NCAA is socialist, etc...

UVACoug wrote:

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.

Quasi-governmental? You are off your rocker.

jvquarterback wrote:

This thread has drifted too far from the original topic of Auburn's pay-to-play scandal and either needs to be reigned in (talking about Auburn, the SEC, or Cam Newton) or get separated into it's own thread in the Lounge, where you all can continue to pontificate on socialism, communism, or whatever.



Seriously, this is getting lame.

Don't like my defense of Cam Newton and Auburn? Neither does anyone else. I think Mr Newton is a great guy, who has done no violence to anyone, and is exercising his right to pursue happiness. His acceptance of money, if true, is an admirable and moral position. The folks at Auburn should be proud, they are being true to the ideal of freedom this country once stood for.



There you go. back on topic.

jvquarterback wrote:

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

Preserving an athletic team I happen to be a fan of at the expense of the liberty and freedom of the competition does not fit in with my morals.

taekwondave wrote:

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.

Quasi-governmental? You are off your rocker.

No personal attacks, UVA. Stick to the argument. If you can't articulate your position it's better that you don't speak.

UVACoug wrote:

UVACoug wrote:

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.

Quasi-governmental? You are off your rocker.

No personal attacks, UVA. Stick to the argument. If you can't articulate your position it's better that you don't speak.

Explain how the NCAA is quasi-governmental. There is no explanation of that position. I think it is nonsense.

Schmoe wrote:
UVA didn't question his intelligence, he questioned his sanity. ;)

UVACoug wrote:

Explain how the NCAA is quasi-governmental. There is no explanation of that position. I think it is nonsense.