“I’d say that education is more valuable than however much money we might give you.”

I’m sure there are plenty of you who share Notre Dame president Rev. John I. Jenkins‘ distaste for filthy lucre, at least as far as sharing it with student-athletes.

The president rejects the notion that Notre Dame is morally obliged to share its football revenue with those playing the game. “I don’t think there’s a compulsion or some demand of justice that we do it,” he says.

“Morally obliged”?  Well, he does have Rev. in his title.  What is unclear is why there’s something apparently immoral about paying players, but not, say, the school’s athletic director or head coach.  Or why opting into a system that requires certain compromises in the name of broadcast revenue is immune from such lofty philosophical considerations.

Jenkins is also either a little bit arrogant or delusional in his insistence that Notre Dame would do just fine walking away from all that revenue other parties, like Under Armour and NBC are morally obliged to pay his school.

Finally, there is the pending lawsuit filed against the N.C.A.A. and the Power 5 conferences by the well-known sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, who argues that the value of student-athletes has been illegally capped by athletic scholarships. If he prevails: an open market.

Or, as Father Jenkins puts it: “Armageddon.”

“That’s when we leave,” he says. “We will not tolerate that. Then it really does become a semipro team.”

He believes that the drama and popularity of college athletics are rooted in the fact that the student-athletes are amateurs. “If they make mistakes, you know, it’s not like they’re professionals,” he says.

But if a pay-to-play dynamic is applied to college sports, he suggests, something is lost. “If you go that semipro route, we’ll see,” he says. “But I’m just not sure that we’ll not end up just a second-tier, uninteresting pro league.”

Father Jenkins says that he could see two separate collegiate athletic associations — one following the semiprofessional model, the other dedicated to preserving what he calls “the essential educational character of college athletics.” In belonging to the latter, he says, Notre Dame would be just fine, financially and otherwise.

“If tomorrow you told me, you just can’t do what you want to do in athletics and you’re going to have to shut it down, and we would have club sports, something like that — I don’t think it would significantly impact the revenue,” Father Jenkins says. Some alumni and donors might revolt, he acknowledges. “But just in terms of a financial proposition, I don’t think it would impact the academy.”

Now there’s a level where he’s right about that.  Football generates millions of dollars in profit for ND, but it’s a drop in the bucket in the context of the school’s entire budget, so, yeah, the money wouldn’t be missed.  But that cuts both ways – if he’s so adamant about not sharing the fruits of the players’ labor with them, why even bother with COA stipends, which Notre Dame is already paying?  And why even bother participating in the system now?

I’m sure Brian Kelly would be happy to keep collecting his multi-million dollar annual salary to coach club football.  And everyone would still watch the Irish play what he insists would pass for football.  Go ahead, Rev.  Best of luck with that.

93 Comments

Filed under Notre Dame's Faint Echoes, The NCAA

93 responses to ““I’d say that education is more valuable than however much money we might give you.”

  1. There are few things I would like to see more than Notre Dame ceasing to be part of the college football landscape. To the non-honorable Rev Jenkins, I say “shut the fuck up and jog on, then”.

    Like

  2. Whether he should have advocated burning it down yesterday, or today, but not tomorrow, he’s at least right in the fact that it should be burnt down rather than becoming officially semi-pro. I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy and lack of sensitivity to longstanding issues such that it seems wrong that “pay for play” would be the final straw, but at least we know some people have limits. Saban probably relishes the idea of being a general manager. No more pretense or lip service.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Yes, some form of limited compensation was needed long ago, schools were wrong for not seeing to that and few disagree with that, but Jenkins is right, total profit sharing and professionalism is not acceptable. I would like for ND to be the one to throw themselves on the sword first and drop football, but I would hope others would follow if that doesn’t wake the crazies up that the idea of being NFL-light isn’t where the college game should go. I hope others follow his decree of what will not be tolerated, it would ruin the game.

      Tweak the current COA to be a level amount, then put all monies earned from specific jersey sales into a fund for better safety equipment and research, and maintain the collegiate game. The extremists who want to tear down the walls can go support a true semi-pro, development league. I think that is a reasonable alternative for those young men who would prefer that to getting a degree.

      Like

      • I would like for ND to be the one to throw themselves on the sword first and drop football…

        Again, there’s nothing stopping ND from doing that today and walking away from all that immorality. I wonder why that hasn’t happened.

        Like

        • Why did Thomas Jefferson write: “all men endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” while owning (and apparently screwing) slaves? He was a hypocrite. Doesn’t mean that the statement was wrong. (Btw: the quote from the declaration was from memory but I think it’s close.) I agree that hypocrisy is important to note but invariably any leader will be covered up with it. It shouldn’t mean that they can be dismissed entirely. Would you dismiss an abolitionist in 1840 for wearing cotton? It’s not an unfair point but it isn’t the end of the discussion IMHO.

          Like

          • The difference in this case is Jenkins is laying down a specific marker about what his school will do if it doesn’t get its way in the courts. With a morality kicker.

            Like

            • The American public was fine with segregation until it got really ugly AND there was TV. I’m sure that there was some moral outrage in 1964 by people who kept quiet in 1948 and 1924 etc… I certainly take your point that ND could have been a much earlier “canary in the coal mine.” Maybe they should have went the way of the Ivy League. I get the hypocrisy angle. (Reminds me of the movie Borat when everyone tolerates his disgusting behavior at a dinner party but not his African American date. You can bring a sack of shit to the table, but not a black woman.). So you are right there. Where we part I think is whether “pay for play” is an acceptable condition for intercollegiate athletics. I say that it isn’t. They should burn it down today. They should have burned it down yesterday. But I’ll live with them burning it down tomorrow.

              Like

              • The schools aren’t going to burn it down, at least as long as there’s enough money flowing in. They’ll grudgingly hand over the minimum it takes to keep everyone off their backs.

                Like

                • Scorpio Jones, III

                  “The American public was fine with segregation until it got really ugly AND there was TV. ”

                  That’s simply not true, Derek…if you want to rephrase, go ahead.

                  Like

                • Dog in Fla

                  Make America Great Again

                  Like

                • Or “white.” Either will do fine. They are pretty much the same aren’t they? I just hope we get Ted Cruz. I always wanted a president who was born outside of the country. Some may say that Cruz’s entire candidacy is blatant hypocrisy given the fit that the right had over Obama’s status, but that’s only apparent if you are capable of actual thought. The reptilian tea party brain only reacts and emotes. It does not have time for thought.

                  Like

                • Dog in Fla

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I’m with Derek. Liberals are much more nuanced, sophisticated, and tolerant than those idjyt teabaggers.

                  Like

                • Hogbody Spradlin

                  Hey Fla, I heard you’ve even gone as far as tearing Wallace stickers off the bumpers of cars, and you voted for George McGovern for president. And you’ve got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of your garage.

                  Like

                • Dog in Fla

                  Hog, I am impervious to any and all race-baiting. My lineage is from a long line of South Alabama rednecks who would never let anyone out redneck them. They were fun to be around. I never had a Commie flag but I did have a miniature Confederate battle flag sewn on the front of my KA jersey because George and Lurleen are going to do it again

                  Like

                • Unless you have some other understanding of majority rule and democracy than I do, the fact that it existed for so long and it took MLK’s non-violent civil disobedience to bring it to an end necessarily means that the public didn’t have a serious problem with it until the conditions I described happened. I would imagine that there were some (presumably the victims of it) and others who weren’t excited about “seperate but equal” but it was the status quo for a very long time. The “American public” loves the Stars and Stripes is no different a statement in its correctness merely because someone in Berkeley is currently burning one. The “American public” is a fair way of characterizing the ruling majority. In short, no rephrasing is necessary.

                  Like

                • Dog in Fla

                  Why can’t we all get along? Some statesmen have been grateful for two years now

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Oh, you think that American laws and policies are necessarily approved of and endorsed by the majority of the citizenry?

                  Like

                • You are probably right. We’ve lost any sense of right and wrong. It’s money talks and bullshit walks. You can’t have a discussion about morals if there is a dollar in the way. The dollar will win everytime. I fear it will be our downfall. And you’ll note the conversation gets progressively more difficult the more money one has. You can screw with a poor man’s money. Screw with a rich man’s money and you’ve got a fight on your hands. That scenario is playing out right here. Brian Kelly earns his millions. His qb wants money? F that guy! It’s the way of the world and has been since the beginning of time.

                  Like

                • This is what I don’t think some get about how I feel about this issue. The system is already hopelessly corrupted. It’s great to talk about the schools walking away from the world they’ve created, but that’s not going to happen as long as the checks are in the mail.

                  If you’re honest about that, it’s become indefensible to deny the student-athletes a fair shake in things. And it’s obnoxious to claim that such denial is morally proper.

                  Like

                • I wholeheartedly agree that if things remain as they are then the players should be paid. My preference is to burn the whole thing down and yesterday. I agree with you completely that “pay for play” is better than what we have. Starting over would be better even than that IMHO. I also agree that the pearl clutching only began when the players may want a cut and it underscores what horrible people they were to have built the monster in the first place. However as hypocritical as the decision makers are IF pay for play leads to a dismantling I won’t be disappointed because it is superior to going down the road the sport has been going down.

                  Like

        • Macallanlover

          I would say it hasn’t reached the walk away point, and I don’t know if this is a bluff or not. but I feel pretty safe in saying the Catholic Church would not even flinch from the relatively paltry amount of money we are talking. It is a principle to him, let’s see if he stands up to it. Nothing yet has reached that point for anyone but that day may come. At least he is on record for saying he will go the other route. I doubt he took that public a stance without support from a higher up….no, not that high.

          Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            Of course, Jim Delany is on record that the B1G will go the Div III route. And I believe him. Seriously.

            Like

          • Nothing yet has reached that point for anyone but that day may come.

            Mac, as the old joke goes, all they’re doing now is haggling over the fee. Players are getting paid for playing, no matter how you want to dress it up.

            Like

  3. Gurkha Dawg

    The Rev talks more shit than a Jap radio. I’m sure the plantation owners said the same thing about ending slavery. The slaves were given a roof over their heads and 3 squares a day. To end slavery would destroy the economy and way of life of the old south. All that bullshit. The guys making out like crazy are trying to protect the golden goose. I understand it and would probably be doing the same if I were them. That doesn’t mean they are not FOS. Same old story. The elite protecting the sweet position.

    Like

    • JCDAWG83

      Comparing college football to slavery in any way is absurd. A slave did not have an option of not signing a LOI or deciding to walk away if he felt like he was being treated poorly or simply decided he didn’t like the work any more.

      For a system that so many seem to feel takes advantage of and exploits poor student athletes, the colleges don’t seem to have any problems at all getting players to sign up to be exploited. It seems to me that most of the crowd that decries the treatment of players might be the same as the “occupy Wall Street” crowd who were upset simply because some people are making money. My advice to them would be to vote with your wallet and stop supporting college football in any way.

      Like

      • Hogbody Spradlin

        Just because it’s voluntary doesn’t mean the players aren’t exploited, nor does it mean they have a material bargaining position.

        Like

      • Macallanlover

        +1 Fortunately, those who use that comparison undermine their argument by losing all credibility. Some reform was over due and necessary but I never felt players were demeaned or felt sorry for the conditions they were kept in. We should all be forced to live in such circumstances.

        Like

      • Gurkha Dawg

        Only a fool would think that I equate slavery with CFB. I assume that you expect to be paid a salary that reflects your value to your employer. CFB coaches sure do. CFB is a big time business. The kids didn’t make it that way but are the only ones who are not being fairly compensated. My selfish wish would be that CFB go back to the way it was 30 years ago. But it’s not right to screw others for your own selfish reasons. That whole freedom thing sure is a pain in the ass isn’t it.

        Like

        • JCDAWG83

          Apparently, the players think the value of the scholarship is adequate compensation or they wouldn’t be signing up in the numbers they do. Everyone on the “pay them” side of the argument totally discounts the value of the scholarship. I don’t see 90+% of college players being paid the value of the scholarship if a true free market model were put in place. I think the vast majority of players would be lucky to be paid $15,000 a year if they were truly “employees” and paid what they were worth based on their performance. A handful, at most, on each team would demand more. On our current team, outside of Chubb, which player could reasonably ask for more than the value of the scholarship in actual pay?

          If the kids think they are being unfairly exploited by the big business of college football, they can easily walk away. If the fans feel like the system is unfair and immoral, they can stop buying tickets and watching games and demand that the networks take the evil spectacles off of tv. If the “donors” and ticket buyers decide the coaches are paid too much, they can stop sending in checks. Everyone is free to leave the system any time they like.

          The whole “freedom thing” is alive and well in college football.

          Like

          • So since Nick Chubb is the only player at Georgia being exploited, that proves the system is okay? Alrighty, then.

            Like

          • DawgPhan

            Why would a player’s efforts be worth less if the market was free? A value has already been established for each scholarship player. That is the baseline. Why would a school suddenly think a 2nd string OL was worth less than a scholarship?

            This assumption is the basis of your entire argument that you post over and over again and yet you never say give any reasons to support the assumption.

            So why do you think Douglas is only worth $15k when the school has already decided that he was worth far more.

            Like

            • JCDAWG83

              Because the school doesn’t have any negotiating power over the value of the player’s performance now. If the players become employees, the better players will be compensated more than the lesser ones, that’s the way the free market works.

              Today, the school has a yes/no option. Do they give a scholarship or not? They can’t tell Douglas; “you get a half scholarship because you aren’t as good as Chubb” or “we’ll give you $100 for every yard you gain”. Football players are either on scholarship or not.

              In a true free market, the players would be paid for their performance, not for simply showing up. I guess you have never worked in a job where your pay was determined by your performance but have always been paid a salary for a given job as long as you showed up.

              I don’t see how it’s that hard to figure out.

              Like

              • DawgPhan

                It really is hard to tell if you actually believe this. You start with the nonsense that a school doesnt have any leverage, when they are the only side with leverage. The reason we are having this whole discussion is because only the schools have leverage.

                Secondly you didnt actually give any reasons why a player would be worth less than a scholarship. Yes I know better performers will be compensated more than lesser performers. That does mean that a lesser performer is suddenly worth less than he is right now.

                For someone like Douglas, UGA wasnt the only option. For just about every player at UGA, UGA wasnt the only option. So in that scenario, is it really likely that someone with multiple job opportunities would then find themselves in a race to the bottom when it came to their value?

                When you have multiple offers typically you find that the offers start going up, rather than down. When I take my very valuable services into my bosses office and say your competitor has just offered me more money, they rarely respond by offering you a pay cut.

                Just like Apple knows they can’t offer engineers $15k/year, UGA couldnt offer less than a scholarship because there would be no players, or the players you do have would be the ones that no one else wanted. You have to pay for talent.

                Like

              • In a true free market, the players would be paid for their performance, not for simply showing up. I guess you have never worked in a job where your pay was determined by your performance but have always been paid a salary for a given job as long as you showed up.

                I take it you’ve never heard of signing bonuses and guaranteed player contracts.

                Like

          • Dog in Fla

            “If the kids think they are being unfairly exploited by the big business of college football, they can easily walk away.”

            If the blacks think they are being unfairly exploited by sitting in the back of the bus, they can easily walk

            Like

            • DawgPhan

              said every majority in power about every exploitative practice they implemented over those without power.

              Like

            • JCDAWG83

              If that’s the parallel you want to draw, you really are out of touch with the realities of the discussion.

              Like

              • I think that you are ignoring reality if you think race has nothing to do with decisions made largely by white men over players who are by and large black. If there had been a white football player of Herschel walkers’ caliber who would be the no. 1 draft pick in the nfl at 19 do you really believe that he’d have been denied the opportunity to play and make that money? I don’t. However the paternalistic power structure says: 1) why can’t THEY be happy with what we give them? and 2) WE know better than THEY do about what’s good for them. It’s just true and it’s undeniable but many people have a real blind spot about it. The the leagues and the colleges are knowingly exploiting black kids for profit and only wince when those same kids want a cut and you see race as a non-issue here? I say that’s willful blindness.

                Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  It’s possible that school presidents, ADs, conference commissioners, and the NCAA are all motivated by racism to withhold money from athletes. But it’s far more likely that they’re motivated by greed.

                  Mel Kiper declared Matt Stafford a future #1 pick when he was in high school. But nobody moved to allow him to declare early and fail to generate some nice revenue to his dear old alma mater.

                  Like

      • Dog in Fla

        Willkommen to Candyland

        One evening as the sun went down
        And the jungle fires were burning,
        Down the track came a recruiter hiking,
        And he said, “Boys, I’m not turning;

        I’m headed for a land that’s far away
        Beside the crystal mountains
        So come with me, we’ll go and see
        The luxurious Candyland hydrotherapy fountains.

        In Candyland,
        There’s a land that’s fair and bright,
        Where the handouts grow on bushes
        And you sleep out every night.
        Where the boxcars all are empty

        And the sun shines every day
        On the birds and the bees
        And the cigarette trees
        The lemonade springs
        Where the bluebird sings

        In Candyland
        All the cops have wooden legs
        And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
        And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs

        In Candyland,
        The jails are made of tin.
        And you can walk right out again,
        As soon as you are in.

        There ain’t no short-handled shovels,
        No axes, saws nor picks,
        I’m bound to stay
        Where you sleep all day,
        Where they hung the jerk
        That invented work

        I’ll see you all this coming fall
        In Candyland.

        Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        That’s a good point. If players just want to go to the NFL, they shouldn’t sign with colleges as the only path to that career. They should join the ranks of the NFL players who never played college football.

        I can’t think of any offhand, but I’m sure most of the NFL players never played for the corrupt college football system.

        Like

        • Derek

          Since your earlier cartoon responses were “reply proof” I’ll reply here. First, I am not an ideologue of any sort. I am a pragmatist. Whatever works best for the most is what I am for. The more wealth that is in more hands the better off we are. Less wealth in fewer hands the worse off we are. Don’t care how you get there, but that should be the goal. I also would agree that the most dangerous people are those who are wrong despite all evidence to the contrary and are vociferous in their support of an ideology. I also agree that leftist extremism is every bit as dangerous as right wing extremism. Code Pink protesting an Army recruiting center is just as stupid as a tea partier with a Ted Cruz button asking for Obama’s birth certificate. Both are just painfully stupid. Both are dangerous because they are stupid.

          As far as whether the people are in charge, to the extent they we are not it is our own fault. I refuse to believe that I individually or that we collectively are “victims.” If we want a different government we can vote for it. We get exactly the dumbass crooks that we deserve. We voted for them. We suffer them. Don’t blame the people in charge for doing what we sent them to do or for doing that which we ignore and/or tolerate. Blame your fellow citizens. Blame yourself. Do something. Or give up. Either way you are only the victim you chose to be, or not.

          Like

          • Gurkha Dawg

            I am well right of center but the birth certificate stuff is silly. Do people realize John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and Ted Cruz was born in Canada?

            Like

          • Hogbody Spradlin

            Ahh Dreck, to be young and to think you’re perfectly objective. I remember those days.

            Like

            • Hgodoby, (ha ha see I changed the letters cuz I’m clever. So funny! Lol! Get it? It says Hgodoby and not Hogbody!)

              I’m hardly young. I try to be objective. Everyone has biases and prejudices about things. The key is to try and recognize them and to try and keep an open mind. I find ideologies lead to myopic, closed minded thinking and myopic, closed minded thinking can lead to thinking that misspelling a person’s name is humorous. Who wants to be that guy Prilnads?

              Like

              • Hogbody Spradlin

                You’re so cute Dreck!

                Like

                • Cute and young? Are you flirting?😉

                  Like

                • Hogbody Spradlin

                  Eh, don’t flatter yourself. I think you’re cute because you’re such a cliché liberal, with a complete lack of self awareness of it. You call yourself a pragmatist? How cute. If Sarah Palin is mock worthy, so’s Joe Biden. The Tea Party? You do a nice job parroting MSNBC. And you’re SO SERIOUS about it, on a football blog!

                  Feel free to retort, but I’ll save you some trouble. I’m too conservative for even the republicans, who aren’t conservative.

                  Like

                • It would come as no shock to me that you find your opinions so “selective” that you are without any representation from which to choose. The idea is to get a lot of votes: 50% + 1. Trying to earn the vote of a single kook isn’t worth the effort. People whose views are that isolated lack the self-awareness to question why they find themselves all alone in them.

                  Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            I think pragmatism is an ideology just like any other. Perhaps even worse, because you explicitly believe that the ends justify the means. If you want to spread wealth, well one way to do it is to rob Peter to pay Paul. Is it fair to Peter? Who cares? All we want is to give Paul some dough. Why spend time and effort convincing Peter and Paul to voluntarily share or trade when we can just use a gun to force them? That’s not what I call an acceptable system.

            As for accepting responsibility for politicians, you’re being naive. “We” are not responsible for the actions of Obama/Bush/Clinton/etc. Spend some time reading about the incumbency advantages for politicians. Why do you think some things are universally unpopular, yet never change? Because the opinions of the people don’t matter.

            It’s easy to get caught up in the drama of political races and believe that “you can make a difference.” The cold, hard, mathematical truth is that you can’t. You have as good a chance of winning the lottery than of influencing a national election with your single vote.

            Like

            • Well call me a naive little “d” democrat. I think the experiment of self-government by the people, for the people and of the people still has a chance. It’s damn sure better than any other other option.

              Calling pragmatism an ideology is pretty twisted. You suggest that there is only one option to achieve the ends and thus is an ideology which is patently false. My perspective is that as citizens we all have duties and rights. It’s a two way street. You can say that trump gets to keep all his money because he and his daddy earned it. However who is going to fight to protect that wealth? Where would he be without the NYPD or the Marine Corps? He wouldn’t have shit. Be mindful that the rich want less government because they need it less but the government they need is generally provided by people of lower economic status. My point is that a cops kid and a marines kid has every right as a citizen of the richest country on earth to have a chance to compete with trumps kids. You should not have your future dictated by the relative wealth of your parents. The more wealth that gets to the top that doesn’t get recycled back, means less opportunity for the rest.
              In short, if you liked feudalism, you agree with the Koch brothers and they have a wonderful herd of sheep they’d like you to look out for and they’ll give you a sword to fight for his house whenever the needs arises. We’ve been trying to fight that bullshit since the Magna Carta but there are still some suckers that believe that ayn rand bs.

              On the other side when the Che Guevaras take over they kill any capacity to create wealth and the people once again suffer. I’m a capitalist that believes in a system of productive redistribution based upon merit. Those who work hard and play by the rules should have an expectation of a decent standard of living simply because they are citizens. Those who do well should reap the benefits of that labor but do have to pay for the protection that society at large provides to them. If that’s an ideology I suppose I’m happy with being part of an ideology that promotes growth and opportunity for everyone.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                I don’t suggest there is only one option to achieve ends. I simply recognize pragmatism as being more concerned about ends than about means. You defined your political pragmatism as such in your post. And that is what I think is twisted.

                Give people maximum liberty and let them worry about how they end up. Otherwise, you’re just niggling about how much force the government should apply to make people behave the way the politicians want them to.

                And you want to know where Trump would be without the government confiscating his wealth to spend it on whatever pork barrel projects our wise and benevolent overlords have decided is worth spending his money on? He would probably be a richer man. Or maybe not. I don’t care.

                Now, I agree that opportunity should be available for all. But if you think government force is the way to ensure that opportunity, I would like some of what you’re smoking.

                The Soviet Union spent 70 years exhibiting what happens when government picks winners and losers in order to promote growth and opportunity for everyone. But there will always be people who believe that we can use that system with just a few tweaks and THIS TIME, we’ll get it right. I’m not convinced.

                Like

                • Cynicism is fine. Accepting that it’s rule of the jungle as to economics but man a post you poor mf-er when the shit goes down is pretty much an extortion by a government we can agree can’t be trusted. I don’t know about you, but handing some poor kid a weapon and telling him to put his life on the line for his country but you get no education, health care, minimum wage, safe work environment, no collective bargaining rights because “small government” I say “fuck you.” If you want a free for all fine. But someone bigger and stronger than you is gonna come for yours and you’ll want you so gumbit on your side then believe me. You can’t have it both ways. It does not withstand logical scrutiny.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Logical scrutiny is an interesting phrase. I find it interesting that most people can agree that grocery stores and cell phone providers work well in a free market. But health care, education, police, and military are all too important to rely on some crazy, unproven notion like “liberty.”

                  Nah, much better to have our wise and altruistic masters, who only want what’s best for us, to make those important decisions so that we don’t have to.

                  Like

                • Oh and btw during the golden era of America that the right longs for, look at what the highest marginal tax rate was. We seemed to do pretty well without making sure that all the benefits of America stayed at the top.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  We did alright before there was an income tax, too.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Oh, and btw, only people completely ignorant of economics believe that, absent confiscatory tax rates, rich people run around hoarding money in sacks like the Monopoly man.

                  In reality, those people, or capitalists, invest their money, or capital, by building factories, employing people, producing goods, and allowing hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people to participate in free trade to improve their lives.

                  Like

                • Yep. The poor were such fools to revolt. So much better off as slaves and serfs. Didn’t know how we good we had it. Kings and captains of industry are so beneficent and kind. You start letting just anyone have wealth and power and it all goes down hill fast.

                  They got a name for folks like you: fascists.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I call for liberty and you think I’m a fascist? Here’s a link you should check out.
                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

                  Apparently, you think the reason most people in 1940 didn’t have air conditioners is because the Rockefellers had hoarded them all in their secret air conditioner warehouses scattered across the country. That’s obviously stupid.

                  How can you explain the “workers paradises” of Cuba, or the USSR, not being able to provide basic necessities, let alone the luxuries that less “progressive” economies could? Tax rates too low? Government too small?

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  It’s interesting that people will believe that individuals like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, or Carnegie, who relied on free trade to sell people what they wanted, are monsters. But individuals like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, or Bush, who relied on force to steal from people and sent armies (sometimes conscripted) to invade foreign lands, are beyond reproach and should be worshipped as heroes.

                  Like

  4. Gaskilldawg

    Problem for Rev. Jenkins is that the issue is not one of moral obligation decided by the Pope but, instead the issue of legal obligation as determined by the antitrust laws as interpreted by the courts.

    Like

    • JCDAWG83

      Maybe if the courts would find the NFL rule about 18 year olds not being allowed to play illegal that would solve all the problems. The root of the problem is the NFL and it’s arbitrary rule, not the college’s making money or not.

      Like

      • Maybe if the courts would find the NFL rule about 18 year olds not being allowed to play illegal that would solve all the problems.

        It’s not illegal, as long as it’s part of a collective bargaining agreement.

        Like

        • JCDAWG83

          That seems like a pretty broad brush for making something legal. Could the teamsters declare that no one under 21 could work in trucking or could the IBEW declare that no one under 21 was allowed to get an electricians license? It seems to clearly be restraint of trade, age discrimination and unequal protection under the law to me.

          I know what the court said, but I think they were wrong, exactly like the obamacare ruling.

          Like

    • W Cobb Dawg

      Interesting that you bring the Pope into the equation, G.d. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the pontiff were to take Rev. Jenkins up on his bluff. No doubt this Pope would be appalled about the players lack of pay versus the extravagant pay Kelly receives.

      Rev. Jenkins bluster wreaks with hypocrisy. He should walk the walk or STFU. Another idiot in high place who doesn’t know to keep his big mouth shut.

      Like

  5. Dog in Fla

    Does this mean that Gordon Gee was unjustly sentenced to Remediation Camp where his prison name was Bow Tie:

    “The president of Ohio State University said Notre Dame never was invited to join the Big Ten because the university’s priests are not good partners, joking that ‘those damn Catholics’ can’t be trusted, according to a recording of a meeting he attended late last year….

    The university called the statements inappropriate and said Gee is undergoing a ‘remediation plan’ because of the remarks.”

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9325510/gordon-gee-ohio-state-president-takes-shots-notre-dame-catholics

    Like

  6. Scorpio Jones, III

    Its always easier to scramble up to the moral high ground before the water starts drowning yer corn.

    Like

  7. Hogbody Spradlin

    If I close my eyes I can imagine Fred Davison testifying at the Jan Kemp trial.

    Like

    • Scorpio Jones, III

      Ah man…Hog…please don’t close your eyes…but if you do, do you notice that Kharmic Bitch in the jury…she’s fourth from the left on the back row.

      It wasn’t so much what Fred said during the trial, its what he refused to do before the trial. If I close my eyes I can hear Fred talking stupid shit.

      Like

  8. I could see a semi-pro league with NFL teams picking the players for
    their minor league teams. In my opinion the colleges could then recruit
    only players that qualify academically the same as other students.
    I would still support the Dawgs if they had this type of team.

    Like

  9. What do you call a person who tries to control you with a Bible in his hand?

    “A controlling S.O.B. With a Bible in his hand.”
    Rev. Albert Cardwell

    Like

  10. ApalachDawg

    One thing is for sure, Auburn will not be playing in this new college football league with Notre Dame. They may try to join the NFC South…

    Like

  11. Dog in Fla

    “I’d say that education is more valuable than however much money we might give you.”

    Which is roughly equivalent to what they say in settlement negotiations with Notre Dame/St. Mary’s rape victims

    http://www.fox28.com/story/28775882/2015/04/10/st-marys-students-upset-after-campus-rape-documentary

    Like

  12. Bulldog Joe

    If the quality of a Notre Dame football player’s education is soooo important, then why is it so rare for Notre Dame to even mention the “student’s” major anymore?

    Like

    • JCDAWG83

      I hate Notre Dame as much as anyone, but I think the not mentioning the major thing is a tv thing, not a school thing. ESPN and the other networks are trying to make the college game more like the NFL. The focus is always on a couple of star players, not the team.

      Like

  13. DawgPhan

    Also these schools are making nice money from football, but it pales when compared to the money they make off loading trillions of dollars in debt onto their students.

    Like

  14. If the universities, presidents and NCAA don’t want players getting paid, and expediting the process of turning this into semipro, then they need to cut back on their own revenue. Cut back on tv timeouts instead of trying to speed the game up. Stop raising prices on everything. Basically….stop being greedy bastards.

    Like

  15. Macon Dawg

    Let them eat cake!

    Like

  16. shane#1

    The NFL has owners that care more for feathering their own nests than the fans that make them rich. They keep feeding their gigantic egos with their cut of the TV bucks and care nothing for the game day experience of those who buy the tickets. They don’t have caring people like Dr..Adams. I’ll show myself out.

    Like

  17. Perhaps Father Jenkins would explain why there was a rush to change equipment suppliers! Also why the bizzare alignment w/the ACC for all sports! I don’t see ND rushing to cancel the current independent TV contract that they have w/NBC! Of course its about one thing and one thing only! Gold! On the dome, on the helment, on the ring on Jenkins little finger! Even Theodore Hesburgh has vertigo,there’s so much spinning going on under Touchdown Jesus!

    Like