Excellent BCS article
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
by davish75 » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:35 pm
College football still haunted by BCS, unfair title system
By Spencer Tillman
CBS Sports
Things are never what they seem:
Black sheep dwell in every fold;
All that glitters is not gold;
Storks turn out to be but logs;
Bulls are but inflated frogs.
Gilbert and Sullivan's famous lyrics are much like college football. The game is drawing immense crowds, fans are hyperventilating, even when the economy is tight, the money is flowing and it's America's pastime no matter what "they" say. Ah, but things aren't always what they seem, especially with that bunch of hypocrites who run the Bowl Championship Series, university presidents.
These scholars direct impressive institutions of higher learning dedicated to the public interest. It's another matter with college football. Angel wings turn into horns and Dante's Inferno is their operating manual. They have stealth meetings. There's no oversight or appeal. And, there are only barebone reports of what they did and why. What we have here sports fans is an athletic OPEC and something is being done about it.
Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights will hold BCS hearings. Already Joe Barton's House Committee's hearings vowed to impose a playoff to decide the national championship instead of the present three-ring circus used for the rankings. The Senate hearing is deadly serious about the BCS and violating antitrust laws. The BCS has created an immense economic windfall through billion dollar media contracts. Meanwhile, because of arrogance, fear, bias or convention, the chosen six plus Notre Dame, because it's Notre Dame, are the only ones on the money bandwagon.
It's an issue that has come back to haunt college football for essentially the same reasons. In 1984, the NCAA had contractual network agreements to televise its games. Its members were warned that if they didn't participate harsh penalties would follow. Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas didn't knuckle under. In the case of NCAA v. Univ. of Oklahoma the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was a cartel. The court said its plan was an unreasonable restraint of trade because of price-fixing and control and was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Gene Egdorf a Houston antitrust attorney and registered sports agent with the Lanier Law Firm put the case in today's perspective: "In the 1984 case, the NCAA rules failed to promote competitiveness and that consumer preferences were not respected. Twenty-five years later the same disregard is being shown to consumers in how the NCAA and BCS determine its Football Bowl Subdivision national champion."
Who are these consumers? The BCS shuts the door of opportunity for teams outside the magic circle to compete for the millions of dollars at stake. Today, capital investments are the bricks and mortar of winning programs: new stadiums, first-rate conditioning and workout facilities, academic support programs and superior coaching staffs. It's a powerful package that attracts outstanding athletes. That's not all. It's impossible to put a dollar value on the publicity a university gets when its team plays in prime time.
Here's something else about lost opportunities from the coaches' point of view. Coaching a BCS team is the only way a head coach can win the national title. Think about that and here's a classic example. Once upon a time Bernie Machen, the current president at Florida, was president at Utah. Urban Meyer was the coach at Utah and made the Utes a national power. When Machen moved from Utah to Florida, Meyer followed. If Meyer had stayed at Utah, would he have coached at national champion? Not under today's BCS rules. As it is, he's been in the limelight two of the past three years and is a favorite to win another title in 2009. It's all the more reason for change.
The Masters of the BCS have brought this on themselves. They've pacified the critics holding out the prospects of a playoff by reviewing various proposals that they have no intention of accepting. The latest to bite the dust is one from the Mountain West Conference. Two years ago, the non-BCS conferences were thrown a bone. The extra BCS spot was quickly created and earned by Utah. It got its $18 million by winning the rules lottery.
The Utes were there only because the MWC threatened to take the BCS to court. The reality is Boise State went 12-0, won the Western Athletic Conference and finished the regular season ranked ninth in the BCS. For this the Broncos earned a trip to the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl and collected $750,000. As they say here in Texas: "Bubba, that just ain't right."
I say let's get on with the debate, but there's only one question to be answered. Is college football better off under the thumb of an oligarchy or deciding a national champion in an atmosphere of fairness and competition? I choose the American way. Speaking of which, I'm one of those old-fashioned former players who think there's more to college football than money and power. I can't recall anything being said about how college football teaches much-needed discipline, the rewards of hard work, setting and achieving goals and the benefits of physical fitness and performance. In a word: character. I don't get those vibes from the BCS or its leadership. The way I see it, they preach the gospel of pragmatic unfairness that's based on greed.
I get a strong indication of where the BCS issue is headed in part by the opinion of respected writers such as Mr. College Football, Tony Barnhart. He'll join the writers' wing of the College Football Hall of Fame this year. My sense is he supported the BCS because it's the only game in town. As he recently pointed out however, the BCS always is defensive. It never argues that it's good or bad, only that it's not perfect and most of all, legal. Tony is changing his tune, because he understands that just because it's legal doesn't make what the BCS is doing right. In today's communications and political climate legality isn't enough. The BCS either will change or it will be done for them.
By Spencer Tillman
CBS Sports
Things are never what they seem:
Black sheep dwell in every fold;
All that glitters is not gold;
Storks turn out to be but logs;
Bulls are but inflated frogs.
Gilbert and Sullivan's famous lyrics are much like college football. The game is drawing immense crowds, fans are hyperventilating, even when the economy is tight, the money is flowing and it's America's pastime no matter what "they" say. Ah, but things aren't always what they seem, especially with that bunch of hypocrites who run the Bowl Championship Series, university presidents.
These scholars direct impressive institutions of higher learning dedicated to the public interest. It's another matter with college football. Angel wings turn into horns and Dante's Inferno is their operating manual. They have stealth meetings. There's no oversight or appeal. And, there are only barebone reports of what they did and why. What we have here sports fans is an athletic OPEC and something is being done about it.
Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights will hold BCS hearings. Already Joe Barton's House Committee's hearings vowed to impose a playoff to decide the national championship instead of the present three-ring circus used for the rankings. The Senate hearing is deadly serious about the BCS and violating antitrust laws. The BCS has created an immense economic windfall through billion dollar media contracts. Meanwhile, because of arrogance, fear, bias or convention, the chosen six plus Notre Dame, because it's Notre Dame, are the only ones on the money bandwagon.
It's an issue that has come back to haunt college football for essentially the same reasons. In 1984, the NCAA had contractual network agreements to televise its games. Its members were warned that if they didn't participate harsh penalties would follow. Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas didn't knuckle under. In the case of NCAA v. Univ. of Oklahoma the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was a cartel. The court said its plan was an unreasonable restraint of trade because of price-fixing and control and was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Gene Egdorf a Houston antitrust attorney and registered sports agent with the Lanier Law Firm put the case in today's perspective: "In the 1984 case, the NCAA rules failed to promote competitiveness and that consumer preferences were not respected. Twenty-five years later the same disregard is being shown to consumers in how the NCAA and BCS determine its Football Bowl Subdivision national champion."
Who are these consumers? The BCS shuts the door of opportunity for teams outside the magic circle to compete for the millions of dollars at stake. Today, capital investments are the bricks and mortar of winning programs: new stadiums, first-rate conditioning and workout facilities, academic support programs and superior coaching staffs. It's a powerful package that attracts outstanding athletes. That's not all. It's impossible to put a dollar value on the publicity a university gets when its team plays in prime time.
Here's something else about lost opportunities from the coaches' point of view. Coaching a BCS team is the only way a head coach can win the national title. Think about that and here's a classic example. Once upon a time Bernie Machen, the current president at Florida, was president at Utah. Urban Meyer was the coach at Utah and made the Utes a national power. When Machen moved from Utah to Florida, Meyer followed. If Meyer had stayed at Utah, would he have coached at national champion? Not under today's BCS rules. As it is, he's been in the limelight two of the past three years and is a favorite to win another title in 2009. It's all the more reason for change.
The Masters of the BCS have brought this on themselves. They've pacified the critics holding out the prospects of a playoff by reviewing various proposals that they have no intention of accepting. The latest to bite the dust is one from the Mountain West Conference. Two years ago, the non-BCS conferences were thrown a bone. The extra BCS spot was quickly created and earned by Utah. It got its $18 million by winning the rules lottery.
The Utes were there only because the MWC threatened to take the BCS to court. The reality is Boise State went 12-0, won the Western Athletic Conference and finished the regular season ranked ninth in the BCS. For this the Broncos earned a trip to the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl and collected $750,000. As they say here in Texas: "Bubba, that just ain't right."
I say let's get on with the debate, but there's only one question to be answered. Is college football better off under the thumb of an oligarchy or deciding a national champion in an atmosphere of fairness and competition? I choose the American way. Speaking of which, I'm one of those old-fashioned former players who think there's more to college football than money and power. I can't recall anything being said about how college football teaches much-needed discipline, the rewards of hard work, setting and achieving goals and the benefits of physical fitness and performance. In a word: character. I don't get those vibes from the BCS or its leadership. The way I see it, they preach the gospel of pragmatic unfairness that's based on greed.
I get a strong indication of where the BCS issue is headed in part by the opinion of respected writers such as Mr. College Football, Tony Barnhart. He'll join the writers' wing of the College Football Hall of Fame this year. My sense is he supported the BCS because it's the only game in town. As he recently pointed out however, the BCS always is defensive. It never argues that it's good or bad, only that it's not perfect and most of all, legal. Tony is changing his tune, because he understands that just because it's legal doesn't make what the BCS is doing right. In today's communications and political climate legality isn't enough. The BCS either will change or it will be done for them.
AustinTX
- davish75
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Buda, Texas
by PlanoStang » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:32 am
Here's another good article:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 97199.html
Hatch calls for Justice investigation into BCS
06:41 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate college football's Bowl Championship Series for what he views as violations of antitrust laws.
Hatch made the comment after conducting a standing-room-only hearing in the Senate subcommittee with antitrust oversight, where he serves as the top Republican.
"Frankly, there's an arrogance about the BCS that just drives me nuts," he told reporters. "Hopefully this hearing will open the door to have some people reconsider their positions. And if nothing else, the Justice Department ought to be looking at this." He said that it's clear to him that the BCS is in violation of antitrust laws.
Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said: "We're aware of his request and will respond as appropriate."
Hatch said that the BCS is exploiting a position of power, "and it's just not right."
Hatch's comments followed up on testimony by a lawyer for the Mountain West Conference, which does not get an automatic bid and has pressed for changes to the BCS. Utah, which is in the Mountain West, was bypassed for last year's national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season. The title game pitted Florida against Oklahoma – each with one loss.
The lawyer, Barry Brett, called the BCS "a naked restraint imposed by a self-appointed cartel" in written testimony, and said that a Justice Department investigation would serve the public interest.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate while others don't, and the automatic bid conferences also get far more of the revenue than the other conferences. Hatch and other BCS critics view that as anticompetitive behavior, while the BCS says it simply recognizes the teams people want to watch.
"I don't think it's arrogant if you've thought about something for five or six years, and concluded that's it's really hard to do something different," said Harvey Perlman, chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the new chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.
As to a possible antitrust challenge, Perlman said: "It's hard to see why anyone would litigate this."
"We are university presidents, and we are sensitive to what Congress thinks, and sensitive about what the president thinks," Perlman added, referring to President Barack Obama's stated preference for a playoff system. "But our primary responsibility is to manage our institutions in ways that protect student athletes, that acknowledges their academic pursuits as well as their athletic pursuits."
The current system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings.
"Championships should be decided by competition, not by conspiracy," said Utah President Michael Young.
In his own testimony, Perlman prefaced a comment by saying he didn't want to sound disrespectful to Utah.
"And you don't want to be in this room," Hatch quipped to laugher.
Perlman conceded that some teams, because of factors such as history or reputation, have a better chance to play in the national championship than others.
"The problem is that we don't all play each other, and there's no conceivable way" for that to happen, he said.
It was the second congressional hearing on the BCS this year, following one in the House two months ago. At that hearing, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, warned the BCS to switch to a playoff system. If not, he said, Congress would move on his bill that would prevent the NCAA from calling a game a national championship unless it's the outcome of a playoff.
Although Tuesday's hearing attracted quite a few spectators, senators mostly stayed away. Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, left a few minutes after starting the hearing. New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer briefly popped in, but didn't ask any questions.
It was, for the most part, Hatch's show.
In talking to reporters, he took umbrage at the suggestion that the hearing amounted to political pandering.
"That's just bull," he said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 97199.html
Hatch calls for Justice investigation into BCS
06:41 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate college football's Bowl Championship Series for what he views as violations of antitrust laws.
Hatch made the comment after conducting a standing-room-only hearing in the Senate subcommittee with antitrust oversight, where he serves as the top Republican.
"Frankly, there's an arrogance about the BCS that just drives me nuts," he told reporters. "Hopefully this hearing will open the door to have some people reconsider their positions. And if nothing else, the Justice Department ought to be looking at this." He said that it's clear to him that the BCS is in violation of antitrust laws.
Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said: "We're aware of his request and will respond as appropriate."
Hatch said that the BCS is exploiting a position of power, "and it's just not right."
Hatch's comments followed up on testimony by a lawyer for the Mountain West Conference, which does not get an automatic bid and has pressed for changes to the BCS. Utah, which is in the Mountain West, was bypassed for last year's national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season. The title game pitted Florida against Oklahoma – each with one loss.
The lawyer, Barry Brett, called the BCS "a naked restraint imposed by a self-appointed cartel" in written testimony, and said that a Justice Department investigation would serve the public interest.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate while others don't, and the automatic bid conferences also get far more of the revenue than the other conferences. Hatch and other BCS critics view that as anticompetitive behavior, while the BCS says it simply recognizes the teams people want to watch.
"I don't think it's arrogant if you've thought about something for five or six years, and concluded that's it's really hard to do something different," said Harvey Perlman, chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the new chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.
As to a possible antitrust challenge, Perlman said: "It's hard to see why anyone would litigate this."
"We are university presidents, and we are sensitive to what Congress thinks, and sensitive about what the president thinks," Perlman added, referring to President Barack Obama's stated preference for a playoff system. "But our primary responsibility is to manage our institutions in ways that protect student athletes, that acknowledges their academic pursuits as well as their athletic pursuits."
The current system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings.
"Championships should be decided by competition, not by conspiracy," said Utah President Michael Young.
In his own testimony, Perlman prefaced a comment by saying he didn't want to sound disrespectful to Utah.
"And you don't want to be in this room," Hatch quipped to laugher.
Perlman conceded that some teams, because of factors such as history or reputation, have a better chance to play in the national championship than others.
"The problem is that we don't all play each other, and there's no conceivable way" for that to happen, he said.
It was the second congressional hearing on the BCS this year, following one in the House two months ago. At that hearing, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, warned the BCS to switch to a playoff system. If not, he said, Congress would move on his bill that would prevent the NCAA from calling a game a national championship unless it's the outcome of a playoff.
Although Tuesday's hearing attracted quite a few spectators, senators mostly stayed away. Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, left a few minutes after starting the hearing. New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer briefly popped in, but didn't ask any questions.
It was, for the most part, Hatch's show.
In talking to reporters, he took umbrage at the suggestion that the hearing amounted to political pandering.
"That's just bull," he said.
-
PlanoStang 
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Plano, Texas USA
by DiamondM75 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:42 pm
There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
Just send 'da money.
-
DiamondM75 
- Posts: 2967
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:04 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by PonyKai » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:50 pm
DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
- PonyKai
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Here and there.
by abezontar » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:56 pm
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
We play our role though. The Techs and OSUs of the world couldn't reach the highest heights without someone to beat up on.
The donkey's name is Kiki.
On a side note, anybody need a patent attorney?
Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.
On a side note, anybody need a patent attorney?
Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.
-
abezontar - Posts: 3888
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Mustang, TX
by PlanoStang » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:12 pm
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
Yup, socialism. Socialism is OK when it comes to athletics. Everybody
should start out with relatively = equipment (training facilities, dorms, etc. ) and have an = opportunity to be the ultimate champion. I'd love to see stairstep scholie limits based upon your previous year's record. It's supposed to be about athletics, not whether your school is a huge state school with jillions of supporters to build palace dorms, and facilities, and be known as an NFL minor league team
Lessee, UT might get 1 scholarship player to recruit after they go 13 - 0 as predicted this season.
Even the IRL, and NASCAR have formula cars to try to = things out.
-
PlanoStang - Posts: 3258
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Plano, Texas USA
by dcpony » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:25 am
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
Seems to work for the NFL. And I don't accept the "NCAA is not the pros" argument. D-1 college football crossed that line a long time ago. "Socialism" in college football is more acceptable to me than in the pros because it's supposed to not be professional.
-
dcpony 
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:14 pm
- Location: Charlottesville, Va.
by RednBlue11 » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:44 am
dcpony wrote:Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
Seems to work for the NFL. And I don't accept the "NCAA is not the pros" argument. D-1 college football crossed that line a long time ago. "Socialism" in college football is more acceptable to me than in the pros because it's supposed to not be professional.
does anyone who invokes socialism actually know what it means anymore?
"There ain't nothing you can't solve with one more beer"
-
RednBlue11 - Posts: 4858
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:52 pm
- Location: Under the "X" in Texas
by EastStang » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:25 am
The NFL is a business with a limited number of partners. They share revenues. Division I college football is a business with a larger number of partners. The BCS is a subdivision of college football of teams in elite conferences. There is no real rhyme or reasons for the conferences. Just bigger paydays. For that reason Baylor gets BCS money but TCU and SMU do not. Same history, former conference mates, but that's the facts. Duke which has not been worth squat for decades in football, gets BCS money because it is in the ACC. But teams like Navy which Duke has played and lost to quite often, do not get BCS money. Its like a fraternity. If you're not in, you're not in, doesn't matter why. But when competition is involved, having teams that get TV money and teams that don't inherently hurts competitiveness. And as time goes on the advantages to the haves will increase over the have nots. Its not an easy issue. Yes, the UT's of the world deserve the fruits of their labor, but should they be able to do so at the expense of other schools and at what point does that enjoyment suppress competition. There are no easy answers.
- EastStang
- Posts: 12673
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:01 am
by PonyKai » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:39 am
RednBlue11 wrote:dcpony wrote:Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:DiamondM75 wrote:There is a simple solution to the whole antitrust situation. Simply pool all the TV revenue and bowl payouts and divide it equally among all Div. I schools. Now there is no antitrust. All schools will keep their individual donations, parking, concessions, etc.
Plus with this revenue, all Div. I schools will be able to recruit, support their athletic departments, participate in more sports, provide more scholarships, build better facilities and compete on a more level field.
So socialism among college football? I'd love to get some more money, but we haven't really done anything, anything at all over the last twenty years to merit more than about 10$. And it's completely our own fault. We shouldn't get handed someone elses' slice of the pie because we were arrogant and then incompetent and they learned how to build a winning football program.
Seems to work for the NFL. And I don't accept the "NCAA is not the pros" argument. D-1 college football crossed that line a long time ago. "Socialism" in college football is more acceptable to me than in the pros because it's supposed to not be professional.
does anyone who invokes socialism actually know what it means anymore?
Fine, Wealth re-distribution for the sake of fairness and happiness of those who are getting the shaft, whether they deserve it or not.
Socialism: A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Socialism as a term is invoked because it's impossible to achieve a state of communism as Marx's theory states where the state withers away completely. So you can have a pillar of communism theory where "economic goods are distributed equitably." But it shouldn't matter because this is a football board and the whole idea of giving everybody a slice of the college football pie can be summed up as bulls***.
- PonyKai
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Here and there.
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests