Atticus the only person who thinks players deserve no part of the profit they create. Both democrats and Republicans think he is wrong.

[HooverOutlaw]

But coming from a guy who is so spineless to even admit what high school he attended or college he supports and thinks Jim Harbaugh is an an time elite coach on the level with Saban, Bryant, Meyer, John McKay,  Tom Osborne etc but forgets Harbaugh won 2 games last year and ran from Ohio State this is not surprising.  He thinks players are like slaves or a product you use and throw away.  

[Columbiafan]

8 minutes ago, HooverOutlaw said:

But coming from a guy who is so spineless to even admit what high school he attended or college he supports and thinks Jim Harbaugh is an an time elite coach on the level with Saban, Bryant, Meyer, John McKay,  Tom Osborne etc but forgets Harbaugh won 2 games last year and ran from Ohio State this is not surprising.  He thinks players are like slaves or a product you use and throw away.  

He attended STA, he just never played because that would Involve actually having athletic talent 

[HooverOutlaw]

Just now, Columbiafan said:

He attended STA, he just never played because that would Involve actually having athletic talent 

Is he LOS? 

[Columbiafan]

14 minutes ago, HooverOutlaw said:

Is he LOS? 

Yeah 

 

Atticus was always Los

[Belly Bob]

Don't they already get a part of the profit? Athletic programs are expensive, and so is college.

And if universities reinvest the money they make back into the institution, then where are they going to make up the difference? Stadiums, athletic facilities, dorms, coaches, trainers, physicians, professors, plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. are expensive. If universities have to pay their players a portion of the "profit" they make, where are they going to get the money?

It might be cheaper, all things considered, for universities to just cut football.

Many within the academy have long argued that any money football might generate doesn't do much for anyone outside football, since most of the money football generates goes right back into football. 

[HooverOutlaw]

6 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Don't they already get a part of the profit? Athletic programs are expensive, and so is college.

And if universities reinvest the money they make back into the institution, then where are they going to make up the difference? Stadiums, athletic facilities, dorms, coaches, trainers, physicians, professors, plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. are expensive. If universities have to pay their players a portion of the "profit" they make, where are they going to get the money?

It might be cheaper, all things considered, for universities to just cut football.

Many within the academy have long argued that any money football might generate doesn't do much for anyone outside football, since most of the money football generates goes right back into football. 

You think the science dept gives the football program money?

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, HooverOutlaw said:

You think the science dept gives the football program money?

No, I said that many have argued that the football program doesn't give the science department money. Rather, the money the football program makes goes back into the football program, which is an expensive program.

And when the football program gets too expensive to pay for itself, it gets cut. We've seen that happen before.

And if universities have to pay more for college football players than they already do, they might decide to get rid of football, since they're not going to get rid of science. 

[I AM IRONMAN]

20 hours ago, HooverOutlaw said:

Is he LOS? 

LOSer. The great jock strap

[Rippers]

13 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

And if universities have to pay more for college football players than they already do, they might decide to get rid of football, since they're not going to get rid of science. 

I have not really read exactly what the Supreme Court said or about how this might work, but I do suspect we'll eventually see the lions share of players "salaries" getting paid by corporations such as Nike, Under Armor and Adidas, among others, instead of the universities themselves.  The contracts that used to be signed with the schools will instead be signed by the athletes of those schools, or at least partially so.

[Belly Bob]

41 minutes ago, Rippers said:

I have not really read exactly what the Supreme Court said or about how this might work, but I do suspect we'll eventually see the lions share of players "salaries" getting paid by corporations such as Nike, Under Armor and Adidas, among others, instead of the universities themselves.  The contracts that used to be signed with the schools will instead be signed by the athletes of those schools, or at least partially so.

I haven't read it either, any of it.

But what happens if Nike decides they want to bring all the best football talent to Oregon? It's probably not wise to invite that kind of influence into college sports. 

[Rippers]

23 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

But what happens if Nike decides they want to bring all the best football talent to Oregon? I

That is a very good question and one that will have to be addressed.

[Sweetlarry]

9 hours ago, Rippers said:

That is a very good question and one that will have to be addressed.

I have a question. It’s not a secret that ALL of these kids think they’re going to the league when less than 1% do, right? So when these kids get their money, who is going to enforce them actually going to class? Following rules? I promise you the graduation rate will drop drastically, bringing more undereducated people into the workforce and putting many back into the cycle an education could have helped them break. 

[15yds4gibberish]

22 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

I haven't read it either, any of it...

 

I couldn't believe Justice Kavanaugh would embrace Critical Race Theory like this smh.  

😉

[Belly Bob]

40 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

 

I couldn't believe Justice Kavanaugh would embrace Critical Race Theory like this smh.  

😉

What is Critical Race Theory? Did we ever pin it down?

Legalities notwithstanding, I, myself, think that college football players should be fairly compensated for their labor. 

I'm just wondering aloud what happens to college football when the money is redirected from the administrators, executives, coaches, facilities etc to the players, who tend not to stick around at the institution for too long.

And if corporations are supposed to be the ones who pay the bills, then what happens to college football when a lucrative Nike contract determines where a kid plays football? 

[15yds4gibberish]

1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

What is Critical Race Theory? Did we ever pin it down?

...

 

Nope.  Which is why I made a joke about Kavanaugh using CRT in his concurrence.  It reads like some things I'm told are CRT, akin to the worst of the 20th Century apparently.

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Nope.  Which is why I made a joke about Kavanaugh using CRT in his concurrence.  It reads like some things I'm told are CRT, akin to the worst of the 20th Century apparently.

Backwaters and all that. 

My hunch is that CRT probably isn't well defined, which allows people to talk past each other. 

I don't know whether it's as bad as the worst ideas of the 20th century because I can't find a useful definition of it.

According to Wikipedia, CRT is "an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to critically examine the law and how it intersects with issues of race and to challenge liberal approaches to racial justice." (I'd want to know what liberal approaches to racial justice are. My guess is that it has something to do with the idea that laws should be colorblind. But who knows.)

But then the definition quickly broadens to include "social and cultural issues" in addition to merely legal ones. It reads more like a description of a collection of different interests, held together by a concern about racism, than a well-defined concept. 

In the second paragraph, wikipedia says that CRT views "race as a socially constructed identity which serves to oppress non-White people." That strikes me as a bit more substantive. And that feels like the sort of thing that a good Foucault scholar would say. Reality is a social construct made by the powerful to keep themselves in power. 

Then we get the claim that "intersectionality...is a key concept of CRT." And here's where CRT, at least according to this "definition" (such as it is), points back to Foucault and all the fruits of his work, including "standpoint epistemology," according to which what is regarded as true or real or valuable is determined by one's socially conditioned standpoint within society, which view has interesting implications for science and logic and "objective" data etc.

Is racial justice a social construct too? Does its value owe to the "standpoint" of those who think it's valuable or to the "intersectionality" of those who claim that it has value? Is it valuable only in the context of a certain "discourse community" but not in others?

But maybe this isn't what CRT is.

[15yds4gibberish]

nm

[Belly Bob]

6 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

nm

I'm trying to do too many things at once at the moment, and one of them, believe it or not, is not to pester you.

Here's Foucault and some (I hope as I write this) brief remarks.

Notice how he claims that the intellectual's job is to critique all the hidden ways in which classes (broadly construed) oppress other classes in society.

Notice how he rejects the idea that there could in principle be an objective concept of human nature or of justice, since any such claim would be the product of his own culture. (There's goes the objective rationale for our Republic. More generally, how can you argue objectively that this social structure is more just that that one if we cannot in principles articulate and defend objective concepts of justice and human nature?)

Notice how he includes science as an institution that gives power to some and oppresses others.

Substitute "race" for "class" and notice how antiracist criticisms (broadly construed) often go. 

Notice how, according to the New York Times article I posted on DiAngelo's White Fragility, some antiracists claim that black children aren't doing as well as white children in American schools because scientific thinking is a "hallmark" whiteness. There you go: we've revealed one of the hidden ways in which our society oppresses certain classes. 

Notice how he suggests that in a classless society we would probably have a different --not better; how could it be better?-- concept of justice. 

Do a quick Google search and see which intellectual is most frequently cited in social science and humanities departments that trade in social criticism.

Ask how Foucault can justify his claim that our job is to critique our society. How can he justify any of his claims, since everything he says, by his own lights, is "socialized" and "historicized" and therefore relativistic.

How can anyone say anything which is objectively true? Really, if we're honest, truth-claims are just power grabs, which (if we're clever enough in our politics) will empower some classes and oppress others. That would be true even if we were aiming at a classless society, whatever that would look like, which society wouldn't be any more or less just -- not really. 

 

[badrouter]

On 6/22/2021 at 11:49 AM, Belly Bob said:

Don't they already get a part of the profit? Athletic programs are expensive, and so is college.

And if universities reinvest the money they make back into the institution, then where are they going to make up the difference? Stadiums, athletic facilities, dorms, coaches, trainers, physicians, professors, plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. are expensive. If universities have to pay their players a portion of the "profit" they make, where are they going to get the money?

It might be cheaper, all things considered, for universities to just cut football.

Many within the academy have long argued that any money football might generate doesn't do much for anyone outside football, since most of the money football generates goes right back into football. 

There's also the "cost" of having dozens of students on campus who are nowhere near as prepared to handle a college curriculum and thus need disproportionate amounts of academic support. A robust academic support staff is only possible due to the large amount of revenue brought in from football. Schools that pass on lots of the revenue to athlete benefits will struggle to sustain this. Also, schools that may initially be able to keep up on that front, but can't compete with what figures to be an even more out of reach elite few programs and thus suffer numerous blowout losses, may eventually reach a point where revenue drops considerably. People stop donating to and buying tickets for 2nd rate programs.

[badrouter]

19 hours ago, Sweetlarry said:

I have a question. It’s not a secret that ALL of these kids think they’re going to the league when less than 1% do, right? So when these kids get their money, who is going to enforce them actually going to class? Following rules? I promise you the graduation rate will drop drastically, bringing more undereducated people into the workforce and putting many back into the cycle an education could have helped them break. 

It's the sad reality that many utopian thinkers who don't understand the real world can't grasp.

[badrouter]

3 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Backwaters and all that. 

My hunch is that CRT probably isn't well defined, which allows people to talk past each other. 

I don't know whether it's as bad as the worst ideas of the 20th century because I can't find a useful definition of it.

According to Wikipedia, CRT is "an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to critically examine the law and how it intersects with issues of race and to challenge liberal approaches to racial justice." (I'd want to know what liberal approaches to racial justice are. My guess is that it has something to do with the idea that laws should be colorblind. But who knows.)

But then the definition quickly broadens to include "social and cultural issues" in addition to merely legal ones. It reads more like a description of a collection of different interests, held together by a concern about racism, than a well-defined concept. 

In the second paragraph, wikipedia says that CRT views "race as a socially constructed identity which serves to oppress non-White people." That strikes me as a bit more substantive. And that feels like the sort of thing that a good Foucault scholar would say. Reality is a social construct made by the powerful to keep themselves in power. 

Then we get the claim that "intersectionality...is a key concept of CRT." And here's where CRT, at least according to this "definition" (such as it is), points back to Foucault and all the fruits of his work, including "standpoint epistemology," according to which what is regarded as true or real or valuable is determined by one's socially conditioned standpoint within society, which view has interesting implications for science and logic and "objective" data etc.

Is racial justice a social construct too? Does its value owe to the "standpoint" of those who think it's valuable or to the "intersectionality" of those who claim that it has value? Is it valuable only in the context of a certain "discourse community" but not in others?

But maybe this isn't what CRT is.

Apologies for going off-topic, but, this is where it gets messy. Yes, a liberal approach to justice would be a colorblind approach. But, as I think you are aware, that is decidedly NOT what the current orthodoxy supports. It's actually the opposite. Say that you wish for a colorblind approach around the far left today and you'll be shamed and then laughed off the stage. Total emphasis on color, with intentional discrimination based on it, is THE way the current grifters want things done. 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, badrouter said:

Apologies for going off-topic, but, this is where it gets messy. 

I don't see it as being off topic. 

It's just the sort of thing Foucault thought we should be up to: reveal how a certain institution, like the classical liberal tradition of law, actually oppresses certain races by favoring colorblind laws over laws that take race into consideration. 

[Belly Bob]

According to my own quick Google search, Foucault was the most cited author in humanities books in 2007, according to the Times Higher Education.

He was the third most cited author among legal scholars in particular.

https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2010/04/most-cited-authors-in-the-humanities-in-2007.html

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/04/most-cited-authors-of-books-in-the-humanities.html

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

 Belly with the big brain ^^^^😁

bgw

[15yds4gibberish]

14 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

I don't see it as being off topic. 

It's just the sort of thing Foucault thought we should be up to: reveal how a certain institution, like the classical liberal tradition of law, actually oppresses certain races by favoring colorblind laws over laws that take race into consideration. 

 

Based solely on what I’ve seen here, because I have no other reference, it doesn’t seem like I’d make much of a Foucaultian.  I trust you aren’t suggesting otherwise. 

But, should we think of Justice Kavanaugh as a sort of ‘weak-force-Foucaultian® ,’ accepting the idea that a facially race neutral policy could produce racial disparities?