Kirby gets a new contract

18in32 said:
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Or rather, it made sense to Marx and the Politburo, but it doesn't make sense to Americans.

How did you decide Kirby should get a $1,000,000 and the players $60,000 apiece? You picked those numbers because... why? They seem "fair"? We have a market that decides how much to pay people. And there are a heckuva lot of talented athletes happy to play at UGA for just the scholarship. Ain't nobody holding a gun to their heads to make them play.

People who think it's "unfair" for someone else to get paid less... rarely sacrifice their own money to make things "fair." That's the essence of liberalism: doing good deeds with somebody else's money. Who among us gives up a pay raise so that our deserving colleagues can get it instead?
Click to expand...
I have zero problem with Kirby making $7M. I just think the tax rate should be 100% for anything over, say, $2M in earned income.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
We may have a market somewhere out there trying to decide what to pay NCAA athletes, but it isn't functioning very well at all. The players don't get paid zero dollars because that's what the invisible hand has weighed for them, it's because the last time they got paid non-zero dollars, a regulatory actor intervened by destroying an entire football conference. The value of athlete services is clearly in the multi-million dollar range at the very top level of FBS, or Clemson and its competitors wouldn't be spending multi-millions "on" them by building private indoor water slides and offering a byzantine array of other expensive perks for being a top tier athlete.

I think we should allow that market to fully function and determine whether cash payments are appropriate, and/or what other form compensation should take, on its own. Then, when 98% of the players still get paid nothing except a scholarship, we can yell at the socialists who are still trying to make things fair. There's nothing politburo about that.
Click to expand...
What you're suggesting ain't politburo — but you're suggesting something totally different than the previous poster, who was proposing a centrally-planned response to coaching compensation.

The NCAA is obviously not a free market, but it is a market. And just as, for various policy reasons, regular employees are compensated not just with cash but with vacation time, health insurance, nicer desks, etc., the market for college players rewards them in various ways for their desirability — use of waters slides, private tutors, special lounges, not to mention free tuition, great food, medical care, etc. They have a much nicer college experience than the average student.

And (as everyone around here complains about all the time) the more-in-demand players get the benefit of better and nicer services, because Clemson offers more than App St does. This is why we're redoing our locker room: to increase 'compensation' to our players (or, in NCAA lingo, to aid recruiting).

The point of my previous post is that there's nothing unfair or arbitrary about this system — players flock to it, crave it, campaign for it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who rush to subject themselves to a claimed injustice.

All that said, we do disagree about whether or not paying players cash is a good idea. But defending the concept of amateurism is outside the scope of this thread, I hope.
 
Last edited:
smokey_wasp said:
Eh. The problem with your analysis is that the players aren't part of the free market. Actually, they are barred from entering the free market and forced into an artficial, managed economy. It's pretty darn socialist, too. Guys who never see the field make the same as blue chip, future NFL first rounders.

I dunno if paying college players is the answer. Ideally, there should be true minor league professional football for guys who have no interest in a college education. This is probably a less likely outcome than just paying players, though. College ball is just too big.
Click to expand...
I never meant to suggest that the NCAA is a free market — but it is a market, and it works just fine already. We shouldn't take very seriously the claims of injustice made by people who fight hard for the chance to be subjected to that injustice.
 
I heard Bernie Sanders is going to be on the NCAA Committee on Fairness and Fairies. Early word is that he is going to redistribute players around so all teams get equal 5 and 4 star players. I then heard through my sources on the Flats that CPJ thinks that’s absurd and has called Condy Rice that he doesn’t need 5 and 4 star talent to make his system work. So GT will not be taking part. Shits getting weird guys.
 
18in32 said:
What you're suggesting ain't politburo — but you're suggesting something totally different than the previous poster, who was proposing a centrally-planned response to coaching compensation.

The NCAA is obviously not a free market, but it is a market. And just as, for various policy reasons, regular employees are compensated not just with cash but with vacation time, health insurance, nicer desks, etc., the market for college players rewards them in various ways for their desirability — use of waters slides, private tutors, special lounges, not to mention free tuition, great food, medical care, etc. They have a much nicer college experience than the average student.

And (as everyone around here complains about all the time) the more-in-demand players get the benefit of better and nicer services, because Clemson offers more than App St does. This is why we're redoing our locker room: to increase 'compensation' to our players (or, in NCAA lingo, to aid recruiting).

The point of my previous post is that there's nothing unfair or arbitrary about this system — players flock to it, crave it, campaign for it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who rush to subject themselves to a claimed injustice.

All that said, we do disagree about whether or not paying players cash is a good idea. But defending the concept of amateurism is outside the scope of this thread, I hope.
Click to expand...

Defending the concept may be outside it, but what about determining whether we are still within the spirit of it? I know nobody gets "paid" but for lots of players they are highly "compensated" and spend the majority of their time and energy training for it, like professionals. I'd sure like college football to be a game of amateurs but... Is it really?
 
Buzzman72 said:
“Eh. The problem with your analysis is that the players aren't part of the free market. Actually, they are barred from entering the free market and forced into an artficial, managed economy. It's pretty darn socialist, too. Guys who never see the field make the same as blue chip, future NFL first rounders.

I dunno if paying college players is the answer. Ideally, there should be true minor league professional football for guys who have no interest in a college education. This is probably a less likely outcome than just paying players, though. College ball is just too big.”

—-> XFL could be that market... NO? Just a thought, why go to college when you could jump from High School to the XFL league and get paid for you service without the hassle of “schoolwork”? If you are great the NFL will come knocking on your door and try to sway you with a possible big pay day. Free market rules! Just my 2 cents though
Click to expand...

I have doubts about whether the XFL will ever play a down. McMahon seems ill prepared this go around. The Alliance of American Football may have a chance if they can draft players right out of high school, but its more likely they will go for big name NFL washouts like Tebow, or 2nd tier college players.
 
Last edited:
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Defending the concept may be outside it, but what about determining whether we are still within the spirit of it? I know nobody gets "paid" but for lots of players they are highly "compensated" and spend the majority of their time and energy training for it, like professionals. I'd sure like college football to be a game of amateurs but... Is it really?
Click to expand...
I think the idea of amateurism is beautiful and worth saving. The only other alternative, IMHO, is the NFL or variants of it. And to be honest, I don't get a lot of joy watching players play for money. In fact, much of what I don't like about the pro game is the result of its commercialism (eg, protect the QB so we can have more downfield passing). But it goes far beyond play-calling — it's a question of attitude, purpose, outlook, etc. The pro game is missing the Roddy Joneses and the Justin Thomases — players who do what they love, not what is most remunerative.

So where we are now in the NCAA is the result of trying to preserve that spirit, while also dealing with the reality that these players create hugely entertaining moments that millions are passionate about — ie, there's a huge economic demand for their skills. If we allow the economic incentive to dominate, we'll lose the spirit that makes amateur athletics so much more fun. How do we balance these elements?

I think the NCAA's current rules are actually pretty good. Players — roughly 95% of whom will not even get drafted, much less retained, much less make a career out of playing football professionally — get a free education and meals and lodging, they get treated really well, they learn important life skills, they get cool water slides, etc. The players that do contribute disproportionately to a team's success... are also the players that are more likely to get drafted. So those players get the benefit of the collegiate system for the free exposure and training they need to make an impression on GM's and scouts. They get the benefit of TV contracts, press conferences, fanbases, institutional loyalty, etc. — none of which they did anything to create.

In short, players graduate from HS and step into a ready-made world that (a) for those that have an arguable chance at the NFL, provides them with the training, experience, promotion, etc., that they need have a chance, and that (b) for those that don't have an arguable chance at the NFL, provides them with free room, board, education, tutoring, job skills, water slides, etc. That strikes me as a good deal for everyone involved, especially since it is very difficult to tell at the time of matriculation whether a player falls into one category or the other (one of meany reasons why it would be difficult if not impossible to pull the hopeful pros out of the bulk of true amateurs to start a professional minor league).

And most importantly, it is all freely chosen, both by the schools and by the players.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarification, the thing at Clemson was a gravity slide from one floor to another, not a ööööing water slide (which would need pumps, chlorination).

I think it's idiotic that Kirby Smart gets paid 7M a year to coach a bunch of half-literate morons to move a ball down a field. I think I get the essence of college football; it is a team to get behind, an identity. Hell, it's fun to tailgate and to watch (usually). But to pay some asshole a salary that someone on the lighter end of the Fortune 500 would make?

I don't really want to get into an economics argument over it and I will stipulate that a lot of this has to do with ESPN/SEC Network. Only very few schools can afford this type of nonsense and eventually the sport is going to collapse onto itself because it will just be the same teams, doing the same thing. I doubt UGA will be one of them since they always öööö things up but my point still stands.

The "free market" is also rigged. Let's not act like we live in a fantasy world. Did the "free market" bring the Braves to Cobb? How does the "free market" work with respect to defense contractors? There are scores of corporate types in the defense industry who should be behind bars or just outright executed. I would be in favor of dropping them off around the middle of Aleppo wrapped in an American flag and let them fend for themselves.
 
There is no such thing as a "free market"

That's more like a slogan than an actual thing

#protip
 
I respect both sides of this argument. I am a free marketer but college football is not a free market system. I too prefer that we get a minor league system to let those who would otherwise have no interest in a college education go ahead and get paid and save the college game for the true amateurs. But you don't replace one bad system with another which is what a mandated pay system would be. Oh sure college football would lose a lot of interest it has today. Who cares.
 
Last edited:
18in32 said:
I think the idea of amateurism is beautiful and worth saving. The only other alternative, IMHO, is the NFL or variants of it. And to be honest, I don't get a lot of joy watching players play for money. In fact, much of what I don't like about the pro game is the result of its commercialism (eg, protect the QB so we can have more downfield passing). But it goes far beyond play-calling — it's a question of attitude, purpose, outlook, etc. The pro game is missing the Roddy Joneses and the Justin Thomases — players who do what they love, not what is most remunerative.

So where we are now in the NCAA is the result of trying to preserve that spirit, while also dealing with the reality that these players create hugely entertaining moments that millions are passionate about — ie, there's a huge economic demand for their skills. If we allow the economic incentive to dominate, we'll lose the spirit that makes amateur athletics so much more fun. How do we balance these elements?

I think the NCAA's current rules are actually pretty good. Players — roughly 95% of whom will not even get drafted, much less retained, much less make a career out of playing football professionally — get a free education and meals and lodging, they get treated really well, they learn important life skills, they get cool water slides, etc. The players that do contribute disproportionately to a team's success... are also the players that are more likely to get drafted. So those players get the benefit of the collegiate system for the free exposure and training they need to make an impression on GM's and scouts. They get the benefit of TV contracts, press conferences, fanbases, institutional loyalty, etc. — none of which they did anything to create.

In short, players graduate from HS and step into a ready-made world that (a) for those that have an arguable chance at the NFL, provides them with the training, experience, promotion, etc., that they need have a chance, and that (b) for those that don't have an arguable chance at the NFL, provides them with free room, board, education, tutoring, job skills, water slides, etc. That strikes me as a good deal for everyone involved, especially since it is very difficult to tell at the time of matriculation whether a player falls into one category or the other (one of meany reasons why it would be difficult if not impossible to pull the hopeful pros out of the bulk of true amateurs to start a professional minor league).

And most importantly, it is all freely chosen, both by the schools and by the players.
Click to expand...

I was witchya, right up until "it is all freely chosen". I admit that Georgia Tech's lot in football life is somewhat chosen, i.e., we, as an organization, have chosen to avoid the major corruption of our core principles, such as academic integrity just to have a better athletics. But I don't think we freely chose a lot of the curriculum restrictions that the state has capriciously decided for us. I don't think we freely choose that our competition plays fast and loose with the entire concept of the student-athlete and amateurism in general. I don't feel we freely choose not to offer recruits thousands of dollars to attend our school--economic realities play some role in that. I agree with you that most of the players, that are frequently labeled as "exploited" by the present system, genuinely exhibit the attitude of "please don't throw me into that briar patch". And it doesn't seem to differ much from the kids that are hoping to be signed by Michigan and Auburn, to the ones hoping for a scholarship to Georgia Tech or Rice. They all seem to want a shot.
 
Yukonwreck said:
I was witchya, right up until "it is all freely chosen."
Click to expand...
What I mean is that GT chooses to play football, but doesn't have to. And GT's student-athletes choose to play football, but don't have to.
 
ITT posters go full socialist on tax rates, weigh in with strong economic opinions while "not wanting to get into an economics argument", and equate Georgia Tech's football standing with Rice.

88% maximum StingTalk achieved
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I respect both sides of this argument. I am a free marketer but college football is not a free market system. I too prefer that we get a minor league system to keep those who would otherwise have no interest in a college education go ahead and get paid and save the college game for the true amateurs. But you don't replace one bad system with another which is what a mandated pay system would be. Oh sure college football would lose a lot of interest it has today. Who cares.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty reasonable take. A true pay to play would probably nessecitate a split in FBS, and we probably wouldn't be with the blue bloods in that scenario. Its hard to see how such a landscape would look, and how it would work out in the long run. I do think the NCAA could use some competition when it comes to the services of talented high school players. 18in32's eloquent defense of the current system notwithstanding, I think there are some real problems with competitive balance, bag men, sham classes, etc. Good discussion. How come nobody's been called a queer yet? Thats right....
 
Last edited:
I haven't wanted to get into this one because it's one of those arguments where all the answers suck--at least from my perspective. Because on the one hand, I do think the current system is unfair to athletes. Free education, sure, tiny little chance at the NFL, but something ain't right when the QB can't sell his jersey or a signed autograph BUT his girlfriend can sell t-shirts with his name on them. Sleazeballs get autographs, then go sell them on eBay. But the player loses eligibility for profiting from his own name. Yet, given this, if you change it, we all know the game we love will be screwed up beyond recognition. This is why I hate the entire subject. I never played the NCAA video game--my son did--but that game went away because of issues of use of player identities. Everyone loses.
 
Diseqc said:
7 years at $7mil per. Holy öööö. That’s retarded.
Click to expand...

That's Georgia for you.
If those inbred knuckle-dragging retarts want to cough up $7M a year to pay a coach they're going to fire in five years, all they've done is set the market artificially high for the next guy who won't end their national championship drought. Cheers, bitches.
 
BuckNasty said:
Just for clarification, the thing at Clemson was a gravity slide from one floor to another, not a ööööing water slide (which would need pumps, chlorination).

I think it's idiotic that Kirby Smart gets paid 7M a year to coach a bunch of half-literate morons to move a ball down a field. I think I get the essence of college football; it is a team to get behind, an identity. Hell, it's fun to tailgate and to watch (usually). But to pay some asshole a salary that someone on the lighter end of the Fortune 500 would make?

I don't really want to get into an economics argument over it and I will stipulate that a lot of this has to do with ESPN/SEC Network. Only very few schools can afford this type of nonsense and eventually the sport is going to collapse onto itself because it will just be the same teams, doing the same thing. I doubt UGA will be one of them since they always öööö things up but my point still stands.

The "free market" is also rigged. Let's not act like we live in a fantasy world. Did the "free market" bring the Braves to Cobb? How does the "free market" work with respect to defense contractors? There are scores of corporate types in the defense industry who should be behind bars or just outright executed. I would be in favor of dropping them off around the middle of Aleppo wrapped in an American flag and let them fend for themselves.
Click to expand...
In the CRC there is a water slide I was told yesterday of and shown a picture of by the father of a GT baseball recruit I know.
 
Is t there a water slide left over from the olympics?

10 Meter Waterslide event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top