AJ Green apologists

GiveEmHellJackets said:
Oh okay, I'll butt out so you can resume this enlightened discussion with one of the other people here calling you a moron. :laugher:
Click to expand...

I don't recall being called a moron, but usually the name callers are the ones losing an argument. One always must consider the source.
 
mm42 said:
I don't recall being called a moron, but usually the name callers are the ones losing an argument. One always must consider the source.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call this an "argument" since you refuse to actually respond to anything I say.

Butting out now.
 
andrew said:
Yeah, I feel for the players. This is inevitably going to turn into another "pay the players" discussion, but I completely agree with TechSBP.
Click to expand...

:ugh:
 
texstinger said:
You can buy a jersy that belongs to a university that just happens to have an S/As number on it.

Universities "getting rich" off this stuff? Where do people think the money to support women's sports and other non revenue sports comes from? Not ticket sales.

The asshole lied, and broke the rules and he knew it.
Click to expand...


Learn to read. I said he lied, broke the rules, etc. Way to completely mis-characterize what I said.

And yes, universities do "get rich" off it. They choose to spend the money on exactly what you said.
 
TechSBP said:
That has nothing to do with whether something is a monopoly.
Click to expand...

"Whether something is a monopoly" has nothing to do with regulation of NCAA athletics policy. Do you understand what "monopoly" means from a business regulation standpoint? Or are you just talking about Boardwalk and Park Place?

Keep spouting off econ textbook principles. Pay no attention to the facts.
 
lonestarjacket said:
In college? You think your analogy illustrates your point in the absurdity of not paying someone who is making money for you, but you have actually made the opposite point.

It is quite common to have unpaid internships in several fields. The students do it because they get "paid" in experience that they can parlay into future jobs.

Coconuts is extreme, but I had several friends who worked internships for nothing but flight vouchers. And a significant number of us took free internships in our field rather than taking paid jobs that were unrelated to our chosen career.

There is a simple way for college athletes to change the system. Stop playing unless you get paid. The reason that won't happen is there is always someone waiting to take your place for free. And the school won't make any less money with that replacement than they would have with you.

They play because it is worth it to them. Some play for the simple experience, knowing they will never play professionally. Others play because they want the experience and coaching to prepare them to go to the next level. Other play for the free publicity and marketing they get to show their talents. And finally actually do play because it is the only way they have to pay for school.

But they all play because it benefits them in some way. And they all make the personal decision whether it is worth it or not.
Click to expand...

Fine. But that clearly puts some onus on the universities to handle themselves better. Let's run through what they could do to make it like an unpaid internship:

1) Schools, including Georgia Tech, should start graduating more of their players. Right now, the graduation rate, including that at Tech (especially in men's basketball) is an awful, embarrassing joke, which completely undermines any legitimacy to the "this is about education arguments."

2) Stop playing so many games. If this is really about amateur athletics and not about money for the school to redistribute to everywhere else (for example, non-revenue coaching salaries have doubled at both Tech and U[sic]Ga in the past 8 years) then play a more limited schedule to help fix #1.

3) Merchandise the school, but not the players. If this sport is really about the school, and school spirit, then don't use the players names, etc., to sell stuff.

4) Clean up the bowl system and eliminate talk of extra games through a playoff.

If, as in your example, football is all about experience playing football---then get out of the academic business and treat it like a professional league.

None of those things will happen, because the incentives in college football are now completely inconsistent with university missions.

I love college football, but its has crossed over into professional sports. Either act like you are professional sport and stop paying lip service to academic values, or man up and act like you have values. **** or get off the pot. I hope we go the values route, but I'd rather us go one way or the other because what we are doing now dilutes the purpose and core mission of almost every university.
 
andrew said:
Where does the revenue go? The common saying is "greedy administrators and NCAA people", but that's not true. It's really going to the athletes on all the non-revenue generating sports teams. Tennis players, baseball players, etc., are all getting paid (since we are counting scholarships, etc. as "paid") for the work football players do.
Click to expand...

Both are correct.

"In 2006, salaries for coaches and administrators accounted for nearly 32% of total athletic-department expenses."
Click to expand...

From:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751289953291279.html
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
"Whether something is a monopoly" has nothing to do with regulation of NCAA athletics policy. Do you understand what "monopoly" means from a business regulation standpoint? Or are you just talking about Boardwalk and Park Place?

Keep spouting off econ textbook principles. Pay no attention to the facts.
Click to expand...

Well, I've published law review article on the interaction between regulations (both public and private) and creating monopolies. So I guess you could call that "textbook" principles.

Look, this discussion about athlete pay really isn't getting anywhere. I'm not as hard and fast as it seems in this discussion and I doubt most informed people are either. This isn't a black or white issue, and anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand the issue. I'm busy for the next few days so, I'm signing off.

The only hard and fast rule here, is AJ Green did wrong, which really isn't surprising given the way they run things over in AThens.
 
I challenge any and all concerned persons to file a lawsuit or administrative complaint against the NCAA and member universities and/or the NFL on grounds that their *horrible* practice of offering scholarships and other benefits to student athletes amounts to an unlawful *monopoly* pursuant to the relevant written policies of the United States. Best of luck.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
I challenge any and all concerned persons to file a lawsuit or administrative complaint against the NCAA and member universities and/or the NFL on grounds that their *horrible* practice of offering scholarships and other benefits to student athletes amounts to an unlawful *monopoly* pursuant to the relevant written policies of the United States. Best of luck.
Click to expand...


Ironically, Vince Dooley pretty much did that back in the 80's and won. It concerned TV broadcast of games, but the underlying factual findings are already in place.

In this case, however, a Court's ability to fashion a remedy might be severely taxed (this is not legal advice).
 
TechSBP said:
Ironically, Vince Dooley pretty much did that back in the 80's and won. It concerned TV broadcast of games, but the underlying factual findings are already in place.
Click to expand...

Oh okay, great. So you have this awesome ruling that has been in place since the 80s that says you're right and I'm wrong? Then why are we talking about this? Someone go enforce the ruling! I'll be here, with my dictionary.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
I challenge any and all concerned persons to file a lawsuit or administrative complaint against the NCAA and member universities and/or the NFL on grounds that their *horrible* practice of offering scholarships and other benefits to student athletes amounts to an unlawful *monopoly* pursuant to the relevant written policies of the United States. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

They've already been found guilty of violating antitrust acts in court (Law v. NCAA) and also settled out of court to avoid similar judgments.

Link:
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]JURY ORDERS NCAA TO PAY $67 MILLION IN DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT AND CLAYTON ACT BY RESTRICTING THE EARNINGS OF COACHES.[/FONT]

As a result of this case, the NCAA was forced to lift limits on assistant coach pay.

Link:
NCAA Agrees to Pay $228 Million to Settle Class Action Antitrust Lawsuit Filed by Former Student-Athletes

As a result of this case, additional benefits were added to the compensation of current and former players.
 
^^^^ So then why is this abusive and horrible practice of granting scholarships to student athletes still in place? With all these *awesome* decisions, why are you still calling for change? Gosh, I'm tempted to think that there are massive and critical distinctions between these clumsy case summaries you have posted and the debate in this thread.

By the way mm42, I thought you said that my suggestion that you were calling for gov't-forced change of NCAA policy was something I pulled out of my "orifice." Yet here you are talking law and courts and so forth. So what is it? Forced change or not? Make up your mind. I'll check my orifice for foreign objects. (Settle down ArchiTECH!)

Back to my dictionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top