with college athletics. It was the problem the whole mercantilist system.



As a nurse practitioner you should know this better than most. I am a physician and my friends complain about NPs all the time. Whatever, I think many NPs are better than physicians. But the physicians lobby the government to prevent the NPs from practicing. They try to prevent the NP from ever producing a competing good, which is bad for the patient.



It is the same thing with college athletics, the NCAA, the NFL and the universities collude to prevent the athletes from performing a service they would be richly compensated for on the free market.

jvquarterback wrote:

Here is the one reason I like this forum.... well there is more than one reason but today we have had an interesting discussion with one person who is a one note symphony.....steed??? and some very great, intelligent responses, well thought out and backed up by true stories of true people. Of course, we have a system of apprentices... it has been such since Adam. People have to learn a skill or trade. I am a nurse practitioner. Would you want me to hold the life of your child in my hand had I not paid the dues as a student with mentors and preceptors to guide me?? Holy mackerel what a crazy argument

I have no problem with a system of apprenticeship. I do have a problem when the masters prevent the apprentices from selling their wares. This is the problem with college athletics. It was the problem the whole mercantilist system.



As a nurse practitioner you should know this better than most. I am a physician and my friends complain about NPs all the time. Whatever, I think many NPs are better than physicians. But the physicians lobby the government to prevent the NPs from practicing. They try to prevent the NP from ever producing a competing good, which is bad for the patient.



It is the same thing with college athletics, the NCAA, the NFL and the universities collude to prevent the athletes from performing a service they would be richly compensated for on the free market.

Somehow you seem to think that college athletes are forced to perform (your words, not mine). NO ONE is forcing anyone to be a college athlete. If they want to hold out and go pro, they can. They may have to wait, but it's been done before. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.



I for one am grateful for the athletic grant that I was able to receive to attend BYU. My daughter went to another college, also on an athletic grant. Niether of us would have been able to receive that education if all of the money from Football and Basketball went into paying the players. There would be nothing left to support the rest of the athletics department with. I think it's worthwhile having amateur athletics. If you don't want to participate, don't. But don't whine about the others who are there because they want to be. :skeptic:

IowaCougar wrote:

Somehow you seem to think that college athletes are forced to perform (your words, not mine). NO ONE is forcing anyone to be a college athlete. If they want to hold out and go pro, they can. They may have to wait, but it's been done before. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.



I for one am grateful for the athletic grant that I was able to receive to attend BYU. My daughter went to another college, also on an athletic grant. Niether of us would have been able to receive that education if all of the money from Football and Basketball went into paying the players. There would be nothing left to support the rest of the athletics department with. I think it's worthwhile having amateur athletics. If you don't want to participate, don't. But don't whine about the others who are there because they want to be. :skeptic:

I can see how some may interpret what I've said as the football players are forced to play. That is not the problem. The problem is that universities,their agents or third parities are forcibly prevented from paying the players. This rule is enforced by the NCAA, a quasi-governmental organization and the government should have no part at all in college athletics and no school or group of schools should be allowed to prevent another school or third party from paying athletes.

There is a huge difference between a college athlete and a highly trained nurse practitioner. The docs who are blocking NPs from doing their jobs are small minded and unfortunately some of them have the ears of the politicians. The college athletes are still basically playing a game. Albeit a very revenue producing game, it is still a game, they have not paid their dues as I have. 12 years of college and many clinical hours of practice is different than playing football.

In less than one week and in just 12 posts, jvqb has done what many before him (i.e. airwolf, baseball america) took weeks if not months to do: prove that they are more about being contrarian than in contributing to any meaningful conversation. I don't think jvqb is for real-at least, for his sake and for that of all who now or will later depend on him I hope he's not for real. I must conclude he is a troll. If this isn't a trolling attempt, then I believe a measure of socialism will be helpful to him later in life. The invisible hand isn't very friendly to his type.

A few questions.

1. At what age do you start paying for play?

2. Give me three good reasons why you don't pay for earlier play than what you answered in #1?

3. Are there any limits on what you pay players? Do richer schools get all the best athletes from here on out?



As much fun as college football changing to only include USC, Texas, Florida and Notre Dame I wouldn't watch any of it.

jvquarterback wrote:
I can see how some may interpret what I've said as the football players are forced to play.

Really, that's good that you see how some may interpret what you've said when that is EXACTLY what you said.

jvquarterback wrote:
Well what would you call it when one group of people is forced to do something

Personally, I'm not sure anyone could interpret it any other way.

Hmmmm, so much for what's going on at Auburn. If half of what is being reported about Auburn is true, then they deserve the death penalty and if they can take down a couple other *cough*Florida/Alabama/LSU*cough*, then so be it.



As for the argument that NCAA college football is communism. Hogwash. College football is the minor leagues of the NFL. The NFL wants it that way and the NCAA is willing to oblige. The NCAA's original mandate is to preserve and promote amateur athletics. Member colleges agree to abide by its terms. The members have set the rules and that means athletes can receive only so much financial support in exchange for competing in their given sport.



The NFL could have started a farm system, but up until the '60's and 70's, college football was vastly more popular than the NFL and the NFL could not compete financially with college football. SO the NFL used the college game as its farm system. They have worked together in managing amateur and professional football. The NFL also has a union for its players. They are the ones who have signed off on requiring pro prospects to wait at least 3 years from when they graduate high school before they can be eligible, which is done, in part, to limit access. The owners agree to it so they can develop talent without the financial risk that comes in signing players out of high school and developing them. College players agree to it because it allows them to apprentice for 3 years, minimun, and then play professionally, if selected by an NFL team.



It is set up to preserve the the tradition of college football and amateur athletics, develop a labor pool for the NFL.

Kbear wrote:
There is a huge difference between a college athlete and a highly trained nurse practitioner. The docs who are blocking NPs from doing their jobs are small minded and unfortunately some of them have the ears of the politicians. The college athletes are still basically playing a game. Albeit a very revenue producing game, it is still a game, they have not paid their dues as I have. 12 years of college and many clinical hours of practice is different than playing football.

Sure the difference is you are a NP and think you should be free to do what you want. You aren't a college football player and you derive some sadistic pleasure from making them "pay their dues." It reminds me of the lame doctors who thought I should have to work 72 hours straight just like they did so I could pay my dues. Lame.

byutx wrote:
In less than one week and in just 12 posts, jvqb has done what many before him (i.e. airwolf, baseball america) took weeks if not months to do: prove that they are more about being contrarian than in contributing to any meaningful conversation. I don't think jvqb is for real-at least, for his sake and for that of all who now or will later depend on him I hope he's not for real. I must conclude he is a troll. If this isn't a trolling attempt, then I believe a measure of socialism will be helpful to him later in life. The invisible hand isn't very friendly to his type.

I have and will continue to benefit from charity, but never from socialism. No one ever does.

hawkwing wrote:
A few questions.

1. At what age do you start paying for play?

2. Give me three good reasons why you don't pay for earlier play than what you answered in #1?

3. Are there any limits on what you pay players? Do richer schools get all the best athletes from here on out?



As much fun as college football changing to only include USC, Texas, Florida and Notre Dame I wouldn't watch any of it.

1. Whenever someone is willing to pay the athlete and the athlete is willing to perform for the compensation.

2. No one is willing to pay them to play prior to that.

3. No. The athlete goes where they perceive they derive the greatest benefit in return for their production.



I think you would be surprised at how things worked out in terms of product on the field.

kitic77 wrote:

I can see how some may interpret what I've said as the football players are forced to play.

jvquarterback wrote:
Well what would you call it when one group of people is forced to do something

Personally, I'm not sure anyone could interpret it any other way.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here from failing to think outside the box but boosters are being forced not to provide benefits to athletes.

CougarPeasant wrote:
Hmmmm, so much for what's going on at Auburn. If half of what is being reported about Auburn is true, then they deserve the death penalty and if they can take down a couple other *cough*Florida/Alabama/LSU*cough*, then so be it.



As for the argument that NCAA college football is communism. Hogwash. College football is the minor leagues of the NFL. The NFL wants it that way and the NCAA is willing to oblige. The NCAA's original mandate is to preserve and promote amateur athletics. Member colleges agree to abide by its terms. The members have set the rules and that means athletes can receive only so much financial support in exchange for competing in their given sport.



The NFL could have started a farm system, but up until the '60's and 70's, college football was vastly more popular than the NFL and the NFL could not compete financially with college football. SO the NFL used the college game as its farm system. They have worked together in managing amateur and professional football. The NFL also has a union for its players. They are the ones who have signed off on requiring pro prospects to wait at least 3 years from when they graduate high school before they can be eligible, which is done, in part, to limit access. The owners agree to it so they can develop talent without the financial risk that comes in signing players out of high school and developing them. College players agree to it because it allows them to apprentice for 3 years, minimun, and then play professionally, if selected by an NFL team.



It is set up to preserve the the tradition of college football and amateur athletics, develop a labor pool for the NFL.

Best argument so far but what it boils down to is this is the way it has always been done (aka preserving the the tradition of college football and amateur athletics) and that just doesn't fly. The NFL (including the players union) and the colleges do it because they derive profit from the system. The college players do it because the colleges are allowed a monopoly protected by the NCAA, which acts in the place of government implementing such catastrophes as title IX. The players have no other option except not to play.



As for Auburn, I hope if the NCAA tries to sanction them, they continue playing football, paying players and tell the NCAA to stick it. And I hope the rest of the SEC follows their example. Some people at Auburn actually believe in a free society so at least I can dream it will happen.

Yeah, let's turn college football into the MLB where whoever has the most money can just buy up all the talent, lame. Even most pro sports have salary caps.

jvquarterback wrote:

In less than one week and in just 12 posts, jvqb has done what many before him (i.e. airwolf, baseball america) took weeks if not months to do: prove that they are more about being contrarian than in contributing to any meaningful conversation. I don't think jvqb is for real-at least, for his sake and for that of all who now or will later depend on him I hope he's not for real. I must conclude he is a troll. If this isn't a trolling attempt, then I believe a measure of socialism will be helpful to him later in life. The invisible hand isn't very friendly to his type.

I have and will continue to benefit from charity, but never from socialism. No one ever does.

Tell me this, jvqb, you do understand what "amateur" means, right? Also, here are some more questions for you. Are you an anarchist or do you understand the need for rules? Do you think that the market should dictate how the refs make certain calls or is it too socialist to insist that the rules in a game be applied the same across the board? Should the richest teams get all the calls by legally paying the refs? Do you like professional wrestling? If you think these questions are absurd, just realize they are some of the possible logical next steps along your crazy line of thinking.



I don't get into politics very often, but the uber-conservative extremists are in for a rude awakening when they realize they're going to end up in the same hell to which they're certain that the liberals are headed.

Here's the real problem with your argument though. You make it sound like there is no option for these poor, overworked, underpaid college kids. They HAVE to play college football for next to nothing, or they have to sit out and wait to be old enough to play in the NFL. What about starting their own league and making some bucks? That would be easy right? They could just all get together smash their piggy-banks and they'd have the AFA )Amateur football association) up and running overnight. No? Maybe some brilliant mind like yours would like to coordinate an association for these picked on athletes. You can arrange games, coordinate travel costs, find GMs and investors (boosters), buy the television equipment, create a TV network for you games, etc etc. You'd take over the NCAA in a couple years I would imagine. ;)



The NCAA is the best option for these guys, and it's not a bad option. They ARE getting paid to get an education, are able to evaluate how ready they are for the "league" and get tons of exposure for scouts to look at. Ever heard or internships? How about residencies? They are the same thing in my mind but you make it sound like only these athletes are required to pay their dues. Those programs benefit both parties, much like the NCAA benefits these players who CHOOSE to play for a university.

jvquarterback wrote:

I'm not sure I've ever read a more ridiculous argument than that not paying football players is the same as communism.

Well what would you call it when one group of people is forced to do something does something that has great value and the proceeds are handed out to many others who do not produce the same value while the administrators of the system get filthy rich?

good business.



and I don't see anyone holding a gun to anybody's head ordering them to play football.



I thought you keep arguing they aren't being forced... I struck that out for you. Don't want to sound like a hypocrite or uninformed do we?