NLRB Favors Football Players

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
You do realize college sports is more about recruiting students than it is about making money right? [/quote]

I wonder why people are writing all these books and this type of thing keeps getting pointed out when not much of it is about the money.

LMFAO at recruiting students. Please tell me you’re making a joke. How many college athletes are recruited because of “student” stuff? That’s what academic scholarships are for.

And if it isn’t about making money why the gigantic shoe deals, jersey deals, TV deals? They are just recruiting students. That’s why you’ve heard of Nick Saban. That’s why Bill Self makes big money.

They are just “student” recruiters. Funniest thing ever.

No one is talking about the rowing team or some shit that doesn’t make any money. I’m talking about college football, college basketball, the stuff that sees millions of dollars changing hands. Talking about small sports in this discussion is as valuable as bringing up the girl scouts.

222

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Wait I thought the market was free? Clearly it isn’t because as you are showing no one gets paid market value. [/quote]

I’m not paid market value. I guess there should be a rule that my salary has to equal to everyone with my years of experience, skills, abilities, and education. or maybe everyone should be paid % of the revenue’s of their companies? Quick, someone make a law for this!
[/quote]

I guess when you can’t win an argument it’s important to change it to something else?

I’m not talking about making new rules and regulations. I’m talking about taking away ones that don’t make sense. Essentially the NCAA made a regulation to keep kids from doing certain things. I’m arguing to take away that restriction.

Ask yourself why you think it makes sense to keep that up? Why would the NCAA fight tooth and nail against this? They just care about the kids right? That’s why they give them a place to play for a year or two? Because they care so much about the STUDENT athlete?

223

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong [/quote]

Just lol… [/quote]

I fail to see the humor. You called out my opinion and then gave your opinion. Clearly you think mine is wrong, why is pointing out that I think yours is funny?

[/quote]

I disagree with your opinion. I have never said it is wrong because the bottom line is we won’t know until/if the NCAA changes their rules. [/quote]

I get that. My point was that you said this is just your opinion and then countered with something that was just your opinion. Neither of them are provable so pointing it out I thought was fruitless. [/quote]

Pretty much this whole conversation is opinion based.

224

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong [/quote]

Just lol… [/quote]

I fail to see the humor. You called out my opinion and then gave your opinion. Clearly you think mine is wrong, why is pointing out that I think yours is funny?

[/quote]

I disagree with your opinion. I have never said it is wrong because the bottom line is we won’t know until/if the NCAA changes their rules. [/quote]

I get that. My point was that you said this is just your opinion and then countered with something that was just your opinion. Neither of them are provable so pointing it out I thought was fruitless. [/quote]

Pretty much this whole conversation is opinion based. [/quote]

Very much so, and we are moving in circular directions. What isn’t opinion based is that the revenue from college athletics has climbed to heights unimagined 15 years ago and student athletes are still compensated in the exact same way. Student athletes are still restricted by the NCAA which has no problem making revenue from them.

And schools say they put students first, but it is no big deal for a college to recruit someone that they know has no desire to be there EXCEPT to play ball. Sometimes to play ball for a year and then move on.

Schools are happy to let that happen and the answer isn’t opinion based…it’s because of the money that will be generated from this person. A “student” athlete who was never thought of as a student.

225

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
So are Maddy Wollmuth and Colleen Ward (Virginia Tech Lacrosse) entitled to the same pay as Andrew Wiggins?? I think people conveniently forget that there are only two college sports that make money and the profits from those two literally support every other sport. But if an athletic scholarship (why just athletic, why not academic also) equates to a paycheck, then are all scholarship athletes employees, and if that’s the case, should profit of sport effect whether or not scholarships can be given (this is the death nail to all women’s athletic scholarships if so). [/quote]

And let’s move this one step further. What about the girl scouts? I mean, surely that girl who sold 20k boxes of cookies deserves more than a trip to Washington DC (or whatever crap they give out as a reward)?

[/quote]

What about the guy who gets a free membership to a gym to pull in clients?? Is that guy an employee of the gym? Should they be getting a W2 and reporting his “earnings” (the cost of the membership) as wages??
[/quote]

I am guessing it depends on the price of a regular membership but in all honesty it should be 1099 nd

226

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, if there is this huge market for pre-pro athletes a bunch of investors would get together and make a new league. Then all the super star non-students can get paid (for a year) before going pro. Why hasn’t this happened? Because 99.99% of student-athletes need a degree to get a job after college because they won’t go pro. The cost benefit between being paid to play for four year or a scholarship for a four year degree = take scholarship 999/1000 times.

It’s amateur sports for 999/1000 student-athletes. [/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
There is a huge market and it is being controlled by a monopoly. [/quote]
The monopoly part I agree with.

[quote]H factor wrote:
See TV deals, shoe contracts, AD contracts, etc.

Tons of money is already being thrown around and now some people think the status quo needs to be changed. Why would a new market happen when we already have a monopoly on one?
[/quote]

Well in this case the monopoly could easily be dealt with. “Hey, wanna make some money before going pro, we’ll pay you $5K per game if you sign a 1 year contract.”

You’re boy Wiggins would be all over that right?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why would someone start a new league to pay kids money when a professional sports development league already exists under the guise of “college” sports? [/quote]

It doesn’t have to be anyone associated with college of professional sports. It could be Zuckerberger (sp?) or whoever. They could take all this $ from the NCAA.

[quote]H factor wrote:
We already have what you’re talking about, I’m just not pretending it isn’t professional sports. [/quote]
This is where you and I disagree. I don’t believe we have this.

[quote]H factor wrote:
The NCAA loves feeding you guys commercials like “most of us will go pro in something else.” Yeah, many will. [/quote]
Lol H, it isn’t “many” it’s the vast majority.

[quote]H factor wrote:
And the NCAA is going pro on running the monopoly that is college athletics. We just don’t need to pretend it is something it’s not. [/quote]
For the vast majority it is exactly what it is for them. A way to subsidize the cost of their education.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Kids aren’t there for school (some are, some aren’t).
[/quote]
The vast majority are there for an education first.

[quote]H factor wrote:
School isn’t the number one priority. And huge money exists that is not being shared with the people responsible for it because if you call it what it is people will be disheartened by it. If you can pretend it’s something else then it’s ok. [/quote]

Start a new league and make bank then. It’s that simple.

227

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, if there is this huge market for pre-pro athletes a bunch of investors would get together and make a new league. Then all the super star non-students can get paid (for a year) before going pro. Why hasn’t this happened? Because 99.99% of student-athletes need a degree to get a job after college because they won’t go pro. The cost benefit between being paid to play for four year or a scholarship for a four year degree = take scholarship 999/1000 times.

It’s amateur sports for 999/1000 student-athletes. [/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
There is a huge market and it is being controlled by a monopoly. [/quote]
The monopoly part I agree with.

[quote]H factor wrote:
See TV deals, shoe contracts, AD contracts, etc.

Tons of money is already being thrown around and now some people think the status quo needs to be changed. Why would a new market happen when we already have a monopoly on one?
[/quote]

Well in this case the monopoly could easily be dealt with. “Hey, wanna make some money before going pro, we’ll pay you $5K per game if you sign a 1 year contract.”

You’re boy Wiggins would be all over that right?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why would someone start a new league to pay kids money when a professional sports development league already exists under the guise of “college” sports? [/quote]

It doesn’t have to be anyone associated with college of professional sports. It could be Zuckerberger (sp?) or whoever. They could take all this $ from the NCAA.

[quote]H factor wrote:
We already have what you’re talking about, I’m just not pretending it isn’t professional sports. [/quote]
This is where you and I disagree. I don’t believe we have this.

[quote]H factor wrote:
The NCAA loves feeding you guys commercials like “most of us will go pro in something else.” Yeah, many will. [/quote]
Lol H, it isn’t “many” it’s the vast majority.

[quote]H factor wrote:
And the NCAA is going pro on running the monopoly that is college athletics. We just don’t need to pretend it is something it’s not. [/quote]
For the vast majority it is exactly what it is for them. A way to subsidize the cost of their education.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Kids aren’t there for school (some are, some aren’t).
[/quote]
The vast majority are there for an education first.

[quote]H factor wrote:
School isn’t the number one priority. And huge money exists that is not being shared with the people responsible for it because if you call it what it is people will be disheartened by it. If you can pretend it’s something else then it’s ok. [/quote]

Start a new league and make bank then. It’s that simple.
[/quote]

The thing about monopolies is it is tough to compete with them. That’s why they exist. As for the vast majority being there for an education MAYBE if you throw in things like rowing, diving, field hockey, etc.

Football and basketball? Many of those guys were brought to school for ONE reason. Because of their talent in a sport. Not to graduate. Not to make school a priority. To be really good at a sport. Being really good brings in a lot of the money. JUST like the reason to be really good at the professional sports.

How many Alabama football players are at Alabama for their school? How many LSU football players chose LSU because of the Biology department? You keep saying the vast majority, but almost every athlete in major college football or basketball programs the “school” part didn’t have a whole lot to do with it. After all schools that perform poorly academically may get just as many or more athletes than those that don’t. Why? Because kids aren’t brought there to do a good job in chemistry. If it’s the vast majority why is the graduation rate lower?

Why make a new league when we could just get the NCAA viewed as what it actually is? A big money bully that exists to make profits. They need you to think they are in it for the student athletes. They need you to keep the myth going. Changes take money away from them and the people at the top of pyramid.

Like I said there is a reason why all these articles exist and these changes are being proposed. Because the current system is broken.

228

A section of ESPN designed just for the recruiting of college athletes to schools in football. Care to take a guess how many of these articles talk about what the kid can do in the classroom?

We have these guys ranked…but not in order of likelihood to graduate. We have them ranked just as we rank players entering the NFL draft. On the likelihood that they can help their team. No college is flying around looking at 5 star linebackers because they are doing well in calculus.

They didn’t choose a college for academics, but we’re going to pretend that once they get there that is their number one priority?

It better not be. Everything they get told and their schedules will be tailored toward the true priority…the thing that brings in the money. We can get anyone’s tuition…only elite play on the field snags us gigantic TV deals. When’s the last time someone watched college kids take a statistics test?

229

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, if there is this huge market for pre-pro athletes a bunch of investors would get together and make a new league. Then all the super star non-students can get paid (for a year) before going pro. Why hasn’t this happened? Because 99.99% of student-athletes need a degree to get a job after college because they won’t go pro. The cost benefit between being paid to play for four year or a scholarship for a four year degree = take scholarship 999/1000 times.

It’s amateur sports for 999/1000 student-athletes. [/quote]

[quote]H factor wrote:
There is a huge market and it is being controlled by a monopoly. [/quote]
The monopoly part I agree with.

[quote]H factor wrote:
See TV deals, shoe contracts, AD contracts, etc.

Tons of money is already being thrown around and now some people think the status quo needs to be changed. Why would a new market happen when we already have a monopoly on one?
[/quote]

Well in this case the monopoly could easily be dealt with. “Hey, wanna make some money before going pro, we’ll pay you $5K per game if you sign a 1 year contract.”

You’re boy Wiggins would be all over that right?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why would someone start a new league to pay kids money when a professional sports development league already exists under the guise of “college” sports? [/quote]

It doesn’t have to be anyone associated with college of professional sports. It could be Zuckerberger (sp?) or whoever. They could take all this $ from the NCAA.

[quote]H factor wrote:
We already have what you’re talking about, I’m just not pretending it isn’t professional sports. [/quote]
This is where you and I disagree. I don’t believe we have this.

[quote]H factor wrote:
The NCAA loves feeding you guys commercials like “most of us will go pro in something else.” Yeah, many will. [/quote]
Lol H, it isn’t “many” it’s the vast majority.

[quote]H factor wrote:
And the NCAA is going pro on running the monopoly that is college athletics. We just don’t need to pretend it is something it’s not. [/quote]
For the vast majority it is exactly what it is for them. A way to subsidize the cost of their education.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Kids aren’t there for school (some are, some aren’t).
[/quote]
The vast majority are there for an education first.

[quote]H factor wrote:
School isn’t the number one priority. And huge money exists that is not being shared with the people responsible for it because if you call it what it is people will be disheartened by it. If you can pretend it’s something else then it’s ok. [/quote]

Start a new league and make bank then. It’s that simple.
[/quote]

The thing about monopolies is it is tough to compete with them. That’s why they exist. As for the vast majority being there for an education MAYBE if you throw in things like rowing, diving, field hockey, etc.

Football and basketball? Many of those guys were brought to school for ONE reason. Because of their talent in a sport. Not to graduate. Not to make school a priority. To be really good at a sport. Being really good brings in a lot of the money. JUST like the reason to be really good at the professional sports.

How many Alabama football players are at Alabama for their school? How many LSU football players chose LSU because of the Biology department? You keep saying the vast majority, but almost every athlete in major college football or basketball programs the “school” part didn’t have a whole lot to do with it. After all schools that perform poorly academically may get just as many or more athletes than those that don’t. Why? Because kids aren’t brought there to do a good job in chemistry. If it’s the vast majority why is the graduation rate lower?

Why make a new league when we could just get the NCAA viewed as what it actually is? A big money bully that exists to make profits. They need you to think they are in it for the student athletes. They need you to keep the myth going. Changes take money away from them and the people at the top of pyramid.

Like I said there is a reason why all these articles exist and these changes are being proposed. Because the current system is broken. [/quote]

Sometimes Monopolies exist because no one else has attempted to enter the market, which I think is the case here. Sure the cost to create a new league would be tremendous, but could be very lucrative.

Yes, I’m talking all sports, they should count. All the rules, and change to the rules you want, affect them too.

Why certain people go to college is irrelevant in my opinion. I don’t believe rules/regulations should be create just because a percentage of people do x. A certain % of people will kill other people with guns this year. Do we outlaw guns? No, imo, absolutely not. A certain % of athletes will go to college specifically to play a sport. I don’t believe the rules and regulations should be tailored to this small %.
A considerable # of Tide players graduate:

I’d say that’s pretty good considering player do leave early for pro sports (something you are absolutely right about).

Not all school make this enormous amount of money. The NCAA is a non-profit anyway and their non-profit status has been challenged int he past if I’m not mistaken. You want more transparency to see the $, I’m all for that. I’ve gotta think the IRS would be all over them if they thought they could change their status.

I have no problem with proposing changes. I just don’t think paying players will be better for the student-athlete or higher education.

230

[quote]H factor wrote:

A section of ESPN designed just for the recruiting of college athletes to schools in football. Care to take a guess how many of these articles talk about what the kid can do in the classroom?

[/quote]

Why would ESPN care about the classroom? They are in the sports business. Not higher education.

231

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

A section of ESPN designed just for the recruiting of college athletes to schools in football. Care to take a guess how many of these articles talk about what the kid can do in the classroom?

[/quote]

Why would ESPN care about the classroom? They are in the sports business. Not higher education. [/quote]

I’m not the one trying to suggest college sports is not a business. You said most of those people are focusing on the classroom. Do you think any of Alabama’s football recruits were recruited for anything but football? They even have people who HELP people get eligible simply so they can play for them.

If the focus for all this is education why does Nike not sponsor the math department? Why is CBS not paying billions to show off what the English department is up to? Why does Vegas not have odds on who will be the next Rhodes scholar?

Like I said we can pretend, talk about the majority, do all this stuff to suggest that college sports is not a business. The NCAA smiles and snickers when people think that.

232

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Why certain people go to college is irrelevant in my opinion. I don’t believe rules/regulations should be create just because a percentage of people do x. A certain % of people will kill other people with guns this year. Do we outlaw guns? No, imo, absolutely not. A certain % of athletes will go to college specifically to play a sport. I don’t believe the rules and regulations should be tailored to this small %.
A considerable # of Tide players graduate:

[/quote]

I’m saying to get rid of rules and regulations that keep people from being free. You’re either for that or against it. You seem to be playing both sides at times.

Rules and regulations are already in place that DON’T let college kids do certain things other college kids can do. Even ones that get scholarships for things like music.

I’m not arguing FOR laws and rules I’m arguing AGAINST them.

233

Why would the President of a non profit make close to 2 million dollars? Where is all this non profit coming from?

234

[quote]The NCAA is good for anyone who would like to believe college sports is not a business, and still deserves any kind of status as a non-profit entity. It is good for the bowls who hide under that same curtain, and with brain-flukes firmly in place insist on the virtues of funneling money through the tax code into brightly colored jacket pockets. It’s not just good for bloggers and journalists in search of a easy pickings–it’s great for us, because hunting the NCAA’s inconsistencies is a shotgun safari in a sheep pasture. They’re so very slow, and so very easy to hit with even the worst weaponry.

But even those who revel in writing about the NCAA happily host the parasite, usually by assuming that the NCAA is a thing at all. There’s a slight tickle in the ear, and then some pressure, and then ahhh, there it is: the comfortable assumption that this ever made sense, and that the NCAA should play any role in anything ever.

To date, the only writer fully immune to it is Taylor Branch, who excoriated the NCAA properly in The Shame Of College Athletics. Everyone else, to some degree, is a friend of the cash-spitting mind-slug, and assumes in definition that at one point, somewhere, the NCAA lost its way, and could serve some future use.

It cannot. The NCAA is a perfectly useless entity in every positive sense, and only useful in the negative sense of placing a wall between wages and labor. Emmert has been a brain-damaged, sputtering fartcloud of a bureaucrat in his tenure at the NCAA, but so was Myles Brand, a perfectly intelligent human being who could not define what the NCAA did in Congressional hearings. That’s what the NCAA does: writes checks to smart people, who in turn become the drooling replicants of a moralizing hivemind on the make.[/quote]

Large organization, shady dealings, bureaucrats who tell you why things must be the same or even grow in order to maintain power. Sound like the government? Should, resembles it quite a bit!

235

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

A section of ESPN designed just for the recruiting of college athletes to schools in football. Care to take a guess how many of these articles talk about what the kid can do in the classroom?

[/quote]

Why would ESPN care about the classroom? They are in the sports business. Not higher education. [/quote]

I’m not the one trying to suggest college sports is not a business. You said most of those people are focusing on the classroom. Do you think any of Alabama’s football recruits were recruited for anything but football? They even have people who HELP people get eligible simply so they can play for them.

If the focus for all this is education why does Nike not sponsor the math department? Why is CBS not paying billions to show off what the English department is up to? Why does Vegas not have odds on who will be the next Rhodes scholar?

Like I said we can pretend, talk about the majority, do all this stuff to suggest that college sports is not a business. The NCAA smiles and snickers when people think that. [/quote]

I did not say most of these people are focusing on the classroom. I said the focus should be on the classroom.

ESPN is a business, a completely separate business from college athletics.

H, why would Nick Saban recruit people for anything other than football? DO you want him to recruit for the spelling team or the chess club while he’s at it? Of course they are recruited to play football. That’s Nick Saban’s JOB.

Does Nike sell Math apparel?? Is CBS in higher education?? Vegas probably does have those odds…

In 2008-2009 there were 26,104 DI football players and 53 (unconfirmed) declared for the draft. That’s .2%.

236

[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m saying to get rid of rules and regulations that keep people from being free. You’re either for that or against it. You seem to be playing both sides at times. [/quote]

Are star athletes being kidnapped and forced to play sport? I was unaware such slavery exists in the U.S. We really need to put a stop to it.

237

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why would the President of a non profit make close to 2 million dollars? Where is all this non profit coming from? [/quote]

Who says $2MM is too much for running an organization as large as the NCAA?

238

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m saying to get rid of rules and regulations that keep people from being free. You’re either for that or against it. You seem to be playing both sides at times. [/quote]

Are star athletes being kidnapped and forced to play sport? I was unaware such slavery exists in the U.S. We really need to put a stop to it.
[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about slavery. I’m talking about free to make decisions that are in their best financial interests. You keep saying you’re for this, but then say stuff like it isn’t effecting that many people and other things.

239

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why would the President of a non profit make close to 2 million dollars? Where is all this non profit coming from? [/quote]

Who says $2MM is too much for running an organization as large as the NCAA?[/quote]

I didn’t. I’m also not pretending it’s non profit. I wouldn’t pretend that billion dollar TV contracts are simply part of a non profit deal that has the best interests of student athletes in mind.

240

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I did not say most of these people are focusing on the classroom. I said the focus should be on the classroom.

[/quote]

We can talk about how things SHOULD be or analyze how they actually are. In many ways college football runs just like the pros. In fact it has tons in common with professional football. The biggest difference is the pro game individuals can make money and wear the shoes they want, star in commercials, etc.

The college game the money funnels to the schools and some of the people running those “non profits.” Shift money around to make it look like you’re barely breaking even.