Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="crut" data-source="post: 580387" data-attributes="member: 3240"><p>I feel like there are so many issues with your views that you aren't seeing. You say you're in favor of student-athlete rights.</p><p></p><p>1. They aren't even rights. Being paid would be a privilege or benefit. The NCAA has set up a system that doesn't prevent them from choosing any other route in life. This route provides them with significant benefits, but restricts their capabilities outside of that. Right now, the benefits provided by the NCAA are worth more than any other route for the vast majority of athletes, and that is why they take that route. So the whole battling for "rights" thing isn't even a thing.</p><p></p><p>2. If allowing the system to pay them leads to schools becoming more and more aggressive to be competitive, where they basically aren't attending school anymore, they are just "athletes" and not "student-athletes".</p><p></p><p>Now also, you say you are so in favor of allowing the free market to dictate benefits, that it is worth it even if it destroys the system.</p><p></p><p>1. In what world, outside of Wolf on Wall Street, is this beneficial at all? Destroying the system so less than 1% of the entire NCAA system can get paid even if it means benefits for the other 99+% get ruined. We live in a capitalist market that aims to incentivize talent and hard work, but there are still lots of restrictions to prevent complete domination of the economy by the elite.</p><p></p><p>2. Once the system is destroyed, minor leagues would pop up surely, and some might survive this time with people looking for teams to cheer on. But without the institutional infrastructure that prop up the market, the overall interest across the board will be massively less. Therefore, lobbying for this to happen would be to promote economic regression. And for the sake of what? That a highly beneficial system for schools, athletes, and fans alike isn't good enough because it isn't able to distribute its assets perfectly and the organization hasn't figured out how to deter indirect cheating?</p><p></p><p>[QUOTE="dtm1997, post: 580173, member: 572"</p><p>I ask & say these things knowing full well that GT is a school that would be effed under this scenario, but that would be GT's problem to navigate.</p></blockquote><p>You say this like the GTAA and GT are the same thing. GTAA's ability to react to massive changes like athlete compensation is dependent on the school. Can they force the school to double in size so that they will have a similar donor base to other schools? No. Can they force the school to add worthless majors so that elite athletes who don't want to play school will come? No.</p><p></p><p>You seem very fixated on the NCAA needing to be fully capitalistic, but even though we have a capitalist society, every entity within that society doesn't have to be capitalist itself. The call for the NCAA to be capitalist is like saying all engineering firms should work on a performance scale for pay, with no base pay. That's not how those institutions need to operate in a capitalist society. That would just cause complete chaos and ruin lives.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I think the idea that NCAA assets get perfectly distributed is fantastic. But, it's utopian in the sense that it isn't plausible. You either offer them equal benefits like now, offer money in some equitable way that doesn't align with the market, or you open the floodgates and the system starts to crash and burn - ultimately hurting everyone involved.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="crut, post: 580387, member: 3240"] I feel like there are so many issues with your views that you aren't seeing. You say you're in favor of student-athlete rights. 1. They aren't even rights. Being paid would be a privilege or benefit. The NCAA has set up a system that doesn't prevent them from choosing any other route in life. This route provides them with significant benefits, but restricts their capabilities outside of that. Right now, the benefits provided by the NCAA are worth more than any other route for the vast majority of athletes, and that is why they take that route. So the whole battling for "rights" thing isn't even a thing. 2. If allowing the system to pay them leads to schools becoming more and more aggressive to be competitive, where they basically aren't attending school anymore, they are just "athletes" and not "student-athletes". Now also, you say you are so in favor of allowing the free market to dictate benefits, that it is worth it even if it destroys the system. 1. In what world, outside of Wolf on Wall Street, is this beneficial at all? Destroying the system so less than 1% of the entire NCAA system can get paid even if it means benefits for the other 99+% get ruined. We live in a capitalist market that aims to incentivize talent and hard work, but there are still lots of restrictions to prevent complete domination of the economy by the elite. 2. Once the system is destroyed, minor leagues would pop up surely, and some might survive this time with people looking for teams to cheer on. But without the institutional infrastructure that prop up the market, the overall interest across the board will be massively less. Therefore, lobbying for this to happen would be to promote economic regression. And for the sake of what? That a highly beneficial system for schools, athletes, and fans alike isn't good enough because it isn't able to distribute its assets perfectly and the organization hasn't figured out how to deter indirect cheating? [QUOTE="dtm1997, post: 580173, member: 572" I ask & say these things knowing full well that GT is a school that would be effed under this scenario, but that would be GT's problem to navigate.[/QUOTE] You say this like the GTAA and GT are the same thing. GTAA's ability to react to massive changes like athlete compensation is dependent on the school. Can they force the school to double in size so that they will have a similar donor base to other schools? No. Can they force the school to add worthless majors so that elite athletes who don't want to play school will come? No. You seem very fixated on the NCAA needing to be fully capitalistic, but even though we have a capitalist society, every entity within that society doesn't have to be capitalist itself. The call for the NCAA to be capitalist is like saying all engineering firms should work on a performance scale for pay, with no base pay. That's not how those institutions need to operate in a capitalist society. That would just cause complete chaos and ruin lives. Overall, I think the idea that NCAA assets get perfectly distributed is fantastic. But, it's utopian in the sense that it isn't plausible. You either offer them equal benefits like now, offer money in some equitable way that doesn't align with the market, or you open the floodgates and the system starts to crash and burn - ultimately hurting everyone involved. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top