This is going to get messy

#1DieHardHawk said:
That's not really the point. As I said, it may very well be primarily older white men, but to state that it is "only" older white men is an absolute and therefore an over-generalization.
Click to expand...
Ok.

Then it's 99.999% older white men. See how you're still distracting from the main point?
 
NorthKCHawk said:
You moderate a board that is premised upon a bunch of old dudes sitting around chatting about that playground game played by 20 year olds all day long. Half of what we do here is talk about what is wrong with the sport and our team. If we take a step back and frame it these terms, the whole thing is pretty silly. That said, here we are...

I agree with the voting with your wallet concept. I have not watched a single MLB game since before the pandemic. I grew up a Cubs fan, and was also a Royals fan when living in KC. Both teams got a title. I cried during both. But, its just not interesting anymore when your team has no hope. Sports that isolate huge swaths of their fan bases from any meaningful involvement in the sport do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...
You nailed it.

This whole thing is silly.

Absurdly bonkers is what it is.
 
Fryowa said:
I know you already know this, but "benefit to the sport" is 100% subjective.

A more succinct way for me to put it is...more beneficial to you or more beneficial to the athlete who's directly affected? And you can't suggest "better for the institution" because the institution is the athletes themselves. Any other illusion of the institution being bigger than the athletes falls apart because then you're back to the guy sitting on his couch with no stake in the matter.

Ask an athlete if allowing immediate transfers would be beneficial to the sport and I guarantee you his answer would be different than a rabid traditionalist football fan who's about to lose his team's star QB.

Philosophically, is it better to do things that improve an athlete's chance at wealth/opportunity the same as any other career where labor is traded for compensation (we don't need to be obtuse and say these athletes are doing this for amateur recreation), or better to satisfy the whims of an unaffected non-stakeholder sitting on his couch, who has zero relationship with or tie to said athlete? See how that makes no sense?

We say we'd be affected even if it's very indirectly, but be truthful...if an athlete at your favorite school is allowed an immediate transfer and leaves, and your team goes 2-9 the next year...are you actually affected other than your pride? The answer is no. You have a choice to buy tickets, TV subscriptions, and hoodies. Is the athlete directly affected by the same rule? Yep.

But the NFL has rules and regs you say, right? And it's the most popular and lucrative sport in America. You're correct. But players have representation and through collective bargaining have agreed to a system that makes it's best players worth nine figures. There is no such system in college football. I argue that such a system would be impossible to implement because it's best players are in the system 3 years tops, and usually 1 of those years is on the sidelines as a redshirt freshman. Do you imagine an 18 year old college redshirt freshman trying desperately to stay uninjured and make a starting spot on his team to be a savvy negotiator, and do you expect that demographic to get good counsel in those matters when they have no money to pay for it? And what incentive does an intelligent, driven college senior player have to advocate for his forthcoming peers when he's about to go make millions in the NFL/NBA anyway?

At the end of the day we are all just men and women who like to watch kids play a bouncy ball game wearing a certain color jersey that we grew up liking. There is no moral ground where we should have a say in what they do when no public money is involved. We try to invent that moral ground to stand on because we have this idyllic apple pie version of the way things "should be."

I respect someone who says, "I want college sports to be regulated because that's the way I like it, dammit," a million times more than someone who tries to come up with 100 different cockamamie legal reasons why it should, which is what we see on social media and TV today. At least the former is honest about it.

We all know deep down why we want college sports regulated to the hilt. And it ain't because of what's best for athletes.
Click to expand...
You said the word "succinctly" and then added 9 more paragraphs! :)

Look, I am confident from our posts that you would prioritize the athletes in this equation a bit more than me, but honestly, how things get divied up and regulated is not nearly as important to me as that there needs to be some regulations. This is a two-ways street. The Universities could not make billions without the athletes on the field, but likewise, those kids would have no place to showcase their talents without the Universities that have built up this product, invested in facilities, built giant stadiums, and otherwise maintained the platform. As with most things in life, there is a balance point in there that works for everyone.

And, to answer your point at the end, yes, I want a college football product that resembles that product I have enjoyed my entire life. College football brings me great joy, especially the Iowa Hawkeyes. I don't mind innovation, incremental change, and evolving concepts. But, a system where the backup center at Iowa can transfer to Minnesota with his playbook in hand the Thursday before they play Iowa is not my cup of tea.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
You moderate a board that is premised upon a bunch of old dudes sitting around chatting about that playground game played by 20 year olds all day long. Half of what we do here is talk about what is wrong with the sport and our team. If we take a step back and frame it these terms, the whole thing is pretty silly. That said, here we are...

I agree with the voting with your wallet concept. I have not watched a single MLB game since before the pandemic. I grew up a Cubs fan, and was also a Royals fan when living in KC. Both teams got a title. I cried during both. But, its just not interesting anymore when your team has no hope. Sports that isolate huge swaths of their fan bases from any meaningful involvement in the sport do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...
It is interesting, and, when you think about it, applies to most forms of entertainment.

At it's core, deriving pleasure from watching sports, or movies, or TV, or playing board games or cards, or attending rock concerts, etc., is all silly. Our brains are wired to our individual cultures and upbringing, and in a sense we learn to derive that pleasure.

That said, it is the reality in which we live. Yes, we can decide to pull back and not support forms of entertainment that morphs in a direction we disagree with, but the loss of that exposure would still suck. Therein lies the conundrum.
 
Fryowa said:
The NCAA did this to itself back in the 80s and now it finally has to pay the piper. And I love it.

Remember the only people mad about it are 50+ year old affluent white guys who've never met the athletes participating and have no vested interest, but who want said athletes to entertain them (effectively) for free like court jesters under a set of rules that they (old white dudes) get to set.

Funny enough the people mad about this tend to be conservatives who want free market and limited governance, except when it comes to their entertainment.

You folks pissed about this are no different (or less hypocritical) than some tree hugger celebrity whining about carbon emissions and then hopping on his or her private jet 8 times a month.

It's hilarious. Bring the thunder, triggered people. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the NCAA had 30+ years to prepare for this, to come up with a system, to figure out a way to share the profits and knew it was a model that couldn't be sustained. Instead of embracing it, planning for it, coming up with a road map for a future, they fought it at every level. They pushed to stop it. They held onto an out of date formula that was destined to fail vs. finding a way forward to sustain and grow the sport. I too, fricking love this chaos and the sport has no one to blame but themselves. It's not like no one saw this coming, it's been coming for decades.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
And, to answer your point at the end, yes, I want a college football product that resembles that product I have enjoyed my entire life. College football brings me great joy, especially the Iowa Hawkeyes. I don't mind innovation, incremental change, and evolving concepts. But, a system where the backup center at Iowa can transfer to Minnesota with his playbook in hand the Thursday before they play Iowa is not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
See, you've highlighted a reasonable point which has an actual reason behind it, and also one that can be compromised on. Those things I'm ok with. If there was a rule that said a player can't immediately play for a team which has his previous team on the schedule for the next two years I'd be fine with it. The player still has 120+ D1 options and a potential affected party (previous school) is protected from harm. Makes sense and isn't difficult to solve.

It's the people wanting to sit all transfers for a year out of spite and because they're butthurt about their perceived "product" being affected that I find to be scumbags.

And it's not just the transfer thing. There are people still wanting NIL outlawed, "salary caps" for no particular reason, and on and on...
 
InGoodCo said:
Yeah, the NCAA had 30+ years to prepare for this, to come up with a system, to figure out a way to share the profits and knew it was a model that couldn't be sustained. Instead of embracing it, planning for it, coming up with a road map for a future, they fought it at every level. They pushed to stop it. They held onto an out of date formula that was destined to fail vs. finding a way forward to sustain and grow the sport. I too, fricking love this chaos and the sport has no one to blame but themselves. It's not like no one saw this coming, it's been coming for decades.
Click to expand...
All they really had to do was give a pittance to the Chris Webbers of the era for selling a few jerseys, and let the Brady Rosses of the world go do a local small town radio ad or sign some autographs for $350 to pay for some books or beer and they'd have probably been fine. But Mark Emmert and his cronies stuck to their guns and threatened anyone who made a single penny with destroying their sports careers and future livelihoods.

The NCAA can suck it. This whole new world is their own fault.
 
This court decision is not the least bit surprising. There was never any common-sense or rationale to the restriction: you can transfer once without penalty, but the 2nd time there IS a penalty? Why not a penalty after the 2nd transfer? The 3rd transfer? I never thought attempting to draw a line in quicksand was ever going to hold up in the long-term.
 
Fryowa said:
The NCAA did this to itself back in the 80s and now it finally has to pay the piper. And I love it.

Remember the only people mad about it are 50+ year old affluent white guys who've never met the athletes participating and have no vested interest, but who want said athletes to entertain them (effectively) for free like court jesters under a set of rules that they (old white dudes) get to set.

Funny enough the people mad about this tend to be conservatives who want free market and limited governance, except when it comes to their entertainment.

You folks pissed about this are no different (or less hypocritical) than some tree hugger celebrity whining about carbon emissions and then hopping on his or her private jet 8 times a month.

It's hilarious. Bring the thunder, triggered people. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...
Coaches have been doing this for years. Go to a school, have a great year or two. Have their agents put their name out they will entertain offers. Then pimp themselves out to the highest bidder. What's so different now the kids are doing it.
 
Iceman said:
Coaches have been doing this for years. Go to a school, have a great year or two. Have their agents put their name out they will entertain offers. Then pimp themselves out to the highest bidder. What's so different now the kids are doing it.
Click to expand...
Because the establishment making up the coaches pimping themselves out just happens to be the same overwhelming demographic that's mad about free transfers for players.

Hmmm...
 
NorthKCHawk said:
You moderate a board that is premised upon a bunch of old dudes sitting around chatting about that playground game played by 20 year olds all day long. Half of what we do here is talk about what is wrong with the sport and our team. If we take a step back and frame it these terms, the whole thing is pretty silly. That said, here we are...

I agree with the voting with your wallet concept. I have not watched a single MLB game since before the pandemic. I grew up a Cubs fan, and was also a Royals fan when living in KC. Both teams got a title. I cried during both. But, its just not interesting anymore when your team has no hope. Sports that isolate huge swaths of their fan bases from any meaningful involvement in the sport do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...
I was a Cubs fan my entire life and didn't seem like I ever missed a game when I was younger and would tape and DVR them later in life. I stopped watching when they went to the Marquee network. That sealed their fate with me. If I could pay a modest streaming fee I would have entertained that, but they didn't have a streaming option thru their site but had to change to another TV program/streaming.

It gets to the point where ya say screw them and move on. As you point out, they isolate their fan base and fans then become disconnected. This happened to boxing when Pay Per View came along. I used to watch boxing and could easily list the top boxers in each weight and name many names. Fans became disconnected because viewing wasn't as readily available. It's their choice. The top boxers still get paid which is all they care about.

Oh, and I no longer really buy any Cub apparel. They are missing out on that.
 
Fryowa said:
See, you've highlighted a reasonable point which has an actual reason behind it, and also one that can be compromised on. Those things I'm ok with. If there was a rule that said a player can't immediately play for a team which has his previous team on the schedule for the next two years I'd be fine with it. The player still has 120+ D1 options and a potential affected party (previous school) is protected from harm. Makes sense and isn't difficult to solve.

It's the people wanting to sit all transfers for a year out of spite and because they're butthurt about their perceived "product" being affected that I find to be scumbags.

And it's not just the transfer thing. There are people still wanting NIL outlawed, "salary caps" for no particular reason, and on and on...
Click to expand...
I admit, that's me!
 
A bunch of God Damn Communists on this site...these players just need to accept that the ruling class knows what is best for them and get in line!
 
You know what is really messy? I know personally of a good example of reality for you. I am aware of a young person whose parents could not afford college expenses for their daughter, given the defunding of public universities nation wide by irresponsible legislators, in many cases.
So, because this kid chose a path to devote herself to helping others, she borrowed $$ from predatory lenders and became tied to loans that would take 20 years to repay. Her future is clear. Likely no home purchase, can’t afford marriage with children, and fully aware of her sacrifice. She is not dumb. To be clear this is an example of reality, not an isolated incident.

I hope college athletes do well with whatever NIL brings to their lives. They deserve it, for sure. I coached young athletes and served as a public school educator for 40 years, and saw the good and the bad that most of you may have never experienced. So be cautious in your judgments.

I just hope these athletes are everlastingly grateful for their paid for college degree and their graduation with little or no crippling debt. Yes. They work two 40 hour weeks for 4 or more years to git ‘er done. I know a lot of people who are still doing that, BTW.

So, I suggest to you that you calculate room, board, tuition, loss of earning power for 4 years, inflation, interest on loans, fewer years in the workforce to accumulate Medicare, social security, 401 K’s, investments, before you merrily ignore the benefits of a four year scholarship.

Do the math and get back to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top