Live data from Hacker News

Broke

everydayshouldbesaturday.com

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Broke

#11
I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution.

First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and female athletes will be massive.

Then there's the problem of mixing sports and education. If these athletes are paid, do they still have to attend classes? Do they have to get good grades? Are they given scholarships in addition to monetary compensation? Can athletes switch colleges if another school will pay them more?

It seems to me that most of these problems would be solved by creating a minor league separate from college. If people are so attached to college names, then the colleges can sell naming rights.

But honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find a sport more repugnant than football. If football came into being today, people would riot in the streets. Who would pay money to watch mostly lower-class, mostly black[1] players permanently damage each other's brains and bodies? Who would cheer during such an event? Yes, it can be argued that athletes know the risks, but the same is true for dueling. In the past, people thought dueling was fine. Today, we recognize it to be a barbarous tradition. I believe that, as we do with dueling, future societies will condemn us for allowing this sport to continue.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_prof...

Re: Broke

#12
post #7

I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college , not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been design…

> put them into a developmental league

College football is the development league.

And the alumni will never permit that to change.

Re: Broke

#13
post #11

I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…

What makes Football different than Female baseball or wrestling? Full stadiums.

I'm not a football fan either (nor any sport where "we" will go all the way)... but to say that people will riot in the streets over it is a bit over the top. YOU don't like it. Many people obviously disagree - and enough that it's a major sport. Probably THE major sport currently.

Re: Broke

#14
post #7

I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college , not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been design…

> put them into a developmental league College football is the development league. And the alumni will never permit that to change.

> College football is the development league.

I said as much. As to the alumni not allowing that to change, I'm not convinced. Frankly, I don't think having a concurrent developmental league would really alter the brand that much. The MLB does it, the NBA does it ... and yet both are successful collegiate entities. It's not like people are skipping March Madness to watch D-League action.

Re: Broke

#15
post #11

I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…

What makes Football different than Female baseball or wrestling? Full stadiums. I'm not a football fan either (nor any sport where "we" will go all the way)... but to say that people will riot in the streets over it is a bit over the top. YOU don't like it. Many people obviously disagree - and enough that it's a major sport. Probably THE major sport currently.

Popularity breeds popularity

Re: Broke

#16
One of the necessary things that needs to happen if we are to begin paying players is that there would need to be some serious contraction in the number of Division I Football teams. A team like Boise State is just not going to be able to keep up with players at the University of Southern California for example.

Since a lot of those would be in small, rural towns, there is A LOT of resistance to this outside the traditional power conference (and frankly some of the stragglers inside power conferences too for that matter)

Re: Broke

#17
post #11

I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…

I feel the brutality of the sport every morning when I get out of bed. And I was a scrub for the most part. But I wouldn't trade any of it. If it weren't for the increase in brain injuries and the muscle-mass maximizing arms race that ends careers (and limp-free middle age) on a weekly basis, I'd encourage my son to play. I absolutely loved the sport.

It still has its merits, and I'm still a huge fan, but there's a lot of ugliness that needs to be fixed before I'd encourage anyone to play. It's a lot like encouraging someone to serve their country. If the mission is clear and moral, no problem. But it's rare you're gonna find that these days. Just work hard and try to be happy. That's honorable.

Re: Broke

#18
post #11

I agree with pretty much every criticism in this article. Where I differ in opinion is the solution. First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?" and they'll have a point. Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and…

> First, there's the "me too" effect. If colleges pay football players, other athletes will want to be paid. They'll ask, "What makes football special?"

That's easy: what makes football special is that it generates absolutely gigantic piles of cash. If a delegation of athletes from, say, the college ultimate frisbee team were to demand similar compensation, the burden would be on them to demonstrate they're generating similar revenue.

(And if they can actually make that case? Then heck, pay them too!)

> Then we'll run into some unhappy truths regarding sports. For example: If colleges base compensation on revenue, the wage gap between male and female athletes will be massive.

Wait -- because we might end up paying female athletes less than male athletes, we shouldn't pay any of them anything? Surely we can cross this particular bridge when (and if) we ever actually come to it.

> Then there's the problem of mixing sports and education.

Which isn't really a problem, because the "education" many (most?) college football players currently receive is pretty nominal anyway.

> It seems to me that most of these problems would be solved by creating a minor league separate from college.

I'm always wary of a proposed solution whose first step is "change everything," not least because frequently it's proposed less to provide an actual alternative than to delay taking any steps at all to improve the situation. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, in other words. You can advocate for creating a whole new league if you want to, and maybe someday that will happen, but in the meantime there's all these real people getting really screwed out of real money they've really earned. A whole new system that takes 10 or 15 or 30 years to get worked out and implemented doesn't do them any good. So let's just start paying them, and then we can take all the time we want to work the bigger questions out.

Re: Broke

#19
post #7

I'll never understand why people reject the most sensible answer: allow high school students to be drafted into the NFL. Even if they're not playing in the NFL for 2,3 or 4 years, pu them into a developmental league where they can earn $30K a year for a shot to make the league. Then college is reserved for people who want to go to college , not for people who have to go because that's the collusion that's been design…

That doesn't solve the problem. Even if football athletes could go straight from high school to college as in basketball and baseball, college football will still be a huge moneymaker, and the athletes will remain broke.

Secondly, your premise is incorrect. It's the NFL that has a rule against drafting players out of high school, not society. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/sports/football-citing-ant...

Re: Broke

#20
There's another possible solution, too, which for the 95% of post-secondary institutions you've never heard of is either already the status quo or would be a much more economical answer. That solution is to get out of the business of athletics. If you are not a "power 5" program or one of the top NCAA D-I basketball programs, athletics is a money-loser. The UAB debacle provides a pretty good case study in why this is so: there are only a handful of universities that the system will allow to make any money. So what looks like one problem is really two: first, the employee-athletes at the major athletic programs aren't being paid, and they should be. But the flip side of the coin is that many of the same retarded rules that harm those employees are being applied to people playing sports at much smaller programs, where they are not at all profitable and there is essentially zero chance that anyone is ever going to make their career as a major league athlete. That's the second problem.

The solution to the first problem is complex. It starts with paying your employees. But there's more to it than that: something has to be done about the fiction that those employees are fundamentally students. They're not. Scandal after scandal shows every trick and dodge in the book is and will continue to be used to keep functionally illiterate players off the academically ineligible list and on the field. It would be healthier, if these schools insist on keeping their highly profitable athletic programs, to partner with the NBA and NFL (baseball doesn't really have this problem) to transition their status to minor league affiliates. In the process, they could also cut the sanctimonious and absurd NCAA out of the game. No more scandals, no more bullshit. But it's going to take some work to get from here to there.

The solution to the second problem is very simple. For the other 95%, no more NCAA rules (they're designed for the big-money programs to deceive themselves, not for the others). No more TV, period. Not that most of them are ever on TV anyway, except for the one or two games a year they volunteer to be slaughtered by far superior competition to fund the rest of their season (in games which, for no conceivable reason, actually count for both teams!). No more licensing. If they want to sell merchandise, they can sell it at the campus bookstore. Not like any of them are making millions from Amazon or Foot Locker anyway. Above all else, no more "athletic scholarships", a profound contradiction in terms hardly anyone ever ponders long enough to recognize.

That means no more pressure, no more extended seasons, and no more faux students hanging around in hopes of transferring to a big-money program so they can get their shot at the big time. If you want to play intercollegiate sports, fine. But the reason those academic standards that are so low yet somehow impossible for the big guys to meet without cheating exist in the first place is to prevent students who don't have time for a hobby from being distracted from their studies. Raise them, high. If you don't have at least a 3.25, you have no business doing anything but studying. And without the pressure of having to maintain your "athletic scholarship", why should you?

No more games against hopelessly superior competition. You'll play against other teams of full-time students with no funding for fancy uniforms and gleaming locker rooms, at a simple gym or on a field shared with 8 other teams next to a single set of bleachers. High school baseball teams don't play against AA clubs; there's no excuse for pay-for-play in other sports, either. If you can't fund your athletic programs through student fees, they get cut. Simple as that. But stop pretending that "student athletics", a huge money loser and waste of time and energy, is a necessary part of your institutional identity, or that it "builds character". There's nothing wrong with intercollegiate athletics as a hobby, a diversion, another way to network, and a way to stay in shape while you study. But that's all it is. Don't let the tail wag the dog.

Because as bad as the futile aspiration of making a major-league professional club is for the 98% who never will, the small schools (or large schools with small athletic programs) forced to play by the same rules as the big boys are in exactly the same spot. The first step is admitting that you're not competitive and never will be. Once you've done that, a whole world of refreshingly decent options opens up.

Post reply on HN