• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

Actually the current situation is emblematic of American Capitalism as it exists today. Drive all wealth to the top no matter what it takes. And when the wealthiest inherit that wealth, worship them like deities. Talking to you Elon Musk, you serial stock manipulator. Good people know all this shit is wrong, as populist movements arise to end it. The reality is , under this system, two thirds of the country will cease to watch college football. We can just watch the Panthers lose.
 
Sco Deac said:
What is a fair wage? Can't be set in relation to revenue generated and must be uniform for the long snapper the same as the quarterback, or take it even further and say the same for the quarterback as it is for the 3d string setter on the volleyball team. Otherwise, you are inviting free market capitalism into the discussion.
Click to expand...

Not really. Capitalism is not the same as free markets. NIL provides a free market based on the value an athlete provides (Starting QB vs. the long snapper vs. volleyball player vs. track sprinter with 500K IG followers). TV money can go toward providing wages based on their labor (standard pay for all athletes).
 
PhDeac said:
Not really. Capitalism is not the same as free markets. NIL provides a free market based on the value an athlete provides (Starting QB vs. the long snapper vs. volleyball player vs. track sprinter with 500K IG followers). TV money can go toward providing wages based on their labor (standard pay for all athletes).
Click to expand...

But that doesn't address the main argument that is typically made, which is that a massive amount of money is made on college football (and men's basketball, to a lesser degree), so that money should go back to the players. What's the argument for taking money made by college football and giving some of it to cross-country runners?
 
Rafi said:
But that doesn't address the main argument that is typically made, which is that a massive amount of money is made on college football (and men's basketball, to a lesser degree), so that money should go back to the players. What's the argument for taking money made by college football and giving some of it to cross-country runners?
Click to expand...

What’s the argument for taking money made by college football and giving some of it to the cross-country coaches?
 
MIT laughs at Alabama. As of 2016 MIT and alumni have launched 30,000 companies, employed 4.6 million people, with annual revenue of 1.9 trillion dollars. They don't have a football team. If the ACC were smart, they would separate themselves via marketing. Be an entirely different brand. And it would work. Yes we love college football but we have a different path for student/athletes.
 
^MIT has a football team. They play their home games in Steinbrenner Stadium.
 
PhDeac said:
What’s the argument for taking money made by college football and giving some of it to the cross-country coaches?
Click to expand...

To have athletic departments with a wide variety of sports, so hundreds of thousands of student-athletes can participate in these sports. I guess I'll ask again, what is the point taking money from football and paying cross-country runners a salary?
 
Rafi said:
To have athletic departments with a wide variety of sports, so hundreds of thousands of student-athletes can participate in these sports. I guess I'll ask again, what is the point taking money from football and paying cross-country runners a salary?
Click to expand...
Ask football, when college soccer takes over their sport.
 
PhDeac said:
What’s the argument for taking money made by college football and giving some of it to the cross-country coaches?
Click to expand...

For Wake, that’s easy. There is a minimum number of sports programs a school must sponsor in order to be a member of the ACC and Wake is at the minimum so the money paid to the coaches and money in support of the program is required for the football team to make the money they do. Otherwise Wake isn’t a member of the ACC and lucky to even make $5M/year from football.
 
This is all an exercise in utilitarian philosophy, if you will. The greater good. An act that brings happiness to the most people is worthwhile. Accept or reject. We stare that philosophy in the face.
 
Rafi said:
To have athletic departments with a wide variety of sports, so hundreds of thousands of student-athletes can participate in these sports. I guess I'll ask again, what is the point taking money from football and paying cross-country runners a salary?
Click to expand...

To have athletic departments with a wide variety of sports, so hundreds of thousands of student-athletes can participate in these sports.

It seems like your sticking point is that college sports are evolving away from paying everyone else except athletes for their talent and skills. Your problem isn’t having the sports, it’s paying athletes to play them.
 
macktheknife said:
MIT laughs at Alabama. As of 2016 MIT and alumni have launched 30,000 companies, employed 4.6 million people, with annual revenue of 1.9 trillion dollars. They don't have a football team. If the ACC were smart, they would separate themselves via marketing. Be an entirely different brand. And it would work. Yes we love college football but we have a different path for student/athletes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If Harvard wanted to, with its alumni resources and global brand it could put together a coaching staff, facilities and NIL deals that would dwarf anything Alabama could possibly dream of. But I don't think they see that as either remotely their institutional mission or worth the effort.
 
PhDeac said:
To have athletic departments with a wide variety of sports, so hundreds of thousands of student-athletes can participate in these sports.

It seems like your sticking point is that college sports are evolving away from paying everyone else except athletes for their talent and skills. Your problem isn’t having the sports, it’s paying athletes to play them.
Click to expand...

A school can have a cross country team without paying their student athletes a salary, but they can’t have a cross country team without a coach.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, making student athletes salaried employees has the potential for very negative consequences, such as eliminating title IX, women’s sports, and intercollegiate sports in general.
 
I still think the free education is such a plus, since I paid full freight for my daughter to attend Wake. Maybe a small stipend for all usual expenses and I feel good about the student athlete.
But, I am old school and believe in the work ethic.
 
wfunme said:
I still think the free education is such a plus, since I paid full freight for my daughter to attend Wake. Maybe a small stipend for all usual expenses and I feel good about the student athlete.
But, I am old school and believe in the work ethic.
Click to expand...

What does work ethic have to do with anything?


Rafi said:
A school can have a cross country team without paying their student athletes a salary, but they can’t have a cross country team without a coach.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, making student athletes salaried employees has the potential for very negative consequences, such as eliminating title IX, women’s sports, and intercollegiate sports in general.
Click to expand...

The coach makes the team, I guess.

The negative consequences are just the ill will of people in charge. It’s hostage taking.
 
With all of the nightmares surrounding student loans, I also see a full ride scholarship as a huge payday. As a prof at a D3 school, my student-athletes are truly student-athletes who just keep playing for the love of the sport. I love that (even though most of them stink).
 
PhDeac said:
The coach makes the team, I guess.
Click to expand...

I think that’s right. I’ll watch a lot of college football this fall but at this point I can’t name a single player on Bama, UGA, Ohio State, etc., but I can name their coaches without a second of thought. I can’t tell you who Duke bball will have on their team, but I know their coach.
 
You show up to a game with coaches and no players.

I’ll show up with players and no coaches.

Who do you think wins?
 
Rafi said:
I think that’s right. I’ll watch a lot of college football this fall but at this point I can’t name a single player on Bama, UGA, Ohio State, etc., but I can name their coaches without a second of thought. I can’t tell you who Duke bball will have on their team, but I know their coach.
Click to expand...

10991221.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top