Paying Players Superthread

Hitman Hart said:
it would be cool if y'all would use this same energy to ask why the NFL doesn't have a proper developmental league
Click to expand...
I’m waiting for these morons to catch on to that conclusion.

Answer: because it has a free one in the ciss boom bah indentured servitude monopoly league, aka NCAA
 
If the players start getting paid, do they get fined if they tackle leading with the head? Should I have put this question in your other super thread?
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
Say what you want, the FACT is that other options exist. You not willing to acknowledge that is your own pathetic fault. You have fun with that though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ‘other options’ that make up 0.00002% of players that make it to the nfl.

And even if we take the nfl out of the argument, monopolies for multi billion dollar industries that don’t let principals enjoy and negotiate for the fruits of their labor are illegal and unethical on their face.

You wouldn’t accept it in any other industry.
The only reason you wildly flail to justify it in cfb is status quo.
Learn. To. Think.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yeah, ‘other options’ that make up 0.00002% of players that make it to the nfl.

And even if we take the nfl out if the argument, monopolies for multi billion dollar industries that don’t let principals enjoy and negotiate for the fruits of their labor are illegal and unethical on their face.

You wouldn’t accept it in any other industry.
The only reason you wildly flail to justify it in cfb is status quo.
Learn. To. Think.
Click to expand...
Bro no one has a right to football. The university takes all the risk. The players have no likeness without the university. They are offered a contract which Forbes values in worth in excess of 2 million dollars.

"Despite recent claims that college football players are "oppressed" and "undervalued" relative to the revenues they generate for their universities, I argue using "cost of attendance" and "projected earnings" data that the average "value" of a college football scholarship is in excess of $2 million for student-athletes who (1) play for one of the pre-season Top 25 schools and (2) would not have pursued a college degree if it weren't for their scholarship.

And for over 99% of Division I FBS college football players on scholarship, this projected value in excess of $2 million is far greater than what any of them INDIVIDUALLY generate in revenue for their school."

Why don't you just call this what it is? Since Texas has a ton of money and basically suck, you want the chance to buy your way to titles while destroying sports in the process. Typical Texas.
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
Bro no one has a right to football. The university takes all the risk. The players have no likeness without the university. They are offered a contract which Forbes values in worth in excess of 2 million dollars.

"Despite recent claims that college football players are "oppressed" and "undervalued" relative to the revenues they generate for their universities, I argue using "cost of attendance" and "projected earnings" data that the average "value" of a college football scholarship is in excess of $2 million for student-athletes who (1) play for one of the pre-season Top 25 schools and (2) would not have pursued a college degree if it weren't for their scholarship.

And for over 99% of Division I FBS college football players on scholarship, this projected value in excess of $2 million is far greater than what any of them INDIVIDUALLY generate in revenue for their school."

Why don't you just call this what it is? Since Texas has a ton of money and basically suck, you want the chance to buy your way to titles while destroying sports in the process. Typical Texas.
Click to expand...
Every person has the right to negotiate the compensation for their labor/talent/work free from monopolistic collusion. In EVERY and ANY profitable field.
What is wrong in your brain that you ignore this?
 
ELTEXAN said:
I’m going to take this as the outright joke it must have been meant to be. Good one.
Click to expand...
No, it is factual. Name one other internship that provides every single thing a person 18-23 year old needs.
 
wazzu31 said:
No, it is factual. Name one other internship that provides every single thing a person 18-23 year old needs.
Click to expand...
Name an internship where the ‘interns’ are doing the actual principal work. It’s literally the opposite of meaning of internship.
 
So eltexan started this thread to tell us how bad monopolies are.

Great Work Einstein!
 
ralphiewvu said:
So eltexan started this thread to tell us how bad monopolies are.

Great Work Einstein!
Click to expand...
Yes. And how the ncaa is one. You’re almost keeping up. I’m sure that’s an accomplishment for you. One day, you might just get the point.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yes. And how the ncaa is one. You’re almost keeping up. I’m sure that’s an accomplishment for you. One day, you might just get the point.
Click to expand...
The amount of pure stupidity you have spewed in this thread is simply amazing.

It’s not shocking though.

Thanks
 
ralphiewvu said:
The amount of pure stupidity you have spewed in this thread is simply amazing.

It’s not shocking though.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Notice the jack of any point being made or position argued. Par for the course.
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
Bro no one has a right to football. The university takes all the risk. The players have no likeness without the university. They are offered a contract which Forbes values in worth in excess of 2 million dollars.

"Despite recent claims that college football players are "oppressed" and "undervalued" relative to the revenues they generate for their universities, I argue using "cost of attendance" and "projected earnings" data that the average "value" of a college football scholarship is in excess of $2 million for student-athletes who (1) play for one of the pre-season Top 25 schools and (2) would not have pursued a college degree if it weren't for their scholarship.

And for over 99% of Division I FBS college football players on scholarship, this projected value in excess of $2 million is far greater than what any of them INDIVIDUALLY generate in revenue for their school."

Why don't you just call this what it is? Since Texas has a ton of money and basically suck, you want the chance to buy your way to titles while destroying sports in the process. Typical Texas.
Click to expand...
Most athletic departments were barely keeping their heads above water before 2020 and the COVID nightmare has really caused some serious financial strain, even in the more prominent universities. College athletics is a non-profit enterprise. There is no impetus for running it to pay dividends to shareholders, hence the primary focus is on receipts and the ability to cover expenses. If the business model was changed to directly compensate players, the expenses would go up without a commensurate increase in receipts and the first thing that would have to happen is there would be a move to contract the number of sports programs. The NCAA rules currently require Division 1 schools to sponsor at least six sports for men and eight for women. That's 14 sports with hundreds of athletes at every university. That problem alone is a headache very few university Presidents and AD's want to tackle, not to mention the feeding frenzy and sharp elbows that would be thrown among the athletes while dividing up the pie. Hard feelings, alumni antipathy and a renewed interest on the part of Congress to regulate college sports would ensue. It would be opening Pandora's box. But you can trust a few sciolists to support the idea.
 
Goldbug said:
Most athletic departments were barely keeping their heads above water before 2020 and the COVID nightmare has really caused some serious financial strain, even in the more prominent universities. College athletics is a non-profit enterprise. There is no impetus for running it to pay dividends to shareholders, hence the primary focus is on receipts and the ability to cover expenses. If the business model was changed to directly compensate players, the expenses would go up without a commensurate increase in receipts and the first thing that would have to happen is there would be a move to contract the number of sports programs. The NCAA rules currently require Division 1 schools to sponsor at least six sports for men and eight for women. That's 14 sports with hundreds of athletes at every university. That problem alone is a headache very few university Presidents and AD's want to tackle, not to mention the feeding frenzy and sharp elbows that would be thrown among the athletes while dividing up the pie. Hard feelings, alumni antipathy and a renewed interest on the part of Congress to regulate college sports would ensue. It would be opening Pandora's box. But you can trust a few sciolists to support the idea.
Click to expand...
Every multi billion dollar industry makes it work. Your feigning of ignorance that this particular field is unique and couldn’t make it work is derision worthy.
On top of that, whether it changes the institution or not, colluding to regulate the compensation of the principals is so unethical that it should be changed if that’s the consequence.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Notice the jack of any point being made or position argued. Par for the course.
Click to expand...
I notice you didn’t disagree with my statement. Glad you aren’t lying to yourself about that.
 
Goldbug said:
Most athletic departments were barely keeping their heads above water before 2020 and the COVID nightmare has really caused some serious financial strain, even in the more prominent universities. College athletics is a non-profit enterprise. There is no impetus for running it to pay dividends to shareholders, hence the primary focus is on receipts and the ability to cover expenses. If the business model was changed to directly compensate players, the expenses would go up without a commensurate increase in receipts and the first thing that would have to happen is there would be a move to contract the number of sports programs. The NCAA rules currently require Division 1 schools to sponsor at least six sports for men and eight for women. That's 14 sports with hundreds of athletes at every university. That problem alone is a headache very few university Presidents and AD's want to tackle, not to mention the feeding frenzy and sharp elbows that would be thrown among the athletes while dividing up the pie. Hard feelings, alumni antipathy and a renewed interest on the part of Congress to regulate college sports would ensue. It would be opening Pandora's box. But you can trust a few sciolists to support the idea.
Click to expand...
Money that would be paid to student athletes in a Name/Image /Likeness scenario would not come from the university.
 
Tomhusker said:
Money that would be paid to student athletes in a Name/Image /Likeness scenario would not come from the university.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem. I don't think too many people are necessarily against the idea of college athletes getting paid beyond what they already receive.

But for a few reasons (Title IX being one of the biggest), the money can't really come from the school.

Being able to profit from their own likeness should never have been against the rules, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top