forums

Re: Pay for Play...the NCAA is not the villain

C

Canes1968

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
3,106
With all this talk about pay for play, I think people are confusing who the real villain is in this scheme. Sure, the NCAA isn't perfect, but they are far from being the real villain. The REAL villain is the NFL. The NFL benefits from the college system more than anybody else. The college system is a free farm league for the NFL without which, the NFL simply could not exist. Unlike other sports where minor leagues and developmental leagues can be maintained at relatively low cost, football requires enormous amounts of overhead, and as such, the NFL could not possibly afford to build a robust minor league of the size and quality necessary to maintain quality of play for 32 teams. They are entirely dependent on the free farm system that the NCAA provides. They offer no financial support to the system, while sitting back and reaping the overwhelming majority of the benefits, and they are perfectly content with all the sheep that believe its really the NCAA that is ******** everybody over.

If anybody should be paying college football players, it should be the NFL.

And, before anybody gets it twisted, college football could and would survive without the NFL. College football doesn't need the NFL, but the NFL certainly does need college football.
 
Advertisement
Canes1968 said:
With all this talk about pay for play, I think people are confusing who the real villain is in this scheme. Sure, the NCAA isn't perfect, but they are far from being the real villain. The REAL villain is the NFL. The NFL benefits from the college system more than anybody else. The college system is a free farm league for the NFL without which, the NFL simply could not exist. Unlike other sports where minor leagues and developmental leagues can be maintained at relatively low cost, football requires enormous amounts of overhead, and as such, the NFL could not possibly afford to build a robust minor league of the size and quality necessary to maintain quality of play for 32 teams. They are entirely dependent on the free farm system that the NCAA provides. They offer no financial support to the system, while sitting back and reaping the overwhelming majority of the benefits, and they are perfectly content with all the sheep that believe its really the NCAA that is ******** everybody over.

If anybody should be paying college football players, it should be the NFL.

And, before anybody gets it twisted, college football could and would survive without the NFL. College football doesn't need the NFL, but the NFL certainly does need college football.
Click to expand...
The NFL is a business. The NCAA is a business. I don’t see how the NFL should bear the burden of paying people who are not employed by their business.
 
Silentobserver said:
Can anyone rationally explain (tradition is not a rational argument) why competitive sports are a part of high schools and colleges?
Click to expand...

Of course tradition is a rational argument. Competitive sports are a part of the scholastic experience because that is where sports originally started.

Exhibit A:
en.wikipedia.org

History of basketball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The history of basketball began with its invention in 1891 in Springfield, Massachusetts by Canadian physical education instructor James Naismith as a less injury-prone sport than football. The game became established fairly quickly and grew very popular as the 20th century progressed, first in America and then in other parts of the world. After basketball became established in American colleges, the professional game followed.

This echoes the growth pattern of football, where the college game predates professional football by 50 years or more.

What is sport without tradition? It's just a pointless, meaningless game.
 
RVACane said:
The NFL is a business. The NCAA is a business. I don’t see how the NFL should bear the burden of paying people who are not employed by their business.
Click to expand...
Isn't it their rule that players go to college or wait 3 years? Not saying I agree that they're to blame.
 
I generally agree. The easy solution is to do away with the 3-years-out-of-high-school eligibility rule -- which the NFL doesn't want to do for the reasons OP lays out. Take away that rule and introduce minor league pro football, and most of the arguments for paying college players disappear.

However, OP is wrong when he suggests that the NCAA isn't complicit. They benefit from that rule too because it forces all the top-tier young players to play college ball, directly increasing revenue in college football (and basketball).
 
Advertisement
g8rh8rMD said:
Of course tradition is a rational argument. Competitive sports are a part of the scholastic experience because that is where sports originally started.

Exhibit A:
en.wikipedia.org

History of basketball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The history of basketball began with its invention in 1891 in Springfield, Massachusetts by Canadian physical education instructor James Naismith as a less injury-prone sport than football. The game became established fairly quickly and grew very popular as the 20th century progressed, first in America and then in other parts of the world. After basketball became established in American colleges, the professional game followed.

This echoes the growth pattern of football, where the college game predates professional football by 50 years or more.

What is sport without tradition? It's just a pointless, meaningless game.
Click to expand...

Sport for the spectator is meaningless outside of entertainment.

Tradition in its practice isn't rational. A practice that is repeated solely for the sake of we've always have done it like this is far from rational.

The notion of competitive sports being necessary to the scholastic experience, because of tradition once again doesn't seem rational especially when we look at the history of organized sport (starting from children's sport). Organized sports became a thing as part of the militaristic nationalism of the 19th century (it occurred in Europe as well as here) where it became clear that in order for a nation's men to be ready physically for war they must train for war earlier than enlistment.

My reason for asking my initial question stems from the idea of removing organized competitive sports from high schools and colleges, and implementing a system like European soccer. Individuals who demonstrate a skill or potential to develop within a sport would go off to academies to develop that skill/potential. Essentially, removing sport from schools sans intramurals. Competitive sports as an organized entity is purely entertainment masked in the name of tradition and pageantry. Cut out the nonsense and treat it as such. We allow children to make a living in Hollywood; there is no reason to limit children from doing the same with sport.
 
The NFL doesn't need cfb.

The NFL could absolutely set up a developmental league if it wanted to. It could sell franchises to the highest bidders, which there would be hundreds of people wanting in. The NFL has all the infrastructure in place, cash, marketing, popularity, advertising, college coaches would bounce, tv contracts, etc.

I'm sure the NFL is already making what if plans.
 
JD08 said:
That 3 yr eligibility rule is so 30 yr old linebackers don't cripple a 17/18 yr old running back.
Click to expand...

The 18 year old can make that choice for himself. If the law says an 18 year old is an adult, can vote, and buy cigarettes, then a pro league should not be allowed to prevent adults (18 or older) from trying to make a living, no matter how many years he is out of high school.
 
Silentobserver said:
You're correct. Miami will no longer exist in an environment where players are paid top dollar.
Click to expand...

You mean Miami will no longer dominate the ACC coastal? Dude, Miami hasn't won sh#t in 20 years (one fluke year aside) with the rules as they are. It makes no difference. It gives Miami at least a punchers chance of getting recruits interested in the larger media market opportunities than they'd find at most SEC schools.
 
Advertisement
Silentobserver said:
Sport for the spectator is meaningless outside of entertainment.

Tradition in its practice isn't rational. A practice that is repeated solely for the sake of we've always have done it like this is far from rational.

The notion of competitive sports being necessary to the scholastic experience, because of tradition once again doesn't seem rational especially when we look at the history of organized sport (starting from children's sport). Organized sports became a thing as part of the militaristic nationalism of the 19th century (it occurred in Europe as well as here) where it became clear that in order for a nation's men to be ready physically for war they must train for war earlier than enlistment.

My reason for asking my initial question stems from the idea of removing organized competitive sports from high schools and colleges, and implementing a system like European soccer. Individuals who demonstrate a skill or potential to develop within a sport would go off to academies to develop that skill/potential. Essentially, removing sport from schools sans intramurals. Competitive sports as an organized entity is purely entertainment masked in the name of tradition and pageantry. Cut out the nonsense and treat it as such. We allow children to make a living in Hollywood; there is no reason to limit children from doing the same with sport.
Click to expand...

Except that you're looking at this purely through the lens of football and men's basketball. Lacrosse doesn't exist at the high school and college level for anyone's entertainment. And the vast majority of college athletes aren't going to make one red cent in that sport at any level. They play it because they love it and they want to play for their school. And for some reason you want to end all of that.
 
PanamaCityCanes said:
Except that you're looking at this purely through the lens of football and men's basketball. Lacrosse doesn't exist at the high school and college level for anyone's entertainment. And the vast majority of college athletes aren't going to make one red cent in that sport at any level. They play it because they love it and they want to play for their school. And for some reason you want to end all of that.
Click to expand...

No I want to separate money from this "scholastic endeavor". Play the sports don't monetize it
 
Back
Top