Money in the SWC was split evenly among all the teams. Originally Posted by barneyrubbleEXACTLY my point.
Since we all agree that $$$ is the basis of the motive, it appears these "educational institutions" are more like providers than schools: they'll do anything for the almighty buck. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
Careful there, Charles. Originally Posted by AnsleyWhat? Charlie offend you by suggesting if you drove down to midtown that "everything" would be on the menu at the Georgia Tech foodcourt?
I just wish that they would dispense with the hypocrisy and let the universities sell off the brands, pocket the cash, and run the teams as what they are -- professional minor leagues for the big major league professional teams. Originally Posted by TexTushHogWord!
PJ - I always thought of you as more pragmatic than that Originally Posted by atlcomedyTTH's suggestion is quite pragmatic. Division IA football is not student athletics. Its professional football where the players happen to be loosely defined as students.
TTH's suggestion is quite pragmatic. Division IA football is not student athletics. Its professional football where the players happen to be loosely defined as students.When I say pragmatic, I mean it is not going to happen so spending a lot of time thinking about it isn't productive.(Do you think TTH's firm would take up this effort strictly on contingency )
The schools would be better of monetizing the brands/stadiums and focus on being educational institutions. The teams could still play on campus to provide entertainment to the students/alumni -- perhaps with a revenue share to the schools. Its all a matter of how the deal is structured. Originally Posted by pjorourke
TTH's suggestion is quite pragmatic. Division IA football is not student athletics. Its professional football where the players happen to be loosely defined as students.I have read blogs that liken college athletes to slaves. Since the predominance of players, particularly in the South, are African American, and because they are basically unpaid, and because most will never get chosen to play at the professional level, they are merely acting as "free" labor for the entertainment of rich (mostly white) alumni.
The schools would be better of monetizing the brands/stadiums and focus on being educational institutions. The teams could still play on campus to provide entertainment to the students/alumni -- perhaps with a revenue share to the schools. Its all a matter of how the deal is structured. Originally Posted by pjorourke
I have read blogs that liken college athletes to slaves. Since the predominance of players, particularly in the South, are African American, and because they are basically unpaid, and because most will never get chosen to play at the professional level, they are merely acting as "free" labor for the entertainment of rich (mostly white) alumni. Originally Posted by EgrbvrOf course that ignores the pesky fact that the athletes make a choice to go to a school and play football (basketball, hockey, etc) in return for a scholarship. Slaves didn't have options.
Of course that ignores the pesky fact that the athletes make a choice to go to a school and play football (basketball, hockey, etc) in return for a scholarship. Slaves didn't have options. Originally Posted by discreetgentNow DG, it is not nice to let facts get in the way of a good rant.
That being said when it comes to football and basketball at the top of Division I they should get rid of the charade and admit they are just minor leagues for the pros.Word!