Cory Booker taking aim at NCAA

[paloalto]

Outsiderfan, it would be pointless to discuss this with you because you are not receptive to a different point of view.  The moderators have your back so you win.

[Phogge]

OF you should go back to the CEB that Personal Legend has set up. You can have a ball debating with those guys. Over there football has been forgotten, it's all politics.

[lex24]

“Dude” your analogy was horseshit.  And you continually ignore the no politics rule to spew forth your “truth”. It’s bunk. It’s tiring. And it’s way beyond time someone called you on it.

---

Please outline what is wrong with what I said?  I do fear the GOP will make it a partisan issue. FFS, they are making the freaking Post Office and your right to vote a political issue right now.  Before we know it, we won't be able to discuss anything because everything in our lives will be politicized.  And yes, you may not like it, but the move to give college athletes more rights is absolutely about giving mostly Black youth more rights. Any time this happens the white power structure resists. This is just an irrefutable truth when you look at history. Do you think it is any coincidence that the Senator pushing this movement for a college athlete Bill of Rights is a Black former college athlete?  

I'm just being honest about what is going on and am not afraid to face reality. It may not be comfortable. It may not be the truth I or you prefer, but nothing I said is wrong. It's either my opinion or demonstrated by facts. To have meaningful discussions, we must include reality.

You would have heard slave owners who justified slavery because they treated their slaves well, and if they were somewhere else those slaves would have been worse off. This is the same exact mentality that claims NCAA athletes have it great right now and misses the point of giving college athletes rights they don’t currently have. It’s about more than money.

Like slaves, NCAA athletes have no agency or say in the conditions under which they must labor. Moreover, assuming all is well is based on accepting the surrounding society’s practices as the way it is, was, and always will be. The reality is the world is what we and those who fight to change it want it to be.

I understand the visceral need to hold on to a way of life with which you identify or rely on in some way, but the world is always changing for better or worse. It’s a constant battle for rights and resources. There are really no right or wrong answers about what they are and how they are distributed, just what the market wants and is willing to pay for it. In this case, there is now a market for the idea college athletes deserve to have more rights.

The Booker proposal seems to be giving rights and agency to them as a first step, so they have more freedom and a framework with which to seek improvements to the conditions under which they labor for schools. Just this step is a very large move and may placate athletes seeking to be paid by schools, in large measure because these new rights would allow them to capitalize on their value instead of signing away the rights to capitalize on it to schools. Will probably also allow athletes on scholarship to hold jobs and get paid too, something now prohibited.

Prior to this year I would have thought a Bill of Rights for athletes that provides rights to exploit the free market would be a bedrock conservative principle and such a bill would sail through Congress like shit through a Goose. But today, with the GOP apparently working to take voting rights from every American and cashiering every value it ever claimed, I have no idea what the prospects are for such a bill gaining bi-partisan support. I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.
[/quote]

Any attempt to draw “parallels” between slavery and the NCAA borders on pornographic. Simply put no one is forcing anyone to play a sport. They “must” not “labor”. They choose to play.  It’s dramatic , of course, as is the “exploitation” label.  

I’ve never been a fan of the NCAA as an organization.  And some changes should more forward - extended health Care, name and likeness compensation, make it easier to transfer (although it should be no easier than any other students ability to transfer) and I like the idea of a Pct of profits going to educationally related charities - although political make that messy.

The NFL can have a D league. Although I’m not sure that would be a better option for a kid - at least it provides a choice.

I’d respond to your nonsense relating to the GOP but I don’t want to violate the Terry Rule.  Even though you just did.
[/quote]

And they choose where they want to play, assuming a kid gets more than one offer. The relation to slavery has to be one of the dumber comments I've heard in a long time. Only to be surpassed by the comment that the White GOP are trying to keep the Black athlete down. Simply stunning.


If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.
[/quote]

Breathtaking meaning that varsity sports besides football and perhaps women's and men's basketball will be taking their last breaths very soon.
[/quote]

Dude, I made a disclaimer in my post that I wasn't equating college athletes with slaves. I was using slavery to demonstrate a parallel to the mentality of people who claim they should be happy with what they get, when they have no agency and rights everyone else has taken away. I never said college athletes are forced to play, but it is a fact they don't have a say in their working conditions or how they can earn compensation, through their sport or even through other endeavors.

The College Athletes Bill of Rights aims to provide players all the rights regular students have. And it doesn't even involve universities in having to pay additional compensation to them. It just sets up structures to either make the topic moot or allow negotiations over compensation to happen.

But you're right. The GOP isn't trying to keep Black athletes down. They are trying to keep any non-white male down. My mistake.
[/quote]

Your right. The GOP sits around thinking of ways to keep black athletes down. It’s a of immense proportions issue.  They think of almost nothing else. Meanwhile, the Dems sit and thinks of ways to help
Black atheles.  Nothing is more important.   Course the truth is – neither really think about it. Because it’s not particularly an important issue within the big scheme of things. Except when political hay can be made off it. 
  I’m trying to think of when the NCAA created rules to try to keep black athletes down. Not sure when that happened. But then I think about the fact that if you took a picture of an SEC football team in 1964 and then a picture of that same  universities football team in 2019 it would look a little different. Don’t you think? The issues surrounding the NCAA are economic - having to do with money. And the fact that with the explosion of television revenue they make a hell of a lot more of it. Doesn’t have a freaking thing to do with race. They haven’t changed any rules to “keep black athletes down“. In point of fact, what has  happened in sports with the inclusion of black athletes over the last several decades has been a terrific thing. Christ – if you go back to the 60s and look at a southern university you have nothing but white football players. Now, you have almost an  entire squad of black football players. Congress I suspect has not given a whole lot of thought to the NCAA. And why the hell should it. Congress has way more impt  things to think about. College football and the NCAA  should be able to work these issues out without congressional action.

By the way – is there any NCAA action that has been instituted thatbyou can point to that Is designed to “keep black athletes down.” If so – by all means let’s hear it. If not – then  you’re just throwing out garbage.  Truth!

[BostonCard]

I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Why do moderators allow this on a sports message board?

The discussion in this thread of possible changes for scholarship athletes is interesting and relevant. But let's please keep partisan political digs out of it.

OF, I'll repeat what CompSci said; let's keep the partisan digs out of it.  The post office and voting rights are at best very tangentially related to the NCAA athletes bill of rights.  And until members of congress come out in favor or against the bill, let's hold off on ascribing views to them.  I don't go around locking threads, but this one is headed in that direction. 

Particularly on this board, Yvonne has been clear that politics should not be discussed.  Debate the merits of the Bill if you like; leave the politics for another board.

BC

[cardcrimson]

OF you should go back to the CEB that Personal Legend has set up. You can have a ball debating with those guys. Over there football has been forgotten, it's all politics.

He doesn't have the stones. . . .

Love his conjecture that the GOP only cares about white male athletes. How is that kind of BS condoned on a stated non political sports board? H E double hockey sticks, I am still banned from commenting on the Covid board for some unknown reason. . . .

[teejers1]

I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Why do moderators allow this on a sports message board?

Please outline what is wrong with what I said?  I do fear the GOP will make it a partisan issue. FFS, they are making the freaking Post Office and your right to vote a political issue right now.  Before we know it, we won't be able to discuss anything because everything in our lives will be politicized.  And yes, you may not like it, but the move to give college athletes more rights is absolutely about giving mostly Black youth more rights. Any time this happens the white power structure resists. This is just an irrefutable truth when you look at history. Do you think it is any coincidence that the Senator pushing this movement for a college athlete Bill of Rights is a Black former college athlete?  

I'm just being honest about what is going on and am not afraid to face reality. It may not be comfortable. It may not be the truth I or you prefer, but nothing I said is wrong. It's either my opinion or demonstrated by facts. To have meaningful discussions, we must include reality.

---

teejers1 - I’m not equating these things as equally wrong, just to draw parallels...

You would have heard slave owners who justified slavery because they treated their slaves well, and if they were somewhere else those slaves would have been worse off. This is the same exact mentality that claims NCAA athletes have it great right now and misses the point of giving college athletes rights they don’t currently have. It’s about more than money.

Like slaves, NCAA athletes have no agency or say in the conditions under which they must labor. Moreover, assuming all is well is based on accepting the surrounding society’s practices as the way it is, was, and always will be. The reality is the world is what we and those who fight to change it want it to be.

I understand the visceral need to hold on to a way of life with which you identify or rely on in some way, but the world is always changing for better or worse. It’s a constant battle for rights and resources. There are really no right or wrong answers about what they are and how they are distributed, just what the market wants and is willing to pay for it. In this case, there is now a market for the idea college athletes deserve to have more rights.

The Booker proposal seems to be giving rights and agency to them as a first step, so they have more freedom and a framework with which to seek improvements to the conditions under which they labor for schools. Just this step is a very large move and may placate athletes seeking to be paid by schools, in large measure because these new rights would allow them to capitalize on their value instead of signing away the rights to capitalize on it to schools. Will probably also allow athletes on scholarship to hold jobs and get paid too, something now prohibited.

Prior to this year I would have thought a Bill of Rights for athletes that provides rights to exploit the free market would be a bedrock conservative principle and such a bill would sail through Congress like shit through a Goose. But today, with the GOP apparently working to take voting rights from every American and cashiering every value it ever claimed, I have no idea what the prospects are for such a bill gaining bi-partisan support. I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Any attempt to draw “parallels” between slavery and the NCAA borders on pornographic. Simply put no one is forcing anyone to play a sport. They “must” not “labor”. They choose to play.  It’s dramatic , of course, as is the “exploitation” label.  

I’ve never been a fan of the NCAA as an organization.  And some changes should more forward - extended health Care, name and likeness compensation, make it easier to transfer (although it should be no easier than any other students ability to transfer) and I like the idea of a Pct of profits going to educationally related charities - although political make that messy.

The NFL can have a D league. Although I’m not sure that would be a better option for a kid - at least it provides a choice.

I’d respond to your nonsense relating to the GOP but I don’t want to violate the Terry Rule.  Even though you just did.

And they choose where they want to play, assuming a kid gets more than one offer. The relation to slavery has to be one of the dumber comments I've heard in a long time. Only to be surpassed by the comment that the White GOP are trying to keep the Black athlete down. Simply stunning.

---

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

Breathtaking meaning that varsity sports besides football and perhaps women's and men's basketball will be taking their last breaths very soon.

Dude, I made a disclaimer in my post that I wasn't equating college athletes with slaves. I was using slavery to demonstrate a parallel to the mentality of people who claim they should be happy with what they get, when they have no agency and rights everyone else has taken away. I never said college athletes are forced to play, but it is a fact they don't have a say in their working conditions or how they can earn compensation, through their sport or even through other endeavors.

The College Athletes Bill of Rights aims to provide players all the rights regular students have. And it doesn't even involve universities in having to pay additional compensation to them. It just sets up structures to either make the topic moot or allow negotiations over compensation to happen.

But you're right. The GOP isn't trying to keep Black athletes down. They are trying to keep any non-white male down. My mistake.

How about answering 3 simple questions?

1.  Do you think college athletics benefits or harms the scholarship athletes, in the aggregate? And you can limit it to the black athlete if yo want?

2.  Do you think an NFL D-League would be a better or worse deal for the black athlete in America?  Regardless, don't you think the athlete should be given the choice to pursue D-League (and get paid) or go to college (and have the compensation be limited to tuition, room, and board - and perhaps academic assistance - plus the intangibles of college)?

3.  Do you think if every one-and-doner in college hoops played in the D-League, that the NCAA Tourney would not still be a popular, money-making endeavor?

[slide]

what's is Booker's track record on enacting substantive legislation?

[OutsiderFan]

Love his conjecture that the GOP only cares about white male athletes. How is that kind of BS condoned on a stated non political sports board? H E double hockey sticks, I am still banned from commenting on the Covid board for some unknown reason. . . .

As a thought exercise, overlay the preponderant boundaries of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 on this map.


I suggest closing this thread and starting a new one that discusses the merits of the Booker framework:

1. Increased health and medical coverage for athletes
2. Allowing athletes full rights to their NIL and how that could manifest
3. Athlete transfer without penalty
4. Having an advisory board that represents the interests of athletes (this needs to be fleshed out as it is a bit murky now)
5. Allowing athletes to hold jobs and generate income elsewhere (not in the proposal AFAIK, but important to consider)

---

How about answering 3 simple questions?

1.  Do you think college athletics benefits or harms the scholarship athletes, in the aggregate? And you can limit it to the black athlete if yo want?

2.  Do you think an NFL D-League would be a better or worse deal for the black athlete in America?  Regardless, don't you think the athlete should be given the choice to pursue D-League (and get paid) or go to college (and have the compensation be limited to tuition, room, and board - and perhaps academic assistance - plus the intangibles of college)?

3.  Do you think if every one-and-doner in college hoops played in the D-League, that the NCAA Tourney would not still be a popular, money-making endeavor?

1. Benefits
2. I don't know, and yes. Though I love college football, I can accept it being downsized in the interest of de-professionalizing college sports.
3. The NCAA hoops tournament isn't individually player-focused, so probably not that much.

I take the same stance on this issue as I do on pro sports union negations with ownership, with one caveat.

It really isn't my business what are and aren't acceptable working conditions for labor vs. management. Nor is it really up to me to decide how college sports move forward, how big they are, who participates, etc. The parties have to do whatever they need to do to fight for what they want. Whatever they decide together, I either accept supporting or don't. I hate the NFL's 17-game season, and will probably be less passionate about it as a result, but won't stop consuming it completely.

The caveat is college athletes don't have a union and no structure to organize and collectively bargain. That's why it then becomes necessary for the law to step in and provide rights unilaterally to college athletes.  

It may be true that college athletes ruin something great that they have now, pushing for more rights, but my position is let them have the choice and freedom to explore better conditions. Let schools decide if they want to really go full professional route or don't, based on the costs college athletes create by being empowered. Maybe athletes realize they can get a better deal, maybe they can't. Maybe schools realize they need to back off their professionalization of sports. My personal opinion is college athletes will be placated by being conferred with rights in the Booker framework.  But even if they aren't, there will at least be some kind of structure in place to advocate for themselves as a group.

IOW, give both parties rights that everyone else has, and let them figure it out between themselves. Personally, I don't like the college sports industrial complex arms race.  Alabama just gave its Offensive Coordinator a $1,000,000 raise to $2.5 million, something I personally find disgusting, but if the players all agree to a framework that allows it, I can accept it, even if such a world precludes Stanford from participating, or otherwise hurts its ability to compete at the highest levels of college sports.

Thanks for toning down the rancor, teejers1.  You asked very thoughtful questions.

[Mick]

I’d respond to your nonsense relating to the GOP but I don’t want to violate the Terry Rule.  Even though you just did.

I genuinely can't recall the last time the Terry rule was invoked in response to a pro-left message.  Always seemed to me that it was in response to a pro-right/anti-left message.

[jonnyss]

some thoughts:

allowing professionals did not ruin the olympics; far from it.

slavery is not intrinsically a black/white issue. whites were slaves in the british isles for centuries.  currently, tens of thousands of people of various ethnicities around the world are enslaved. 

today, college athletes play without pay while administrators profiteer. it is not intrinsically a racial issue, but a majority of the top athletes - especially in the high-profit sports of football and baseball - are black. 

in america, slaves were overwhelmingly black. so it is not a stretch to make an analogy between college sports and slavery. 

perhaps college football is closer to indentured servitude (which was common for whites in the early days of america), as players have to work without pay for a time to become eligible to earn wages. 

[Phogge]

Mick, bravo!

[cardcrimson]

As a thought exercise, overlay the preponderant boundaries of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 on this map.


I suggest closing this thread and starting a new one that discusses the merits of the Booker framework:

Incredibly insightful map. Who knew the SEC was in the Southeast and the ACC was on the Atlantic Coast. The Pac-12 is on the Pacific coast, too. Now if I could only figure out where the Bigs are I'd be in great shape. Thanks!

[JohnR34231]

some thoughts:

allowing professionals did not ruin the olympics; far from it.

slavery is not intrinsically a black/white issue. whites were slaves in the british isles for centuries.  currently, tens of thousands of people of various ethnicities around the world are enslaved. 

today, college athletes play without pay while administrators profiteer. it is not intrinsically a racial issue, but a majority of the top athletes - especially in the high-profit sports of football and baseball - are black. 

in america, slaves were overwhelmingly black. so it is not a stretch to make an analogy between college sports and slavery. 

perhaps college football is closer to indentured servitude (which was common for whites in the early days of america), as players have to work without pay for a time to become eligible to earn wages. 

Just wondering if you would feel better about it if the football players quit football and then had to take on part time jobs and/or get loans to pay their tuition and room and board?
Would you consider them less "exploited" that way?

[Goose]

some thoughts:



allowing professionals did not ruin the olympics; far from it.

Matter of opinion. The quality of the competition certainly was improved by allowing professionals to play. The reason it was allowed was two fold. First, some "Olympic" sports, like basketball, became contests between ideologies. USSR "amateurs" for example, weren't. Second, many sports had a pro circuit that was undoubtedly much better than what was to be seen in the Olympics. Nobody who wanted to make a living was going to forgo the money, so the Olympics would have become third-rate.
In today's would, if you want the best, you are going to have to pay for it. Love of the sport really has little place. That is what was lost.

today, college athletes play without pay while administrators profiteer. it is not intrinsically a racial issue, but a majority of the top athletes - especially in the high-profit sports of football and baseball - are black.

True. However, many black athletes never got the chance at all before the late 50s/early 60s. That was a racial issue. What "fixed" it wasn't that social justice suddenly became in vogue, although that probably helped some. It  was more the desire on the part of the universities to win.

in america, slaves were overwhelmingly black. so it is not a stretch to make an analogy between college sports and slavery. 



perhaps college football is closer to indentured servitude (which was common for whites in the early days of america), as players have to work without pay for a time to become eligible to earn wages. 

Indentured servitude was an agreement where the individual involved agreed to work without wages for a fixed interval in return for other considerations. Those "considerations" were usually 1) transport to "america" 2) room and board during the period of performance. You weren't working to "become eligible to earn wages". You were working to pay off a debit that you freely incurred. The college athlete's situation is really quite different. They can walk away at any time. There is no mandatory period of performance.

There are other analogies present in the university system. A joke that made the rounds while I was at Stanford is as follows: Question: What is the difference between graduate students and slaves? Answer: Lincoln freed the slaves. As we have seen at other universities, graduate students have organized unions to negotiate their working conditions and compensation. AFAIK, it hasn't worked too well for either party. I suspect student athletes will go down a similar path. Obviously, there are differences in the risks and rewards offered athletes vs graduate students. However, the situations are more similar than different IMHO. Universities get piles of grant money for educating their graduate students. The university gets more grant money for research mostly powered by graduate students. These students provide valuable teaching assistants to help educate undergraduates. Stanford as we know it couldn't exist without them. Football could go away and Stanford would remain. If graduate students went away, Stanford would be in a world of hurt. Yet, the university still holds the upper hand. I doubt athletes will do much better.

[Mick]

Indentured servitude was an agreement where the individual involved agreed to work without wages for a fixed interval in return for other considerations. Those "considerations" were usually 1) transport to "america" 2) room and board during the period of performance. You weren't working to "become eligible to earn wages". You were working to pay off a debit that you freely incurred. The college athlete's situation is really quite different. They can walk away at any time. There is no mandatory period of performance.

My grandmother told me that her grandmother was an indentured servant who fled the potato famine in Ireland for New York as a 17 year old.  She went to work for an Anglo family.  Terms of her indentured servitude was to work 100 hours per week for seven years, with Sundays and Christmas off.  That's 36,400 hours to pay off the five pound passage from Dublin to Liverpool to NYC.  She put up with it for two years, then, apparently, left with the family's silver for San Francisco, traveling overland by stagecoach.

[Goose]

Indentured servitude was an agreement where the individual involved agreed to work without wages for a fixed interval in return for other considerations. Those "considerations" were usually 1) transport to "america" 2) room and board during the period of performance. You weren't working to "become eligible to earn wages". You were working to pay off a debit that you freely incurred. The college athlete's situation is really quite different. They can walk away at any time. There is no mandatory period of performance.

My grandmother told me that her grandmother was an indentured servant who fled the potato famine in Ireland for New York as a 17 year old.  She went to work for an Anglo family.  Terms of her indentured servitude was to work 100 hours per week for seven years, with Sundays and Christmas off.  That's 36,400 hours to pay off the five pound passage from Dublin to Liverpool to NYC.

Inflation? =)

She put up with it for two years, then, apparently, left with the family's silver for San Francisco, traveling overland by stagecoach.

After 1833 you couldn't be imprisoned for debit. As a result, there was little the family could do to here when she fled. The silver was another matter. Getting extradition from California was pretty unlikely I would imagine.

[lex24]

some thoughts:

allowing professionals did not ruin the olympics; far from it.

slavery is not intrinsically a black/white issue. whites were slaves in the british isles for centuries.  currently, tens of thousands of people of various ethnicities around the world are enslaved. 

today, college athletes play without pay while administrators profiteer. it is not intrinsically a racial issue, but a majority of the top athletes - especially in the high-profit sports of football and baseball - are black. 

in america, slaves were overwhelmingly black. so it is not a stretch to make an analogy between college sports and slavery. 

perhaps college football is closer to indentured servitude (which was common for whites in the early days of america), as players have to work without pay for a time to become eligible to earn wages. 

It. Is. Not. Work.

[BostonCard]

Going to put this thread in time out.  While I think the thread is valuable as a whole, too many posts are getting dangerously political, and there are other boards for that. 

BC

[BostonCard]

After further discussion, we are unfreezing the thread, with a reminder to keep the politics out.  A good rule of thumb is that any sentence that ascribes intent to a politician or political party, such as “Republicans want to...” or “Biden believes that...” is not going to fly.

BC

[doubledub]

Kudos to OutsiderFan for engaging in an uncomfortable conversation. The vitriol it provokes is amusing...some of us really start to twitch when our privileged is called out, even tangentially.