[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Colleges are not in the business of managing, overseeing, and being legally responsible for pro athletes.

As for going back, it's still the case in the Olympics (see the case with the skier a few years back). College has it's own set of rules (and they are the rules, right or wrong). The really screwy case is the one with Paulus.

Is that the best you got?

Like most, I don't make the rules, but, unlike some, I recognize that there are rules and that they usually weren't just pulled out of someone's rear. Athletes know what the rules are going in (or they're supposed to, anyway). If they don't like the rules, they should get them changed. But, since everyone here recognizes that money talks, I don't see a whole lot a handful of athletes can do the affect the income stream, and if the money isn't affected, nothing's going to change.

It's a little misguided to call BS on the rules when you don't even know why they exist or what effort was put into developing them.

Let's use a business/education analogy here. If an employee/student invents something under the umbrella of the business/school, who's going to get the money? It's all about who provides the facilities, environment, opportunity, and MONEY to get it started.

[WhoDat205]

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Colleges are not in the business of managing, overseeing, and being legally responsible for pro athletes.

As for going back, it's still the case in the Olympics (see the case with the skier a few years back). College has it's own set of rules (and they are the rules, right or wrong). The really screwy case is the one with Paulus.

Is that the best you got?

Like most, I don't make the rules, but, unlike some, I recognize that there are rules and that they usually weren't just pulled out of someone's rear. Athletes know what the rules are going in (or they're supposed to, anyway). If they don't like the rules, they should get them changed. But, since everyone here recognizes that money talks, I don't see a whole lot a handful of athletes can do the affect the income stream, and if the money isn't affected, nothing's going to change.

It's a little misguided to call BS on the rules when you don't even know why they exist or what effort was put into developing them.

Let's use a business/education analogy here. If an employee/student invents something under the umbrella of the business/school, who's going to get the money? It's all about who provides the facilities, environment, opportunity, and MONEY to get it started.

Your analogy is understood, but I'm not sure it's applicable. What resource do the student athletes have? They are there for only a brief time, and they're precluded from speaking to any sort of agent that might act as a advocate/representative on their behalf. They're too spread out and too few in number to form a union.

But if you will recall, I'm not really concerned with the NCAA's rules. Or better stated, they're the rules, so deal with it if you want to be a college football player. I just think there should (and could) be another viable avenue to the NFL.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Colleges are not in the business of managing, overseeing, and being legally responsible for pro athletes.

As for going back, it's still the case in the Olympics (see the case with the skier a few years back). College has it's own set of rules (and they are the rules, right or wrong). The really screwy case is the one with Paulus.

Is that the best you got?

Like most, I don't make the rules, but, unlike some, I recognize that there are rules and that they usually weren't just pulled out of someone's rear. Athletes know what the rules are going in (or they're supposed to, anyway). If they don't like the rules, they should get them changed. But, since everyone here recognizes that money talks, I don't see a whole lot a handful of athletes can do the affect the income stream, and if the money isn't affected, nothing's going to change.

It's a little misguided to call BS on the rules when you don't even know why they exist or what effort was put into developing them.

Let's use a business/education analogy here. If an employee/student invents something under the umbrella of the business/school, who's going to get the money? It's all about who provides the facilities, environment, opportunity, and MONEY to get it started.

Your analogy is understood, but I'm not sure it's applicable. What resource do the student athletes have? They are there for only a brief time, and they're precluded from speaking to any sort of agent that might act as a advocate/representative on their behalf. They're too spread out and too few in number to form a union.

But if you will recall, I'm not really concerned with the NCAA's rules. Or better stated, they're the rules, so deal with it if you want to be a college football player. I just think there should (and could) be another viable avenue to the NFL.

You don't call a $40,000/yr scholarship, plus R&B and who knows what else, a resource? Wish my kids could get that.

The problem with the "other viable avenue" is that there's no money in it. College fans are college fans because, theoretically anyway, they went to that school (yes, I know LA is kinda weird). When you have tens of thousands of alumni, you have a fan base in place that isn't going to abandon the school for some second rate professional league. And if we look at minor league baseball, I'd hazard a guess that some of these college athletes are getting scholarships and other "perks" that are worth more than many players are making. Is that what you think they want?

[WhoDat]

Zimpel Man, on 27 July 2010 - 12:56 PM, said:

WhoDat, on 27 July 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

Answer: consumers. The NFL makes a ton of money every year. It is the most profitable professional sport in America. Amazingly, football is also the most profitable college sport. The NBA and MLB are two and three (not sure in what order), and college basketball and college baseball are also two and three.

Swimmers don't have a professional circuit (or, at least, not a real one). Neither does track and field, lacrosse, volleyball (though there are some pseudo-professional sand teams), etc.

Your next best bet is probably golf or tennis, but neither is a particularly profitable professional sport either. Soccer may be in that general area too. However, all of the college sports combined probably aren't as profitable for the universities in this country as any one of those big three sports. There's good reason. People like watching basketball, and they think soccer is boring.

Lacrosse?

You keep trying to make it about the dollars (saying "consumers" is the same thing). Are the schools' missions to make a profit? Sure, they can use the money to expand academic areas, but, as I said earlier, many of these athletic programs hold the money very close to the vest to build bigger weight rooms, indoor practice fields, etc. Yeah, I'd say that is a right step in forwarding the school's mission.

And golf isn't profitable? Or tennis? How many matches/tournaments are there? They wouldn't have so many if there wasn't enough money to make it worthwhile.

Where did I say that golf and tennis aren't profitable? The issue isn't whether they are profitable. The issue is one of degree. What's more profitable? The NFL or the PGA?

And you suggested that the same logic that applies to football or basketball could apply to other sports. You used baseball as an example (when we were discussing scholarships). The answer to that question is easy - money. Put another way, return on investment.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat, on 28 July 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 27 July 2010 - 12:56 PM, said:

WhoDat, on 27 July 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

Answer: consumers. The NFL makes a ton of money every year. It is the most profitable professional sport in America. Amazingly, football is also the most profitable college sport. The NBA and MLB are two and three (not sure in what order), and college basketball and college baseball are also two and three.

Swimmers don't have a professional circuit (or, at least, not a real one). Neither does track and field, lacrosse, volleyball (though there are some pseudo-professional sand teams), etc.

Your next best bet is probably golf or tennis, but neither is a particularly profitable professional sport either. Soccer may be in that general area too. However, all of the college sports combined probably aren't as profitable for the universities in this country as any one of those big three sports. There's good reason. People like watching basketball, and they think soccer is boring.

Lacrosse?

You keep trying to make it about the dollars (saying "consumers" is the same thing). Are the schools' missions to make a profit? Sure, they can use the money to expand academic areas, but, as I said earlier, many of these athletic programs hold the money very close to the vest to build bigger weight rooms, indoor practice fields, etc. Yeah, I'd say that is a right step in forwarding the school's mission.

And golf isn't profitable? Or tennis? How many matches/tournaments are there? They wouldn't have so many if there wasn't enough money to make it worthwhile.

Where did I say that golf and tennis aren't profitable? The issue isn't whether they are profitable. The issue is one of degree. What's more profitable? The NFL or the PGA?

And you suggested that the same logic that applies to football or basketball could apply to other sports. You used baseball as an example (when we were discussing scholarships). The answer to that question is easy - money. Put another way, return on investment.

Per player, or as an organization as a whole? And there are a lot more tournaments than there are teams--of course the money is diluted.

Return on investment? Tell the schools that don't make a profit that, which is the lion's share of colleges. They may break even, but we're talking about additional expenses here, not the status quo.

[WhoDat205]

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Colleges are not in the business of managing, overseeing, and being legally responsible for pro athletes.

As for going back, it's still the case in the Olympics (see the case with the skier a few years back). College has it's own set of rules (and they are the rules, right or wrong). The really screwy case is the one with Paulus.

Is that the best you got?

Like most, I don't make the rules, but, unlike some, I recognize that there are rules and that they usually weren't just pulled out of someone's rear. Athletes know what the rules are going in (or they're supposed to, anyway). If they don't like the rules, they should get them changed. But, since everyone here recognizes that money talks, I don't see a whole lot a handful of athletes can do the affect the income stream, and if the money isn't affected, nothing's going to change.

It's a little misguided to call BS on the rules when you don't even know why they exist or what effort was put into developing them.

Let's use a business/education analogy here. If an employee/student invents something under the umbrella of the business/school, who's going to get the money? It's all about who provides the facilities, environment, opportunity, and MONEY to get it started.

Your analogy is understood, but I'm not sure it's applicable. What resource do the student athletes have? They are there for only a brief time, and they're precluded from speaking to any sort of agent that might act as a advocate/representative on their behalf. They're too spread out and too few in number to form a union.

But if you will recall, I'm not really concerned with the NCAA's rules. Or better stated, they're the rules, so deal with it if you want to be a college football player. I just think there should (and could) be another viable avenue to the NFL.

You don't call a $40,000/yr scholarship, plus R&B and who knows what else, a resource? Wish my kids could get that.

The problem with the "other viable avenue" is that there's no money in it. College fans are college fans because, theoretically anyway, they went to that school (yes, I know LA is kinda weird). When you have tens of thousands of alumni, you have a fan base in place that isn't going to abandon the school for some second rate professional league. And if we look at minor league baseball, I'd hazard a guess that some of these college athletes are getting scholarships and other "perks" that are worth more than many players are making. Is that what you think they want?

I was saying that they have no resources by which to try to change the rules.

But it is all about the money. That's what I've been saying. No one cares about Marcel Darius having to sit out a year and lose a ton of money in the draft, because the Alabama money train will keep on rolling without him. The NCAA and the NFL say they're looking out for the student athletes with all their eligibility rules, but they're really looking out for the bottom line. I just wish they wouldn't piss down our backs and call it rain....and give us a freaking playoff.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 29 July 2010 - 12:36 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 28 July 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 28 July 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Colleges are not in the business of managing, overseeing, and being legally responsible for pro athletes.

As for going back, it's still the case in the Olympics (see the case with the skier a few years back). College has it's own set of rules (and they are the rules, right or wrong). The really screwy case is the one with Paulus.

Is that the best you got?

Like most, I don't make the rules, but, unlike some, I recognize that there are rules and that they usually weren't just pulled out of someone's rear. Athletes know what the rules are going in (or they're supposed to, anyway). If they don't like the rules, they should get them changed. But, since everyone here recognizes that money talks, I don't see a whole lot a handful of athletes can do the affect the income stream, and if the money isn't affected, nothing's going to change.

It's a little misguided to call BS on the rules when you don't even know why they exist or what effort was put into developing them.

Let's use a business/education analogy here. If an employee/student invents something under the umbrella of the business/school, who's going to get the money? It's all about who provides the facilities, environment, opportunity, and MONEY to get it started.

Your analogy is understood, but I'm not sure it's applicable. What resource do the student athletes have? They are there for only a brief time, and they're precluded from speaking to any sort of agent that might act as a advocate/representative on their behalf. They're too spread out and too few in number to form a union.

But if you will recall, I'm not really concerned with the NCAA's rules. Or better stated, they're the rules, so deal with it if you want to be a college football player. I just think there should (and could) be another viable avenue to the NFL.

You don't call a $40,000/yr scholarship, plus R&B and who knows what else, a resource? Wish my kids could get that.

The problem with the "other viable avenue" is that there's no money in it. College fans are college fans because, theoretically anyway, they went to that school (yes, I know LA is kinda weird). When you have tens of thousands of alumni, you have a fan base in place that isn't going to abandon the school for some second rate professional league. And if we look at minor league baseball, I'd hazard a guess that some of these college athletes are getting scholarships and other "perks" that are worth more than many players are making. Is that what you think they want?

I was saying that they have no resources by which to try to change the rules.

But it is all about the money. That's what I've been saying. No one cares about Marcel Darius having to sit out a year and lose a ton of money in the draft, because the Alabama money train will keep on rolling without him. The NCAA and the NFL say they're looking out for the student athletes with all their eligibility rules, but they're really looking out for the bottom line. I just wish they wouldn't piss down our backs and call it rain....and give us a freaking playoff.

What's so hard to accept about the schools and NFL looking out for the students? Isn't it in their best interest to complete their education, without the disincentive of clamoring agents slapping money on the counter?

I don't think there is a rule against non-students walking on. If they're so broke, maybe they should quit school and try out. After all, school's just holding them back and preventing them from getting theirs....

[rabbdogg]

walter byers...who was the head of the ncaa from 1951 to 1988 and the person who steered the ncaa in the direction it is in now.. says himself ,out of his own mouth.. that the ncaa is designed to exploit the student athletes in the money making sports..by keeping them trapped in this bogus " amateur status " that it is all about the money AND that they should be paid . he says this in his 1997 book entitled UNSPORTSMAN LIKE CONDUCT... that's from the horse's mouth. .. dont believe me?.. go check it out for yourself