And so it begins....
Comments
-
Inquiring minds want to know the last time CollegeDoog supported the Arena League with cash monies? Merchandise sales? Hotdogs, beers and a rickshaw ride?RaceBannon said:I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
-
As usual on this board, Race and Collegedoog each have half of the argument right, but are too into the horse race to agree.
-
But my half is better
-
RaceBannon said:
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
Fuck you're a moron dude.. -
Colleges won't drop. The money will always be there. That's exactly what I responded too.RaceBannon said: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..
You've been beat old man.
-
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.RaceBannon said: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
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. -
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.RaceBannon said: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
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. -
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.MikeDamone said:
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.Tailgater said:
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.RaceBannon said: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.
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.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
