Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Log in
Register
Message Boards
Rivals300
Recruiting Board
NIL Valuation
Transfer Portal
Andy & Ari On3
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
Heisman Trophy Dark Horses: Under-the-radar candidates for 2025
No longer AAC, American Conference has new name; launches "brand identity"
Lincoln Riley reflects on Mike Leach’s College Football Hall of Fame eligibility
Florida Football: Gators pushing toward another top-10 recruiting class
Kirk Herbstreit sets expectations for Joey Aguilar at Tennessee after replacing Nico Iamaleava
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Jay Wright Retirement…
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spartansstink" data-source="post: 132027805" data-attributes="member: 1488840"><p>Let's try this again...</p><p></p><p>You have come onto this forum advocating for the players to be paid, on top of and beyond what they are already receiving from the university in the form of scholarships, etc. I, as well as others, claim that the scholarship is simply payment enough because they are getting services above and beyond what every other student who isn't an athlete is getting.</p><p></p><p>I then simply took your premise to its forgone conclusion.</p><p></p><p>First, I understand the model as it is now. I support that model. You, on the other hand, do not support said model and wish for it to be changed. You want to introduce free market principles into the equation, while simultaneously adding socialist and communistic principles also. More on that in a minute...</p><p></p><p>Let's start with a hypothetical player. We'll call him X. X believes he has this value or worth. What X believes has little to do with the situation because the purse strings will be controlled by the university. The market and the university determine the players worth, not him. You want to take away that worth, and instead of the market determining it, you want some governmental institution (NCAA) to determine it. That's socialistic in nature. No player worth his salt would ever entertain such a notion. Why would a Trevor Lawrence ever agree to be paid the same as Jarret Doege? </p><p></p><p>Now, under your premise, X is going to get paid. Here's another thing you missed. X is no longer an AMATEUR; he is now a PROFESSIONAL. An employee of said university. As such, X is under contract. Since the university holds the purse strings, the university writes the contract. It can put any number of clauses into that contract. You say no athlete will sign a contract that doesn't include room and board, meal plans, etc. Wanna bet? Say X is offered a contract with 3 times the pay that WVU can offer but with those stipulations. You believe he's smart enough to do a cost analysis to determine the best deal? Or will he simply look at the bottom line and sign. With what people understand today about economics, I know what choice will be made. If you're Penn State and offer that, you simply put in X's ear that since WVU is providing you with meal plans then WVU determines when, where, and what you eat. If they are providing you with the room and board, WVU determines where you live, who you live with, and what time you have to be in bed. No bars, no house parties, no college experience. All of which may or may not be true because of the contract. You're advocating taking away his basic freedoms with your premise.</p><p></p><p>Now, on to the NCAA. They are already a paper tiger. What will become of them after this? The NCAA controlled amateur athletics. This is now a semi-pro league. They are out - for good. The university, since they control the purse strings and write the contract, and as employer, make the rules. X can either accept those terms or go somewhere else - unless you are in charge. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, here's where your argument really goes off the rails. You've already removed a very important component of free market capitalism - choice. Under your plan, X is now subject to a draft. Suppose X wants to be a chemical engineer, but the university he's drafted to doesn't offer it? What now? Why are you punishing X by taking away his CHOICE in the matter? Easy, you want to punish the Bama's, OSU's, UT's, etc. because of their money and success. All in the guise of "equity". On top of all that, you want to take away his ability to transfer schools with even stricter rules you arbitrarily put into place. You want free market on one hand, but want to make X even more a slave with your communistic demands for equity.</p><p></p><p>One more while I'm at it. You want to take away WVU's ability to pay a player and give it to the NCAA. Again, to make things more equitable. So, why should Kansas, who doesn't draw but a few thousand fans to any football game, be given the same amount of money to pay players that Texas, who sells out the majority of their games, gets? Seem fair? Equitable? So, you're advocating stealing from Peter to pay Paul when Paul brings little to the situation?</p><p></p><p>Suppose Fan A likes the current model. He likes amateur athletics. He wants to see X do well on the field, in the classroom, and beyond. Under your model, there is no loyalty to a team, no dedication from said player, no incentive to do well or improve his craft because he's getting a "base" salary just for being there. What is there for Fan A to support anymore? Number 84 this year likely will not be number the same number 84 next year. Why give money and time to support that when the Steelers are just down the road and win more often at a likely cheaper price. </p><p></p><p>I could go on and on. Probably will at some point. Just wanted you to see how you didn't think through your premise, and as the evidence I've put forth above has shown, I've taken each of your views and turned them on their head. Think things through next time you challenge someone's understanding, especially when your own lack of knowledge is so readily apparent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spartansstink, post: 132027805, member: 1488840"] Let's try this again... You have come onto this forum advocating for the players to be paid, on top of and beyond what they are already receiving from the university in the form of scholarships, etc. I, as well as others, claim that the scholarship is simply payment enough because they are getting services above and beyond what every other student who isn't an athlete is getting. I then simply took your premise to its forgone conclusion. First, I understand the model as it is now. I support that model. You, on the other hand, do not support said model and wish for it to be changed. You want to introduce free market principles into the equation, while simultaneously adding socialist and communistic principles also. More on that in a minute... Let's start with a hypothetical player. We'll call him X. X believes he has this value or worth. What X believes has little to do with the situation because the purse strings will be controlled by the university. The market and the university determine the players worth, not him. You want to take away that worth, and instead of the market determining it, you want some governmental institution (NCAA) to determine it. That's socialistic in nature. No player worth his salt would ever entertain such a notion. Why would a Trevor Lawrence ever agree to be paid the same as Jarret Doege? Now, under your premise, X is going to get paid. Here's another thing you missed. X is no longer an AMATEUR; he is now a PROFESSIONAL. An employee of said university. As such, X is under contract. Since the university holds the purse strings, the university writes the contract. It can put any number of clauses into that contract. You say no athlete will sign a contract that doesn't include room and board, meal plans, etc. Wanna bet? Say X is offered a contract with 3 times the pay that WVU can offer but with those stipulations. You believe he's smart enough to do a cost analysis to determine the best deal? Or will he simply look at the bottom line and sign. With what people understand today about economics, I know what choice will be made. If you're Penn State and offer that, you simply put in X's ear that since WVU is providing you with meal plans then WVU determines when, where, and what you eat. If they are providing you with the room and board, WVU determines where you live, who you live with, and what time you have to be in bed. No bars, no house parties, no college experience. All of which may or may not be true because of the contract. You're advocating taking away his basic freedoms with your premise. Now, on to the NCAA. They are already a paper tiger. What will become of them after this? The NCAA controlled amateur athletics. This is now a semi-pro league. They are out - for good. The university, since they control the purse strings and write the contract, and as employer, make the rules. X can either accept those terms or go somewhere else - unless you are in charge. Additionally, here's where your argument really goes off the rails. You've already removed a very important component of free market capitalism - choice. Under your plan, X is now subject to a draft. Suppose X wants to be a chemical engineer, but the university he's drafted to doesn't offer it? What now? Why are you punishing X by taking away his CHOICE in the matter? Easy, you want to punish the Bama's, OSU's, UT's, etc. because of their money and success. All in the guise of "equity". On top of all that, you want to take away his ability to transfer schools with even stricter rules you arbitrarily put into place. You want free market on one hand, but want to make X even more a slave with your communistic demands for equity. One more while I'm at it. You want to take away WVU's ability to pay a player and give it to the NCAA. Again, to make things more equitable. So, why should Kansas, who doesn't draw but a few thousand fans to any football game, be given the same amount of money to pay players that Texas, who sells out the majority of their games, gets? Seem fair? Equitable? So, you're advocating stealing from Peter to pay Paul when Paul brings little to the situation? Suppose Fan A likes the current model. He likes amateur athletics. He wants to see X do well on the field, in the classroom, and beyond. Under your model, there is no loyalty to a team, no dedication from said player, no incentive to do well or improve his craft because he's getting a "base" salary just for being there. What is there for Fan A to support anymore? Number 84 this year likely will not be number the same number 84 next year. Why give money and time to support that when the Steelers are just down the road and win more often at a likely cheaper price. I could go on and on. Probably will at some point. Just wanted you to see how you didn't think through your premise, and as the evidence I've put forth above has shown, I've taken each of your views and turned them on their head. Think things through next time you challenge someone's understanding, especially when your own lack of knowledge is so readily apparent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Jay Wright Retirement…
Top
Bottom