<< <i>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? >>
That is a very good question Axtell.
The Top football programs make over 25 million dollars per year.
However, many football programs are in the red, and lose millions of dollars each year.
You would have say Notre Dame playing Purdue, Air Force, and let's say Boston College. Under your idea, all the kids from Notre Dame would be getting paid, while the kids from Air Force, Purdue, and Boston College would only be scholarship kids ? Is that what you're talking about ?
Or are you talking about Manziel getting paid to sign autographs, make appearances, and sell his likeness ?
Players should get a cut of each school's profitability, and players should be allowed to make money off of their likenesses.
By the way, the top programs make way more than 25 million a year. Texas had over $75 million in profit last year, Michigan $60+, the list goes on here.
Players should get a cut of each school's profitability, [/L]. >>
Do you mean that if Texas makes 75 million, that each player gets a portion of the proceeds because Texas made money ?
If that's what you mean, and the NCAA permitted players to reap the rewards of a program, then wouldn't it be fair to the NCAA to make players responsible for the programs that lose money too ? Therefore, a school that lost 5 million in the football program, needs to send a bill to the parents of the program ???
You can't only reward people in a free market. There is also bankruptcy in a free market, and businesses that close, and people who lose their shirt.
If all the players need to be treaty fairly under your system, then are you prepared to make those who lose money suffer, and allow those who make money to prosper ?
Even in a free market, employees aren't docked pay when their companies aren't profitable. So, no, those players from smaller, non-revenue generating schools should not and would not be forced to pay to play.
Ideally what would happen (but never would) would be a true minor league system of football, and eliminate the entire charade of the 'student athlete' altogether. Just think, eliminating the idea that these kids have to go to classes just to advance their football careers is a joke. You'd be able to get rid of the corruption altogether if you had a minor league of football players. No more worrying about eligibility, no more worrying about boosters or alumni getting their hands on these kids, just pure, unadulterated football.
But that will never happen. There's far too much money, power, and influence keeping this joke of a system afloat.
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization.
If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains, then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses.
You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others. The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions.
Ideally what would happen (but never would) would be a true minor league system of football, and eliminate the entire charade of the 'student athlete' altogether. Just think, eliminating the idea that these kids have to go to classes just to advance their football careers is a joke. . >>
The average NFL career lasts under 5 years. 99% of NCAA college football players either never make it, or do not make enough money in the NFL to last their lifetime. If it wasn't for their education they fall back on, they'd end up on the street.
But you want to take that education away from them, set up a minor league system, where they get no education, and watch 99% of these kids exit that minor league system with nothing to fall back on. I'll take the NCAA any day of the week over that plan.
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization. >>
But we're not talking about the NCAA, we're talking about the universities themselves. Big difference. Nice spin attempt, though.
<< <i>If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains, then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses. >>
False equation, as I've already stated we're not talking about the NCAA but the individual universities. Your entire argument about charging students for losses is predicated on something that is entirely wrong. Not that I should be surprised, coming from you.
<< <i>You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others. The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions. >>
You are so hilariously misinformed and out-and-out WRONG it's beyond belief.
<< <i>
The average NFL career lasts under 5 years. 99% of NCAA college football players either never make it, or do not make enough money in the NFL to last their lifetime. If it wasn't for their education they fall back on, they'd end up on the street.
But you want to take that education away from them, set up a minor league system, where they get no education, and watch 99% of these kids exit that minor league system with nothing to fall back on. I'll take the NCAA any day of the week over that plan. >>
So it's ok for baseball players to do it, but football players it's not? It's ok for basketball players to only have to attend one semester of classes before being able to be drafted in the NBA? It's not anyone's job to babysit these kids, once they are adults, it should be up to them the choices they make.
So it's ok for baseball players to do it, but football players it's not? It's ok for basketball players to only have to attend one semester of classes before being able to be drafted in the NBA? It's not anyone's job to babysit these kids, once they are adults, it should be up to them the choices they make. >>
Major league baseball subsidize their minor league franchises. The NFL does not, and never will.
By all means, find a group of investors that will start a minor league football league, and watch it fold quicker then the USFL.
Your ideas are based on failing premises. These premises failed before, and they will never work. No one will ever pay enough money to support minor league football.
But if you're so convinced, then go start a league.
But we're not talking about the NCAA, we're talking about the universities themselves. Big difference..
. >>
Do your homework on this issue, and then get back to me. >>
I think YOU better do your homework. The NCAA, as an entity, yes, is a non profit. But private universities, the ones that reap the tens of millions of dollars in profit, are not.
Major league baseball subsidize their minor league franchises. The NFL does not, and never will. >>
You're ignoring the question, and conveniently leaving out the NBA. Why is the education of football players so much more important than that of NBA or MLB players? It has nothing to do with subsidizing of franchises, so please enlighten us as to why you feel so compelled to protect these kids and make them get an education.
<< <i>By all means, find a group of investors that will start a minor league football league, and watch it fold quicker then the USFL. >>
You keep coming back to this point as if it has some relevance to the topic at hand. I know it's tough, but please, try, TRY to focus and stay on the point.
<< <i>Your ideas are based on failing premises. These premises failed before, and they will never work. No one will ever pay enough money to support minor league football.
But if you're so convinced, then go start a league. >>
You are so spun out on whatever it is you're typing, you can't even see straight. You continue to harp on these other leagues WHEN IT DOESN'T EVEN RELATE! Good lord are you really this dense that you can't stay on topic?
I think both of you are wrong on numerous points. Plus some of the arguments make no sense.
Because a school might pay out profits they should collect the losses!? WHAT? That's the single stupidest thing you have ever said. It makes no sense. I think paying out profits is stupid as all the players would just pick the big schools but the fact that a kid might be responsible for the losses is not an obvious corollary. Some day kids may have to pay to play at the schools that lose money but it has nothing to do with the profitability at others. It's just like some high schools require kids to pay to play.
As for private schools being non-profits I do believe many of them are not for profits. However, I think it's a different code section. That is, they are not 501c3 but instead it's 501c4 or some such number. Same general rules though. I am pretty sure.
Did anyone notice that Michigan came two yards away from getting beat by a miggity-miggity-miggity-miggity MAC school? How 'bout them Zips BAYBAY!! Haaaaaaaaa!! November 30th ought to be a blast!
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization.
If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains, then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses.
You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others. The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions. >>
I can't figure out if this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard or if I'm just too stupid to pick up on the sarcasm
These schools are NON PROFIT organizations. Sometimes they have losses. Yet all the employees from the coaches earning millions to the janitors earning closer to minimum wage are all given their paychecks regardless of profits or losses. They are never charged if the college has any losses
Comments
<< <i>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? >>
That is a very good question Axtell.
The Top football programs make over 25 million dollars per year.
However, many football programs are in the red, and lose millions of dollars each year.
You would have say Notre Dame playing Purdue, Air Force, and let's say Boston College. Under your idea, all the kids from Notre Dame would be getting paid, while
the kids from Air Force, Purdue, and Boston College would only be scholarship kids ? Is that what you're talking about ?
Or are you talking about Manziel getting paid to sign autographs, make appearances, and sell his likeness ?
Players should get a cut of each school's profitability, and players should be allowed to make money off of their likenesses.
By the way, the top programs make way more than 25 million a year. Texas had over $75 million in profit last year, Michigan $60+, the list goes on here.
<< <i>
Players should get a cut of each school's profitability, [/L]. >>
Do you mean that if Texas makes 75 million, that each player gets a portion of the proceeds because Texas made money ?
If that's what you mean, and the NCAA permitted players to reap the rewards of a program, then wouldn't it be fair to the NCAA to make players responsible
for the programs that lose money too ? Therefore, a school that lost 5 million in the football program, needs to send a bill to the parents of the program ???
You can't only reward people in a free market. There is also bankruptcy in a free market, and businesses that close, and people who lose their shirt.
If all the players need to be treaty fairly under your system, then are you prepared to make those who lose money suffer, and allow those who make money to prosper ?
Ideally what would happen (but never would) would be a true minor league system of football, and eliminate the entire charade of the 'student athlete' altogether. Just think, eliminating the idea that these kids have to go to classes just to advance their football careers is a joke. You'd be able to get rid of the corruption altogether if you had a minor league of football players. No more worrying about eligibility, no more worrying about boosters or alumni getting their hands on these kids, just pure, unadulterated football.
But that will never happen. There's far too much money, power, and influence keeping this joke of a system afloat.
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization.
If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains,
then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses.
You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others.
The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions.
<< <i>
Ideally what would happen (but never would) would be a true minor league system of football, and eliminate the entire charade of the 'student athlete' altogether. Just think, eliminating the idea that these kids have to go to classes just to advance their football careers is a joke. . >>
The average NFL career lasts under 5 years. 99% of NCAA college football players either never make it, or do not make enough money in the NFL to last their lifetime.
If it wasn't for their education they fall back on, they'd end up on the street.
But you want to take that education away from them, set up a minor league system, where they get no education, and watch 99% of these kids exit that minor
league system with nothing to fall back on. I'll take the NCAA any day of the week over that plan.
<< <i>Companies are "FOR PROFIT" organizations.
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization.
>>
But we're not talking about the NCAA, we're talking about the universities themselves. Big difference. Nice spin attempt, though.
<< <i>If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains,
then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses. >>
False equation, as I've already stated we're not talking about the NCAA but the individual universities. Your entire argument about charging students for losses is predicated on something that is entirely wrong. Not that I should be surprised, coming from you.
<< <i>You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others.
The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions. >>
You are so hilariously misinformed and out-and-out WRONG it's beyond belief.
<< <i>
The average NFL career lasts under 5 years. 99% of NCAA college football players either never make it, or do not make enough money in the NFL to last their lifetime.
If it wasn't for their education they fall back on, they'd end up on the street.
But you want to take that education away from them, set up a minor league system, where they get no education, and watch 99% of these kids exit that minor
league system with nothing to fall back on. I'll take the NCAA any day of the week over that plan. >>
So it's ok for baseball players to do it, but football players it's not? It's ok for basketball players to only have to attend one semester of classes before being able to be drafted in the NBA? It's not anyone's job to babysit these kids, once they are adults, it should be up to them the choices they make.
<< <i>
But we're not talking about the NCAA, we're talking about the universities themselves. Big difference..
. >>
Do your homework on this issue, and then get back to me.
<< <i>
So it's ok for baseball players to do it, but football players it's not? It's ok for basketball players to only have to attend one semester of classes before being able to be drafted in the NBA? It's not anyone's job to babysit these kids, once they are adults, it should be up to them the choices they make. >>
Major league baseball subsidize their minor league franchises. The NFL does not, and never will.
By all means, find a group of investors that will start a minor league football league, and watch it fold quicker then the USFL.
Your ideas are based on failing premises. These premises failed before, and they will never work. No one will ever pay enough money to support minor league football.
But if you're so convinced, then go start a league.
<< <i>
<< <i>
But we're not talking about the NCAA, we're talking about the universities themselves. Big difference..
. >>
Do your homework on this issue, and then get back to me. >>
I think YOU better do your homework. The NCAA, as an entity, yes, is a non profit. But private universities, the ones that reap the tens of millions of dollars in profit, are not.
<< <i>
Major league baseball subsidize their minor league franchises. The NFL does not, and never will.
>>
You're ignoring the question, and conveniently leaving out the NBA. Why is the education of football players so much more important than that of NBA or MLB players? It has nothing to do with subsidizing of franchises, so please enlighten us as to why you feel so compelled to protect these kids and make them get an education.
<< <i>By all means, find a group of investors that will start a minor league football league, and watch it fold quicker then the USFL. >>
You keep coming back to this point as if it has some relevance to the topic at hand. I know it's tough, but please, try, TRY to focus and stay on the point.
<< <i>Your ideas are based on failing premises. These premises failed before, and they will never work. No one will ever pay enough money to support minor league football.
But if you're so convinced, then go start a league. >>
You are so spun out on whatever it is you're typing, you can't even see straight. You continue to harp on these other leagues WHEN IT DOESN'T EVEN RELATE! Good lord are you really this dense that you can't stay on topic?
Because a school might pay out profits they should collect the losses!? WHAT? That's the single stupidest thing you have ever said. It makes no sense. I think paying out profits is stupid as all the players would just pick the big schools but the fact that a kid might be responsible for the losses is not an obvious corollary. Some day kids may have to pay to play at the schools that lose money but it has nothing to do with the profitability at others. It's just like some high schools require kids to pay to play.
As for private schools being non-profits I do believe many of them are not for profits. However, I think it's a different code section. That is, they are not 501c3 but instead it's 501c4 or some such number. Same general rules though. I am pretty sure.
(Michigan sucks)
<< <i>Companies are "FOR PROFIT" organizations.
The NCAA is registered with the United States Government as a NON PROFIT organization.
If you are going to require a NON PROFIT organization to pay people because of its gains,
then you must allow these NON PROFIT organizations to charge people for losses.
You can not require NON PROFIT organizations to take on the losses made by others.
The NCAA teams that lose money (which is most of them) would have to charge their athletes at least $300,000 per year to play at their institutions. >>
I can't figure out if this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard or if I'm just too stupid to pick up on the sarcasm
These schools are NON PROFIT organizations. Sometimes they have losses. Yet all the employees from the coaches earning millions to the janitors earning closer to minimum wage are all given their paychecks regardless of profits or losses. They are never charged if the college has any losses