The NFL is made up of players that are employees. They have collective bargaining rights and a powerful union.
College athletes aren't employees and do not have collective bargaining rights or a union.
This is well known.
Folks - This is the NFL. Do not get attached to any player.
- Thread starter DeeDave
- Start date
The NFL is made up of players that are employees. They have collective bargaining rights and a powerful union.
College athletes aren't employees and do not have collective bargaining rights or a union.
This is well known.
This is right up there with your last position -- namely that salary caps are in place in the NIL and each school has their own. That was a holiday special.
Every college- every collective has a salary cap. None have an endless supply of cash. As I said many times but you can't' process, it's not the same as the NFL.
Who says it has to be fair? Life isn't fair. The system has never been fair. Why are you so focused on fairness when it's never been fair?
The NFL isn't fair. College football isn't fair. Free markets aren't fair.
It's always interesting to see someone like you want politicians and the government to get involved when it's something you care about while whining about it in every other situation.
The NIL process gives players power and the opportunity to earn money- whatever they are worth to other schools in the marketplace. That's America.
See response above about how it's never been fair. Now schools can compete and if they can pay enough money, they have a shot to drastically improve in one year. What a tremendous opportunity.
"Every college- every collective has a salary cap."
That is not a cap. That is a budgetary limitation. A cap is an agreed upon limit to spending by a group of participants regardless of each entity's available budget. There is no such limit in college sports.
"whatever they are worth to other schools in the marketplace. That's America."
That is incorrect. The NIL is not a free market enterprise. It is a pay-to-play system. There is nothing free market about it. It is fans and boosters buying players to help their team win games. There is no value given in exchange for value received which is what free enterprise is all about.
Again, bullshit. You see the same thing from other schools. Woke DEI stupidity. It's all coordinated by those clowns. Even at that hearing, you had presidents of other schools there. UPenn. MIT. NONE of them would say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their schools code of conduct. NOT ONE. They absolutely coordinated their answers. Replace Jews with blacks and I bet they wouldn't give a damn about "context".
Go watch the testimony. Watch those worthless, woke bitches smirk and smile when they say that it depended on the "context" when calling for the genocide of Jews. All three should have been fired immediately and should never be allowed near an institution of "higher" learning again.
They made fools of themselves. But I don't care about Harvard or what the President of Penn thinks.
Those 3 aren't every university. Their stance, or approach isn't the same as the president of USC, or the president at Clemson, or anywhere else. Everyone stands on their own words/feet.
It is a cap. The max you can pay is a cap. It's not the same as the cap in pro sports. There is a limit in college. it's not the same as the limit in pro ball.
It 100% is the free market. Every player is worth whatever they can get someone to pay.
It is not really any different than a company that is willing to pay X dollars to hire an employee versus another company and what they are willing to pay. They might pay a lot more for specific employees. They might pay less. They might overpay. They might underpay. The employee can decide what is best for him/her.
In this case, the players can decide what is best and what they want to play for in the marketplace. They have the power to decide in the free market.
There is value- to the school and people who pay the money. If there was no value to them, they would stop contributing unless they like giving money for absolutely no reason at all- which is doubtful - but that also happens in free markets too sometimes.
The value could be any number of things. Heck, the value could be as simple as securing the players so the competition doesn't secure them. That happens in companies too.
No, no, no, It is not a cap. A cap has to be a limit agreed upon by a group or imposed by a ruling body. Our office Christmas gift cap is $50. I certainly could spend well beyond that if I wanted to but I've agreed to abide by the cap with everyone else.
It is most certainly not a free market situation. Your example is completely bogus. It's apples and toothpicks. You obviously don't understand what a free market is. My guess is you are a gov't employee. In your example employers are bidding on an employee. The employer who hires the employee is doing so in order to receive value for value given. He hopes the new employee with enhance his business and help it make more money. This is completely contrary to NIL. No car dealer is giving Rattler a new car and thousands of $ because he believes by doing so Rattler will help him sell a thousand more cars next year. He is doing this to help his beloved alma mater to buy the best players it can in hopes they win more games. He receives nothing of value for that. This is not a business decision. It is an emotional decision. That car dealer is already someone who gives large amounts of money to the Gamecock Club and for that, receives premium tickets and preferred parking, etc. This is given in benevolence for his favorite school for which he is a fan. This is for entertainment value and not in hopes of receiving a return on his investment.
Now, if, because of his name, Hasbro Corp hired Tonka Hemmingway as a spokesman for its Tonka toy truck line because they feel this would be a valuable marketing tool, then that would be a free market transaction, since Hasbro has no connection to USC and it is purely a business decision.
This proves you have no idea what you are talking about. The only one receiving value is the player and perhaps the university's sports program. The donor is receiving NOTHING of value.
A cap doesn't have to be agreed on by anyone. The word "cap" doesn't imply everyone has to agree. That's your own definition. Your office cap has no bearing on the office next door. They likely have their own cap- it could be $15 or $200 dollars or anything they choose.
Every school has their own cap- the max they are willing to spend. Their cap doesn't impact anyone else.
This is not the NFL. There is no collective bargaining or a union in place. There is no AGREED upon cap in college. But there is a cap- self imposed ones by the schools and collectives themselves. Players have ZERO reason to agree to a system that imposes some arbitrary maximum amount without having their own bargaining rights or union.
I am not a government employee.
you are confused. You have a bad habit of inserting your personal definitions into scenarios. Then you confuse yourself, but you post it like your personal definition matters. It doesn't.
Of course, it's a free market. It's a free market for the players and the schools. Players have the power. They get courted, they get offers on the open market, and they can pick what they think is best. Good for them.
your example of a car dealer spending money on a player is the free market. Nothing about the free market says the business has to make a profit. Nothing about "free market" requires a business to make a good decision. Car dealers and businesses have every right in a free market to make bad business decisions for any reason they so choose.
The simple act of spending money on a player so they can see their team do well with no chance to recoup that money in sold cars is an example of the free market. Businesses make terrible, money losing decisions all the time in free markets, in advertising, in all sorts of things.
but most importantly, it's a free market for the players- and they are the ones who count. Their services are bid on and the player gets to select what makes most sense for their situation.
Welcome to College Football’s Free Market
NIL has created a messy, lawless recruiting marketplace, but that has always been true in college football. Suddenly, the sport is, for everyone, what it’s always been for the people in charge: a business.
www.theringer.com
Last edited:
Let's not confuse "limit", as in "I can't afford anymore", with "cap", as in "I'm not allowed to pay any more".
No, its not my personal definition. A cap is generally accepted in all of business and government as a restriction on spending not an arbitrary limitation.A cap doesn't have to be agreed on by anyone. The word "cap" doesn't imply everyone has to agree. That's your own definition. Your office cap has no bearing on the office next door. They likely have their own cap- it could be $15 or $200 dollars or anything they choose.
Every school has their own cap- the max they are willing to spend. Their cap doesn't impact anyone else.
This is not the NFL. There is no collective bargaining or a union in place. There is no AGREED upon cap in college. But there is a cap- self imposed ones by the schools and collectives themselves. Players have ZERO reason to agree to a system that imposes some arbitrary maximum amount without having their own bargaining rights or union.
I am not a government employee.
you are confused. You have a bad habit of inserting your personal definitions into scenarios. Then you confuse yourself, but you post it like your personal definition matters. It doesn't.
Of course, it's a free market. It's a free market for the players and the schools. Players have the power. They get courted, they get offers on the open market, and they can pick what they think is best. Good for them.
your example of a car dealer spending money on a player is the free market. Nothing about the free market says the business has to make a profit. Nothing about "free market" requires a business to make a good decision. Car dealers and businesses have every right in a free market to make bad business decisions for any reason they so choose.
The simple act of spending money on a player so they can see their team do well with no chance to recoup that money in sold cars is an example of the free market. Businesses make terrible, money losing decisions all the time in free markets, in advertising, in all sorts of things.
but most importantly, it's a free market for the players- and they are the ones who count. Their services are bid on and the player gets to select what makes most sense for their situation.
Welcome to College Football’s Free Market
NIL has created a messy, lawless recruiting marketplace, but that has always been true in college football. Suddenly, the sport is, for everyone, what it’s always been for the people in charge: a business.
You are most definitely sadly mistaken. The fact that players get offers does not make it a free market situation. A free market means it is an arm's length transaction. It also means decisions are made based on what's good for the business. My example of the car dealer is not a free market decision. It is a personal decision by the dealer to benefit his favored school, not to help his business. Free market doesn't mean decisions have to be good ones, nor make a profit. They just have to be made based on business practices. Just ask Budweiser. They made a marketing decision that bit them in the ass. But it was still a business decision that they originally thought would be in their favor and benefit their company. It was made for business reasons, not personal reasons. NIL is just the opposite. These are transactions from Donors and fans made based on personal reasons to help their team buy players. The only ones benefiting financially from these transactions are the players. That, by definition is NOT free market.
They are the same thing in this case.
A school/collective has a limit (a self imposed cap) on how much they can or will pay.
"is generally accepted"
It's not generally accepted in the NIL and college football world. As Shane Beamer said yesterday on the radio - this is all new stuff to everyone. It's wide open right now.
People, you included, or trying to fit your definitions into the college football world right now. It doesn't work.
You are 100% wrong. That's not going to change despite your explanations.
I've already explained the problem with your explanation and I'm not doing it again.
Nothing about the "free market" says that everyone involved has to benefit. That's your own personal definition imposed on the issue- as usual. It's absolute nonsense.
Dubious (to be kind) construction of a well-recognized concept. A cap is something regulatory. I am not regulated by what I can unilaterally change at any time.
Merriam Webster
Cap: "an upper limit "
A cap that is constructed under a legal framework can be regulatory in nature - such as the NFL salary cap.
But, as everyone knows, that is not the college football world at the present time because there is no such legal framework.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a cap in place. There is - a self imposed one.
I'll bet I looked it up before you did. In every context involving athletic remuneration, "caps" are imposed by governing bodies on teams for fiscal and competitive parity reasons. Teams don't impose them on themselves. If they did, they would also be free to change them, including the possibility of unilaterally raising their ceiling, which would nullify what the cap was intended to achieve. In that case, the very concept of a "cap" would be negated. There would be no such thing.
Slow your roll…..one year being really good doesn’t make you nationally relevant except for the year. We saw 3 years straight under Spurrier bit it easily fizzles
Well, I did say "We will see if he (they) can continue it". There's one difference between Missouri and Ole Miss compared to South Carolina under Steve Spurrier. Missouri and Ole Miss are led by young guys in their 40s. South Carolina was led by someone in his late 60s at the sunset of his career. When you think about it from THAT perspective, it's scary to think about.
I bet you didn't.
Not everyone that says the word "cap" meaning a "upper limit" is talking about legal frameworks- as is obvious.
"caps" can be self imposed just as easily as anything else. You don't get to claim your own definition based on how some pro sports leagues use the term.
There is no such structure in college. There is no such structure in many other instances were the term "cap" is used.
of course teams place "caps" on themselves- because in every instance there is an "upper limit" on what they can pay.
What in the world? This reminds me of how "science" bent the word "vaccine" to accommodate their BS during the pandemic. If only you had the power to get to Websters and permanently alter the definition like they did.
Let's not forget that your base argument was over the use of the world "salary cap," not "cap." A "cap" is a universal term which could be applied to most any limit. A salary cap is quite different.
I recall earlier this year you posted a list of four tenets that "leaders" (loosely held) now adhere to which included never admitting you're wrong and/or apologizing. Basically, the framework for sociopathic narcissists. Are you not applying the same framework or is this just another elongated troll?
An entity imposes a spending "cap" on something, say, what they will pay to staff a certain position. Maybe they set this "cap" to satisfy a budgetary standard, or maybe they philosophically considered the job to be only worth a given amount. But it's still a "cap" Then one day, for whatever reason, management says, "Start paying James Smith (the person holding this position) at a 5% higher rate." Now you tell me, WTH kind of a "cap" was that?
Nonsense.
A salary cap in college is whatever limit a school/collective can pay. That's true until some legal framework is developed - if ever.
The entity is the school or collective itself- they impose the cap on themselves.
Caps are designed to be adjusted. That certainly happens in pro sports and always has happened.
The college version simply is whatever upper limit (definition of cap) that is decided upon by those that have a limited amount of money to spend - the school/collective in question.
Your comment has nothing to do with this topic. However...
the examples of politicians and leaders in general never admitting they are wrong is too long to list here. Most politicians are narcissists- some more than others.
Regardless, this topic has nothing to do with no admitting to being wrong.
As always, I disagree with you and your opinion on the subject of a cap or the entire NIL world.
There is a cap. I fully support the NIL environment and the free market we are actually now in.
Your second paragraph renders a "cap" as a mere theoretical concept, really nothing at all. Moot. You've gone beyond laughable with this. Henceforth, I'm talking to the other guy, the nuanced thinker who understands best usage. My age dictates that I spend my time in more availing pursuits. I'll be talking to @Ward Jr. He knows which end is up.
Last edited:
yes, he's a nuanced thinker the same way Barney Fife was an erudite elitist. LOL
I disagree with you. I'm sorry that bothers you. But I don't care.
I'm not explaining the cap that applies to colleges/collectives again. There is one and you or Ward not agreeing there is one meaningless.
Sorry man. This is amazingly nonsensical. It's like arguing that an alligator is a bird.
To think this post was starting with "Folks, This is the NFL...." as if you were going to bestow wisdom upon us? Yikes.
Correct in your own mind maybe. I guess that's all the matters to you.
The NFL and College Football share nothing in common in terms of any salary cap that participants must abide by. The NFL has one. College Football does not. That's one of the main gripes with the NIL.
Your thread starter was wildly incorrect as was your sinking ship argument about salary caps. It's OK to admit you're wrong about something. It actually demonstrates good character.
Well of course it is. Why would I care if you or someone else I don't know agrees or not? LOL
I've said- at least a half a dozen times now that college does not have a salary cap like the NFL. Saying it again for people like you who missed it the first 6 times won't help matters.
Can't make people understand something that are unable to understand simple statements.
College football has a cap- it's whatever the are willing to pay or their collectives can pay.
It was 100% correct and it's still 100% correct. Yours - and others- inability to understand is your own problem.
I wasn't wrong- and haven't been wrong. Your opinion on my character is as irrelevant as a scuff mark in the middle of the interstate.
So why equate the College Football system to the NFL if you want to play silly games about the meaning of salary cap?
Because people like you assume that when someone talks about both entities, that mentioning it means that they have the exact same systems when they clearly don't.
The NFL has a salary cap through regulation and enforcement mechanisms.
College football has a cap based on the max a team/collective is willing to pay.
As I've said 10+ times now. They aren't the same thing. Don't have to be the same thing.
Actually, I am 100% correct. Your bogus opinion is based on the fact that you have no idea what the difference is between a business transaction based on free market principals and personal transactions based on personal desires of the individual. You have ZERO credibility.
As I have said and remains accurate, you force your personal definition into scenarios. You can believe that. No one else needs to because it's made up fiction.
Changing the criteria and rules imposing a cap does not change the definition of "cap". Nobody in this topic has suggested that the NIL cap is or should be the same as an NFL Cap. But to suggest there is a "cap" that can constantly change between entities and even within an individual entity is the very antithesis of a cap.
There is no cap in NIL PERIOD! Every team spends what they want to with no consequences.
There is a cap. It's a self imposed one as has been explained dozens of times now.
Your refusal to accept reality in no way impacts the truth of the fact of the self imposed caps schools/collectives have in place.
You are the one making up fiction and your own definitions. A cap is a cap meaning a specific amount. It cannot change without consequences.
Under you made up bullshit, what would the Cap be for a team who has $1 million in its collectives to spend?
