Other than the obvious, money, anyone have a clue to what they are fighting about?
I read a tad about this because a friend of mine was in stitches over this. me... meh, it is just a frikkin game and the fight is among guys who get paid way more than me so I don't really give a damn...
The extended season has always been the bone of contention; the players are being asked to play two extra games, at risk of injury - I believe with one less pre-season game (where injuries are less likely, for a variety of reasons.)
Sorry, but what does College Football have to do with a NFL lockout. Maybe I am missing something, but the rant on college coaches threw me a bit. As far as the rant, how many professors are responsible 24x7 for a 100+ students and a multi-million dollar budget plus public relations plus a large coaching staff plus actually coaching plus HR (recruitment), etc., etc. Find me that professor and maybe then they can compare salaries. Oh, I forgot - how many coaches have tenure?
Not so fast. Football enjoys tremendous benefits courtesy of the US taxpayer. How many other sports have a recruitment and draft system which essentially trains young players via the public education system until they're "ready" to enter college and the pros? Basketball and baseball feed at the same trough.
Sorry, but I take exception to this. You completely ignore Title 9 and you completely ignore that in big time programs, it is usually football and basketball that fund the rest of the sports. What's the difference between getting an athletic scholarship or an academic one? Nothing.
Not sure how or why boxing is now the subject, but if you want to talk about destroying boxing, I suggest you start at the doorstep of Don King. I don't think you had too many "boxers" coming out of college. Our best boxers in history have came out of the depth's of the inner city and not too many of them could spell "cat" either.
Again, tell me what the difference is between a athletic scholorship and an academic one. If you have a problem with athletic scholarships being a drain on the taxpayers, then for consistency, I would think you have the same problem with academic ones as well.
ah, got it. Maybe a different perspective, but I would say it is not so much society has an overblown importance, but maybe the sports themselves do. Hockey was on the rise until they went on strike and it has never recovered. It took baseball year's to eventually recover as well. I don't remember the last NFL strike all that well to even comment on it, but do vividly recall the baseball and hockey strikes that cost them a lot of fans.
You're kidding, right? You're telling me the training a football player receives in virtually every grade and every year of the public education system has no value and didn't cost the taxpayers anything? And I suppose that giant football stadium down at my kid's high school was built for free, too?
I think it also says something sbout us when the highest paid emoplyee in entire University is the football or basketball coach. Absolutely true here at the University of Arizona. Lute Olsen was the highest plaid employee in the entire institution.
That's all fine. But where is the outrage against the academic scholarships then. Public schools have used funds to train them for years - they get a free ride in college then go on to benefit some corporation or research lab, whatever. If you are outraged over using taxpayer money for athletics, then you should be equally outraged over academics too. All cut from the same cloth in my opinion.
Not really. Go find another person in the University which as much overall responsibility as Olsen or Stoops have, then get back to me. Generally, people are paid on their level of responsbility and not against some lowest common denominator formula.
I never said I was calling for any big change in college sports. And, as you pointed out, some good does come from sports scholarships. However, even in that area there is room for debate about just how efficient such a scholarship system is when the sheer quantity of cash being pumped in by taxpayers is taken into account. It's also fair to point out that, despite the propaganda which gets repeated ad nauseum, college sports programs don't really make a profit for anyone, except for an exceedingly select group of high level individuals with the right connections.
Back on topic, I would generally agree, but find myself leaning to the other side of fence to the players. Have a handful of friends who have played Division I-A football and a couple that played in the pros for a short period of time. One used to be an agent and he gives me some of the skinny on what goes on in the NFL. The players shelf life in the Pros is pretty short and asking them to play two extra games on top of the schedule they have seems to me as a pretty big ask. Not familiar with all of the politics back and forth, but that was the one item that got me leaning to the player's side.
