NCAA is socialist, etc...

CougarClaw wrote:
What I find hard to believe is that there are so many un-ethical football families willing to take money, knowing it's against the law and not one questioning where that money is coming from.



Is society that corrupt already?

First, taking money to play football is not against the law. I personally would respect Cam Newton and the rest of the players for Auburn, Auburn University and, if this really is pervasive throughout the SEC, then everyone involved for paying these young men at least of part of the value they provide.



The problem is not people who want to pay or players that want to be paid. The problem is the bunch of communists in the NCAA, a quasi-government institution trying to benefit themselves at the expense of poor young African-American men. I would wager 90% of posters here would say they are in favor of a free market, yet when it comes to college athletics their morals fly out the window and they are ready to side with a bunch of academics and coaches from the Big10 and PAC10 who are undoubtedly socialists and communists.

jvquarterback wrote:

What I find hard to believe is that there are so many un-ethical football families willing to take money, knowing it's against the law and not one questioning where that money is coming from.



Is society that corrupt already?

First, taking money to play football is not against the law. I personally would respect Cam Newton and the rest of the players for Auburn, Auburn University and, if this really is pervasive throughout the SEC, then everyone involved for paying these young men at least of part of the value they provide.



The problem is not people who want to pay or players that want to be paid. The problem is the bunch of communists in the NCAA, a quasi-government institution trying to benefit themselves at the expense of poor young African-American men. I would wager 90% of posters here would say they are in favor of a free market, yet when it comes to college athletics their morals fly out the window and they are ready to side with a bunch of academics and coaches from the Big10 and PAC10 who are undoubtedly socialists and communists.



Please explain your hypocritical positions.

Wow. I literally have no response for this.

byutx wrote:

CougarClaw wrote:
What I find hard to believe is that there are so many un-ethical football families willing to take money, knowing it's against the law and not one questioning where that money is coming from.



Is society that corrupt already?

First, taking money to play football is not against the law. I personally would respect Cam Newton and the rest of the players for Auburn, Auburn University and, if this really is pervasive throughout the SEC, then everyone involved for paying these young men at least of part of the value they provide.



The problem is not people who want to pay or players that want to be paid. The problem is the bunch of communists in the NCAA, a quasi-government institution trying to benefit themselves at the expense of poor young African-American men. I would wager 90% of posters here would say they are in favor of a free market, yet when it comes to college athletics their morals fly out the window and they are ready to side with a bunch of academics and coaches from the Big10 and PAC10 who are undoubtedly socialists and communists.



Please explain your hypocritical positions.

Wow. I literally have no response for this.

I do. The NCAA was never meant to pay students for athletics. That's what is so great about college sports. According to your argument we should be paying high schoolers, junior high students, and anyone else who is playing a game that charges admission. Don't try and tell me that these athletes are being manipulated and used though. They each receive a huge paycheck in the form of an free education, something that not too many people receive.



I see your point though. AND here's how you fix it. Don't put an age limit on players going to the pros. Let them go straight out of high school if they are that good. Let them enter the "free market" if they believe that giving up an education is worth it to them. Heck, let them enter as 14 to 16 year olds if that's what they are able to do. And I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Educations are overrated for the most part.

jvquarterback wrote:

First, taking money to play football is not against the law. I personally would respect Cam Newton and the rest of the players for Auburn, Auburn University and, if this really is pervasive throughout the SEC, then everyone involved for paying these young men at least of part of the value they provide.



The problem is not people who want to pay or players that want to be paid. The problem is the bunch of communists in the NCAA, a quasi-government institution trying to benefit themselves at the expense of poor young African-American men. I would wager 90% of posters here would say they are in favor of a free market, yet when it comes to college athletics their morals fly out the window and they are ready to side with a bunch of academics and coaches from the Big10 and PAC10 who are undoubtedly socialists and communists.



Please explain your hypocritical positions.

First of all what does the race of a student athlete have to do with anything? 2nd of all these poor young men are getting a free education to play sports. Education = Money. In a lot of cases sports are the only way many of these kids can get into good schools in the first place let alone pay for it. Even if they don't have a shot at pro sports they still have that free education where, if used correctly, it can be used to better their lives and the situations of their families. They are STUDENT-athletes after all.

CannonCougar85 wrote:
First of all what does the race of a student athlete have to do with anything? 2nd of all these poor young men are getting a free education to play sports. Education = Money. In a lot of cases sports are the only way many of these kids can get into good schools in the first place let alone pay for it. Even if they don't have a shot at pro sports they still have that free education where, if used correctly, it can be used to better their lives and the situations of their families. They are STUDENT-athletes after all.

First, nothing, but it sounds good.



Second, you are saying that college athletes are already compensated. Great. I agree that they should be. Why place a cap on the compensation? Sounds like a socialist spreading the wealth scheme to me.



Third, why are student and making money incompatible? I made plenty of money starting in grade school and continuing through graduate school.

And most student athletes never go pro, but if you read this article you can see how they develop business connections that set them up for life. Un this case the money made has been misused, nut several former MSU athletes seem to be making a very nice living and Cam Newton!s dad's small trucking company all if a sudden got a plethora of new customers and became a much larger trucking company. This stuff is intentionally made difficult to trace and prove that it is anything but legitimate business. Many schools get away with this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

declocoug wrote:

The NCAA was never meant to pay students for athletics. That's what is so great about college sports.

Correct it was set up as part of a cartel to prevent payments to athletes while allowing payments to college administrators and coaches and provide scholarships for athletes in sports that do not bring in enough money to provide for themselves. That is what makes it a communist organization. You say that is great, I say that is the definition of corruption.

declocoug wrote:
According to your argument we should be paying high schoolers, junior high students, and anyone else who is playing a game that charges admission. Don't try and tell me that these athletes are being manipulated and used though. They each receive a huge paycheck in the form of an free education, something that not too many people receive.

I went to a junior high school where three of the kids in my year ending up playing in the NFL. None of them went to my public high school (where I became the jvquarterback). One of them I know for a fact was paid to attend a Catholic high school and I think that was great. I hope he was also paid to play for USC and I hope the other two were paid to play for their private high schools and colleges. It seems you agree that college athletes are paid in the form of an education. Why do you support the socialist notion of a price ceiling? Why limit their payment to the cost of education when some athletes are obviously so much more valuable than others?

declocoug wrote:
I see your point though. AND here's how you fix it. Don't put an age limit on players going to the pros. Let them go straight out of high school if they are that good. Let them enter the "free market" if they believe that giving up an education is worth it to them. Heck, let them enter as 14 to 16 year olds if that's what they are able to do. And I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Educations are overrated for the most part.

I think that is only part of the answer. You must remove any government funding or function of the NCAA. You abolish the corrupt communist organization that is preventing colleges from paying their athlete/employees a market wage.

jvquarterback wrote:

The NCAA was never meant to pay students for athletics. That's what is so great about college sports.

Correct it was set up as part of a cartel to prevent payments to athletes while allowing payments to college administrators and coaches and provide scholarships for athletes in sports that do not bring in enough money to provide for themselves. That is what makes it a communist organization. You say that is great, I say that is the definition of corruption.

declocoug wrote:
According to your argument we should be paying high schoolers, junior high students, and anyone else who is playing a game that charges admission. Don't try and tell me that these athletes are being manipulated and used though. They each receive a huge paycheck in the form of an free education, something that not too many people receive.

I went to a junior high school where three of the kids in my year ending up playing in the NFL. None of them went to my public high school (where I became the jvquarterback). One of them I know for a fact was paid to attend a Catholic high school and I think that was great. I hope he was also paid to play for USC and I hope the other two were paid to play for their private high schools and colleges. It seems you agree that college athletes are paid in the form of an education. Why do you support the socialist notion of a price ceiling? Why limit their payment to the cost of education when some athletes are obviously so much more valuable than others?

declocoug wrote:
I see your point though. AND here's how you fix it. Don't put an age limit on players going to the pros. Let them go straight out of high school if they are that good. Let them enter the "free market" if they believe that giving up an education is worth it to them. Heck, let them enter as 14 to 16 year olds if that's what they are able to do. And I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Educations are overrated for the most part.

I think that is only part of the answer. You must remove any government funding or function of the NCAA. You abolish the corrupt communist organization that is preventing colleges from paying their athlete/employees a market wage.

I don't support a price ceiling. Let them go pro if they want to make money and are good at what they do. European soccer has solved this problem, imho.



The best part of college sports is that the money doesn't do all the talking. School is about getting an education, not making a buck. (unless you are the school, then it's all about making a buck- half way kidding about that). And the players that are so good that boosters are willing to pay them, are going to be making some serious cash anyway. Like I said, if they want to make money playing a sport, let them go directly to the pros.

jvquarterback wrote:

The NCAA was never meant to pay students for athletics. That's what is so great about college sports.

Correct it was set up as part of a cartel to prevent payments to athletes while allowing payments to college administrators and coaches and provide scholarships for athletes in sports that do not bring in enough money to provide for themselves. That is what makes it a communist organization. You say that is great, I say that is the definition of corruption.

Actually, that sounds like the exploitative Victorian society out of a Dickens novel.



I always thought communism is about having the economically-exploited working class proletariat--the major producer of wealth in society--revolt against the rent-seeking, capitalistic bourgeoisie in order to create a classless society. If anything, NCAA athletes need communist revolutionaries to help them rise up and overthrow the capitalist university administrators and coaches who exploiting their economic production.

declocoug wrote:

I don't support a price ceiling. Let them go pro if they want to make money and are good at what they do. European soccer has solved this problem, imho.



The best part of college sports is that the money doesn't do all the talking. School is about getting an education, not making a buck. (unless you are the school, then it's all about making a buck- half way kidding about that). And the players that are so good that boosters are willing to pay them, are going to be making some serious cash anyway. Like I said, if they want to make money playing a sport, let them go directly to the pros.

Then why do you support preventing colleges from paying athletes?



BTW school is entirely about making a buck. Why else would anyone go, other than being forced by your friendly neighborhood government or being nagged to death by your parents?

Mingjai wrote:

Actually, that sounds like the exploitative Victorian society out of a Dickens novel.



I always thought communism is about having the economically-exploited working class proletariat--the major producer of wealth in society--revolt against the rent-seeking, capitalistic bourgeoisie in order to create a classless society. If anything, NCAA athletes need communist revolutionaries to help them rise up and overthrow the capitalist university administrators and coaches who exploiting their economic production.

Dickens does a good job outlining how bad things were in the workshops, and a very poor job by romanticizing life back on the farm -- but I guess that's fiction for you.



Communism in practice and communism in theory are very different. The leaders of a communist government are far worse rent-seekers than any bourgeoise. In this case you have the communist dictators and the politburo in the NCAA and the Universities clamoring on behalf of the the downtrodden (minor men's and all of women's sports) while they enslave the people who create value (football and men's basketball athletes) while keeping all the proceeds for themselves.



No what the athletes need are some free marketeers to abolish the NCAA and the fantasy of amateur athletics.

Playing guys is not the answer. Not by a mile. Schools can not afford it. Plus, let's not act like the benefit of getting a full ride for an educaion is not an awesome thing. I'd have loved that. Players are given benefits. Free school, free books, room and board, travel to play a game etc. You actually think BYU has the budget to pay players stipends? umm, no. sorry, just no.

Lawboy wrote:
Playing guys is not the answer. Not by a mile. Schools can not afford it. Plus, let's not act like the benefit of getting a full ride for an educaion is not an awesome thing. I'd have loved that. Players are given benefits. Free school, free books, room and board, travel to play a game etc. You actually think BYU has the budget to pay players stipends? umm, no. sorry, just no.

So let me get this straight. You think because BYU doesn't have to money to pay SEC caliber athletes, Auburn alums shouldn't be able to either? I rest my case. You are a socialist.



Schools in general and BYU in particular can afford it. What they can't afford is the giant albatross that is the athletic department minus football and men's basketball.

I'm not sure I've ever read a more ridiculous argument than that not paying football players is the same as communism.

jvquarterback wrote:

The NCAA was never meant to pay students for athletics. That's what is so great about college sports.

Correct it was set up as part of a cartel to prevent payments to athletes while allowing payments to college administrators and coaches and provide scholarships for athletes in sports that do not bring in enough money to provide for themselves. That is what makes it a communist organization. You say that is great, I say that is the definition of corruption.

This would be more funny if I didn't think that you actualy believe this. We know two things.

1) The athletes ARE paid to participate. They get free tuition, free books, often times room and board. Athletes have professional note takes in their classes, they also get personal tutors. If you put a dollar figure on each of those items you would learn that the athletes get quite a bit. When I went to college I had to take notes for myself, and if I hired a tutor, it would have cost me quite a bit of money.



The second thing that we know is that those who benefit most from the dollars generated by the big time money in college athletics is athletes in other sports. Athletes in other sports and other students receive access to world class gyms, exercise equipment and stadiums. Our daughters get to participate in athletics at the highest level because our sons generate money that goes to their activities.



Given the above, I believe that shallow non-thinkers like to come onto message board and spew tripe about how corrupt the college system is because we pay athletes handsomely to go to school, get an education, and the money that we generate from their sports participation we give to other athletes and students to benefit the whole university, but these other folks feel that we should kill the goose that lays the golden egg because the football players could, in theory earn a bit more than they already are.

jvquarterback wrote:
BTW school is entirely about making a buck. Why else would anyone go, other than being forced by your friendly neighborhood government or being nagged to death by your parents?

I can't speak for everyone, but I went to college so that I could be more perfectly instructed in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for me to understand, of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth, things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass, things which are at home, things which are abroad, the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land, and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms.



It was great, and I'd do it again even if it didn't lead to an immediate full-time job offer with a starting salary on the same level as my father's, because you can't put a price on knowledge and wisdom.



But more to the point, this is where you're wrong about college athletics being communistic because the athletes are compensated differently than in other labor markets. You don't have agency in communism. You can't opt out of the system, or really change your situation for the better within the system. Football players, on the other hand, do. Do they have to play football? Nope. They want to. It's fun for them. If they don't like where they're at, can they transfer? Sure. If they want to be paid with something other than an education, there are other avenues for them to pursue such as arena football, going pro from college early, etc.



My wife is a nursing student. She works in hospitals, doing everything the regular nurses do, from wiping butts to giving injections and starting IVs. They don't pay her a dime for that work, and it's hard work. Is that communism? Or totalitarian communism, since it's clear that the analogy to idealistic communism doesn't even hold to begin with? No. The compensation my wife receives is the training of performing the tasks required of a professional nurse, which is exactly what she will need to become a professional nurse. She's basically an amateur or an apprentice nurse until she can demonstrate that she is ready to be a professional herself.



That is EXACTLY what is going on in college athletics. They are amateurs, as they learn from professionals (coaches) how to do the job of a professional athlete. The compensation they receive (a free education and the skills necessary to perform their future role as a professional, should they qualify), is probably better than most amateurs and apprentices receive in other fields already, because they are simultaneously getting a free education in their "back-up plan" profession in case the football profession doesn't materialize. This is pretty much how college works in general for non-athletes. You pay to take classes and be educated in your field of choice, and sometimes you can make that back through scholarships, internships, fellowships, etc, but it's not a career. You're an amateur at whatever it is you are doing. By the time of graduation, you will have gained the skills necessary to be a professional.

hawkwing wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever read a more ridiculous argument than that not paying football players is the same as communism.

Well what would you call it when one group of people is forced to do something that has great value and the proceeds are handed out to many others who do not produce the same value while the administrators of the system get filthy rich?

jvquarterback wrote:

I'm not sure I've ever read a more ridiculous argument than that not paying football players is the same as communism.

Well what would you call it when one group of people does something that has great value and the proceeds are handed out to many others who do not produce the same value while the administrators of the system get filthy rich?

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/cafcorsair/Images/Airwolf/Airwolf%20Van%20Nuys%20Airshow%201986_Steve%20Hirst_640.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

All of the problems in college football stem from the business end of it. Let's not ruin it even more by pushing it further into corruption and unfairness.

jvquarterback wrote:

Playing guys is not the answer. Not by a mile. Schools can not afford it. Plus, let's not act like the benefit of getting a full ride for an educaion is not an awesome thing. I'd have loved that. Players are given benefits. Free school, free books, room and board, travel to play a game etc. You actually think BYU has the budget to pay players stipends? umm, no. sorry, just no.

So let me get this straight. You think because BYU doesn't have to money to pay SEC caliber athletes, Auburn alums shouldn't be able to either? I rest my case. You are a socialist.



Schools in general and BYU in particular can afford it. What they can't afford is the giant albatross that is the athletic department minus football and men's basketball.

You might to brush up on your political theory. That conculsion was a huge failure. I gave an anecdote, and you used it to misapply a conclusion.



The issue has nothing to do with if schools should pay student-athletes(they do--it's called an education, and is generally worth about $50k+ over 4 years to a kid), but should they give cash on top (they should not). First of all, go look up amateurism. Then go look up professionalism. If you can not figure it out based upon that, there is no reasoning with you. College athletics fall under the realm of amateurism in this country, and always will. You seem to forget the student part of the equation. Auburn should rot for this. As should any other school doing pay for play. Sadly, the lesson taught in teh Newton case is that getting an education is not worth much to some people--including the Rev. Cecil Newton. Wonder what cultural conclusions can be drawn from that.