[burger]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

[burger]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

[76lsjumb]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

H.uge amounts of money being thrown at kids by people who want to make h.uge amounts of money off them.  What could possibly go wrong?

[76lsjumb]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

H.uge amounts of money being thrown at kids by people who want to make h.uge amounts of money off them.  What could possibly go wrong?

[burger]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

[burger]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

[76lsjumb]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

Sorry.  I must have misinterpreted your post.  I thought you meant that new ideas, things, etc., "in almost every case" made things better, not worse, and that the contrary argument -- to wit, that existing problems can actually be made worse by new ideas, things, etc. -- was invalid.  

My point is not that everything pre-Internet and social media was peaches and cream, but that many of the beneficial effects that the internet and social media were touted as likely to provide, in fact, have not only not come to pass [at least so far], but have been wholly eclipsed by opposite, harmful effects.  I think a legitimate case can be made that will also come to pass with respect to pay for play.  

After all, the "law of unintended consequences" isn't a cliche for nothing...

[76lsjumb]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

Sorry.  I must have misinterpreted your post.  I thought you meant that new ideas, things, etc., "in almost every case" made things better, not worse, and that the contrary argument -- to wit, that existing problems can actually be made worse by new ideas, things, etc. -- was invalid.  

My point is not that everything pre-Internet and social media was peaches and cream, but that many of the beneficial effects that the internet and social media were touted as likely to provide, in fact, have not only not come to pass [at least so far], but have been wholly eclipsed by opposite, harmful effects.  I think a legitimate case can be made that will also come to pass with respect to pay for play.  

After all, the "law of unintended consequences" isn't a cliche for nothing...

[BostonCard]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

I don’t know, while there are definitely some positives of something like the PAC-12 network (I can watch every away game, and can watch more “Sears” sports), it hasn’t been entirely without negatives, especially for someone like me who likes to go to games.

More broadly, I think the profesionalization of college football (I don’t mean paying athletes, I mean all the other stuff: proliferation of television, bowl games, increasing the number of games, playoffs, increases in coaching salaries, profesionalización of stadiums and locker rooms, etc.) have, as a whole, been a negative for college football. Sure, I like knowing that even in a crap season like this one we have a chance to go to the cactus bowl or some other howl no one has heard of to play some other mediocre team, on ESPN in front of 6,200 fans, but taken as a whole, I think college football has slowly been losing its tradition, it’s distinctiveness from the pro game, and ultimately it’s soul.  The problem is that as the college and pro games converge, the quality of the product on the field will always be better in the NFL, so why pick the college game?

Yeah, I’m starting to sound old, as someone who has now crossed the median age in the US, but I really think the game was more enjoyable back in the day.  Now get off my lawn!

BC

[BostonCard]

Totally relevant aside: One of the things that I hate about debates like this one is the tendency of some on the "keep the status quo" side to say that the proposed changes will be the end of <insert institution or cherished value here>.  In fact, there's a long history of people arguing that various new inventions or ideas will have ruinous effect, and in almost every case, the anti-change forces were proven wrong. 

There's an excellent podcast that goes through historic examples of this type of argument, including new ideas you would not imagine to be controversial, like comic books, the telegraph, the novel, and coffee.  It's here: https://pessimists.co/episodes/  I really liked the "kids these days" episode, which traces the same tired argument we hear today all the way back to ancient Rome.

Is it possible that letting athletes make money on the side will ruin college sports?  Sure.  But history suggests that things will work out okay.

I don’t know, while there are definitely some positives of something like the PAC-12 network (I can watch every away game, and can watch more “Sears” sports), it hasn’t been entirely without negatives, especially for someone like me who likes to go to games.

More broadly, I think the profesionalization of college football (I don’t mean paying athletes, I mean all the other stuff: proliferation of television, bowl games, increasing the number of games, playoffs, increases in coaching salaries, profesionalización of stadiums and locker rooms, etc.) have, as a whole, been a negative for college football. Sure, I like knowing that even in a crap season like this one we have a chance to go to the cactus bowl or some other howl no one has heard of to play some other mediocre team, on ESPN in front of 6,200 fans, but taken as a whole, I think college football has slowly been losing its tradition, it’s distinctiveness from the pro game, and ultimately it’s soul.  The problem is that as the college and pro games converge, the quality of the product on the field will always be better in the NFL, so why pick the college game?

Yeah, I’m starting to sound old, as someone who has now crossed the median age in the US, but I really think the game was more enjoyable back in the day.  Now get off my lawn!

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... Richard Burr (Senator from NC) is apparently going to introduce legislation that says that players who make money from their likeness would then need to start paying taxes on their scholarship.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... Richard Burr (Senator from NC) is apparently going to introduce legislation that says that players who make money from their likeness would then need to start paying taxes on their scholarship.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Interesting... Richard Burr (Senator from NC) is apparently going to introduce legislation that says that players who make money from their likeness would then need to start paying taxes on their scholarship.

BC

Surprised that wasn't incorporated in SB 206.

[cardcrimson]

Interesting... Richard Burr (Senator from NC) is apparently going to introduce legislation that says that players who make money from their likeness would then need to start paying taxes on their scholarship.

BC

Surprised that wasn't incorporated in SB 206.

[jonnyss]

it could be asserted that the warnings that emancipation would damage the economies of the southern states turned out to be true.

but it was worth it.

[jonnyss]

it could be asserted that the warnings that emancipation would damage the economies of the southern states turned out to be true.

but it was worth it.

[Renaissance Man]

One thing that I think any reasonable person can assume--there will be Yankees and Dodgers, and there will be Padres and A's.

[Renaissance Man]

One thing that I think any reasonable person can assume--there will be Yankees and Dodgers, and there will be Padres and A's.

[cardcrimson]

it could be asserted that the warnings that emancipation would damage the economies of the southern states turned out to be true.

but it was worth it.

Seriously, are you comparing student athletes to slaves? Good lord. . . .

[cardcrimson]

it could be asserted that the warnings that emancipation would damage the economies of the southern states turned out to be true.

but it was worth it.

Seriously, are you comparing student athletes to slaves? Good lord. . . .