I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
Inquiring minds want to know the last time CollegeDoog supported the Arena League with cash monies? Merchandise sales? Hotdogs, beers and a rickshaw ride?
To get what you want you have to take it out of the colleges and the NCAA and away from Title 9. College football is what it is because of the college. Nobody gives a shit about college baseball and basketball is following.
Big time college football is so embedded in culture that a move from amateurism would hardly harm its popularity. You're exactly right. It's the college. Fans will watch and pay because they want their college to win. Not because of some phony myth of amateurism. When the money is opened up for these players the competition between schools will see a massive increase in donations. Look at what Johnny Football did for A&M (record donations) or Saban for Alabama ("best investment Alabama ever made"). Imagine now that even more money can be thrown around.
I don't care either way, I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
It's not minor league football. Christ. College football is pretty much standalone from the NFL. People said the same shit about baseball and moving revenue towards the players.
Title 9 and university presidents aren't going to allow football players to get paid unequally to other student athletes. Universities won't make them employees because of the liability. They will just drop the sport.
So how about licensing deals then? Letting all players across all sports use their likeness for jersey sales, endorsement deals. That wouldn't be affected by title 9. You've yet to address that.
Like most of your ideas, it is unworkable in the real world. Just something else to whine and complain about.
Where is the money going? Still waiting on that answer. There has to be someone pocketing all these millions that universities are hiding to exploit these poor athletes and their free education and training.
The money is going to the head coaches, administrators, and the people at the NCAA who are part of this $8 billion dollar industry. The share of money would be somewhat shifted away from these people and to the players. Studies show that all parties can afford this.
Could it be the same folks that are exploiting ALL students with ridiculous tuition and killing debt thanks to the student loan scam? Oh wait, student loans are another great idea you love I'm sure.
The UW cost 180$ a quarter when I went there. See a correlation between the government subsidizing tuition and tuition skyrocketing? Probably not. That's a real issue.
Great deflecting because you suck at arguing the actual issue that's relevant on a college football message board.
You completely missed the point. Not for the first time. You bolded replies to my points that didn't reply to my point. You just spouted your talking points.
Why not try again and actually respond to what I said with your own thoughts if you have any.
Hint - nowhere did I say that people wouldn't watch if college football wasn't amateur
It will be minor league football when colleges drop
You completely missed the point. Not for the first time. You bolded replies to my points that didn't reply to my point. You just spouted your talking points.
Why not try again and actually respond to what I said with your own thoughts if you have any.
Hint - nowhere did I say that people wouldn't watch if college football wasn't amateur It will be minor league football when colleges drop
Fuck you're a moron dude..
Colleges won't drop. The money will always be there. That's exactly what I responded too.
So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it
Your whole premise is based on title 9.
1. IS LICENSING BAD!? WHY CAN'T ALL THE PLAYERS IN EVERY SPORT LICENSE THEIR NAME? TITLE 9 WOULD NOT EFFECT THAT. YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE AN ANSWER. IT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE ONE.
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it
There ain't no getting around title 9 for university sports. These people have a say and they will say no...and then fuck no.
These are the fucktards who are getting charged up to "do something" about the gender income gap myth. Title 9 in American universities won't be changing and male football players won't be getting paid if the softball players aren't getting the same amount. No matter where it comes from.
Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.
Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.
Wrong... Congress or a judge could absolutely enforce title 9 or even if the football players get put on the payroll and the softball players don't. Allowing football players to be employees simply won't happen unless they allow women to play football and enforce their participation through quotas.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Players won't be put on payroll or be paid in our lifetime. They can choose the offer to play that is on the table, or they can chose not to play. There is no shortage of quality players who will play for the current form of compensation. It would have to be forced with through the courts (it won't be) or players will have to elect not to play (they won't)
collegedoog says 2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
collegedoog says 2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
You realize the NCAA at the moment is at even more risk than the NFL exactly because the athletes aren't employees and can't follow the workers comp formula.
Schools currently have a concussion and injury waiver that they, I imagine, would carry over as part of any employee agreement, especially if the players unionize.
Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.
Wrong... Congress or a judge could absolutely enforce title 9 or even if the football players get put on the payroll and the softball players don't. Allowing football players to be employees simply won't happen unless they allow women to play football and enforce their participation through quotas.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Players won't be put on payroll or be paid in our lifetime. They can choose the offer to play that is on the table, or they can chose not to play. There is no shortage of quality players who will play for the current form of compensation. It would have to be forced with through the courts (it won't be) or players will have to elect not to play (they won't)
I'm not saying that softball playing athletes wouldn't be paid small wages to make their college life easier, they just wouldn't be paid nearly as much as football playing athletes. No court is going to rule that all sports offered by the university for public consumption are of equal value and thus the work required to produce such sports entertainment must be equal. By your logic, Title 9 mandates that UW's head softball coach must be paid the same as UW's head football coach, that a female TA in english 101 must be paid the same as a full professor in pre-med, etc. Once colleges and universities decide to pay athletes something other than scholarship and subsistence expenses, equality in collegiate athletics becomes a different game where Title 9 doesn't play.
collegedoog says 2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
You realize the NCAA at the moment is at even more risk than the NFL exactly because the athletes aren't employees and can't follow the workers comp formula.
Schools currently have a concussion and injury waiver that they, I imagine, would carry over as part of any employee agreement, especially if the players unionize.
Not being employees is why the NCAA isn't at risk. Making them employees with a union would make them just like the NFL
Comments
Why not try again and actually respond to what I said with your own thoughts if you have any.
Hint - nowhere did I say that people wouldn't watch if college football wasn't amateur
It will be minor league football when colleges drop
Fuck you're a moron dude..
You've been beat old man.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it
1. IS LICENSING BAD!? WHY CAN'T ALL THE PLAYERS IN EVERY SPORT LICENSE THEIR NAME? TITLE 9 WOULD NOT EFFECT THAT. YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE AN ANSWER. IT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE ONE.
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
These are the fucktards who are getting charged up to "do something" about the gender income gap myth. Title 9 in American universities won't be changing and male football players won't be getting paid if the softball players aren't getting the same amount. No matter where it comes from.
Simple fact.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Players won't be put on payroll or be paid in our lifetime. They can choose the offer to play that is on the table, or they can chose not to play. There is no shortage of quality players who will play for the current form of compensation. It would have to be forced with through the courts (it won't be) or players will have to elect not to play (they won't)
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
Problem solved.
Schools currently have a concussion and injury waiver that they, I imagine, would carry over as part of any employee agreement, especially if the players unionize.
This is really basic shit