|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5307]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/23/06
|
Playing Devil's Advocate........
Aug 7, 2012, 8:36 PM
|
|
Before you TD me, or vomit in your mouth, understand my reasoning. As much as it pains me to agree with a policy that the coot utilize, it makes sense. Although it shouldn’t be, college football is a business. The players are employees of the university; they are expected to produce a certain product (a winning team). In exchange for their services, players are given an education, housing, clothing, books, tutoring, etc. Is it enough? No, they bring in millions of dollars for the university and in return are given 35k a year? Anyway, that’s a whole other beast.
As an employer, if you hired an employee and said employee were not performing up to the level that you expected them too, you should have the right to fire/replace them. “But, I made a promise to that employee.” FOOTBALL HAS BECOME A BUISNEESS. If it comes to whether employee X stays, or you keep your job. You make the move every time.
That being said……like the in the business world where you cannot fire without just cause, cutting/firing for disability, discrimination, etc….not cool. However, if you are not doing the job you were hired to do, can you really blame them?
I know some of the arguments:
1) There is always someone better
2) It is about honor
3) It is not all about the money or football, it is about life too.
Too much $$$$$$$ is involved to carry dead weight
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2705]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2279
Joined: 10/12/09
|
Wow.
Aug 7, 2012, 8:40 PM
|
|
That was an eloquent apology for the behaviors of the pathetic moron known as old ball sack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7961
Joined: 2/27/02
|
Players are not employees, they are student athletes.
Aug 7, 2012, 8:49 PM
|
|
Don't compare them to professional athletes. Just b/c some bigger programs are shady and like to win at all costs doesn't mean rules should be changed to help them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Playing Devil's Advocate........
Aug 7, 2012, 8:51 PM
|
|
If the players were being paid fair market value for their services then I wouldn't have a problem with anything you said. But they are not. And, the NFL (the only legitimate professional option for football players in the United States) colluded with the NCAA to prevent players from being job eligible until three years out of high school. Schools have an obligation to keep a kid around at least those three years since they have artificially prevented a job market from existing for football players during those years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
what you call "colluded with the NCAA "
Aug 7, 2012, 9:00 PM
|
|
some call protecting kids from permanent injury. Football isn't the same as soccer. basketball, or baseball.
Schools have no obligations to carry student athletes, scholarships get pulled all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: what you call "colluded with the NCAA "
Aug 7, 2012, 10:07 PM
|
|
I would argue that your position is increasingly in the minority. The entire Big 10 now offers 4 year scholarships. Florida and Auburn have begun offering 4 year scholarships with this years' class. And Nick Saban says Alabama will be doing the same starting next year as of a couple weeks ago. Schools aren't obligated to play football. If they do, I absolutely believe they have a moral obligation to operate in the best interest of the student athletes that they ( the University) chose to solicit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
This is a poor line of reasoning
Aug 7, 2012, 9:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: Playing Devil's Advocate........ ] |
|
There is nothing preventing anyone from creating an alternate football league to compete with the NFL and/or the NCAA. You'd of course have to compete with the NFL and NCAA for players, but that's life. Just because these are the top dogs and hard to beat doesn't mean there cannot be an upstart. The XFL and WLAF, the USFL and WFL, not to mention Arena Football and Canadian Football are or were alternatives that didn't have to collude with the NFL or NCAA.
Forty years ago, there were two major proessional football leagues. The ABA played basketball for a decade before mergining into the modenr NBA.
I thought about this when the NFL players went on strike and claimed that the NFL was preventing them from selling their services. There was nothing preventing the players from forming new teams, buying or renting stadiums and running a league on their own. They chose not to, becuase it was easierr to lean on the owners to handle those aspects and let the players play. but the *could*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This is a poor line of reasoning
Aug 7, 2012, 10:02 PM
|
|
And I would argue that you have little understanding of market dynamics and the stranglehold the NFL has over the sport. Professional sports are essentially monopolies that have avoided government regulation. It is also why they bend the knee very quickly whenever government threatens to get involved. 100+ years of college football and we end up with a playoff within a couple years of the government grumbling about getting involved. Further, if you're really interested in sports history, the present day NCAA is grown out of efforts to regulate football born of the Theodore Roosevelt administration. No, no one can stop me or anyone else from attempting to start a sports league, but the NFLs contracts with tv, venues, and just about every other facet of the business make it almost impossible.
Please name me another industry that requires that you go work, unpaid, in a multi billion dollar industry with your only compensation being enrollment at the school you play for - which, by the way, is a requirement of the NCAA for you to play. Arena football doesn't pay a living wage. CFL is outside of this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
maybe this will put it in perspective
Aug 7, 2012, 8:57 PM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImTi03FPBr8
Clemson University is an institution of higher learning. It's purpose is to educate no matter how many dollars it can make from football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18245
Joined: 6/10/09
|
But Clemson's a part of the NCAA who does not give a crap
Aug 7, 2012, 9:20 PM
|
|
about the "student" athlete. The NCAA is a business. Clemson is a part of that business.
Bowl season is now extending into Spring Semester. Football games are being played on Thursday nights. Athletes are accepted into schools that they have no business attending if they were a "normal" student.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [167]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 210
Joined: 12/7/09
|
Re: Playing Devil's Advocate........
Aug 7, 2012, 9:35 PM
|
|
If its all about $$$$ and a business, the NCAA should get off of its lazy butt and put together a set of guidelines that takes away from schools and coaches like this turd. That way its a fair playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [593]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 1099
Joined: 10/5/11
|
Maybe it should be about evaluating talent better. Period***
Aug 7, 2012, 9:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12771
Joined: 11/14/09
|
The NCAA's institutions are non-profit. Yes, it's big $$$,
Aug 7, 2012, 10:43 PM
|
|
which ultimately comes from donors and fans of the game. The TV revenue portion is generated primarily through advertising dollars, participating companies that must factor those costs into the products they're selling to their audience. There's no football fairy flying around sprinkling billions of dollars into college pockets - as fans of the game we all pay for it up front or on the back end. At the end of the day, the broadcasters, apparel and equipment companies, contractors, etc. are the only ones profiting, not the schools.
These institutions then pour this revenue back into their programs to build facilities and pay coaches in order to remain competitive. There's no profit here, only a recycling of funds back into the schools budgets. Portions of athletic budgets also go into colleges' general funds and further build and support the overall institution.
As someone said above, there are alternatives. If a kid didn't want to go the college route and get a free education, professional training, coaching, room, board, etc. in order to raise their value for a possible NFL shot, then yes, there's arena football, semi-pro leagues and the CFL. Yes, they don't pay much, but they are alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You are talking about pro not college.***
Aug 7, 2012, 11:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
