“… all you pure market capitalists that emerge from the left”

That was a line in the comments last night that cracked me up.

Allow that noted commie rag National Review to retort.

… The NCAA propounds a theory of amateur athletics — the players are student-athletes, in it for the love of the game — that conveniently happens to divert the hundreds of millions of dollars college sports generate to…the NCAA. The players, from the walk-on at the end of the bench to the celebrated one-and-done prospect spending a short season in college before entering the NBA draft, are technically amateurs. Their reimbursement is twofold: the chance to play, and the chance to be a college student. But the NBA-bound, and the more tragic cases of those who think they are NBA-bound, have no interest in being college students. Though everyone knows the amateurism doctrine is a sham, the NCAA clings to a Frank Merriwell model of part-time athletes balancing homework and practice because it means more money for the NCAA.

But top players, aware they are worth more than an often-meaningless scholarship, will inevitably endeavor to capitalize on their own value. “Wishing away young players’ market value doesn’t change the fact that it exists,” writes The Ringer’s Jonathan Tjarks. Thus the NCAA, in its hubristic attempt to squash market forces, has created a threat to its own continued dominance of college sports: an enormous black market for prospects’ services.

If any orthodox Marxists are reading this (an unlikely proposition), they’re salivating: Wealthy capitalists are capturing all of the value a player generates. But there’s a more fundamental principle at stake that should convince conservatives to oppose the amateurism arrangement: a belief in free markets. Though no government is denying these players their rights, college football and basketball have a near-monopoly as farm leagues for the NFL and NBA. There is no viable alternative for most players looking to sell their labor, but if they take money, they will be declared ineligible, their schools punished, and their teams’ results vacated. As David French points out, a college athlete who plays by the rules will “spend his entire academic career as one of the poorest students on a wealthy, upper-middle-class campus, all during a time when he might actually be achieving his peak earning potential in a truly free market.” When A.J. Green, a talented Georgia football player, sold hisown jersey, he was suspended for four games; NFL scouts deemed him to have “character flaws,” which might have cost a lesser player spots in the draft and millions of dollars.  [Emphasis added.]

As the saying goes, when they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.  That’s not socialism.  It’s cynicism.  It’s also accurate.

142 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

142 responses to ““… all you pure market capitalists that emerge from the left”

  1. DawgPhan

    Weird how I was able to scroll exactly to the comment with very little context. These guys are so predictable.

    Free markets are just another liberal lie.

    Government regulation is the only way to ensure fairness. This a bedrock principal of conservatives.

    All you liberal alphas are just afraid of the government coming and making you be fair to snowflake cucks.

    It’s almost like there is something else going on here.

    Like

  2. Dawg in Austin

    Speaking of capitalism gone amok, can you ask your advertisers to remove the troll painting of Nick Saban celebrating the national championship with Tua and Devonta Smith from your blog page? Second and Twenty Six is the title of the painting. Ugh.

    Like

  3. SEBdawg

    The Senator and National Review appearing together? Two of my favorite things all rolled into one! Go ahead and throw in another musical clip of The Time and it will be the best day ever!

    Like

  4. Biggus Rickus

    I’ll just repost this:

    How free do you want that market to be? If a guy can’t fulfill his end of the contract due to injury, can he be cut loose? If someone outperforms his salary or signing bonus, can he renegotiate his deal? Can players freely be hired away by a higher bidder?

    Are the players still to be held to academic standards? If so, why?

    Like

    • It’ll be as free as the two sides fairly contract it to be.

      As far as “still to be held to academic standards” goes, BWAHAHAHAHAH… oh, wait, you were serious about that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Biggus Rickus

        Players generally are held to academic standards. Sure, some aren’t, and some schools flagrantly abuse the system. Players still flunk out regularly, even really good ones.

        Beyond that, if you turn college football and basketball from de facto developmental leagues to quasi professional developmental leagues, what part of the University mission is served by maintaining a connection? At least with the partial fiction of it being extracurricular, it ties into what Universities are supposed to do.

        If they’re going to do this, I want them to make a hard break and force the leagues to build their own farm systems.

        Like

        • DawgPhan

          you would rather there not be UGA football than allow a UGA student to earn $1? Keep up the good fight comrade.

          Like

          • rchris

            I follow the University of Georgia Bulldog’s football. I don’t follow pro football, basketball, baseball, or hockey. I follow it, because my parents graduated from Georgia (and met there), because my father, starting in 1963, taught me to be a faithful Bulldog, and because I myself attended the University of Georgia. While I was there, I had classes with students who were on the football team, and it captured my imagination that guys kind of like me could get out on the field and represent the university like that. They were stronger and faster than me to be sure, but they went through a lot of the same struggles and drama that I did. Amateurism is a value added concept for me. By all means there should be a pro system for athletes just out of high school who don’t want college, but don’t sacrifice what fans like me love. I’ve got no problem with the NCAA making less money because of a competing pro concept, just don’t force them to become a professional league. I don’t like pro sports. As much as I love the Bulldogs, I wouldn’t follow them if they were a professional team.

            Like

            • DawgPhan

              no one is forcing anyone to pay players. But dont you think it a little selfish that others should suffer so you can continue living out some weird fantasy?

              Like

            • Alkaline

              I agree completely. “College-aged” players should have the option of being compensated, even if it’s not for playing at a college. Let the NFL create a separate D-League for prospects talented enough to be paid.

              But I’ll add: Until then, the NCAA is taking advantage of the “3 years out of high school” rule that the NFL created, and I think they should be forced to pay for it. They are simultaneously blaming the NFL while developing their prospects for them, and that’s ridiculous.

              Like

            • ChiliDawg

              You’re romanticizing a fantasy which only exists in your own mind. This is essentially conservatism in 2018.

              Like

          • Biggus Rickus

            No. I would rather that UGA football be tied to the educational institution as an actual extracurricular activity than have it be a professional sport.

            Like

            • DawgFlan

              Root for an Ivy League school, or time travel back to the 19th century, those are your two options, and even then it would be a stretch to call football extra-curricular when you spend more time in the gym and training than you do in class or studying.

              Like

              • Biggus Rickus

                I may go the Ivy League route eventually or just stop watching football at all. I’m certainly not going to care much about college football when it becomes professionalized.

                Like

                • Right. After conference networks, uprooted conference alignments, craptastic conference scheduling (when does UGA go to College Station, again?), increasing travel and work demands on student-athletes, soaring compensation for coaches and administrators — in other words, after the unprecedented whoring that schools have done over the past two decades doing ESPN’s bidding, now you’re worried about professionalization.

                  Heaven forbid.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  Yes? I don’t think you’re anticipating the changes that paying players based on relative value will have down the road. To take one easy example of how it might impact things, one of the nice stories for Georgia this year was the four prominent seniors coming back, eschewing their potential millions for one more year and a chance at a title. Well, now imagine Chubb and Michel have stocked away a few million dollars while they were in Athens through endorsement deals. It’s not such a sacrifice or a moving story under those circumstances, is it?

                  The various scenarios I could predict water down the things that make the college game distinct from the pro game, where they don’t outright destroy them. And who knows what I or anyone else can’t foresee happening.

                  So yes, now I worry about professionalization. Especially seeing as everything else you mentioned aside from the modern demands of student-athletes has existed for the entire modern era of college athletics. The numbers just increased. Also, who gives a shit about scheduling in this regard?

                  Like

                • I’m sorry… you’re saying it’s a bad thing for kids to have a financial incentive to stay in school? We’re going straight through the looking glass here.

                  And Chubb and Michel have stashed away a few million apiece? I guess you think they really are getting fucked by the current system.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  On the last point, it’s the premise of your whole fucking argument. Of course they would have been much more highly compensated in an open market. They were star football players at a southern football power.

                  For the first, don’t put words in my mouth. I fully expect that a consequence of players being compensated is the eventual end of academic requirements to participate.

                  Like

                • What you fully expect and what will actually happen are two different things. If you set the parameters, a free market approach looks unreasonable.

                  If you are conceding that “star football players at a southern football power” are under-compensated, I’m not really sure what’s left to discuss. Schools, if they’re smart, would recognize that reality and plan for it by being proactive in replacing amateurism. Instead, they’ll wait until they get their collective asses kicked in court, and then scramble to deal with a new reality they didn’t prepare for.

                  Sorry I can’t be more sympathetic.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  And yes, I’m only making rational guesses as to what will happen once you open the door to a more market-oriented deal for players. I think it’s better to anticipate consequences to wholesale changes rather than blindly push for “fairness”. Call me kooky.

                  Like

                • I haven’t called you anything. It’s just that isn’t much point to a discussion where I have to accept your vision of the future as my starting point.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  Then apply your own expectations to it. Or do you expect it to remain the same except for players get money now?

                  Like

                • Man, I don’t know any more than you do.

                  My first educated guess is that they’d go scrambling to Congress for an antitrust exemption. No idea how that would work out, or if the schools would be willing to pay the price for that exemption.

                  If that doesn’t work, I suspect either each conference sets its own limits and they adjust on the fly, or student-athletes are encouraged to unionize so that a CBA can be forged.

                  In any event, the idea of a completely unfettered job market is unlikely, in my mind.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  I think you could end up with a largely unfettered endorsement market, which actually might be more destabilizing than direct payment to players by schools, what with the inequality it would generate between players even on the same team.

                  Like

                • I don’t get the inequality argument. Are poor players eaten up with resentment against teammates from wealthier families? Is there extra bitterness towards players who signed professional contracts and received large bonuses to play other sports professionally who switch to football?

                  And, as I asked someone else in this thread, what about non-revenue sports where coaches have to manage scholarship limits by using partial scholarships? Is there a lot of dissension on baseball and golf teams because of that?

                  This really sounds like projection.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  If you knew me, you’d laugh at the projection claim. I’m the last person to resent the rich. I do think that it’s a different problem that will be created if one player is making, say, $200,000 for a series of Coke commercials, and another player who may feel like he’s just as good doesn’t have that opportunity. It wouldn’t necessarily be a universal problem, but I could see it dividing some locker rooms, at a minimum.

                  Like

                • Why? Was Cam resented by his Auburn teammates? Was Manziel resented at TAMU?

                  What is it in your mind — since you’re not projecting — that makes college football players such fragile flowers? I mean, if they’re getting ready for the NFL, they already know players aren’t paid equally, right?

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  I’m thinking this through on the fly, so this will probably be sloppy. Here goes.

                  On some level, yes, I do think some teammates probably resented Newton and Manziel to some degree. I don’t think football players are unique snowflakes. I think they’re like any other people, with some more sensitive to economic inequality than others. That sensitivity can be mitigated by the belief that the system they’re operating within is fair and the size of the inequality being relatively small. I think in the cases of Newton and Manziel, the latter probably mitigated the level of resentment from those most likely to experience the feeling.

                  Assuming there would be no cap on endorsement deals, I could easily see sums reaching seven figures for some players. If even one such deal went to a player who was not viewed as more deserving by a sizable enough portion of the team, that could lead to a disaster for that team. Teams quit on coaches for mysterious reasons (to us, because we don’t have access to internal operations) all the time. It’s not making a very large leap to assume this kind of thing could cause it among at least some teams.

                  Like

                • Can you point me to a single professional team that fell apart over one player’s endorsement deals? I’m genuinely curious. If not, I assume that means you believe there’s something unique about college that makes inequality a risk.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  The NFL has a league minimum that keeps resentment low. If you have 78 guys on scholarship with some small stipend compared to a handful of guys accessing real money, the potential for a problem exists.

                  Like

                • I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll ask: are you saying the hill the NCAA should die on isn’t amateurism, but inequality? I’m not sure I find that convincing, but it at least allows for some player compensation.

                  Like

                • Lou

                  This is not a good argument. What you’re essentially saying is that, “because bad things happen, it’s just proof that we should do more bad things.” If you want pro football, go watch pro football. If you want to create a farm system (open), go create one. Someone needs to let the air out of the money balloon, not put more air in.

                  Like

                • Someone needs to let the air out of the money balloon, not put more air in.

                  That train done left the station a while back, I’m afraid.

                  Like

        • It’s a false choice. No reason schools have to choose one and abandon the other.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Biggus Rickus

            Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?

            Like

            • I’m not being naive. Some schools, like Stanford, will see real value in offering recruits an academic experience.

              Auburn, not so much.

              I like the Godfather reference, by the way.

              Like

              • Biggus Rickus

                I fail to see how that would work in a free labor market. Changing the relationships of the players from students to employees opens up a huge can of worms. And we honestly have no idea what the end result will be.

                Like

                • A10Penny

                  That big old can of worms doesn’t justify fat cats getting fatter off the exploits of the athletes.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  Fat cats? What is this, 1920s propaganda?

                  Like

                • A10Penny

                  I didn’t realize using the term fat cat equals propaganda and/or negates my argument.

                  Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  You don’t see how a loaded term like “fat cats” points to a certain mode of thinking that is at least somewhat ideological? But you’re right that some people are making a lot of money off of the demand for college football, and it isn’t the players. That’s why I want Universities out of the football business, but I also recognize that practically nobody agrees with that. Nobody who matters anyway.

                  Like

                • A10Penny

                  Everything written is read through ideological lenses. If you prefer, replace fat cats with Coaches, Trainers, ADs, Bowl presidents, etc.

                  Like

              • Biggus Rickus

                Oh, and yeah, The Godfather probably has more quotes applicable to life than any other movie.

                Like

  5. Derek

    I’ve always been of the opinion that when it comes to labor, free market conservatism is a transparent lie. An occasionally useful “principle” that covers up that what they really want is cheap labor. If cheap labor emanates from market forces they are for it. If it comes from non-market forces then they are for it. Just make labor cheap. Even to the point of being exploitative is fine with them. Many people who vote GOP can’t bring themselves to condemn slavery or the people who fought to maintain the institution. Most hate unions that were developed because poor immigrants suffered under near slavery conditions and whose very existence brought about the rise of the middle class, ended child labor, established the 40 hour work week etc, etc… What side do they take when pro athletes go on strike? The owners. Every time. The NFL owners have the most socialistic agreement between themselves imaginable. They share all tv revenue, cap salaries, the worst team gets the first pick and the best gets the last. But the guys who beat their brains agansit their skulls are greedy and entitled, right? It’s a damn sickness.

    If the government capped wages, they’d call it a “job creation bill.” If they capped wages for non-whites they’d call it the American Patriotic Job Creation Bill.

    In short, the so-called conservatives around here will only support market forces arguments for the haves. As for the have nots, there is no deprivation they will not endorse that allows money to flow UP and keeps it from being shared with those unworthy folks at the bottom. If God wanted them to be rich they would have been born that way right?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cosmic Dawg

      That is a broad brush you are painting with and does not apply to all conservatives. But you are half onto something, that many on both the left and the right have lost their philosophical tether and just “want what they want”. They certainly do not see the hypocrisy and corruption on their own side.

      But there are several conservatives on this blog who are consistent – I am pro freedom all the way on the subjects you listed out above. I want the NFL and NCAA monopolies dismantled. I want the unions’ monopolies on labor dismantled. I don’t want wage controls of any kind (for worker or owner) and few incentives or restrictions for either owner or employee – let them work out their deal between themselves.

      I expect I am not alone.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Derek

        I don’t disagree that not everyone on any side is always hypocritical. I would take issue with the idea that the answer is “philosophical tethers.” I say that in many ways those are the problem. Ideology may serve to clarify and instruct but they are also intellectual traps. Every ideology is as bad as the next. What we need in this world is pragmatism. What works best/fair for/to the most people, is sustainable and likely to continue to produce results is what should matter.

        Like

        • 92 grad

          Right on Sir. Right on. Similarly, the government agencies need complete overhaul. I’m a small business owner so I operate on a daily basis in such a way that I need to develop/improve for fear of losing my ass. My problem with government agencies is that they generally don’t need to succeed to survive and this fundamental attitude really should be applied to our fed and state governments. I feel this is a pretty significant issue and I struggle with debating it, so don’t hit me too hard.

          Like

          • Derek

            It is a problem. The difficulty is accountability for it. We don’t hold our elected officials accountable for the the faults of the un-elected. We need the agencies but we need them to be effective, efficient and not corrupt. Its a difficult problem. I don’t have an easy solution.

            I do think our politics would do well to get away from the dichotomy of: pro-government vs, no government. The latter is a pipe dream and gives incentives for failure. The former leads to inefficiencies.

            Like

    • LAJoey

      Afull lot of straw men there

      Like

    • NGDawg

      I love this blog for the sports information in general and the Bulldog discussions in particular. However, some want to hijack it into a political blog by going off on tangents at the drop of a hat, liberal or conservative. If I want political views I’ll go to political blogs/websites such as Politico or the Wall Street Journal! There are enough difference of opinions concerning sports to keep this blog going forever without all the liberal vs. conservative rhetoric.

      Like

    • Sides

      You must be feeling frisky today, that was quite a rant. What political party is currently flooding the market with cheap, unskilled immigrant labor? It ain’t the GOP. The reason the “working class” voted for Trump is they see what policies are responsible for their continuing low wages.

      Like

      • Derek

        Sure. We both know there are plenty of republicans who could give a rat’s ass about immigration. They are the ones that know that construction and food prices go through the roof if we simply eliminate immigrants and immigration and they happen to be right. I’m consistent. I’m pro-free market and labor is a market like any other. If you’re competing with a spanish speaking 6th grade educated guy who just crossed the river for a job, you’ve made some very poor life choices. Chances are that the guy ambitious enough to bring his ass up here will outperform a native born person who was unable to assert his advantages.

        Like

      • Gaskilldawg

        Remember the Georgia onion fields undocumented immigrants round-up? It was about 2010 or so. Immigration enforcement appeared in Vidalia area and picked up a slew of undocumented workers.
        The employers went ballistic and called a GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss. GOP Senator Chambliss leaned on the Immigration agency (I think it was still called Immigration and Naturalization then) to stop and let the detainees go. Why? They wanted cheap labor.

        I will bet the farmers voted republican. I know Chambliss was republican.

        The claim that the GOP is the last bastion against immigrant labor in order to force wages higher is not consistent with facts.

        Like

    • Faulkner

      We don’t have a true capitalist economy. We have winners chosen by the large banks/corporations and their lobbyists. The cream would rise to the top and the losers would not be bailed out by the American tax payer. However that is exactly what is happening.
      I know you like to call anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you names. We have all grown used to it. However, maybe you should look at what I call the uniparty made up of Democrats and Republicans whose sole mission is to stay in power and take care of their financial backers. They are populated by politicians that work for everyone but the American people.
      Both parties have failed us and will not last in their current forms.

      Like

      • Derek

        I agree with everything but the “will not last” part. I also disagree with the victim mentality. The condition we are in is the fault of the citizens. We are uninformed and apathetic.

        The people in power only want to stay in power and they need us to do it. The real power resides with us. Democracy isn’t failing because of the elected, its failing because of the electorate.

        Didn’t every democrat and half the republicans warn that this douche bag was unfit? Did they listen? Nope. Almost half the people got conned by a professional con man.

        “The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

        Like

      • Just Dawg

        I would simply add that to accomplish their ‘sole mission’ both parties have to keep voters divided and willing to vote for their party label, instead of researching issues and demanding pragmatic compromise on most issues. One way to break this strangle-hold would be to mandate open primaries, or to make it much easier to get on the general election ballots (at least in federal elections) in all states. But, the people who can make these changes are the exact people who would not benefit from these changes.

        Like

        • Derek

          Bad solution. Presumably, the party wants to win. They benefit by putting up their best candidate. If they choose wrongly the people will be happy to point that out in November.

          More voter participation in both primaries and general elections would be a better solution.

          Like

    • Derek's Middle School Teacher

      A+ Derek. You’ve successfully incorporated so many myths in your screed that even I struggled to keep up. Of course, we’re used to you insisting that Southerners who defended their homes and families against Northern soldiers intent on death and destruction were evil slave owners (or supporters of slave owners). But to see you so masterfully ignore the capitalist causes of ending child labor and lowering working hours to instead ascribe them to the anticapitalist labor unions is simply a masterful exercise in derpness. Also, well done in ignoring the collective bargaining agreements the NFL and its players negotiate on revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency, and contracts for rookies. Of course, it helps that the Democrats in government granted the NFL an antitrust exemption to prevent unhealthy competition in a free market.

      Again, A+. No need to bang erasers after class today.

      Like

      • Derek

        I see who you are Boner…. As I’ve said before, you’re a nut and not worth discussing anything with. Its not that I disagree with you. Its that we don’t even share the same planet.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          Come now, Derek. Take a compliment. You’re the most precocious middle schooler I know. And you’ve obviously taken your lessons to heart. My advice to you is to never seek out additional knowledge beyond your middle school teachings. It’s bound to frighten and confuse you.

          Like

      • Derek went to Middle School?

        Like

    • Don in Mar-a-Lago

      Like

    • The Department of Labor, OSHA, et al make unions obsolete. All of the things that unions used to do for their employees is now covered by federal law. Unions are nothing more than collection agencies for political parties now.

      Like

      • Dylan Dreyer's Booty

        I can agree that today what you say about OSHA, et al is probably true, but why do you think that ever happened?

        The March of Dimes effed up in the 50s by developing a vaccine for polio; the unions similarly effed up by removing some of the worst abuses via political means. Doesn’t mean both things weren’t worthwhile, and those who do not recall the history will act like it never happened. As a result, there are folks who think vaccines are evil, and still more who think that unions had nothing to do with safety laws and that they exist because of the goodness of the legislators hearts.

        Like

    • ChiliDawg

      I’ve never been able to use the “like” feature here but you are SPOT ON, my friend.

      Like

  6. Normaltown Mike

    “Many people who vote GOP can’t bring themselves to condemn slavery or the people who fought to maintain the institution”

    The GOP won’t condemn Democrats?

    Cool story bro.

    Like

    • Derek

      Yep. The south was democratis stronghold until the civil rights act. Now it’s solid red. How do black Americans in the south vote? Are they stupid? Please explain this history without the dumassery of “the Democratic party ran South Carolina in 1861.” We know that. We’re not in 1861. It’s 2018. The south is now solid red and 92% of the descendents of slaves vote for the democrat. Explain why Southern whites abandoned the democrats and blacks abandoned the gop. I’m sure you’ll have a cool story bro.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Normaltown Mike

        “The south was democratis stronghold until the civil rights act”.

        Your’e cute Derek, but not so good at math. Republicans first took the Governor’s mansion in 2002, and the General Assembly in 2004. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. That’s a 40 year difference.

        BTW, you can find all sorts of powerful southern white Democrats at the county level. Many have been in office as Sheriffs and Probate Judges for decades throughout and they came to power under the old Dixiecrat regimes.

        “Explain why Southern whites abandoned the democrats …

        From 1960 to the present, Georgia’s native population of white bigots has died out and more importantly been swamped by immigrants from within and without the US. Most internal migration came from rust belt states like OH, IL & MI. Those people have a different value system and began showing some success by electing Republicans to the house in the 70’s in metro Atlanta.

        ” blacks abandoned the gop”

        That trend began nearly a century ago. I wasn’t alive in 1932 when FDR won 70% of the black vote. Maybe you can find someone who voted in that election (they’d be over 100) to explain why.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Derek

          Seriously, you don’t know why the number was 70%? Damn you’re dumb.

          BLACKS WEREN’T ALOWED TO VOTE IN THE SOUTH DUMBASS!

          Had they been allowed to my guess is that they wouldn’t have been voting for George Wallace.

          Liberals of both parties passed the civil rights act. Many of those were northern democrats. Conservatives opposed it.

          Why is this the area where conservatives don’t want to be labeled conservatives but would rather stick to party affiliation?

          Like

          • Normaltown Mike

            “Seriously, you don’t know why the number was 70%? Damn you’re dumb.

            BLACKS WEREN’T ALOWED TO VOTE IN THE SOUTH DUMBASS!”

            So how did they vote for the GOP (as you said) and then belatedly abandon it if they weren’t voting for it in the first place?

            As this whole thread began…cool story bro.

            Like

            • Derek

              Ok, you win. The south systematically prevented blacks from voting in elections where democratic party candidates were the only choice ballot because the elected officials didn’t want the extra supporters.

              They heard segregation now, tomorrow and forever and wanted to vote Wallace for governor and were denied the opportunity.

              Got it. You win.

              We’re all much dumber for having read your posts.

              Again, the issue of civil rights is not based in party but ideology. Liberals wanted all citizens to be able to vote, go to school, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels and take a leak without discrimination. Conservatives disagreed. Our current political divide reflects that reality.

              You live in a fantasy land where blacks have always been democrats. Its demonstrably not true. Look at southern politics during reconstruction and before Jim Crow and Plessy. Southern blacks, for obvious reasons, were republicans until they were re-disenfranchised. When that debate was taken up again 100 years later black Americans were abandoned by conservatives across the board.

              Like

        • Scorpio Jones, III

          Mike…
          “From 1960 to the present, Georgia’s native population of white bigots has died out and more importantly been swamped by immigrants from within and without the US.”

          Bigotry is passed from generation to generation, in my humble opinion, it never dies. It may be less visible, maybe even less virulent, but it is still there.

          You may fight it, within yourself, I may fight it within myself, Derek may fight it within himself, but it is just suppressed, never gone.

          And, actually, Martin Luther King voted in his first presidential election, for Eisenhower, as did his daddy…is that a century?

          I don’t think Nixon’s southern strategy is a century old, is it.

          Since we lost the fucking game, these are the kinds of discussions that make me want to stop slamming my hand in a car door.

          So thanks for that.

          Like

          • Normaltown Mike

            :And, actually, Martin Luther King voted in his first presidential election, for Eisenhower, as did his daddy…is that a century?”

            Not sure if you’re serious? Ike got less than 40% of the black vote in 1956. Just b/c the majority (60% is really a super majority) of blacks voted D in 1956 does note mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON voted for that candidate.

            “I don’t think Nixon’s southern strategy is a century old, is it?”
            Who was elected in 1976? Was he a southerner? Did he carry any southern states? What about 1992?

            I’m sure that all of the southern Democrats voting for Carter & Clinton were dhoulas and artisanal bakers while the retrograde bigots had all rushed to vote for yankees Gerald Ford and George Bush b/c..[checks notes] the southern strategy.

            Like

            • Derek

              Your reliance on numbers at a time that more than half the demographic was disenfranchised is pathetic.

              This is not a party identity issue. There was a time where there were liberals in the GOP and the Democratic Party. They joined forces on the voting rights act and the civil rights act.

              Civil rights is a liberal/conservative fight not a a GOP/Democratic fight. Conservatives were on the wrong side but that choice got them southern conservatives. That’s just unavoidable fact.

              LBJ said those bills would lose the south for a generation. Can you give that guy credit for understanding an electorate? The fact is that he underestimated the impact it would have on the south.

              Like

              • Hogbody Spradlin

                LBJ also said the Civil Rights Act “Would have them ni**ers voting democrat for 200 years.” He was a mixed bag.

                Like

                • Derek

                  I’m sure that for you racial slur offset the fact that LBJ and Lincoln remain the most successful presidents for the interests of black Americans in history. Neither man was perfect.

                  Goldwater may have never used the n-word in his life but he didn’t have a problem with segregation. I know which one is a greater moral failure.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Well, that would depend what you consider the interests of black Americans. If you mean killing Southern blacks, then Lincoln was extremely successful. If you mean stagnating black economic development and perpetuating generational poverty and dependence on government, LBJ was very successful.

                  Goldwater respected private property rights, which you obviously consider a moral shortcoming. But that speaks more to your morals than his.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Jim Crow meant freedom. Got it. And you’re not nut. Sure.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Dude, you’ve got to read past the chapter titles in your middle school textbooks. It just makes you look foolish. “Some politicians in black hats were mean to blacks because they only cared about amassing power. But then some other politicians in white hats rode in and saved the day because they didn’t care about power, they just wanted to be righteous and holy!” Riiight.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Dude. You’re fucking nuts. Seek help.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Not nuts, dude. Just a guy who is capable of thinking beyond the shallowest level possible. I can see the world beyond the good vs evil, white hat vs black hat, juvenile morality plays that you put so much faith in. But as I’ve said, it will certainly frighten and confuse someone as limited as you are. If LBJ really didn’t help blacks, well that certainly throws decades of liberal propaganda into a whole different light. So you should probably avoid thoughts like that. Mainly, I’m posting for others capable of broadening their minds.

                  Like

                • Sides

                  No ones mind is being broadened by this conversation.

                  Liked by 1 person

      • Faulkner

        As far as blacks and the GOP, racism and bigotry work both ways. The radical left is not helping by pushing the no whites/heterosexual/(insert crazy acronym) allowed agenda. You would think people would learn from history.

        Like

    • Rampdawg

      Touché

      Like

  7. Ellis

    “a college athlete who plays by the rules will “spend his entire academic career as one of the poorest students on a wealthy, upper-middle-class campus”

    Cry me a river. You can’t compare their situations to anyone else on campus. It is irrelevant if some other students come from “wealthy, upper-middle-class” families.

    What these athletes get is a free education, the best healthcare, clothing, free living quarters, the best and most healthy food, tutoring, coaching to prepare those with enough talent for future pro careers and all they have to do is play a game and educate themselves to have the opportunity to realize great economic futures through a pro career or contacts not available to most students. I would hardly say a college student earning upwards of $100,000 per year is poor. If you want to see poor compare a baseball player in the minor leagues to a college baseball player.

    If someone wants to create a farm system for the NFL or the NBA let them, I am sure someone has looked into it. The fact is it is a bad business idea for those leagues and the athletes that would play in them.

    Like

    • Well, then, you have nothing to worry about if the NCAA loses the antitrust suits, right?

      Makes you wonder why schools haven’t just gone ahead and ditched amateurism already.

      Like

      • Ellis

        I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the claim that athletes are not “fairly compensated” already. The article you quoted called them poor!

        I have no problem if a player is good enough and can capitalize on his name. A few players will enjoy some additional benefits. But just like the real world I don’t think that will be as lucrative as anyone believes, accept to the trial lawyers pushing this narrative.

        Like

        • Former Fan

          The way to determine if someone is compensated “fairly” or not, is to see what someone else is willing to pay for their services. If the market were free, and player salaries went up, then we could conclude they were not being fairly compensated before. When I go to work, the fringe benefits don’t mean so much to me. I don’t care how nice the gym is, or if my office has a waterfall in it, etc. I do care about how much money I will be paid for my services. College kids will be worried about other things besides money, like quality of education, weight room, etc. But the money will make a difference too. Let the market become free. Way past time for that.

          Like

          • Ellis

            “The way to determine if someone is compensated “fairly” or not, is to see what someone else is willing to pay for their services.”

            Agreed, but “fair” compensation is a two way street, not just what someone is willing to pay, but what is the other person willing to accept. A scholarship is money paid for services. If I hold scholarship offers from Auburn and Stanford, are they both equal? Let’s assume I am not among the 2% that will go pro and assume I am willing to take advantage of the education offered. I would argue the future earnings potential of a degree I earn from Stanford is more valuable than that which I would earn from Auburn. But each player decides what is more valuable. Someone may want to be a vet and not a computer scientist and decide Auburn is the better fit and provides more fair compensation to that person. The free market already exists. Nobody is forcing players to play for one team or another. Just paying cash will lead to a system where 5 teams will dominate every year.

            Like

            • Former Fan

              So long as there is a cartel, that illegally suppresses wages, we cannot know if the players are being fairly compensated or not. There is no free market until colleges compete for players rather than colluding to suppress wages.

              Like

            • Gaskilldawg

              Gosh, don’t we already have a system where Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio State dominate every year? I hope UGA ascends to a position where it dominates every year, but don’t fool yourself that caps on compensation will enable Kansas and Vanderbilt to load up on football conference championship throphys.

              Like

  8. Got Cowdog

    I’ll fess up. I went back to yesterday’s post to find the guilty party. It was not who I thought it would be.

    Like

  9. Connor

    Thanks for continuing to beat the drum on this, Senator. I think it’s incumbent on us as fans to recognize the system for what it is and demand change. It’s clear the powers that be in College athletics won’t grow a conscious tomorrow. It’s also clear that a lot of fans would prefer to not hear this. Keep fighting.

    Like

  10. doofusdawg

    Also an article in Daily Caller about the Kentucky governor wanting to pay players. Imagine that… talk about closing the barn door.

    Like

  11. Former Fan

    This seems to me, something liberals and conservatives can unite on. As a bedrock conservative, I love the free market. Basketball has already proven there’s a market out there, but its kept in the dark. Let the schools pay what these players are worth by competing for their services with money rather than facilities. There’s a bubble in coaching salaries, facilities, AD salaries, etc. all because the players are not being compensated according to what the market will pay.

    As for what something is worth, well, that’s all determined by what someone is willing to pay for it. So don’t tell me these college kids are being compensated well for their labor. They are not, because we all know that if the market was free, there are plenty of schools out there that would pay them far more than a scholarship. Ergo, they are being undercompensated.

    Like

  12. And I stand by what I said. And not once have I ever said anything about players not deserving additional compensation. What I dispute is the (seemingly alleged) simplicity of the “how.”

    You have continued to write as though it is just patently obvious that Universities should have neither the need nor the right to have anything stronger than a laissez-faire position on the NLI rights (the issue of organizational pay is separate and not part of this discussion). I think that’s just dead wrong from both a logistical standpoint and a legal / contractual standpoint.

    They absolutely have to have some form of socialism or the whole thing is going collapse. If you think a system will work where Justin Fields can go collect a 150k per year while Ben Cleveland still just chills on a scholarship, I have no cure for your naivety . If you think the University (whether legally or morally) should have no standing to oppose something like that, we’ll just have to see how that plays out in court. I like my chances.

    I concede that the concept of amateurism is dead…….now it’s time for you to concede the flip side: that the University of Georgia BUILT THAT PLATFORM that is so valuable. Not Jake Fromm. Not Todd Gurley. Not even Hershel Walker. You would not be writing this very good blog if every one of these same players suited up for the Watkinsville Wolfhounds. That’s not an irrelevant point like some of yall who dismiss it—it’s absolutely going to come up as these legal battles sharpen.

    Like

    • I don’t really care how they parcel out revenues, as long as it’s the result of equal and fair negotiations between both sides. You keep focusing on the finished product, while my concern is about how wrong the status quo is.

      As far as platform building goes, LSU was marketing Ben Simmons to season ticket holders before he was even enrolled. So spare me the anguished ALL CAPS.

      Like

      • doofusdawg

        You are going to need some type of serious revenue sharing between colleges or the poorer schools will be even less competitive.

        See… there’s your opportunity for the left to get back in the game and attempt to make things fair. After the attorneys and agents and handlers and professional spokesmen get their fees of course.

        Like

      • junkyardawg41

        Could I get some insight into what you consider equal and fair negotiations? I ask because I would think how parceling of the revenues would equate to how equal and fair the negotiations were. Is your definition that athletes have fair representation, negotiations occur and an outcome is agreed upon? I ask not to be argumentative but to gain perspective in my mind.

        Like

      • The only system I see working is a pooling of NLI money and distributing it to the whole team. A Justin Fields will probably never be compensated on true open market terms and a Rashad Roundtree will probably be overcompensated. To the extent that isn’t satisfactory, I think the University has every right and obligation to tell the rest of the world to go F_____ themselves. And that’s exactly what I would do.

        Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Does your pragmatism extend to other industries beyond amateur athletics? Is it unconscionable that a lawyer earns more than a baker? Or is it simply that equal pay should be enforced within an industry? Should all lawyers make the same amount? If players were allowed to profit from the sale of their jerseys, should the University Bookstore be required to have equal amounts of Jake Fromm jerseys and Ben Cleveland jerseys? If the Fromm jerseys proved to be better sellers than the Cleveland jerseys, should the University enforce some kind of quota system? Should they refrain from selling Fromm jerseys until the sales of Cleveland jerseys catch up? I’m just curious how zealous we should be in pursuing fairness.

      I suppose there is a certain fairness in mistreating all players equally. But is that really a better system than what is being proposed?

      Like

      • I don’t give a **** about pursuing fairness for the sake of fairness. I’m thinking in terms of a University administrator perceiving something that could be a risk to the entire system of athletics.

        The baker-lawyer-baker analogies make no sense . But the questions you ask are absolutely ones that will have to be answered and one of the problems I have is that the current crowd demanding that this injustice be solved are all asking these like they are rhetorical questions with easy answers. They’re not. Could a Ben Cleveland at some school end up suing because his jersey isn’t in the bookstore ? Absolutely ! I’d say more than likely that would happen. Does that suit have merits ? Doesn’t matter, the University still has to pay the GD legal bill and that is only one of the many cans they have to account for while the rest of the world sits back and acts like this is some no-brainer.

        This is unrolling a 100 year old + bureaucracy where many of the interests involved are not comparable to free market actors. What other industry has a government entity with customers (fans) who so obsessively love said government entity that they are mostly willing to buy the product even when it’s crappy and go as far as poison the trees of another government entity that competes with their favorite government entity ? I say “mostly willing to buy the product” because we know damn well this whole discussion is only relevant to the top level of the Power 5, a group which has shown pretty damn strong resistance to mediocre seasons from a revenue standpoint.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          You don’t care about fairness, yet you insist that a system where Justin Fields earns more than Ben Cleveland wouldn’t work. Why is that? Is it because it’s unfair? Other industries are similarly unfair. Why don’t they collapse the way you believe college athletics would?

          What you’re missing here is that a managed economy isn’t optimal and it isn’t even necessary. Yes, college athletics has always been a planned economy run by a cartel. But if we take away the power of the cartel, the relevant question isn’t, “What kind of planner will we replace it with?” The free market will take care of it in the most efficient manner possible.

          Yes, Ben Cleveland could sue because the bookstore doesn’t sell his jersey. And the university would have to respond to the lawsuit. I could also sue the bookstore because they don’t sell my high school jersey. And the university would have to respond to my lawsuit as well. Does that mean that the university should start selling my jersey? Or that they should stop selling any jerseys? Of course not. Trying to regulate an entire market because of what some idiot might do is no way to run a railroad, as Bluto might say.

          Like

        • Schools already face this issue in non-revenue sports with limited resources, like baseball and golf. Those coaches have to parcel out fractional scholarships to their players. Players on the same team receive different levels of support/compensation.

          By your reasoning, shouldn’t this lead to all kinds of player dissension on those teams?

          Like

          • Yea, and that volleyball player could go see if a different school might offer her half instead of 1/3. Realizing the under-appreciated left tackle could do the same thing, your idea is to cede recruiting operations to a dick measuring contest between George Bryan and Don Leeburn ?

            Brilliant idea dude.

            Like

            • Nice dodge on the question. I’m not talking about recruiting. I’m talking about what you’re complaining about — inequality. Stick to the subject.

              Like

              • And you’re pretending that this doesn’t bleed into recruiting. LMAO. But I’ll bite anyway.

                In the volleyball scenario, everybody knows who is determining value, who is paying and what they are offering before a players signs up. With complete NLI de-regulation, you are taking value determination out of the hands of the very person running the operation and ceding it to 3rd parties as a satisfactory method of player compensation (with no university control). At least at the professional level, the less glamorous positions are compensated handsomely and the entity running the show has the ability to determine value metrics based exclusively on what happens on the field.

                Like

                • I’m not pretending anything about recruiting. I’m addressing the topic you injected into the discussion, inequality.

                  Your last point doesn’t make a lick of sense. Pro players are paid for their NLIs by third parties, not by the entity running the show.

                  But since you’ve inserted recruiting into the conversation, if a less glamorous player feels threatened by teammates who are more attractive for endorsement purposes, why not choose to play for a program where there’s little chance of any of its players commanding large deals? Inequality problem solved.

                  Like

                • I never said they were not paid 3rd party endorsements. I said they get a handsome salary.

                  As to your last paragraph, I suppose in your myopic view where the controlling entity (who you are begging to change) has no problem with complete self-destruction that’s a viable solution. But in most sports leagues where the players get compensated, unions, leagues and teams put in rules and controls to ensure their own survival and keep the ship afloat.

                  Like

                • But in most sports leagues where the players get compensated, unions, leagues and teams put in rules and controls to ensure their own survival and keep the ship afloat.

                  Which is what I expect to happen with CFB… but in none of those leagues does anyone dictate to players what they can receive for their NLIs. Because that would be illegal, something you appear to be glossing over.

                  Like

    • Former Fan

      Every business owner builds the platform. But he still has to pay the employees what the market will bear. Colleges should be no different.

      Like

    • Gaskilldawg

      Any cure for my naivety in thinking a system in which Michael Jordan collected millions and millions in endorsement money and Steve Kerr had to survive on his contract worked? I naively thought those Chicago Bulls teams won championships.

      Too bad all those Payton Manning endorsement dollars made the Broncos Super Bowl victory closer than it would have been.

      Like

  13. MGW

    Simple short term solution – COA (year round) plus scholarship for 5 years whether or not you can hack it. No annual signing limits but an 85 scholarship hard cap. But cut a kid at your own risk because there are no transfer restrictions whatsoever.

    But place actual restrictions on the time demands such that they are actually “student-athletes”, and let the kids earn whatever money they want from whatever source they want. Including boosters, agents, waiting tables… whatever.

    As in, the NCAA/schools can pay them what they’re willing to agree to pay them. If thats just scholarship + COA, I’m fine with that 100%. But if you’re going to do that, you can’t go keeping kids under your thumb like the current system does. I have a problem with schools having it both ways.

    How do we pay them all fair market value? Sure, thats a tough question with no perfect answer. But there is absolutely no straight faced reason to keep kids from being able to transfer or earn other money, other than “well thats just not very convenient for us”.

    Like

  14. Got Cowdog

    I can’t help thinking if you removed NCAA restrictions on transfer and income for athletes and allow the system to self regulate, there would be a period of anarchy and the end result would not be anything like it’s former self.
    That’s typically what happens when a communal/cartel type of governing body ceases to exist.

    Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      I think it would be recognizable because the consumers would want it to be. But if it’s not, so be it. I’m not going to argue that an athlete shouldn’t have the right to earn money because it might corrupt my entertainment.

      Like

      • Got Cowdog

        Me either, and I hope that’s not how you took the comment. This sort of change has historical precedent on a much larger scale than CFB and the results are typical of what I posted.
        The point (other than making the observation) is to be careful what you ask for. Your intended and or expected result may not be what remains.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          No, I agree with your concerns, although I’m probably not as alarmed as you are. My best (semi-informed) guess about what the intermediate future holds for college football is that players will earn stipends from the schools and proceeds from the commercial use of their names and likenesses from private parties. They will also be able to transfer after each season without sitting out. Maybe there will continue to be conference restrictions on transfers and maybe not. But I doubt that a UGA player transferring to Miami will have to sit out.

          Maybe things will be significantly different and maybe not. One of the reasons I’m not a bigger NFL fan is free agency. Does a Colts fan who loves Peyton Manning become a Broncos fan when he changes teams? Does he stop liking Manning? I would hate to think of Jake Fromm going to Florida. It would be a similar problem. But again, I recognize that my entertainment preferences shouldn’t overrule a player’s livelihood.

          So I think, and hope, that the powers that be recognize that completely changing the nature of the sport would lose more fans than would be tenable. But if it happens anyway, maybe I’ll start tailgating for UGA golf or gymnastics.

          Like

  15. Sides

    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/why-new-york-times’-nocera-wrong

    Interesting conversation. While I was reading about this topic I ran across this from the NCAA’s website. Rebuts a lot of arguments made in these comments in a much more thoughtful, legal manner than most commenters can provide. I tend to agree more with the NCAA on this issue.

    Like

    • Yes, Donald Remy, master of the losing legal strategy in O’Bannon. Who offers this brilliant insight:

      Indeed, any group of schools wanting to compete against each other under a pay-for-play model could start paying athletes tomorrow if they chose to do so – either by leaving the NCAA or by changing a portion of its rules for “big-time” football programs through the NCAA rule-making process.

      That no one has done so reflects the lack of merit in the idea.

      Or that they don’t want to share revenues with student-athletes.

      If this is what passes for thoughtful in your mind, that explains a lot about your argument.

      Like

      • Sides

        “The Ninth Circuit essentially rejected more substantial remedies. It instead reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules. Such a measure is already in place, meaning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in O’Bannon compels no additional changes of the NCAA or its member schools, conferences and other affiliated organizations.”

        Sounds like he got his ass kicked. The NCAA will never be the same again. You realize nothing is going to change, right?

        Like

        • A trial court and an appellate court have both ruled that the NCAA is a cartel and violated antitrust law. If you don’t think that’s a big deal, maybe you ought to ask the NCAA why it’s appealing to the Supreme Court.

          Like

          • Sides

            And what was the result of that ruling? More lawyers and lawsuits with no substantial changes. I guess they appealed to the supreme court to close this case. Now we have a thousand more cases around the country with millions of lawyers getting paid “fighting” for these poor kids. In the end there will be marginal changes, there isn’t any money in fixing the problem.

            Like

  16. What about the front end of the deal? If players will be paid and essentially become employees of University of Georgia Inc, what will keep Auburn Trash Dump Inc from offering a bigger signing bonus to a high school senior to come work for them? I mean, it may be already offered under the table now, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more) but bidding wars for the best high school senior “employees”? Or is that perfectly OK?

    Like

    • Why is that a problem for you? Not a snarky question…

      Like

      • Derek

        I wonder if we had the best 30 programs or so get together and had a draft if that would be seen as satisfactory control of the marketplace. A kid wouldn’t have to participate. A kid could go to school at Georgia for free if he got in and was wanted. The players who think they have value over and above their scholly and don’t care whether they are earning paychecks from USC or Ohio State sign up for a draft. After all they’ll really be working for Nike anyway. You don’t get picked or you don’t like where you land or you can’t come to agreeable terms you can sit out to the next draft or play for the school that accepts you as a student.

        It’s better than bidding wars. I’m sympathetic to the concern. If the NFL just had to start negotiating with everyone instead of having a draft it would get pretty unsustainable pretty quick.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I didn’t say it was a problem. Just throwing the hypothetical out there. Just wondering what limits, if any, will be considered by some.

        Like

  17. That went down hill pretty quickly. Can always figure it the comments count is above 100, it has turned into a you are a pooh pooh head, nope you are a pee pee toes.
    Still count me on the NCAA is a cartel side.
    And some of the arguments on LBJ and FDR go off into weird land.

    Like

  18. Cosmic Dawg

    I can’t for the life of me figure out why we have to go around our asses to reach our elbows on this subject.

    The problem is the monopoly and the labor restrictions created by the NCAA and NFL.

    Okay, so (a) break up the NFL-NCAA price fixing exemption (which is really what we’re talking about), and (b) let anyone who wants to forego college to join a minor league team do so, should one form, or join the NFL development camps that would surely form, and (c) let anyone who wants to come to UGA on a regular ol’ scholarship do so.

    And athletes, just like science majors or music majors or English majors, can do public events and sign autographs and write books or get endorsements or do whatever the hell they want to do for money.

    If a 20 year old Athens student-musician had a hit indie record and Shure microphones wanted to endorse him, or if a rich partron wanted to pay him to go to school – nobody would care!

    If an English major on scholarship wrote a bestseller, and somebody’d given her a private grant to work on it over the summer, nobody would care.

    So why am I supposed to care if a rich booster or Nike wants to pay a student athlete on the side? Guess what? I don’t! I don’t care! Did they both get what they wanted from the transaction, which was transparent and understood by both parties? Terrific! Whose business is it?

    Buy them a car and a yacht! Who the hell cares?

    Voila! The school is no longer paying student athletes, there’s no more coerced labor of kids who don’t want to be in college, and the athletes are probably more truly UGA’s football team and representative of the student body or at least kids who want to be in college.

    Like

  19. Hogbody Spradlin

    Threads like this are what happens when people, who otherwise can’t get anybody to listen to them, use somebody else’s soapbox. Like lots of things in life, a certain amount is interesting but it easily gets to be too much. I’ve been guilty, and it comes from both sides of the political spectrum.

    It’s kinda like Facebook: if you have to use a football blog to get ears for your schtick, it ain’t very original or profound.

    Like