NCAA is socialist, etc...

CougarClaw wrote:



Anarchy: a state of disorder due to the nonrecognition of authority. I prefer order and government thank you. We'll just disagree whether or not laws and rules that participants agree to should be followed or not.

IowaCougar wrote:
Most of what jvquarterback has written is pure hyperbole, and isn't rooted in any kind of realistic world. Somehow thinking that it's OK to break the rules that you've agreed to abide by, just because you disagree with them is the most telling thing here. It sounds like comments coming from someone who was dismissed from BYU because of Honor Code violations and is proud of it.

IowaCougar wrote:
I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely. Dropping all other sports to enable them to pay for a couple of revenue-producing sports would not fit into the educational philosophy of the university.

IowaCougar wrote:

I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely. Dropping all other sports to enable them to pay for a couple of revenue-producing sports would not fit into the educational philosophy of the university.

jvquarterback wrote:

Most of what jvquarterback has written is pure hyperbole, and isn't rooted in any kind of realistic world. Somehow thinking that it's OK to break the rules that you've agreed to abide by, just because you disagree with them is the most telling thing here. It sounds like comments coming from someone who was dismissed from BYU because of Honor Code violations and is proud of it.

Never broke the honor code that I know of though forgetting to shave after an all-nighter before an O-chem exam was pushing it. BYU never used force against other universities I contemplated attending.



I respect lots of people who broke the law in a non-violent manner. Gandhi, MLK, etc. I break the law in non-violent ways (not paying state sales taxes on internet purchases for example). I even respect people who resort to violence when oppressed by their government like George Washington.

IowaCougar wrote:
I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely. Dropping all other sports to enable them to pay for a couple of revenue-producing sports would not fit into the educational philosophy of the university.

I disagree, but even if you are right, what does that matter?

IowaCougar wrote:



If it doesn't matter, then you are obviously not a fan, and why are you even on this forum?

IowaCougar wrote:
Somehow thinking that it's OK to break the rules that you've agreed to abide by, just because you disagree with them is the most telling thing here. It sounds like comments coming from someone who was dismissed from BYU because of Honor Code violations and is proud of it.

IowaCougar wrote:
I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely. Dropping all other sports to enable them to pay for a couple of revenue-producing sports would not fit into the educational philosophy of the university.

taekwondave wrote:
So to further clarify what I think JV is saying, this thread shouldn't be titled "NCAA is socialist..." but "America is socialist, and the NCAA is a cartel that derives an unfair competitive advantage from that, and with that advantage, does violence to (steals money from) talented student-athletes who are worth much more money to universities than those universities let on; as evidenced by the amount of money Auburn was willing to pay Cam Newton."



But I still think he was out of line to call us out as hypocrites for enjoying college football. I think we need to do more to restore our freedoms in this country too, but telling each other we're hypocrites for enjoying ANY outgrowth of socialism in the mean time is...not very helpful.

taekwondave wrote:

I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely. Dropping all other sports to enable them to pay for a couple of revenue-producing sports would not fit into the educational philosophy of the university.

Again you miss the point. You see, what JV is talking about is more fundamental than simply one university in the current system to suddenly start paying players. Of COURSE that would be problematic. Why do you think they formed their silly cartel (NCAA) in the first place? If someone starts breaking those rules then the cartel would cease to be and the cartel wouldn't stand for it. So talk about hyperbole!



WHO was Auburn cheating by offering Cam Newton more money? You may be tempted to think he was cheating you and me as BYU fans and every other fan of any other school in the country, but you'd be missing the whole point because you've just unintentionally aligned yourself with a cartel that flourishes because of your enemy, which is socialism.



What's more important is to recognize who cheated you FIRST. And THAT is the United States of America by adopting socialism and then using that power to give certain groups financial competitive advantages over others, like the NCAA.



Make no mistake about it, our country itself is socialist. You only need look at two things to prove this: 1. Taxes, and 2. We have built and think we should build a bigger and better WALL around our borders. ("Gorbechev...tear down this...!")



Now, within our socialist country, there are many things we have chosen to ignore so that we may enjoy ourselves anyway. One of those is how college football sprang into existence through the exploitation of that socialist system.



The fact that while we are taxed, universities are not, and are even paid to exist WITH OUR TAXES whether we want them to or not (The U of U lives off of the taxes of most cougar fans on this board.) is a distinct competitive advantage for universities and their NCAA cartel. Many of you are suggesting that if you don't like the NCAA to just go off and create your own league of universities and have them offer sports. HA!



If you wanted to give college athletes a different option than the system that's currently in place you would find yourself at an IMPOSSIBLE DISADVANTAGE when attempting to, as you would not only be unable to collect taxes for your benefit when you refused to join their cartel (i.e. get THEIR licenses and THEIR accreditations and pay THEIR fees and agree to THEIR rules, as well as join the NCAA) but you'd even have to keep PAYING taxes that go to support your competition! Good luck!



THAT'S what we've all been ignoring when we turn on ESPN gameday every week. And we HAVE to if we want to keep enjoying college football the way we have been. But that system exists as-is because our COUNTRY IS INDEED SOCIALIST even though college football, no, isn't technically socialist itself; but a cartel that benefits unfairly from it.



I'm pretty sure JV thinks that were our COUNTRY not socialist and were this cartel of schools (NCAA) NOT getting such a competitive advantage through the tax system, that college football would be BETTER rather than worse, and PART of that would be because student athletes would probably earn more than they do now.



I can't definitively say whether a competitive college football system would in fact be more fun for us to watch within a TRULY free market America, but I tend to think EVERYTHING would be better in such a situation so I would be curious to see it. I think that's the point that JV is making. He indeed thinks that we the fans would actually be BETTER ENTERTAINED were our beloved college football to exist within a truly free country, rather than the one we live in today.

ABYUFAN wrote:

I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely.

BYU isn't the only one... I'd bet more dropped athletics than kept them

Mars wrote:

IowaCougar wrote:
I know this - if College Football started paying the athletes (more than the free education, etc.), BYU would drop their athletics program entirely.

BYU isn't the only one... I'd bet more dropped athletics than kept them

Yup. Most athletic departments are losing money as is. This would be the death knell to college sports.

CannonCougar85 wrote:

First, taking money to play football is not against the law. I personally would respect Cam Newton and the rest of the players for Auburn, Auburn University and, if this really is pervasive throughout the SEC, then everyone involved for paying these young men at least of part of the value they provide.



The problem is not people who want to pay or players that want to be paid. The problem is the bunch of communists in the NCAA, a quasi-government institution trying to benefit themselves at the expense of poor young African-American men. I would wager 90% of posters here would say they are in favor of a free market, yet when it comes to college athletics their morals fly out the window and they are ready to side with a bunch of academics and coaches from the Big10 and PAC10 who are undoubtedly socialists and communists.



Please explain your hypocritical positions.

First of all what does the race of a student athlete have to do with anything? 2nd of all these poor young men are getting a free education to play sports. Education = Money. In a lot of cases sports are the only way many of these kids can get into good schools in the first place let alone pay for it. Even if they don't have a shot at pro sports they still have that free education where, if used correctly, it can be used to better their lives and the situations of their families. They are STUDENT-athletes after all.

jvquarterback wrote:

Playing guys is not the answer. Not by a mile. Schools can not afford it. Plus, let's not act like the benefit of getting a full ride for an educaion is not an awesome thing. I'd have loved that. Players are given benefits. Free school, free books, room and board, travel to play a game etc. You actually think BYU has the budget to pay players stipends? umm, no. sorry, just no.

So let me get this straight. You think because BYU doesn't have to money to pay SEC caliber athletes, Auburn alums shouldn't be able to either? I rest my case. You are a socialist.



Schools in general and BYU in particular can afford it. What they can't afford is the giant albatross that is the athletic department minus football and men's basketball.

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 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?

jvquarterback 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.