Ralph Nader - No more scholarships

As if college athletics weren't rife enough with socialism, Ralph Nader wants to take it all the way. At least the basketball players could go to Europe. Maybe the CFL and Arena league might be worth watching.



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6254572" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a horrible idea. Typical liberal thought, take from those that have something because not everyone gets some (scholarships). He completely ignores all the good that is accomplished because of college sports and athletic scholarships. How many thousands of people get a college education due to these scholarships each year? He assumes by removing the athletic scholarships you can just replace them with need based scholarships. If athletics dies out, the money also dries up and there won't be even a small fraction of money available for need based scholarships that he proposes (speaking to football and bball of course since they foot the bill for athletic dept. Anyway)



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

BYULV wrote:
What a horrible idea. Typical liberal thought, take from those that have something because not everyone gets some (scholarships). He completely ignores all the good that is accomplished because of college sports and athletic scholarships. How many thousands of people get a college education due to these scholarships each year? He assumes by removing the athletic scholarships you can just replace them with need based scholarships. If athletics dies out, the money also dries up and there won't be even a small fraction of money available for need based scholarships that he proposes (speaking to football and bball of course since they foot the bill for athletic dept. Anyway)



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

I'm sure we could get large donations from alumni for things like Math league and for the science and debate teams. And boy is this an evil thing:

"An entire industry has developed in the youth sports arena -- club teams, personal trainers, etc. -- to prey on families' dreams of an athletic scholarship," he said. "The lure of the elusive athletic scholarship is the primary -- sometimes the only -- marketing tool these youth sports entrepreneurs use." OOOOO how evil! The monsters! Imagine offering an athletic scholarship to a kid with a 2.9 gpa since he wouldn't qualify for an academic one. And having all these JOBS! Who needs jobs when we have the government to take care of us!





Funny thing is this always impacts the poor and minorities the most (see also minimum wage and cash for clunkers). Quinns' first law, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent".

This is a step towards the kind of country Obama wants anyways (even though he's a sports guy). Different parties, but this idea runs parallel to his.

I have a question about ralph the lawyer, just what consumer is he advocating?

A little more to the story:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/ralph-nader-calls-for-end_n_840243.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I'm not really a huffington post guy but a friend had this link on fb.



"Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, 'openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses.'"



As any here can attest I'm all the second option, the question for the rest of you is why you think you agree for a price ceiling on for your socialism. At least Ralph Nader is consistent, those in favor of scholarships and against paying athletes what they are really worth are the hypocrites. Ralph Nader may be wrong, but at least he isn't luke warm.

BYULV wrote:
He assumes by removing the athletic scholarships you can just replace them with need based scholarships. If athletics dies out, the money also dries up and there won't be even a small fraction of money available for need based scholarships that he proposes (speaking to football and bball of course since they foot the bill for athletic dept. Anyway)



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

I completely agree with BYULV, but there is an added dimension. Let's be honest, athletics are the major marketing arms of most non-Ivy League American universities. They aren't just getting athletic revenue, they are creating visibility for their institutions and creating brand loyalty that creates demand for their academic offerings.



How many people would come from outside of Nebraska for a University of Nebraska education if their wasn't national recognition of the Cornhusker brand? Same question for the University of Arizona, or the University of Oregon, or the University of Alabama, or (add public university name of choice here)?



Academic institutions have parlayed their reputations for athletic excellence into a willingness in the average student to trust that they will get a good education at an institution with good national visibility while obtaining the social credibility from a school that generates buzz around the water cooler as an alumnus.



I'm not saying that those schools haven't used the revenue from athletics or from the increased enrollment resulting from nationally recognized athletic success to improve their scholastic offerings. Many of these schools have been more able to lure good professors and researchers as a result of the increased revenue, and are actually better academic institutions as a result.



I can't remember where or when I read it, but a few years ago, when I was applying to residency, I remember reading where the president of the University of Oklahoma said that he hoped to create "a university that the football team could be proud of." :gross: :sick: Big money athletics are so entrenched in American universities that they will never be successfully extricated, no matter what Ralph Nader or anyone else wants.

Hahahahaha, I'm sorry guys, but JV set you all up big time for this one and you walked right into it :lol:

jvquarterback wrote:
A little more to the story:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/ralph-nader-calls-for-end_n_840243.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I'm not really a huffington post guy but a friend had this link on fb.



"Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, 'openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses.'"



As any here can attest I'm all the second option, the question for the rest of you is why you think you agree for a price ceiling on for your socialism. At least Ralph Nader is consistent, those in favor of scholarships and against paying athletes what they are really worth are the hypocrites. Ralph Nader may be wrong, but at least he isn't luke warm.

Neither one of those would work.



With option 1, first and foremost, you are actually making it easier for kids NOT to go to college, which is a dumb idea for obvious reasons. Also, supposing that college sports would still exist (which they would not - who wants to take on a full class schedule while committing to 4 hour practices 5 days a week for no added benefit?) why would a student want to do all of that extra work?



Option 2 wouldn't work, unless every college in the nation went private (which I'm not against, actually.) But not every college in the nation is going to go private, because not all would be able to make up their operating costs with sports. So, there is no way to enforce that some do, and some don't. Unless, of course, you want to shut down every "public" college out there that couldn't "privatize" itself. (Again, I'm not against that at all. It seems like only having somewhere around 20 or 30 colleges in the nation instead of the tens of thousands would be a bad thing, though).





Honestly, have any of these socialist/communist/collectivist guys ever run anything (but their mouths)?

Oh yeah, and I'm not liking the idea of giving another income stream to our super out of control spending government (if these revenues didn't go back into the college, for college use, they would be taxable.) The government would use that money to then create more social entitlement programs, which would need more money, and which would give an absurdly controlling government more control of our lives.



Wait, who proposed this again? Nader? Naw, he wouldn't want governmental control of a free(-ish) market system... That's crazy talk. :roll: :whistle:

yet another off topic waste of time.



Moving it to the Lounge where it can be safely ignored :D

nuk13 wrote:
I have a question about ralph the lawyer, just what consumer is he advocating?

He's been around about as long as I can remember (and I can remember quite a long time), and has never advocated this consumer. :angry: :angry: He was the prototype for the ACLU (advocates for everything that no moral or ethical consumer would want).

bigbluepuma wrote:

I have a question about ralph the lawyer, just what consumer is he advocating?

He's been around about as long as I can remember (and I can remember quite a long time), and has never advocated this consumer. :angry: :angry: He was the prototype for the ACLU (advocates for everything that no moral or ethical consumer would want).

What do you have against the ACLU?

taekwondave wrote:

nuk13 wrote:
I have a question about ralph the lawyer, just what consumer is he advocating?

He's been around about as long as I can remember (and I can remember quite a long time), and has never advocated this consumer. :angry: :angry: He was the prototype for the ACLU (advocates for everything that no moral or ethical consumer would want).

What do you have against the ACLU?

Nothing, except that the founder Roger Baldwin's stated intent for the ACLU was to use the laws (our Constitution) of this land to destroy this land and its Constitution. Just a small thing but I have a hard time over looking it.

imuakahuku wrote:
Nothing, except that the founder Roger Baldwin's stated intent for the ACLU was to use the laws (our Constitution) of this land to destroy this land and its Constitution. Just a small thing but I have a hard time over looking it.

Kind of sounds like the kingmen in the Book of Mormon who wanted to change just a small part of Nephite law. You know the small part about how the entire government was structured.

imuakahuku wrote:

bigbluepuma wrote:

I have a question about ralph the lawyer, just what consumer is he advocating?

He's been around about as long as I can remember (and I can remember quite a long time), and has never advocated this consumer. :angry: :angry: He was the prototype for the ACLU (advocates for everything that no moral or ethical consumer would want).

What do you have against the ACLU?

Nothing, except that the founder Roger Baldwin's stated intent for the ACLU was to use the laws (our Constitution) of this land to destroy this land and its Constitution. Just a small thing but I have a hard time over looking it.

I hate to put the burden of proof on you but...do you mind? I've never been a big fan of the ACLU but I'm curious why you're not, and this answer is . . . well, odd.

You find it odd that someone wouldn't support a group whose founder's goal was to dismantle the country from the inside?

I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

SpiffCoug wrote:
You find it odd that someone wouldn't support a group whose founder's goal was to dismantle the country from the inside?

No, I find it odd that he would say that such was the founder's goal. Thus I'm requesting citation. Unless you're just putting words in the guy's mouth.

jvquarterback wrote:
I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."



Roger Baldwin, 1928.