Fair Pay to Play act signed in California

[cats2506]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

[Hawks86]

[bobcat99]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

[technoCat]

Title 9 was the first thing I thought of. Do they just let the free market determine who gets paid? Will you see top women's players paid? What about lesser watched sports like tennis? Gotta get that Penn monay!!

[cats2506]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

Free agency in the NFL players are "Choosing" based on who will pay them and how much, yes the first 3 years are based on who drafted you and how high in the draft you went, with bonuses for playing time.

[bobcat99]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

Free agency in the NFL players are "Choosing" based on who will pay them and how much, yes the first 3 years are based on who drafted you and how high in the draft you went, with bonuses for playing time.

To say the only reason they are choosing is money, is pretty bold. I think team fit, and how good a team is matters to players to. Just like it does for your job. Most people go where they're paid the most and fit the best. Of course, like in all situations, outliers do exist.

[cats2506]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

Free agency in the NFL players are "Choosing" based on who will pay them and how much, yes the first 3 years are based on who drafted you and how high in the draft you went, with bonuses for playing time.

To say the only reason they are choosing is money, is pretty bold. I think team fit, and how good a team is matters to players to. Just like it does for your job. Most people go where they're paid the most and fit the best. Of course, like in all situations, outliers do exist.

Yes there are other factors, some of which you mention, but acting like money is not a major factor is asinine.

[bobcat99]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

Free agency in the NFL players are "Choosing" based on who will pay them and how much, yes the first 3 years are based on who drafted you and how high in the draft you went, with bonuses for playing time.

To say the only reason they are choosing is money, is pretty bold. I think team fit, and how good a team is matters to players to. Just like it does for your job. Most people go where they're paid the most and fit the best. Of course, like in all situations, outliers do exist.

Yes there are other factors, some of which you mention, but acting like money is not a major factor is asinine.

I never said it wasn't. Money is a major factor in my job, in your job, and most other people's jobs. Why would it be any different for a professional athlete?

[cats2506]

I don't watch hardly any NFL, the main reason is because its such a "look at me" league. The players are playing for the team they do because of money and nothing else, each player seems to be out for their own best interest and not for the team. There is just not as much loyalty and passion for the game even though the players are extraordinary athletes and make amazing plays.

I love the passion that college football has, it is the only game that started on college campuses and has been an instrumental part since the beginning. Why is there so little value placed on the opportunity to get a degree from an established university in exchange for playing this game. The simple fact is that the huge majority of these kids will never play football after college, and it this is the new rule that same huge majority will likley not get endorsements either.

Lets make an example, university's A & B are located near each other, they are rivals and recruit the same players. Currently players choose which school to go to based on academic reason, previous loyalty to one or the other, location, and coaching staff. Let say that A has a wealthy donor that owns a bunch of car dealerships and he decides to get endorsement for any player that plays for A, some players get smaller endorsements and some get big ones, he doesn't need to talk to the players during recruiting, everyone knows what his pricing schedule is. Well now that recruit is basing his decision on how much money he can make at the different schools. So he commits to A and plays a year or two and shows that he may be a great player. Somebody drops a note to him that if he goes to University C he will get endorsements double or triple what he is getting at A, all he has to do is put his name in the portal.

I think this would change college football profoundly.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, I think they are corrupt and greedy, I believe that they have made such a mess that it may destroy college athletics. I think "Full Cost of Attendance" is an effort to stem this. The ones that will hurt the most are the 10,000's of players that just want the degree and will never get endorsements or play football after college. This will cause some schools to end football, and the money it makes will mean an end to other sports too.

Regarding the NFL, free agency is a players only venue to play for a team of their choosing. So to say they're only playing for a team bc of money is false. The majority of players are playing for a team bc they got drafted to that team. Their own choice, is very limited.

Free agency in the NFL players are "Choosing" based on who will pay them and how much, yes the first 3 years are based on who drafted you and how high in the draft you went, with bonuses for playing time.

To say the only reason they are choosing is money, is pretty bold. I think team fit, and how good a team is matters to players to. Just like it does for your job. Most people go where they're paid the most and fit the best. Of course, like in all situations, outliers do exist.

Yes there are other factors, some of which you mention, but acting like money is not a major factor is asinine.

I never said it wasn't. Money is a major factor in my job, in your job, and most other people's jobs. Why would it be any different for a professional athlete?

And that's my point, I'm not saying its wrong, or bad. Bu I said in my original post that I like the passion for the game and team shown in College football that isn't expressed the same at a professional level.

[Cataholic]

.When I was 10 years old, I wrote an article for the local newspaper that asked me what school I wanted to go to and what I wanted to study. I said Purdue University in their school of Engineering. I didn’t know that one day I would actually be able to attend Purdue on an athletic scholarship. But I wouldn’t be able to go for Engineering. Neither would I be able to go for Athletic Training, my second choice, which I wanted to use to create a path into Physical Therapy School. I was told that the Engineering caseload and class schedule would not work, especially if I had dreams of playing. I was told I would not be able to receive my hours for Athletic Training because they were mostly during football season and spring practice. At that point, I was on my third choice which wasn’t even a choice. I was literally just there to play football. Having two choices of my own was more than a lot of my teammates and friends at other schools could say as they were left undecided and thrown into General Studies, Communications or Organizational Leadership and Supervision.

That quote is from Albert Evans. He played for Joe Tiller at Purdue. I'm sure you're familiar with Joe Tiller. Good coach, good man. That's just the reality of major college football. You're there to play football. Every friggin coach does this. CHOATE EVEN SAID SO IN HIS INTERVIEW. You're the in the QB Club. Ask him! This isn't any hidden secret.

And yeah, Trent Richardson sold memorabilia and drugs to get the vehicle. AND YOU TELL ME I'M SAYING THINGS RECKLESSLY! Your dislike of me is blinding you. But I'm sure all of the Bama players driving brand new Dodge Chargers were just dealing drugs. That makes more sense than getting paid to play. Lol.

Athletes don't get paid, they can major in whatever they want, and Jaharie Martin is 6'1. You live in lala land.

If your statement was true, there would not be any engineering students on the Purdue football team. Almost 10% of the team has an engineering related discipline today. Isn't it possible that Albert Evans didn't have the academic fortitude to succeed in engineering? It seems that others are "allowed" to pursue engineering at Purdue. Many others on the roster are in just as demanding studies.

At MSU, about 70% of our roster is in engineering, medical or business related disciplines. At the FCS level, you get a lot of recruits focused on getting an education. At the FBS level, many players hope to get a chance to play Sunday's. If Albert Evans was so fixated on becoming an engineer, he could have chosen a different school. Nobody was holding him hostage.

As for Alabama, I didn't see anything or say anything about other players driving tricked out cars. I said that Trent Richardson has a sketchy history (well documented) and he could have generated income by other means, of which selling drugs or memorabilia could be possibilities. You are correct that I don't have any information about him doing those things, but you don't have any information that he took money from a booster.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

So let's look at it from a recruiting perspective. Do you think coaches will travel with boosters when recruiting and offer them cash in the recruiting process? I could not see coach Choate doing that. I know it probably would happen in the POWER 5 programs (as it already does happen), but it will be interesting to see if there are changes in how the coaches recruit (if there is any money dangling at the time of recruitment from the coach) if this rule takes affect across the country. I agree the NCAA makes money off the players, but I would think there still should be an upper limit on what they can make per year to keep the playing field even.

[Cat Grad]

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Care to look at what the ADs, assistant and let's not forget Title IX compliance that ensures the nonrevenue sports gets their slice of the pie...and we're all pissy out here because the Power 5 schools may start going above and beyond Full Cost of Attendance and Stipends???? It is big business and hell yes, pay the kids.

[SonomaCat]

Title 9 was the first thing I thought of. Do they just let the free market determine who gets paid? Will you see top women's players paid? What about lesser watched sports like tennis? Gotta get that Penn monay!!

I think "free market" is exactly the answer. The schools and conferences and NCAA would have nothing to do with who gets paid. It would be just like any other celebrity scenario where a company offers an endorsement deal to an individual of their choosing and that individual has the right to say yes or no.

So Title IX wouldn't presumably come into play as this would really have no connection to opportunities through the school. But I could easily be wrong. There's obviously going to be a lot of legal discussions about this as this moves forward, starting with the fact that we now have a state law that conflicts with the bylaws of a non-profit organization that has contracts with all of these schools (NCAA). Currently, if a student does accept payment for endorsements, etc., they will not be eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events, I assume?

[cats2506]

Title 9 was the first thing I thought of. Do they just let the free market determine who gets paid? Will you see top women's players paid? What about lesser watched sports like tennis? Gotta get that Penn monay!!

I think "free market" is exactly the answer. The schools and conferences and NCAA would have nothing to do with who gets paid. It would be just like any other celebrity scenario where a company offers an endorsement deal to an individual of their choosing and that individual has the right to say yes or no.

So Title IX wouldn't presumably come into play as this would really have no connection to opportunities through the school. But I could easily be wrong. There's obviously going to be a lot of legal discussions about this as this moves forward, starting with the fact that we now have a state law that conflicts with the bylaws of a non-profit organization that has contracts with all of these schools (NCAA). Currently, if a student does accept payment for endorsements, etc., they will not be eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events, I assume?

can the recruit/player hire an agent?

[codecat]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

And therein lies the problem. Once the dam breaks, that's exactly what will happen. The best athletes going to the highest bidder, with a little help from the transfer portal.

It's step 1 of destroying college sports.

Definitely is just that, but really is part of a larger scheme of destroying Free Enterprise (which is at the heart and spirit of our constitution) that has been going on for 40+ years that I remember. Competition of any sort does not fit the mold of 'Marxist Equality" took every other country that embraced it to domination by 1 or a few! Just follow the world money.

Ah yes. Paying workers for the contributions they make towards a product = Marxism. Bravo!

Destroying the competition nature of college football, or any long standing cohesive group of people, especially those with any money and/or power is at the heart of the Socialist movement which takes its heart from Marxism. Read some history and see where that got Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

FFS. “Paying” Trevor Lawrence the exact same wage as Casey Bauman Is Marxism.

Denying Trevor Lawrence and Casey Bauman the ability to sell their own labor while their employer turns a multi billion profit off said labor is about as Marxist as you can get.

Holy Cow.

Good logic onceacat i agree with it in the short term, but in the long run the destruction of the sport renders all on an equal plane - irregardless of one's talents or motivation to use them. The end always justifies the means for that philosophy. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on the eventual out come, and i will tip my hat to you if you if it doesn't destroy the sport.

[SonomaCat]

Title 9 was the first thing I thought of. Do they just let the free market determine who gets paid? Will you see top women's players paid? What about lesser watched sports like tennis? Gotta get that Penn monay!!

I think "free market" is exactly the answer. The schools and conferences and NCAA would have nothing to do with who gets paid. It would be just like any other celebrity scenario where a company offers an endorsement deal to an individual of their choosing and that individual has the right to say yes or no.

So Title IX wouldn't presumably come into play as this would really have no connection to opportunities through the school. But I could easily be wrong. There's obviously going to be a lot of legal discussions about this as this moves forward, starting with the fact that we now have a state law that conflicts with the bylaws of a non-profit organization that has contracts with all of these schools (NCAA). Currently, if a student does accept payment for endorsements, etc., they will not be eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events, I assume?

can the recruit/player hire an agent?

Don't know, but that would seemingly help any of them that were actually in a position to get endorsement deals. They certainly should be able to, IMO.

[Cat Grad]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... e-athletes

[cats2506]

Title 9 was the first thing I thought of. Do they just let the free market determine who gets paid? Will you see top women's players paid? What about lesser watched sports like tennis? Gotta get that Penn monay!!

I think "free market" is exactly the answer. The schools and conferences and NCAA would have nothing to do with who gets paid. It would be just like any other celebrity scenario where a company offers an endorsement deal to an individual of their choosing and that individual has the right to say yes or no.

So Title IX wouldn't presumably come into play as this would really have no connection to opportunities through the school. But I could easily be wrong. There's obviously going to be a lot of legal discussions about this as this moves forward, starting with the fact that we now have a state law that conflicts with the bylaws of a non-profit organization that has contracts with all of these schools (NCAA). Currently, if a student does accept payment for endorsements, etc., they will not be eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events, I assume?

can the recruit/player hire an agent?

Don't know, but that would seemingly help any of them that were actually in a position to get endorsement deals. They certainly should be able to, IMO.

Nevin Shapiro & Sherwood Blount make a come back

[onceacat]

The NCAA, at this point, is going to be forced to change. There are several other states that have introduced similar bills and it is only a matter of time before the NCAA has to accept that this is happening, and make sure that the playing field is leveled for athletes benefiting from their likeness. The current bill passed by CA will Likely only affect the highest of star recruits, because Nike isn't going to sign some 3 star recruit who may or may not end up being good. And the schools will just stop using images of non "star" players on posters, advertisements etc. so they aren't forced to compensate more than a couple players for the images.

in a place like USC I can see smaller companies paying less known players, car dealers for example.

I see Nike paying an entire team a stipend of $50000 for seniors, 40000 for juniors, 30000 for sophomore, 20000 for freshman. If not Nike, a rich alumni, or Gambler, who wants a national championship.

And therein lies the problem. Once the dam breaks, that's exactly what will happen. The best athletes going to the highest bidder, with a little help from the transfer portal.

It's step 1 of destroying college sports.

Definitely is just that, but really is part of a larger scheme of destroying Free Enterprise (which is at the heart and spirit of our constitution) that has been going on for 40+ years that I remember. Competition of any sort does not fit the mold of 'Marxist Equality" took every other country that embraced it to domination by 1 or a few! Just follow the world money.

Ah yes. Paying workers for the contributions they make towards a product = Marxism. Bravo!

Destroying the competition nature of college football, or any long standing cohesive group of people, especially those with any money and/or power is at the heart of the Socialist movement which takes its heart from Marxism. Read some history and see where that got Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

FFS. “Paying” Trevor Lawrence the exact same wage as Casey Bauman Is Marxism.

Denying Trevor Lawrence and Casey Bauman the ability to sell their own labor while their employer turns a multi billion profit off said labor is about as Marxist as you can get.

Holy Cow.

Good logic onceacat i agree with it in the short term, but in the long run the destruction of the sport renders all on an equal plane - irregardless of one's talents or motivation to use them. The end always justifies the means for that philosophy. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on the eventual out come, and i will tip my hat to you if you if it doesn't destroy the sport.

I’m not saying it’s good for college sports...it probably isn’t. But it’s not any worse than the damage already inflicted by the NCAA.

One of the things that makes pro sports ‘work’ is that teams operate as members of a cartel, with rules about roster spots, salary caps, and minimum wage scales.

Without a salary cap, for example, the NBA would probably look like NCAA football or basketball...where only the elite schools are allowed to compete for titles.

There are a whole lot of ways to describe it, but neither ‘free market’ nor ‘Marxist’ make any sense. Cartel is about the only reasonable description.

[DriscollCat]

Lots of interesting opinions here. I share my take, and my reasons, on this week's episode of The Bobcat Outsider. I invite you to check it out and let me know what you think!