<< <i>So fitz what you're saying is you have no rational objecting to college kids getting paid. Got it. >>
You are clueless. You fail to understand that these kids would get paid absolutely nothing without the institutions of higher learning (colleges). These colleges showcase these kids for the NFL.
Do you understand that Major League Baseball funds their minor league farm systems ?
All you need is to find enough guys to independently fund minor league football. But you won't find any, because independent league baseball players make pennies, and your minor league football team would fold more then likely, and all the top prospects would go back to college anyway.
Boopotts talk about the free market. Guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Go ahead all you free market guys. Invest in some minor league football. Call it the independent minor league football league, and watch it crumble faster then the USFL. Then come back here and talk about the free market all you want.
Let's hear your "rationale" or master plan of how you're going to make minor league football work. If you're not a cash cow like a major league baseball franchise that can fund it's minor league system, then you're going to have to convince some billionaire investors that they have to drop billions into a business that will probably fail in a year or two.
Let's hear your master plan Axtell. Oh, that's right, you don't have one. >>
So, just to summarize-- you really don't have any rational objection to letting college athletes get paid for playing.
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
If you're so into "free market", then go ahead and create a minor league football league. Go get your lawyers, start up your own business. Allow the "free market" to cause you to make millions.
And here's an economics lesson. There is no such thing as a "free market". Do your homework on the ins and outs of wall street, owning a business in a big city, or running a professional athletic league. A free market is a fantasy. >>
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials.
So, just to summarize-- you really don't have any rational objection to letting college athletes get paid for playing. >>
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for their parents (all paid by boosters).
Look, high profile college football players are paid, and their families are paid. From Billy Sims, to Marcus Dupree, to Reggie Bush, they're all getting compensated financially big time.
What you free market guys don't understand is if you so much believe in your ideals, then go ahead and allow the free market to decide how much these guys are worth outside of the college football setting. The answer is that they would get "paid" more at a University then by some minor league football league run by a bunch of investors.
Boo ~ What do you have against colleges picking up the tab for all students' tuition, room/board, and be on the payroll? Doesn't matter if they play sports, act, in the computer club, or just ordinary students. At what point do you draw the line and who is to decide which students are worthy?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
And more importantly, what about the students? I have friends that were social pariahs and lived on PB&J/Ramen Noodles for four years. They had to maintain a certain GPA in order to qualify for grants and aid. Busted their tushies and did what they had to do just to get by. If student athletes get paid, so should everyone else.
If you're going to peek down the rabbit hole, might as well jump in. >>
What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher-- in dollar terms-- than the dollar value of their scholarships. There's no reason to think this applies to Joe Undergrad.
Though if you had a friend with a very unique set of skills that every university was dying to have on their staff, then yes-- I completely agree that that student should be able to shop around and sell his skill set to the highest bidder, even while maintaining his status as a degree-seeking student.
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials. >>
Uh, excuse me, but if you know anything about free markets, then you yourself should understand that these athletes need to find out their "worth" in a league of their own, run by business men who are out to make money.
A free market allows businesses to thrive and fail, and only the strong survive.
Guess you need to study the USFL before you post anymore.
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials. >>
Uh, excuse me, but if you know anything about free markets, then you yourself should understand that these athletes need to find out their "worth" in a league of their own, run by business men who are out to make money.
A free market allows businesses to thrive and fail, and only the strong survive.
Guess you need to study the USFL before you post anymore. >>
No, they can find out their 'worth' by allowing any and everybody who is interested in their services to bid for them. That's how the labor market is designed to operate. When you don't allow people to sell their services to the highest bidder, you have created a market distortion.
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for their parents (all paid by boosters). >>
You continue to post defunct leagues, without ONCE mentioning why you are so fiercely against college players getting paid. Stay on topic. I know you can do it! Tell us why you are so vehemently against college football players getting paid?
What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher--. >>
If an NCAA basketball player wants to get paid financially, then he has the choice to go to any league in Europe to try out. Or he can jump right from high school into a pro tryout.
If he feels his skills are not professional yet, then he has the CHOICE to go to college, and get his education paid, along with many other things by the college institution if he gets a scholarship.
That is his choice, so just let the players decide what they want to do.
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for their parents (all paid by boosters). >>
You continue to post defunct leagues, without ONCE mentioning why you are so fiercely against college players getting paid. Stay on topic. I know you can do it! Tell us why you are so vehemently against college football players getting paid? >>
They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that. They also CHOOSE their path in life. If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more.
<< <i> They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that. >>
Really? When did the NCAA start allowing them to start drawing paychecks? Last time I checked that was still against the rules. Oh wait, you're going back to the old 'room and board and tuition and they're whole' argument. You're like a dog chasing his own tail.
<< <i>They also CHOOSE their path in life. If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more. >>
These points, which you continue to shout, are irrelevant to why you are so against these players getting financially compensated OTHER than tuition/room and board.
No, they can find out their 'worth' by allowing any and everybody who is interested in their services to bid for them. That's how the labor market is designed to operate. When you don't allow people to sell their services to the highest bidder, you have created a market distortion. >>
Then if these guys are worth so much money, then why isn't there a minor league football league where people can bid for their services ?
Because there are no bidders, because there is no league.
If you have a problem with that, then go start your own minor league football league.
Then please come back here when you are bankrupt and let us all know how foolish you were.
<< <i>What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher-- in dollar terms-- than the dollar value of their scholarships. There's no reason to think this applies to Joe Undergrad. >>
Colleges can and do exist without an athletic program but cannot without Joe Undergrad.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i> They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that. >>
Really? When did the NCAA start allowing them to start drawing paychecks? Last time I checked that was still against the rules. Oh wait, you're going back to the old 'room and board and tuition and they're whole' argument. You're like a dog chasing his own tail.
<< <i>They also CHOOSE their path in life. If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more. >>
These points, which you continue to shout, are irrelevant to why you are so against these players getting financially compensated OTHER than tuition/room and board. >>
These points are totally relevant. If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money. When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football. So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year.
Please explain to us how you're going to create a free market enterprise where these kids can get paid lots of money playing football between the ages of 18-22. Please let us know how you're going to be smarter then the USFL, and build a financial empire out of these kids.
We're all still waiting for your master plan of how you're going to let the free market make these kids rich.
<< <i>Go ahead Axtell and explain to everyone why all these football leagues thought the same way as you, and ended up losing their shirt.
I guess the "free market" allowed them to make a$$e$ of themselves
The USFL lost over $163 million dollars when it folded, and they had some of the best college talent. Walker, Steve Young, Reggie White, etc. etc.
Wonder how much Axtell's "free market" league would lose compared to the USFL >>
Never mind that the reason they lost money was that the NFL illegally used their monopoly to screw them. Yeah, yeah, the USFL only won $1 in their lawsuit but the fact is they won and the NFL was breaking the law.
<< <i>Go ahead Axtell and explain to everyone why all these football leagues thought the same way as you, and ended up losing their shirt.
I guess the "free market" allowed them to make a$$e$ of themselves
The USFL lost over $163 million dollars when it folded, and they had some of the best college talent. Walker, Steve Young, Reggie White, etc. etc.
Wonder how much Axtell's "free market" league would lose compared to the USFL >>
Never mind that the reason they lost money was that the NFL illegally used their monopoly to screw them. Yeah, yeah, the USFL only won $1 in their lawsuit but the fact is they won and the NFL was breaking the law. >>
Please explain to everyone the difference between winning $1 dollar in the state lottery and winning 100 hundred million dollars in the state lottery.
Please explain to everyone the "difference" in those winnings.
<< <i>These points are totally relevant. If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money. When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football. So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year. >>
Fine. So you don't want the colleges to be able to pay their players. Fair enough. What would be your reasoning for barring them from taking jobs or, say, signing their autograph in return for money? And, again, why should athletes on scholarship be barred from those things when students on other types of scholarships are not?
The NFL was cleared of monopolizing television, the key accusation in that case. The USFL had a TV contract, and very few American citizens watched the games.
The league folded, and investors lost 163 million dollars.
But Boopotts and Axtell are smarter then these guys.
<< <i>These points are totally relevant. If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money. When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football. So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year. >>
Fine. So you don't want the colleges to be able to pay their players. Fair enough. What would be your reasoning for barring them from taking jobs or, say, signing their autograph in return for money? And, again, why should athletes on scholarship be barred from those things when students on other types of scholarships are not? >>
Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place. If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere.
If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools.
<< <i>Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place. If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere.
If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools. >>
You didn't answer my question. I asked what would YOUR reasoning be for barring the players from signing autographs for money? The rule is in place, you don't think it should be changed. Fine. I'm asking WHY you think the rule should be there and WHY it should be different for athletes versus those on other scholarships.
<< <i>Please explain to everyone the difference between winning $1 dollar in the state lottery and winning 100 hundred million dollars in the state lottery.
Please explain to everyone the "difference" in those winnings. >>
Yeah, that's almost the same thing as the USFL case.
Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place. If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere. >>
But you refuse to answer the question about why you are so vehemently opposed to these kids making money. Why do you feel so strongly they shouldn't be allowed to sign autographs for money? Stop with the 'they knew what they were getting into!' nonsense you are spewing over and over, tell us why YOU don't think they should be able to profit from even their own name and likeness.
<< <i>If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools. >>
Again, why do you continue to bring up this nonsense? It's totally and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Stop cowering behind talking points that have no relevance whatsoever to the discussion about why YOU PERSONALLY feel kids should not get paid!
A. These athletes agreed to the rules under their own freewill. That is why I feel they are obligated to follow the rules that they agreed to. I feel they should not get paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play. All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to.
<< <i>A. These athletes agreed to the rules under their own freewill. That is why I feel they are obligated to follow the rules that they agreed to. I feel they should not get paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play. All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to. >>
You still, in all this time, have not articulated a reason why you think young men with a superlative talent for playing football or basketball should not be allowed to sell their services to the University that's willing to pay the most. And until you do offer a reason this discussion will remain at a standstill.
<< <i>A. These athletes agreed to the rules under their own freewill. That is why I feel they are obligated to follow the rules that they agreed to. I feel they should not get paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play. All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to. >>
You still, in all this time, have not articulated a reason why you think young men with a superlative talent for playing football or basketball should not be allowed to sell their services to the University that's willing to pay the most. And until you do offer a reason this discussion will remain at a standstill. >>
Here's a simple supply and demand lesson for you.
Joe Montana is a top notch high school football talent out of Pennsylvania. Many schools offer him lots of lucrative packages to come play for them. Joe sits down with mom and dad to decide which school's offer is the most lucrative, and best for his career. Joe picks Notre Dame because Notre Dame offers Joe an incredible offer to come play for them.
Joe Schmoe was turned down by Notre Dame and he decides to play football at Div. III Mount Union college in NY. Joe Schmoe receives no money or incentives to play football. Mom and dad pay for his tuition.
In this scenario, Joe Montana competed against Joe Schmoe. Joe Montana won. Joe Schmoe lost. Joe Montana is paid to go to school. Joe Schmoe pays his own way.
Until you come up with a better system (which you have yet to lay out), and you most likely do not have the economics background to even begin articulating one, then your questions are futile and redundant.
Allow me to save you and Axtell a lot of hot air. The NCAA system will always pay these elite athletes WAY MORE then your new business model ever could. Your new business model would fold quicker then a pair of deuces against the NCAA's full house. You and Axtell could never articulate a better business model for these 18-22 year olds.
So, let's say those mean, heartless NCAA people finally relent and allow college football players to get paid. Fast forward a couple years and the top 4 or 5 Universities have teams that would make the scandal ridden SMU teams look like the kids from Little Giants. They have the cream of the crop recruits and the bench depth make some NFL teams jealous. When they play inferior colleges, scores are routinely 200 to 0 and the only close games are when they play each other in conference or Bowl games. Inferior teams are hemorrhaging cash and have to be subsidized by the top Universities or else they have to close shop. Then a grassroots movement comes about, complains how unfair the system is, demand an immediate change (without considering the potential long term effects), and finally TIME does a cover story about the lack of financial equality among our higher learning institutions.
That sounds great!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Even if the worst case scenario unfolds where just a handful of teams pay for the best players (unlikely give with the unlimited money from boosters and alumni, we've seen time and again in other sports the highest payroll doesn't equal championships.
But let's take your scenario to its conclusion. How is the idea of a select few teams competing for national championships different from the system in play now? Revenue is already shared between the larger schools with smaller ones so that's not an objection.
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. Edmund...you continue to dodge the question and continuing to perpetuate the idiotic question about an alternative only shows again what a fraud you truly are.
Still waiting for Boopotts and Axtell to explain how these kids could make so much more money under their system.
Axtell and Boopotts are against the NCAA's system, but they both have yet to demonstrate a plan that would prove to us all how the athletes could make so much more money in any other system.
Everything they spew from here on out is just dust in the wind, because if they don't come up with a plan, then they are conceding that the NCAA system works, and that no other system has yet to work, or ever will work.
Perhaps Boopotts and Axtell were investors in the USFL, because the NFL was the big old bad boy on the street, just like the NCAA.
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and many other avenues.
<< <i>Still waiting for Boopotts and Axtell to explain how these kids could make so much more money under their system. >>
That discussion is completely irrelevant to YOU explaining why YOU are so opposed to kids making money. Period. Answer the question. Your continued attempts at trying to divert the topic to something completely unrelated only further proves the idea that YOU have no sane reason for opposing players getting paid.
<< <i>Axtell and Boopotts are against the NCAA's system, but they both have yet to demonstrate a plan that would prove to us all how the athletes could make so much more money in any other system. >>
That was never the topic, it's only something YOU made up to try to dance away from explaining your irrational dislike for kids getting paid.
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and many other avenues. >>
Why are you against the NCAA and the colleges legitimately paying these kids? Why are you opposed to these kids being allowed to collect fees for doing autograph sessions and selling their likeness?
Your futile attempts to try to spin off the conversation to me coming up with a different/better system are fooling nobody. Well, maybe they're fooling you.
Why are you against the NCAA and the colleges legitimately paying these kids? . >>
Colleges are legitimately paying these kids. These kids sign a contract. Under this contract that they signed under their own freewill, they have subjected themselves to rules and regulations. What don't you understand about that ?
Do you live your life never feeling obligated to conform to a set of rules ? Are you the type of guy who complains about his job, his life, and everything else because you are unwilling to accept the bad with the good ?
These kids have it very good. Life isn't always perfect. And until you and Boopotts set up a perfect system for them, then they will have the luxury of playing in the best football programs on God's green earth.
<< <i> That was never the topic, it's only something YOU made up to try to dance away from explaining your irrational dislike for kids getting paid. >>
Are you educationally challenged ?
I'll say this one last time................................
I AM THRILLED THAT THESE KIDS GET SCHOLARSHIPS AND BONUSES TO PLAY FOOTBALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HOPE MY OWN SONS ARE SO FORTUNATE SOMEDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and many other avenues. >>
The NCAA is very strongly against many of those avenues
<< <i> Colleges are legitimately paying these kids. These kids sign a contract. Under this contract that they signed under their own freewill, they have subjected themselves to rules and regulations. What don't you understand about that ? >>
No, they're not getting paid. Period. No matter how you spin it, free room and board and tuition does not equal a paycheck. What don't YOU understand about that?
<< <i>Do you live your life never feeling obligated to conform to a set of rules ? Are you the type of guy who complains about his job, his life, and everything else because you are unwilling to accept the bad with the good ? >>
This has nothing whatsoever to your absolute refusal to tell us why you are so opposed to kids getting paid (and not with your ridiculous notion that tuition and board is 'pay') and your continued inability to stay on topic for more than a sentence is downright hilarious at this point.
<< <i>These kids have it very good. Life isn't always perfect. And until you and Boopotts set up a perfect system for them, then they will have the luxury of playing in the best football programs on God's green earth. >>
Again, totally and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which I will ask for the last time:
Why are you opposed to these kids, who make these colleges untold millions, making some money of their own? Why are you opposed to them putting cash in their pockets for their likeness? Until your answer that very question, everything else is irrelevant.
Actually those are just hypothetical questions, because I know what's happening. You have no reason for opposing these kids from getting paid. You have no reason other than petty jealousy that these special kids should get, you know, paid for these talents and the revenues they bring in. We all know that the reason you keep spinning off topic to things that have no relevance is, well, YOU have no relevance to this discussion. You were smoked out pretty early, as you kept going on and on about alternative football leagues, different systems, blah blah blah. Stuff that was so off topic that even Tebow would have been critical of your accuracy.
So, fitz, can you man up and actually answer the question, and stay on topic? Or are you going to, once again, and true to form, roll over to something unrelated?
Why are you opposed to these kids, who make these colleges untold millions, making some money of their own? ? >>
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
So if there was no contract saying they couldn't receive monetary compensation you'd have no problems with it whatsoever? Because that's what you're saying by hinging your entire argument on the 'they signed a contract' idea.
Here are a list of people that do not agree with you Axtell............
Joe Montana Dan Marino John Elway Jim McMahon Walter Payton Gale Sayers Emmit Smith Terry Bradshaw Roger Staubach Jerry Rice Steve Young Herschel Walker etc etc etc etc
All these players agreed to play under the system that we have. They disagree with you in all your points. If they agreed with you, then they would have tried an alternative route to pursue their goals.
Basically everyone who ever played college football disagrees with you and Boopotts, because they all signed a contract to play under the rules that we have.
<< <i>So if there was no contract saying they couldn't receive monetary compensation you'd have no problems with it whatsoever? Because that's what you're saying by hinging your entire argument on the 'they signed a contract' idea. >>
If the NCAA comes out with new rules that allows Manziel to make money signing autos, personal appearances, kissing girls, etc.,.etc, and Manziel signs a contract stating that he is happy with those rules, then I'm all for it.
<< <i>Here are a list of people that do not agree with you Axtell............ >>
I honestly couldn't care less who agrees with me over this. The point is your entire idea objecting to kids getting paid is because of some contract they sign, that, if were gone tomorrow, you would be totally ok with them receiving compensation. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with me that these kids deserve compensation!
If the NCAA comes out with new rules that allows Manziel to make money signing autos, personal appearances, kissing girls, etc.,.etc, and Manziel signs a contract stating that he is happy with those rules, then I'm all for it. >>
Then why in god's name didn't you just say so from the beginning? Good gravy.
Don't hold your breath, edmund. Unintended consequences and collateral damage isn't their problem. They'll just be satisfied with a change and force someone else to deal with the inevitable fallout.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i> BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! >>
It is not a requirement to sign a contract to play an NCAA sport. Yet even if a player doesn't, the NCAA still prohibits them from receiving cash.
<< <i> BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! >>
It is not a requirement to sign a contract to play an NCAA sport. Yet even if a player doesn't, the NCAA still prohibits them from receiving cash. >>
It is a requirement for players to sign their name to join the NCAA. There are also rules and regulations set by the NCAA that the players agree to follow once they sign.
Numerous rules and regulations surround the athlete that signs an NCAA approved letter of intent. Athletes agree to rules that regulate transferring to another institution, being randomly tested for performance-enhancing drugs, and earning a minimum number of credit hours in their studies. These and other rules are important aspects of the contractual relationship between the NCAA and the athlete. The NCAA and USOC have agreed to examine ways to ensure that talented amateur athletes who have remaining collegiate eligibility may actually earn a stipend from an Olympic national governing body such as United States Swimming and still retain amateur status. Letter of Intent Division I, Division II and NAIA[1] athletes are the beneficiaries of athletic scholarships (more specifically referred to as grants-in-aid). They sign an agreement with the college or university in the form of a letter of intent, which is a binding agreement between the athlete and an institution. This agreement provides that in exchange for the athlete’s services in their sport, they will have tuition, room and board, and books paid for by the institution. However, no financial compensation may be awarded to athletes in exchange for their athletic talents in that particular sport. There are questions, however, as to the validity of such agreements if a letter of intent were challenged in court. It appears that such an agreement need not be signed as a prerequisite to participation in NCAA-governed sports, though the NCAA manual does refer to the letter of intent program. The National Letter of Intent Program is actually not administered by the NCAA but rather through the College Commissioners Association (CCA). The CCA has administered this program for 30 years and has no reported lawsuits against it - See more at: http://sportslaw.uslegal.com/sports-agents-and-contracts/ncaa-sports-contracts-and-amateurism/#sthash.Q3lWsqFJ.dpuf
It's cute how beholden to antiquated and one-sided rules fitz is. You know, like rules that prohibit a player from playing for a year if they transfer schools, but coaches are allowed to coach right away if they do the same thing. How a coach receives the same housing and food benefits as players, but only the coach is allowed to cash in on his connection to the university. How the school and the NCAA are both allowed to profit from the likeness of these same kids, but the kids are forbidden from it.
However, what I'd like to ask you now is do you think the rule is fair? Do you think its fair to the kids, who are the only ones risking their health, to be the only ones forbidden from capitalizing on it?
Comments
I guess the "free market" allowed them to make a$$e$ of themselves
The USFL lost over $163 million dollars when it folded, and they had some of the best college talent. Walker, Steve Young, Reggie White, etc. etc.
Wonder how much Axtell's "free market" league would lose compared to the USFL
<< <i>
<< <i>So fitz what you're saying is you have no rational objecting to college kids getting paid. Got it. >>
You are clueless. You fail to understand that these kids would get paid absolutely nothing without the institutions of higher learning (colleges). These colleges showcase these
kids for the NFL.
Do you understand that Major League Baseball funds their minor league farm systems ?
All you need is to find enough guys to independently fund minor league football. But you won't find any, because independent league baseball players make pennies,
and your minor league football team would fold more then likely, and all the top prospects would go back to college anyway.
Boopotts talk about the free market. Guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Go ahead all you free market guys. Invest in some minor league football. Call it the independent minor league football league, and watch it crumble faster then the USFL.
Then come back here and talk about the free market all you want.
Let's hear your "rationale" or master plan of how you're going to make minor league football work.
If you're not a cash cow like a major league baseball franchise that can fund it's minor league system, then
you're going to have to convince some billionaire investors that they have to drop billions into a business that will probably fail in a year or two.
Let's hear your master plan Axtell. Oh, that's right, you don't have one. >>
So, just to summarize-- you really don't have any rational objection to letting college athletes get paid for playing.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
If you're so into "free market", then go ahead and create a minor league football league. Go get your lawyers, start up your own business.
Allow the "free market" to cause you to make millions.
And here's an economics lesson. There is no such thing as a "free market". Do your homework on the ins and outs of wall street, owning a business in a big city, or
running a professional athletic league. A free market is a fantasy. >>
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials.
<< <i>
So, just to summarize-- you really don't have any rational objection to letting college athletes get paid for playing. >>
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for
their parents (all paid by boosters).
Look, high profile college football players are paid, and their families are paid. From Billy Sims, to Marcus Dupree, to Reggie Bush, they're all getting compensated financially big time.
What you free market guys don't understand is if you so much believe in your ideals, then go ahead and allow the free market to decide how much these guys are worth
outside of the college football setting. The answer is that they would get "paid" more at a University then by some minor league football league run by a bunch of investors.
<< <i>
<< <i>are the track & field guys next? >>
And more importantly, what about the students? I have friends that were social pariahs and lived on PB&J/Ramen Noodles for four years. They had to maintain a certain GPA in order to qualify for grants and aid. Busted their tushies and did what they had to do just to get by. If student athletes get paid, so should everyone else.
If you're going to peek down the rabbit hole, might as well jump in. >>
What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher-- in dollar terms-- than the dollar value of their scholarships. There's no reason to think this applies to Joe Undergrad.
Though if you had a friend with a very unique set of skills that every university was dying to have on their staff, then yes-- I completely agree that that student should be able to shop around and sell his skill set to the highest bidder, even while maintaining his status as a degree-seeking student.
<< <i>
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials. >>
Uh, excuse me, but if you know anything about free markets, then you yourself should understand that these athletes need to find out their "worth" in
a league of their own, run by business men who are out to make money.
A free market allows businesses to thrive and fail, and only the strong survive.
Guess you need to study the USFL before you post anymore.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Right- thanks for the econ lesson. That's a subject I don't know a lot about, so it's refreshing- and educational!--to get these free tutorials. >>
Uh, excuse me, but if you know anything about free markets, then you yourself should understand that these athletes need to find out their "worth" in
a league of their own, run by business men who are out to make money.
A free market allows businesses to thrive and fail, and only the strong survive.
Guess you need to study the USFL before you post anymore. >>
No, they can find out their 'worth' by allowing any and everybody who is interested in their services to bid for them. That's how the labor market is designed to operate. When you don't allow people to sell their services to the highest bidder, you have created a market distortion.
<< <i>
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for
their parents (all paid by boosters).
>>
You continue to post defunct leagues, without ONCE mentioning why you are so fiercely against college players getting paid. Stay on topic. I know you can do it! Tell us why you are so vehemently against college football players getting paid?
<< <i>
What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher--. >>
If an NCAA basketball player wants to get paid financially, then he has the choice to go to any league in Europe to try out. Or he can jump right from
high school into a pro tryout.
If he feels his skills are not professional yet, then he has the CHOICE to go to college, and get his education paid, along with many other things by the college institution if he gets a scholarship.
That is his choice, so just let the players decide what they want to do.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I never said I said it was ok for college athletes to get paid, but in my opinion they get paid anyway, in the form of free tuition, easy jobs, cars, houses, jobs for
their parents (all paid by boosters).
>>
You continue to post defunct leagues, without ONCE mentioning why you are so fiercely against college players getting paid. Stay on topic. I know you can do it! Tell us why you are so vehemently against college football players getting paid? >>
They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that.
They also CHOOSE their path in life.
If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more.
<< <i>
They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that. >>
Really? When did the NCAA start allowing them to start drawing paychecks? Last time I checked that was still against the rules. Oh wait, you're going back to the old 'room and board and tuition and they're whole' argument. You're like a dog chasing his own tail.
<< <i>They also CHOOSE their path in life.
If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more. >>
These points, which you continue to shout, are irrelevant to why you are so against these players getting financially compensated OTHER than tuition/room and board.
<< <i>
No, they can find out their 'worth' by allowing any and everybody who is interested in their services to bid for them. That's how the labor market is designed to operate. When you don't allow people to sell their services to the highest bidder, you have created a market distortion. >>
Then if these guys are worth so much money, then why isn't there a minor league football league where people can bid for their services ?
Because there are no bidders, because there is no league.
If you have a problem with that, then go start your own minor league football league.
Then please come back here when you are bankrupt and let us all know how foolish you were.
<< <i>What? The reason why people argue that NCAA football/basketball players should be paid is because the social value of their services is higher-- in dollar terms-- than the dollar value of their scholarships. There's no reason to think this applies to Joe Undergrad. >>
Colleges can and do exist without an athletic program but cannot without Joe Undergrad.
<< <i>
<< <i>
They DO get paid. Yet you are so clueless to not understand that. >>
Really? When did the NCAA start allowing them to start drawing paychecks? Last time I checked that was still against the rules. Oh wait, you're going back to the old 'room and board and tuition and they're whole' argument. You're like a dog chasing his own tail.
<< <i>They also CHOOSE their path in life.
If they don't like the way the college system is, they can go to Canada to GET PAID there.
Again, go form your own independent football league if you feel they should get paid more. >>
These points, which you continue to shout, are irrelevant to why you are so against these players getting financially compensated OTHER than tuition/room and board. >>
These points are totally relevant.
If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money.
When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football.
So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year.
Where have you gone ???
Please explain to us how you're going to create a free market enterprise where these kids can get paid lots of money playing football between the ages of 18-22.
Please let us know how you're going to be smarter then the USFL, and build a financial empire out of these kids.
We're all still waiting for your master plan of how you're going to let the free market make these kids rich.
<< <i>Go ahead Axtell and explain to everyone why all these football leagues thought the same way as you, and ended up losing their shirt.
I guess the "free market" allowed them to make a$$e$ of themselves
The USFL lost over $163 million dollars when it folded, and they had some of the best college talent. Walker, Steve Young, Reggie White, etc. etc.
Wonder how much Axtell's "free market" league would lose compared to the USFL
Never mind that the reason they lost money was that the NFL illegally used their monopoly to screw them. Yeah, yeah, the USFL only won $1 in their lawsuit but the fact is they won and the NFL was breaking the law.
<< <i>Or he can jump right from high school into a pro tryout. >>
False. The NBA requires players wait a year after their high school class graduates before entering the league.
<< <i>
<< <i>Go ahead Axtell and explain to everyone why all these football leagues thought the same way as you, and ended up losing their shirt.
I guess the "free market" allowed them to make a$$e$ of themselves
The USFL lost over $163 million dollars when it folded, and they had some of the best college talent. Walker, Steve Young, Reggie White, etc. etc.
Wonder how much Axtell's "free market" league would lose compared to the USFL
Never mind that the reason they lost money was that the NFL illegally used their monopoly to screw them. Yeah, yeah, the USFL only won $1 in their lawsuit but the fact is they won and the NFL was breaking the law. >>
Please explain to everyone the difference between winning $1 dollar in the state lottery and winning 100 hundred million dollars in the state lottery.
Please explain to everyone the "difference" in those winnings.
<< <i>
<< <i>Or he can jump right from high school into a pro tryout. >>
False. The NBA requires players wait a year after their high school class graduates before entering the league. >>
There are other professional leagues that do not.
<< <i>These points are totally relevant.
If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money.
When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football.
So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year. >>
Fine. So you don't want the colleges to be able to pay their players. Fair enough. What would be your reasoning for barring them from taking jobs or, say, signing their autograph in return for money? And, again, why should athletes on scholarship be barred from those things when students on other types of scholarships are not?
The league folded, and investors lost 163 million dollars.
But Boopotts and Axtell are smarter then these guys.
<< <i>
<< <i>These points are totally relevant.
If you feel these guys are worth more money then the 100-200k they draw from academic institutions, then let the free market dictate it in a minor league football league.
BTW, here's a simple economics lesson for you.
When I write a check for $50,000 to Stanford for my son's tuition. Guess what ? I just paid that money.
When Andrew Luck's tuition was paid by the Stanford football program, Andrew and his family were just paid by Stanford to play football.
So basically, Andrew Luck is getting paid by Stanford University to play football, to the tune of $50,000.00 per year. >>
Fine. So you don't want the colleges to be able to pay their players. Fair enough. What would be your reasoning for barring them from taking jobs or, say, signing their autograph in return for money? And, again, why should athletes on scholarship be barred from those things when students on other types of scholarships are not? >>
Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place.
If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere.
If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up
to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools.
<< <i>Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place.
If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere.
If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up
to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools. >>
You didn't answer my question. I asked what would YOUR reasoning be for barring the players from signing autographs for money? The rule is in place, you don't think it should be changed. Fine. I'm asking WHY you think the rule should be there and WHY it should be different for athletes versus those on other scholarships.
<< <i>Please explain to everyone the difference between winning $1 dollar in the state lottery and winning 100 hundred million dollars in the state lottery.
Please explain to everyone the "difference" in those winnings. >>
Yeah, that's almost the same thing as the USFL case.
<< <i>
Because when these kids sign on the dotted line, under their own freewill, they are agreeing to the rules in place.
If they don't like the rules, then they are free to pursue their football interests elsewhere.
>>
But you refuse to answer the question about why you are so vehemently opposed to these kids making money. Why do you feel so strongly they shouldn't be allowed to sign autographs for money? Stop with the 'they knew what they were getting into!' nonsense you are spewing over and over, tell us why YOU don't think they should be able to profit from even their own name and likeness.
<< <i>If you don't like the NCAA rules, and feel that these kids are being treated unfairly, then go ahead and get a bunch of investors lined up
to form a league of your own for kids between the ages of 18-22 who play football.
Here's my prediction. None will sign with you, and they will all sign with Division I schools. >>
Again, why do you continue to bring up this nonsense? It's totally and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Stop cowering behind talking points that have no relevance whatsoever to the discussion about why YOU PERSONALLY feel kids should not get paid!
paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play.
All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to.
<< <i>A. These athletes agreed to the rules under their own freewill. That is why I feel they are obligated to follow the rules that they agreed to. I feel they should not get
paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play.
All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to. >>
You still, in all this time, have not articulated a reason why you think young men with a superlative talent for playing football or basketball should not be allowed to sell their services to the University that's willing to pay the most. And until you do offer a reason this discussion will remain at a standstill.
<< <i>
<< <i>A. These athletes agreed to the rules under their own freewill. That is why I feel they are obligated to follow the rules that they agreed to. I feel they should not get
paid to sign autographs because they themselves agreed to that before signing a contract to play for a university.
B. I said athletes are getting paid by colleges, but you always seem to miss reading that in my posts. I'll say it one more time. These kids on scholarship are getting paid to play.
All the kids on scholarship to Stanford are getting paid at least $50,000 per year to play college football. How many more times do I have to say it ?
I am not vehemently opposed to them making money, because they are making lots of money under the current rules that they agreed to. >>
You still, in all this time, have not articulated a reason why you think young men with a superlative talent for playing football or basketball should not be allowed to sell their services to the University that's willing to pay the most. And until you do offer a reason this discussion will remain at a standstill. >>
Here's a simple supply and demand lesson for you.
Joe Montana is a top notch high school football talent out of Pennsylvania. Many schools offer him lots of lucrative packages to come play for them. Joe sits down with mom
and dad to decide which school's offer is the most lucrative, and best for his career. Joe picks Notre Dame because Notre Dame offers Joe an incredible offer to come play for them.
Joe Schmoe was turned down by Notre Dame and he decides to play football at Div. III Mount Union college in NY. Joe Schmoe receives no money or incentives to play football. Mom and dad pay for his tuition.
In this scenario, Joe Montana competed against Joe Schmoe. Joe Montana won. Joe Schmoe lost. Joe Montana is paid to go to school. Joe Schmoe pays his own way.
Until you come up with a better system (which you have yet to lay out), and you most likely do not have the economics background to even begin articulating one, then
your questions are futile and redundant.
Allow me to save you and Axtell a lot of hot air. The NCAA system will always pay these elite athletes WAY MORE then your new business model ever could. Your new business
model would fold quicker then a pair of deuces against the NCAA's full house. You and Axtell could never articulate a better business model for these 18-22 year olds.
So, let's say those mean, heartless NCAA people finally relent and allow college football players to get paid. Fast forward a couple years and the top 4 or 5 Universities have teams that would make the scandal ridden SMU teams look like the kids from Little Giants. They have the cream of the crop recruits and the bench depth make some NFL teams jealous. When they play inferior colleges, scores are routinely 200 to 0 and the only close games are when they play each other in conference or Bowl games. Inferior teams are hemorrhaging cash and have to be subsidized by the top Universities or else they have to close shop. Then a grassroots movement comes about, complains how unfair the system is, demand an immediate change (without considering the potential long term effects), and finally TIME does a cover story about the lack of financial equality among our higher learning institutions.
That sounds great!
But let's take your scenario to its conclusion. How is the idea of a select few teams competing for national championships different from the system in play now? Revenue is already shared between the larger schools with smaller ones so that's not an objection.
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. Edmund...you continue to dodge the question and continuing to perpetuate the idiotic question about an alternative only shows again what a fraud you truly are.
Axtell and Boopotts are against the NCAA's system, but they both have yet to demonstrate a plan that would prove to us all how the athletes could
make so much more money in any other system.
Everything they spew from here on out is just dust in the wind, because if they don't come up with a plan, then they are conceding that
the NCAA system works, and that no other system has yet to work, or ever will work.
Perhaps Boopotts and Axtell were investors in the USFL, because the NFL was the big old bad boy on the street, just like the NCAA.
<< <i>
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and
many other avenues.
<< <i>Still waiting for Boopotts and Axtell to explain how these kids could make so much more money under their system. >>
That discussion is completely irrelevant to YOU explaining why YOU are so opposed to kids making money. Period. Answer the question. Your continued attempts at trying to divert the topic to something completely unrelated only further proves the idea that YOU have no sane reason for opposing players getting paid.
<< <i>Axtell and Boopotts are against the NCAA's system, but they both have yet to demonstrate a plan that would prove to us all how the athletes could
make so much more money in any other system. >>
That was never the topic, it's only something YOU made up to try to dance away from explaining your irrational dislike for kids getting paid.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and
many other avenues. >>
Why are you against the NCAA and the colleges legitimately paying these kids? Why are you opposed to these kids being allowed to collect fees for doing autograph sessions and selling their likeness?
Your futile attempts to try to spin off the conversation to me coming up with a different/better system are fooling nobody. Well, maybe they're fooling you.
<< <i>
Why are you against the NCAA and the colleges legitimately paying these kids? . >>
Colleges are legitimately paying these kids. These kids sign a contract. Under this contract that they signed under their own freewill, they have subjected
themselves to rules and regulations. What don't you understand about that ?
Do you live your life never feeling obligated to conform to a set of rules ? Are you the type of guy who complains about his job, his
life, and everything else because you are unwilling to accept the bad with the good ?
These kids have it very good. Life isn't always perfect. And until you and Boopotts set up a perfect system for them, then they will have the luxury of playing in
the best football programs on God's green earth.
<< <i>
That was never the topic, it's only something YOU made up to try to dance away from explaining your irrational dislike for kids getting paid. >>
Are you educationally challenged ?
I'll say this one last time................................
I AM THRILLED THAT THESE KIDS GET SCHOLARSHIPS AND BONUSES TO PLAY FOOTBALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HOPE MY OWN SONS ARE SO FORTUNATE SOMEDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM THRILLED KIDS ARE GETTING PAID TO PLAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
I still have yet to hear anyone who is against paying kids state their personal reasons for such vocal objections. . >>
No one will ever be against paying kids, because unlike you, they realize that the kids are already being paid through scholarships, personal benefits from boosters, and
many other avenues. >>
The NCAA is very strongly against many of those avenues
<< <i>
Colleges are legitimately paying these kids. These kids sign a contract. Under this contract that they signed under their own freewill, they have subjected
themselves to rules and regulations. What don't you understand about that ?
>>
No, they're not getting paid. Period. No matter how you spin it, free room and board and tuition does not equal a paycheck. What don't YOU understand about that?
<< <i>Do you live your life never feeling obligated to conform to a set of rules ? Are you the type of guy who complains about his job, his
life, and everything else because you are unwilling to accept the bad with the good ? >>
This has nothing whatsoever to your absolute refusal to tell us why you are so opposed to kids getting paid (and not with your ridiculous notion that tuition and board is 'pay') and your continued inability to stay on topic for more than a sentence is downright hilarious at this point.
<< <i>These kids have it very good. Life isn't always perfect. And until you and Boopotts set up a perfect system for them, then they will have the luxury of playing in
the best football programs on God's green earth. >>
Again, totally and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which I will ask for the last time:
Why are you opposed to these kids, who make these colleges untold millions, making some money of their own? Why are you opposed to them putting cash in their pockets for their likeness? Until your answer that very question, everything else is irrelevant.
Actually those are just hypothetical questions, because I know what's happening. You have no reason for opposing these kids from getting paid. You have no reason other than petty jealousy that these special kids should get, you know, paid for these talents and the revenues they bring in. We all know that the reason you keep spinning off topic to things that have no relevance is, well, YOU have no relevance to this discussion. You were smoked out pretty early, as you kept going on and on about alternative football leagues, different systems, blah blah blah. Stuff that was so off topic that even Tebow would have been critical of your accuracy.
So, fitz, can you man up and actually answer the question, and stay on topic? Or are you going to, once again, and true to form, roll over to something unrelated?
<< <i>
Why are you opposed to these kids, who make these colleges untold millions, making some money of their own? ? >>
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
Joe Montana
Dan Marino
John Elway
Jim McMahon
Walter Payton
Gale Sayers
Emmit Smith
Terry Bradshaw
Roger Staubach
Jerry Rice
Steve Young
Herschel Walker
etc
etc
etc
etc
All these players agreed to play under the system that we have. They disagree with you in all your points.
If they agreed with you, then they would have tried an alternative route to pursue their goals.
Basically everyone who ever played college football disagrees with you and Boopotts, because they all signed a contract to play under the rules that we have.
<< <i>So if there was no contract saying they couldn't receive monetary compensation you'd have no problems with it whatsoever? Because that's what you're saying by hinging your entire argument on the 'they signed a contract' idea. >>
YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You finally get it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the NCAA comes out with new rules that allows Manziel to make money signing autos, personal appearances, kissing girls, etc.,.etc,
and Manziel signs a contract stating that he is happy with those rules, then I'm all for it.
<< <i>Here are a list of people that do not agree with you Axtell............ >>
I honestly couldn't care less who agrees with me over this. The point is your entire idea objecting to kids getting paid is because of some contract they sign, that, if were gone tomorrow, you would be totally ok with them receiving compensation. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with me that these kids deserve compensation!
<< <i>
If the NCAA comes out with new rules that allows Manziel to make money signing autos, personal appearances, kissing girls, etc.,.etc,
and Manziel signs a contract stating that he is happy with those rules, then I'm all for it. >>
Then why in god's name didn't you just say so from the beginning? Good gravy.
<< <i>
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! >>
It is not a requirement to sign a contract to play an NCAA sport. Yet even if a player doesn't, the NCAA still prohibits them from receiving cash.
<< <i>
<< <i>
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL THAT SAYS THAT THEY AGREE TO PLAY UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE THEY SIGN A CONTRACT UNDER THEIR OWN FREEWILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!!
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT...............YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS !!! >>
It is not a requirement to sign a contract to play an NCAA sport. Yet even if a player doesn't, the NCAA still prohibits them from receiving cash. >>
Numerous rules and regulations surround the athlete that signs an NCAA approved letter of intent. Athletes agree to rules that regulate transferring to another institution, being randomly tested for performance-enhancing drugs, and earning a minimum number of credit hours in their studies. These and other rules are important aspects of the contractual relationship between the NCAA and the athlete. The NCAA and USOC have agreed to examine ways to ensure that talented amateur athletes who have remaining collegiate eligibility may actually earn a stipend from an Olympic national governing body such as United States Swimming and still retain amateur status. Letter of Intent Division I, Division II and NAIA[1] athletes are the beneficiaries of athletic scholarships (more specifically referred to as grants-in-aid). They sign an agreement with the college or university in the form of a letter of intent, which is a binding agreement between the athlete and an institution. This agreement provides that in exchange for the athlete’s services in their sport, they will have tuition, room and board, and books paid for by the institution. However, no financial compensation may be awarded to athletes in exchange for their athletic talents in that particular sport. There are questions, however, as to the validity of such agreements if a letter of intent were challenged in court. It appears that such an agreement need not be signed as a prerequisite to participation in NCAA-governed sports, though the NCAA manual does refer to the letter of intent program. The National Letter of Intent Program is actually not administered by the NCAA but rather through the College Commissioners Association (CCA). The CCA has administered this program for 30 years and has no reported lawsuits against it - See more at: http://sportslaw.uslegal.com/sports-agents-and-contracts/ncaa-sports-contracts-and-amateurism/#sthash.Q3lWsqFJ.dpuf
However, what I'd like to ask you now is do you think the rule is fair? Do you think its fair to the kids, who are the only ones risking their health, to be the only ones forbidden from capitalizing on it?