AJ Green apologists

GiveEmHellJackets said:
^^^^ So then why is this abusive and horrible practice of granting scholarships to student athletes still in place?
Click to expand...

What happened to your "it's not a monopoly" argument and your "good luck in court" challenge? Anyone with even half a testicle would at this point say something like, "Gee, my bad, I guess it is a monopoly."

With all these *awesome* decisions, why are you still calling for change?
Click to expand...

These decisions are relevant to showing how stupid your "not a monopoly" arguments are. They were won or settled on the basis for which they were filed.

I'm calling for change because I think the improvements in benefits due to these legal challenges do not go far enough. That's my opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter, of course, since this is none of your business.

Before you launch into fabrications or strawmen again, I'm not advocating lawsuits or government intervention or UN peacekeepers - I would like to see the NCAA do the right thing for the players.

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.
Click to expand...

Since you are too lazy to read them you'll never know.

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!)
Click to expand...

I never called for any such things - you made it up.

I brought up these legal decisions to show how retarded your "not a monopoly" and "good luck in court" arguments were. Man up.
 
mm42 said:
No, they can't. It's against NCAA rules.

How did you decide that the status quo is the exactly right amount of compensation for college football players? Just give me the rationale for that, and skip the whining about your internship.
Click to expand...

12.4.1 Criteria governing Compensation to student-Athletes. Compensation may be paid to a
student-athlete: (Revised: 11/22/04)
(a) Only for work actually performed; and
(b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services.
12.4.1.1 Athletics Reputation. Such compensation may not include any remuneration for value or utility
that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal follow-
ing that he or she has obtained because of athletics ability.

So... No. You're wrong. Try doing a little research before you run your mouth. He wants a little spending money. Hop on down and get a job doing whatever. He's allowed to, just don't expect to get paid 1K for wiping a table down.

Who are you to say these athletes are above the status quo? Show me the rationale for paying a student athlete who already gets hundreds of thousands in benefits from being a student athlete. What makes them better than any student at school? He's already getting a free education and opportunity that he probably wouldn't get otherwise.

And when was I whining? I knew what I was getting into, JUST LIKE THESE FOOTBALL PLAYERS. I knew that i would work my ass off for the opportunity to finish, JUST LIKE THESE FOOTBALL PLAYERS. JUST LIKE ANY INTERNSHIP. This happens every day in every major corporation that makes millions if not billions more than a college athletic department. 98% of SAs will never smell a professional contract. Who do we pay smartguy? The track athlete who busts his ass to run the 100m in front of a crowd of a 100? The 5 star FR RB whose has never shown a thing?? What makes any of these guys better than the rest of the students at school that they should get paid for being there in addition to their scholarship?
 
To mm42's last post:

Man up? Wtf does that mean? Like, should I punch you or something?

You are all over the place. You say it's not about focrcing them to change, but then you start talking about monopolies, which are about *nothing else* but gov't regulation i.e. forcing change. Furthermore, the cases you are talking about do not control this issue, as evidenced by the fact that those decisions are final, yet still do not mandate a change from the status quo. You still have not responded to this very simple statement, which is the essence of my position:

People are free to become NCAA athletes (if offered the chance) or to NOT become NCAA athletes. If the offer to be an NCAA athlete and its terms are deemed insufficient by the offerree, the remedy is rejection. There is no reasonable analogue between this and taxes, consumer protection, or any of your other BS red herrings.

I knew I had won this debate when you and the other guy started talking about judicial/admin decisions from the 80s as if they were determinative. Obviously they are not because this is 2010 and my position favors the status quo.

I must get back to my dictionary.
 
GTSurgery said:
So... No. You're wrong. Try doing a little research before you run your mouth.
Click to expand...

Already stated elsewhere, but I was wrong here. My information was more than 10 years out of date.

Who are you to say these athletes are above the status quo? Show me the rationale for paying a student athlete who already gets hundreds of thousands in benefits from being a student athlete.
Click to expand...

Economists have made the argument for much larger amounts of compensation than I'm suggesting. Ideally compensation is set by the free market, but since we have a monopsony in place here, the compensation is set arbitrarily and generally in a monopsony it's arbitrarily low.

See Leonard and Prinzinger, "An Investigation into the Monopsonistic Market Structure of Division One NCAA Football and Its Effect on College Football Players"
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
Man up? Wtf does that mean? Like, should I punch you or something?
Click to expand...

It means - admit you were totally wrong about the NCAA's monopoly status.

You are all over the place. You say it's not about focrcing them to change, but then you start talking about monopolies, which are about *nothing else* but gov't regulation i.e. forcing change.
Click to expand...
A monopoly (or more precisely in this case, monopsony) is an economic structure. We can talk about the implications of that economic structure without going anywhere near government regulation and forced change. I'm not "all over the place", you are just leaping to conclusions for your own silly purposes.

You denied it was a monopoly situation, and I provided proof that the courts think otherwise. You seem incapable of accepting that result, however.

Furthermore, the cases you are talking about do not control this issue, as evidenced by the fact that those decisions are final, yet still do not mandate a change from the status quo.
Click to expand...
That is 100% incorrect, just like your "not a monopoly" argument. Each case involved a change from the status quo. Law v. NCAA resulted in a lifting of restrictions on pay for certain assistant coaches. That's a change from the status quo. The second case added benefits for telephone calls, travel expenses, etc. to existing scholarships and retroactively to previous scholarships. That's a change from the status quo.

Now, we sit at the new status quo. I'm in favor of budging it further towards player benefits. This is, of course, none of your business.

People are free to become NCAA athletes (if offered the chance) or to NOT become NCAA athletes. If the offer to be an NCAA athlete and its terms are deemed insufficient by the offerree, the remedy is rejection.
Click to expand...
That is a remedy. Your notion that it's the only remedy is merely the false dichotomy of a lazy mind.

I knew I had won this debate when you and the other guy started talking about judicial/admin decisions from the 80s as if they were determinative.
Click to expand...
I haven't quoted any cases from the 80's, I quoted a case from 1998 and a case from 2008.
 
Ok. So how much do we pay Nesbitt? Then how much do we pay Bedford? He was a walk on. CPJ GAVE him the opportunity to be on the team? Do we pay the 5 star recruits more than the walk on 5th year senior if both are starting? If they're getting paid, shouldn't they then pay for their own tuition, room, board, books, meals?

From the athletes perspective, let's say the NFL came up with a minor league? What happens to these guys when they wash out after one two years? Now they have nothing to fall back on except to keep trying to find a job playing football. Look at Maurice Clarrett (sp?).
 
I find the whole thing disgusting. The NCAA has every right to govern itself as it sees fit. But, that college Presidents would practice such hypocrisy is embarrassing. I think rule breaking is widespread, but that the good old boys club at the NCAA has always favored its insiders over outsiders.

Frankly, I would just as soon let free market forces come into play and players go to the highest bidder. All of the cries against such a thing are simply arguments for preserving the status quo - we want entertainment, we want some sort of level playing field because many want to wager, and we want the profit that accrues from our beloved game to go to coaches, AD's, bigger athletic department bureaucracies, better venues and perks for fans and not to the players themselves.

Once athletics is not for the purpose of extra curricular activity for the students and instead is a means of generating revenue due to entertainment value, any claims of true amateurism are out the window. The rules of the NCAA are precisely in place to limit the labor cost for the institutions. It is not immoral for a college student to sell something they have to make money (a jersey), to develop relationships with someone that may help their career (an agent), or to take money from someone who is not asking them to do something harmful (booster benefit), or for a prospective athlete to talk with an alum of the school about going to play for that school (improper alumni contact), or for coaches or boosters to pay for a kid to visit family, sometimes for a funeral or because of an illness. None of these things are illegal for regular students, only for athletes. Why are they illegal for NCAA athletes? Because college Presidents can not trust themselves not to overspend for the services of great athletes, so they set up rules to police themselves and keep labor costs low. When one of the insiders messes up they are far more forgiving than when an outsider (SMU football, UNLV basketball) runs afoul of their rules.

I would love to see signing day include the "package" the recruits received and for the athletes to get paid. I know that will not happen.
 
Again to mm42:

One of these *awesome* cases you cite has to do with coaches' earnings.

Wait, what? Yes that's right:

Coaches' earnings.

What do scholarships have to do with coaches' earnings? Okay, that BS is out the window from the getgo, and the fact that you attempted to apply this case to the present debate indicates weakness in your position. Oh, and if I was being an asshole, I would say that it proves you have a "lazy mind."

Your other great case is about "unmet educational expenses" and comes nowhere close to any suggestion that antitrust provisions will mandate that players should receive a salary, or be given extra spending money, or enjoy any earnings based upon revenues generated by things like jersey sales, or frankly anything else discussed in this thread. Furthermore, the gist of the settlement is that the NCAA will take money away from certain programs and projects that benefit student athletes (dorms, academic facilities, other assistance to low-income students) and istead earmark it for other educational (not recreational or discretionary) expenses of certain other student athletes. This is hardly a great victory in the name of equity and fairness, as it actually takes money away from needy students, and it says nothing about, say, whether AJ Green can get a thousand bucks from an agent. It's about moving money from one set of students to another, and shaving off a nice chunk for lawyers.

But yeah, I have a lazy mind and you are on top of things.
 
This is like a train wreck, a comical one where both conductors have been warned, and can clearly see the other train. Perhaps they are each adamant that the other is at fault. Perhaps they cannot see past the combination of their giant mustachios and large hats enough to judge the distance. We'll never know anything except that two trains rammed into eachother like gay cowboys, leaving an emotional mess and a career in shambles. Among the sad, sad casualties was this thread. May it rest in peace.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
This is like a train wreck, a comical one where both conductors have been warned, and can clearly see the other train. Perhaps they are each adamant that the other is at fault. Perhaps they cannot see past the combination of their giant mustachios and large hats enough to judge the distance. We'll never know anything except that two trains rammed into eachother like gay cowboys, leaving an emotional mess and a career in shambles. Among the sad, sad casualties was this thread. May it rest in peace.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would seriously consider refraining from opening the thread again. :)
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
I guess you like the trainwreck? Yeah, me too. I guess that's why anybody reads threads like this. The really ****ed up part is that mm42 is one of my favorite posters :laugher:.
Click to expand...

Spectacle, it's what made PT Barnum famous. I cannot deny it my nickel.
 
Why is this thread still going. This one of the dumbest threads about nothing I think I have seen on this board. The guy broke a freaking rule he got punished go on. We move on.

/thread.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
One of these *awesome* cases you cite has to do with coaches' earnings.

Wait, what? Yes that's right:

Coaches' earnings.
Click to expand...

That case was cited to refute your absurd notion that the NCAA is not a monopoly and could not be found so by the courts.

The case clearly refutes your stupid point, but you keep trying to spin doctor it rather than admit it.

Your other great case is about "unmet educational expenses" and comes nowhere close to any suggestion that antitrust provisions will mandate ...
Click to expand...
The case was cited to refute your absurd notion that the NCAA is not a monopoly and could not be found so by the courts.

The case never went to court, but when the defendant settles out of court for >$200M, one tends to think they had a weak case.
 
GTSurgery said:
From the athletes perspective, let's say the NFL came up with a minor league? What happens to these guys when they wash out after one two years? Now they have nothing to fall back on except to keep trying to find a job playing football. Look at Maurice Clarrett (sp?).
Click to expand...

Surgery, same thing applies to minor league baseball players as well. If they wash up, then they have nothing to fall back on either. So baseball players at high school go either a)college for 3 years, or b) minor league ball.

However, in football's instance, NFL does not need to create a minor league -- it already has one in place that it has to pay NOTHING for. And the NCAA does not want a minor league football either -- TV contracts would significantly diminish, imo, if the studs of football went into pros directly.

Personally though, I wish all sports had a pro minor league -- that way the people in the college sports are truly there for the academics as well as the sports.
 
BuzzMD said:
Surgery, same thing applies to minor league baseball players as well. If they wash up, then they have nothing to fall back on either. So baseball players at high school go either a)college for 3 years, or b) minor league ball.

However, in football's instance, NFL does not need to create a minor league -- it already has one in place that it has to pay NOTHING for. And the NCAA does not want a minor league football either -- TV contracts would significantly diminish, imo, if the studs of football went into pros directly.

Personally though, I wish all sports had a pro minor league -- that way the people in the college sports are truly there for the academics as well as the sports.
Click to expand...

This is the core issue. Colleges don't have this problem in baseball, because the player who doesn't want to ride a dirty school bus everywhere he plays, and sleep in 3rd rate motels strewn across backwoods America, will opt for 3 years of college ball with all the perks it offers. They have a choice. If he's really not college material, he can take the minor league route, nasty though it may be at times, and make good.

The college football player doesn't. If he isn't college material, he still has to find a college that will enter into this clandestine cat and mouse game with him to keep him eligible long enough to make his mark and jump.

It really isn't a monopoly in the strictest sense, since there are choices for him - Euro or Canadian Leagues, or just working out and waiting. However, it isn;t really a monopsony either, as there is not really one buyer. There is a lot of competition for those 25 LOI's a college team can offer. It is a rather unique symbiotic economic model that you only see really in American college athletics.
 
stinger78 said:
However, it isn;t really a monopsony either, as there is not really one buyer. There is a lot of competition for those 25 LOI's a college team can offer.
Click to expand...

There is no competition based on compensation (not officially, anyway), and since the NCAA sets the allowable compensation and the allowable number of openings it is a textbook monopsony, viewing the NCAA as the one buyer.
 
mm42 said:
There is no competition based on compensation (not officially, anyway), and since the NCAA sets the allowable compensation and the allowable number of openings it is a textbook monopsony, viewing the NCAA as the one buyer.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, you're viewing the NCAA as the single buyer. My bad. I'll have to think about that. That would set the NCAA as the "employer" of all college athletes. Hardly textbook, as I think you'd have hundreds of AD's and college presidents disagree to some extent. But I see how you could view it in that way.

And your "official" qualifier is the fly in the ointment. There is variable "pay" per school if you consider things like facility use, exposure, and booster "bonuses."
 
andrew said:
I have no idea, but you're clearly way underselling the amount of revenue that football generates. TV is the goose that lays the golden egg and you didn't even consider it in your original estimation.
Click to expand...

And you're not taking into account that some of that revenue is not due to the players, its to the build up of the brand over time.

If you don't want to take a stab at the numbers, stop arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top