Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except it won't be, and really can't be treated severally. I could see it divided out with other revenue sports, and AllTideUp suggested that tax liability be reduced by the amounts that subsidize non revenue sports so I could easily see that as well. But ArkansasStFan said a mouthful when he noted the 100 plus smaller schools which for the sake of basketball made the move up to grab cash they really didn't earn.

That farce should have been addressed ages ago. But as with any bureaucracy the NCAA utilized that socialism to make their endowment 1 Billion & growing and used it to justify staff increases.

What it boils down to is the conclusion of that article I linked to above: The powers-that-be who have it good under the current system (successful programs, lots of revenue) "would rather wring their hands and live with a broken system than do the work of changing it."

And that's why I said it would take the nudge of the Feds with regard to taxes to make it happen but if / when it does we are all better off for it. Sports are healthy and important to the development of character and the integration of keeping the body in shape with the mind. For profit sports certainly doesn't participate in the philosophy of keeping both the mind and body in shape, and non profit sports are way over emphasized without having the funding support in their own right.

Taxing the revenue sports will shine a spotlight on a century old hypocrisy. We use the brawn of the less academic to support the athletic niches of the more academic. Both positions are wrong. Let the parents of the non revenues help to support them and tax those who make their sport a profession.
12-08-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #22
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except it won't be, and really can't be treated severally. I could see it divided out with other revenue sports, and AllTideUp suggested that tax liability be reduced by the amounts that subsidize non revenue sports so I could easily see that as well. But ArkansasStFan said a mouthful when he noted the 100 plus smaller schools which for the sake of basketball made the move up to grab cash they really didn't earn.

That farce should have been addressed ages ago. But as with any bureaucracy the NCAA utilized that socialism to make their endowment 1 Billion & growing and used it to justify staff increases.

What it boils down to is the conclusion of that article I linked to above: The powers-that-be who have it good under the current system (successful programs, lots of revenue) "would rather wring their hands and live with a broken system than do the work of changing it."

And that's why I said it would take the nudge of the Feds with regard to taxes to make it happen but if / when it does we are all better off for it. Sports are healthy and important to the development of character and the integration of keeping the body in shape with the mind. For profit sports certainly doesn't participate in the philosophy of keeping both the mind and body in shape, and non profit sports are way over emphasized without having the funding support in their own right.

Taxing the revenue sports will shine a spotlight on a century old hypocrisy. We use the brawn of the less academic to support the athletic niches of the more academic. Both positions are wrong. Let the parents of the non revenues help to support them and tax those who make their sport a profession.

Some P5 schools, including Cal, have been moving toward pressuring donors to make each "Olympic sport" self-sufficient or risk having the school stop sponsoring that sport. I'm sure that trend will continue even if there are no major changes to the current system, because even at schools where the revenue sports generate a lot of money, the coaches and donors behind football and men's basketball will keep demanding that more of the revenue generated by those teams be used for those teams and not for the rest of the athletic department.

For schools that don't have revenue-generating football or men's basketball programs, self-sufficiency will be a huge challenge. As an example, look at the USA Today data, or the Department of Education data, and pick a few D-I schools that don't have varsity football and make little or no profit from basketball. You'll see a bunch of schools with annual athletic budgets of around $20 million and real revenue of around $2-4 million, with the rest of the budget paid by money from the university's general fund and from student fees.
12-08-2017 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 02:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except it won't be, and really can't be treated severally. I could see it divided out with other revenue sports, and AllTideUp suggested that tax liability be reduced by the amounts that subsidize non revenue sports so I could easily see that as well. But ArkansasStFan said a mouthful when he noted the 100 plus smaller schools which for the sake of basketball made the move up to grab cash they really didn't earn.

That farce should have been addressed ages ago. But as with any bureaucracy the NCAA utilized that socialism to make their endowment 1 Billion & growing and used it to justify staff increases.

What it boils down to is the conclusion of that article I linked to above: The powers-that-be who have it good under the current system (successful programs, lots of revenue) "would rather wring their hands and live with a broken system than do the work of changing it."

And that's why I said it would take the nudge of the Feds with regard to taxes to make it happen but if / when it does we are all better off for it. Sports are healthy and important to the development of character and the integration of keeping the body in shape with the mind. For profit sports certainly doesn't participate in the philosophy of keeping both the mind and body in shape, and non profit sports are way over emphasized without having the funding support in their own right.

Taxing the revenue sports will shine a spotlight on a century old hypocrisy. We use the brawn of the less academic to support the athletic niches of the more academic. Both positions are wrong. Let the parents of the non revenues help to support them and tax those who make their sport a profession.

Some P5 schools, including Cal, have been moving toward pressuring donors to make each "Olympic sport" self-sufficient or risk having the school stop sponsoring that sport. I'm sure that trend will continue even if there are no major changes to the current system, because even at schools where the revenue sports generate a lot of money, the coaches and donors behind football and men's basketball will keep demanding that more of the revenue generated by those teams be used for those teams and not for the rest of the athletic department.

For schools that don't have revenue-generating football or men's basketball programs, self-sufficiency will be a huge challenge. As an example, look at the USA Today data, or the Department of Education data, and pick a few D-I schools that don't have varsity football and make little or no profit from basketball. You'll see a bunch of schools with annual athletic budgets of around $20 million and real revenue of around $2-4 million, with the rest of the budget paid by money from the university's general fund and from student fees.

Then you would agree that if we let natural selection handle these matters it will strengthen the academics of schools whose sports are robbing the general budget in order to stay afloat, and increase the talent pool slightly for those whose basketball and football pay for themselves.

If those who can't afford it drop it. It will increase the quality of the lower tier schools who can afford, and do play, football and will do with greater impact that any P5 program would receive from it.

If the G5 want to survive and thrive then cutting the numbers in tiers below them would go a long way toward helping them remain competitive.
12-08-2017 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #24
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 03:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except it won't be, and really can't be treated severally. I could see it divided out with other revenue sports, and AllTideUp suggested that tax liability be reduced by the amounts that subsidize non revenue sports so I could easily see that as well. But ArkansasStFan said a mouthful when he noted the 100 plus smaller schools which for the sake of basketball made the move up to grab cash they really didn't earn.

That farce should have been addressed ages ago. But as with any bureaucracy the NCAA utilized that socialism to make their endowment 1 Billion & growing and used it to justify staff increases.

What it boils down to is the conclusion of that article I linked to above: The powers-that-be who have it good under the current system (successful programs, lots of revenue) "would rather wring their hands and live with a broken system than do the work of changing it."

And that's why I said it would take the nudge of the Feds with regard to taxes to make it happen but if / when it does we are all better off for it. Sports are healthy and important to the development of character and the integration of keeping the body in shape with the mind. For profit sports certainly doesn't participate in the philosophy of keeping both the mind and body in shape, and non profit sports are way over emphasized without having the funding support in their own right.

Taxing the revenue sports will shine a spotlight on a century old hypocrisy. We use the brawn of the less academic to support the athletic niches of the more academic. Both positions are wrong. Let the parents of the non revenues help to support them and tax those who make their sport a profession.

Some P5 schools, including Cal, have been moving toward pressuring donors to make each "Olympic sport" self-sufficient or risk having the school stop sponsoring that sport. I'm sure that trend will continue even if there are no major changes to the current system, because even at schools where the revenue sports generate a lot of money, the coaches and donors behind football and men's basketball will keep demanding that more of the revenue generated by those teams be used for those teams and not for the rest of the athletic department.

For schools that don't have revenue-generating football or men's basketball programs, self-sufficiency will be a huge challenge. As an example, look at the USA Today data, or the Department of Education data, and pick a few D-I schools that don't have varsity football and make little or no profit from basketball. You'll see a bunch of schools with annual athletic budgets of around $20 million and real revenue of around $2-4 million, with the rest of the budget paid by money from the university's general fund and from student fees.

Then you would agree that if we let natural selection handle these matters it will strengthen the academics of schools whose sports are robbing the general budget in order to stay afloat, and increase the talent pool slightly for those whose basketball and football pay for themselves.

If those who can't afford it drop it. It will increase the quality of the lower tier schools who can afford, and do play, football and will do with greater impact that any P5 program would receive from it.

If the G5 want to survive and thrive then cutting the numbers in tiers below them would go a long way toward helping them remain competitive.

No, I think that most of those D-I no-football schools, if they were not spending $10-15 million/year to subsidize athletics, would spend the money on other things like advertising or fundraising from their donors. I think they generally justify the expense by arguing that having D-I athletics makes alumni and others more likely to donate and makes the school more attractive to prospective students.

And, for those that don't have football and don't make a profit on basketball, the possible federal tax change doesn't affect them at all.
12-08-2017 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #25
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 03:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  What it boils down to is the conclusion of that article I linked to above: The powers-that-be who have it good under the current system (successful programs, lots of revenue) "would rather wring their hands and live with a broken system than do the work of changing it."

And that's why I said it would take the nudge of the Feds with regard to taxes to make it happen but if / when it does we are all better off for it. Sports are healthy and important to the development of character and the integration of keeping the body in shape with the mind. For profit sports certainly doesn't participate in the philosophy of keeping both the mind and body in shape, and non profit sports are way over emphasized without having the funding support in their own right.

Taxing the revenue sports will shine a spotlight on a century old hypocrisy. We use the brawn of the less academic to support the athletic niches of the more academic. Both positions are wrong. Let the parents of the non revenues help to support them and tax those who make their sport a profession.

Some P5 schools, including Cal, have been moving toward pressuring donors to make each "Olympic sport" self-sufficient or risk having the school stop sponsoring that sport. I'm sure that trend will continue even if there are no major changes to the current system, because even at schools where the revenue sports generate a lot of money, the coaches and donors behind football and men's basketball will keep demanding that more of the revenue generated by those teams be used for those teams and not for the rest of the athletic department.

For schools that don't have revenue-generating football or men's basketball programs, self-sufficiency will be a huge challenge. As an example, look at the USA Today data, or the Department of Education data, and pick a few D-I schools that don't have varsity football and make little or no profit from basketball. You'll see a bunch of schools with annual athletic budgets of around $20 million and real revenue of around $2-4 million, with the rest of the budget paid by money from the university's general fund and from student fees.

Then you would agree that if we let natural selection handle these matters it will strengthen the academics of schools whose sports are robbing the general budget in order to stay afloat, and increase the talent pool slightly for those whose basketball and football pay for themselves.

If those who can't afford it drop it. It will increase the quality of the lower tier schools who can afford, and do play, football and will do with greater impact that any P5 program would receive from it.

If the G5 want to survive and thrive then cutting the numbers in tiers below them would go a long way toward helping them remain competitive.

No, I think that most of those D-I no-football schools, if they were not spending $10-15 million/year to subsidize athletics, would spend the money on other things like advertising or fundraising from their donors. I think they generally justify the expense by arguing that having D-I athletics makes alumni and others more likely to donate and makes the school more attractive to prospective students.

And, for those that don't have football and don't make a profit on basketball, the possible federal tax change doesn't affect them at all.

Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.
12-08-2017 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #26
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
I don't think the public is quite at a place where making athletic departments taxable is an easy sell.

You want the attention of higher education, just say, "If you spend more than $125,000,000 on athletics -OR- more than $500,000 per athletic scholarship awarded" we will calculate how much aid is due to your school and we will deduct from that aid the amount you spent over the limit. If your booster Richie Rich allows you to use his private jet to fly the basketball team, the market value of chartering a similar jet for that trip will be counted against your spending limit.

Last figures from USA Today, 27 schools spent $100 million or more on athletics and at least three were $3 million or more in the red. At least 37 schools were $20 million or more in the red and 12 of those don't play FBS.
12-11-2017 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #27
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
Another headache that the P5 could face if they do govern their own football outside of the NCAA would be the anti-trust lawsuits that they could face by the rest of the football schools.You need to cover your butts to do stuff like that to avoid lawsuits and anti-trust accusations.
12-11-2017 05:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #28
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.
12-12-2017 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #29
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.
12-12-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #30
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

The problem there is that over the last 40 years, our economy has deteriorated into an economy that is far too heavily dependent on people doing work for poverty wages. Almost everything we buy, and a lot of the services we pay for, are made (or done) by people making very little money. Including things we buy that are made outside the USA. You're reading this on a phone or computer. When we were kids, computers were built here by people who took home enough money to buy a house and support a family. Now they're built by people in Asia making less money per day than a kid working at McDonald's makes in half an hour. Or maybe not a kid... there are plenty of adults working at fast-food places, because they can't find anything where they live that pays better. Those are the same kinds of adults who might have assembled computers back in the day. The companies that sell those computers (or whatever) make much larger profits because they are paying far less for the work that goes into building and servicing those things.
12-12-2017 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #31
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.
12-12-2017 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #32
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.

Funny, from the time I was old enough to handle a knife without removing a digit through college and even after going to work for the fire service I would work for a family friend every year starting about this time and running through a day or so before New Years cutting collards for market. It was the busiest part of their season and they always brought in extra help. Everybody who worked with me was an American citizen, most were high school and college aged kids looking to make a little cash. He'd pay decent based on experience and ability, but nobody was making minimum wage. I was making decent money because I could supervise and could run all of the equipment. Then one year when I hadn't received the usual phone call I called my friend and asked what the deal was. He sheepishly admitted that he had brought in migrants because they would do the hard, 12 hour a day job in the elements for exactly minimum wage and that was the only way he could financially compete with the people who were bringing in illegals who would do it for less than minimum wage.

Americans aren't lazy like the illegal alien apologists try to portray and you are doing here. Americans will do anything as long as you pay them fairly. I don't see many Americans willing to live 15 deep in a ramshackle singlewide with no running water and stealing electricity from the neighbor via a drop cord to do a job for less than minimum wage like the illegals will.
12-12-2017 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #33
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 01:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Wedge the states are strapped. Continuing those policies is just plain stupid. Besides the numbers of undergraduate degrees today mean little. Now if you want the kind of job that you or I got with an undergrad diploma you need post graduate work. A BA gets you precious little over what a high school diploma earned you 30 to 40 years ago.

I would postulate that we have too damned many small colleges funded by the states. The privates are their own matter. I see it as nothing more than subsidizing a failed educational model. And if the schools can't field a football or basketball program that can pay for itself it seems to me the conventional wisdom that it attracts students is specious. If enough former students cared about the football program it would be supported. If they can't afford to support it I would argue that the program is an unnecessary expense. After all to some extent too many taxpayers are paying for it.

Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.

Funny, from the time I was old enough to handle a knife without removing a digit through college and even after going to work for the fire service I would work for a family friend every year starting about this time and running through a day or so before New Years cutting collards for market. It was the busiest part of their season and they always brought in extra help. Everybody who worked with me was an American citizen, most were high school and college aged kids looking to make a little cash. He'd pay decent based on experience and ability, but nobody was making minimum wage. I was making decent money because I could supervise and could run all of the equipment. Then one year when I hadn't received the usual phone call I called my friend and asked what the deal was. He sheepishly admitted that he had brought in migrants because they would do the hard, 12 hour a day job in the elements for exactly minimum wage and that was the only way he could financially compete with the people who were bringing in illegals who would do it for less than minimum wage.

Americans aren't lazy like the illegal alien apologists try to portray and you are doing here. Americans will do anything as long as you pay them fairly. I don't see many Americans willing to live 15 deep in a ramshackle singlewide with no running water and stealing electricity from the neighbor via a drop cord to do a job for less than minimum wage like the illegals will.

Other than promoting your conservative political agenda, I'm not sure what you are doing here. There is nothing that you have said that in any way is in conflict with anything I have said. So if you are agreeing with me, what exactly is your point?
12-12-2017 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #34
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 01:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  Or, you can get the kind of job an undergrad degree used to provide with no degree at all - just demonstrated skill in a field like IT.

I agree there are far more students in college than will ever benefit financially from the experience. And, at some point (if they haven't already), states will recognize this and be faced with a tough choice. Because if all those students were to leave school, our economy would not be able to absorb them into the workplace.

Now, it might not be those students themselves who would be unemployed. Probably, they would push some other marginal employees out of their jobs. Either way, we will have a lot more unemployment and underemployment, even as we continue to import illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.

It's not easy for economists to calculate the cost to society of eliminating unnecessary colleges compared to the cost of keeping them open. So we keep kicking that can down the road.


There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.

Funny, from the time I was old enough to handle a knife without removing a digit through college and even after going to work for the fire service I would work for a family friend every year starting about this time and running through a day or so before New Years cutting collards for market. It was the busiest part of their season and they always brought in extra help. Everybody who worked with me was an American citizen, most were high school and college aged kids looking to make a little cash. He'd pay decent based on experience and ability, but nobody was making minimum wage. I was making decent money because I could supervise and could run all of the equipment. Then one year when I hadn't received the usual phone call I called my friend and asked what the deal was. He sheepishly admitted that he had brought in migrants because they would do the hard, 12 hour a day job in the elements for exactly minimum wage and that was the only way he could financially compete with the people who were bringing in illegals who would do it for less than minimum wage.

Americans aren't lazy like the illegal alien apologists try to portray and you are doing here. Americans will do anything as long as you pay them fairly. I don't see many Americans willing to live 15 deep in a ramshackle singlewide with no running water and stealing electricity from the neighbor via a drop cord to do a job for less than minimum wage like the illegals will.

Other than promoting your conservative political agenda, I'm not sure what you are doing here. There is nothing that you have said that in any way is in conflict with anything I have said. So if you are agreeing with me, what exactly is your point?

Nothing except prove you are FOS when you talk about immigrants doing work Americans refuse to do. There's no such job.
12-12-2017 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #35
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 01:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  There is no such job.

What you mean is illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans will not do for poverty wages.

Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.

Funny, from the time I was old enough to handle a knife without removing a digit through college and even after going to work for the fire service I would work for a family friend every year starting about this time and running through a day or so before New Years cutting collards for market. It was the busiest part of their season and they always brought in extra help. Everybody who worked with me was an American citizen, most were high school and college aged kids looking to make a little cash. He'd pay decent based on experience and ability, but nobody was making minimum wage. I was making decent money because I could supervise and could run all of the equipment. Then one year when I hadn't received the usual phone call I called my friend and asked what the deal was. He sheepishly admitted that he had brought in migrants because they would do the hard, 12 hour a day job in the elements for exactly minimum wage and that was the only way he could financially compete with the people who were bringing in illegals who would do it for less than minimum wage.

Americans aren't lazy like the illegal alien apologists try to portray and you are doing here. Americans will do anything as long as you pay them fairly. I don't see many Americans willing to live 15 deep in a ramshackle singlewide with no running water and stealing electricity from the neighbor via a drop cord to do a job for less than minimum wage like the illegals will.

Other than promoting your conservative political agenda, I'm not sure what you are doing here. There is nothing that you have said that in any way is in conflict with anything I have said. So if you are agreeing with me, what exactly is your point?

Nothing except prove you are FOS when you talk about immigrants doing work Americans refuse to do. There's no such job.

And yet you keep saying that there are such jobs. And you say there are such jobs for the same reasons I think there are. So who is FOS here?
12-12-2017 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #36
RE: What would happen if the NCAA stopped sponsoring football altogether?
(12-12-2017 03:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 01:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-12-2017 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Which is it? If Americans won't do jobs that pay poverty wages, then there are, in fact, such jobs. Some of those jobs are still here, largely by necessity. Harvesting crops by hand is a job that's hard to export, so it is done in the US by migrant labor. Others, like textile sweatshops, can be moved abroad, and so they have been.

Funny, from the time I was old enough to handle a knife without removing a digit through college and even after going to work for the fire service I would work for a family friend every year starting about this time and running through a day or so before New Years cutting collards for market. It was the busiest part of their season and they always brought in extra help. Everybody who worked with me was an American citizen, most were high school and college aged kids looking to make a little cash. He'd pay decent based on experience and ability, but nobody was making minimum wage. I was making decent money because I could supervise and could run all of the equipment. Then one year when I hadn't received the usual phone call I called my friend and asked what the deal was. He sheepishly admitted that he had brought in migrants because they would do the hard, 12 hour a day job in the elements for exactly minimum wage and that was the only way he could financially compete with the people who were bringing in illegals who would do it for less than minimum wage.

Americans aren't lazy like the illegal alien apologists try to portray and you are doing here. Americans will do anything as long as you pay them fairly. I don't see many Americans willing to live 15 deep in a ramshackle singlewide with no running water and stealing electricity from the neighbor via a drop cord to do a job for less than minimum wage like the illegals will.

Other than promoting your conservative political agenda, I'm not sure what you are doing here. There is nothing that you have said that in any way is in conflict with anything I have said. So if you are agreeing with me, what exactly is your point?

Nothing except prove you are FOS when you talk about immigrants doing work Americans refuse to do. There's no such job.

And yet you keep saying that there are such jobs. And you say there are such jobs for the same reasons I think there are. So who is FOS here?

Who was picking the crops before immigrants came in and picked them for poverty wages?

Who was working at the chicken processing plants? BTW, I know of at least one plant here who only hires American citizens now because they actually show up for work and stick around instead of moving on without notice to the next job.

Who was cutting grass?

Who was roofing houses?

Americans were.

This myth that they do the jobs that Americans will not do is just that, a myth.
12-12-2017 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.