Fisking The Internet On CAPA

Submitted by Brian on March 27th, 2014 at 12:36 PM


we're going to have a picture of Kain Colter at this press conference from ALL THE ANGLES

BiSB's terrific post earlier today covers much of the ground I wanted to, except from a lawyer who actually knows what he's talking about. I did want to put my two cents in, because approximately 74% of the comments I've read in the aftermath of the NLRB's decision make me want to find the person and shake them, shouting something along the lines of "HAVE YOU EVER MADE A COHERENT ARGUMENT IN YOUR GODDAMNED LIFE?!?"

So let's address these things. These are actual MGoBlog user comments. I'd say I'm sorry if I picked yours, but I'm not.


I could definitely see Northwestern arguging that football athletes shouldn't get special treatment over all the other sports, etc and just dropping it the way Chicago did.

So… your theory is that Northwestern will drop football, get kicked out of the Big Ten, lose about 99% of their athletics revenue, and pay for its nonrevenue sports out of its own pocket because the football players have the right to collectively bargain. The people making this decision will be throwing away countless hours of free marketing, making their school less attractive to prospective students, and essentially firing themselves.

Seems likely.

Wow. Stupid. So long college sports as we know it.

"So long the Olympics as we know it." –this guy, 1992

No way is the third string back-up tackle as valuable as Jake Ryan or Devin Gardner. Why should a guy who contributes little to victory receive the same level of pay that a Gardner does?

Also, this will basically destroy the MAC  and other small schools. They don't have the budget to negotiate anything. I foresee schools dropping football or going to non-scholarship.

This is an argument that the future system might be unfair because it treats all athletes the same when some of them are worth more than others. I'm sure if we think about this very hard for a very long time I can come up with a flaw in that.

The MAC may not be able to provide the same sort of financial support that bigger schools can. This will undoubtedly crater their recruiting, which features many head-to-head wins against the Big Ten.

Won't this cripple many athletic departments and force them to drop sports? Perhaps not Michigan, but schools of lesser stature?

Maryland recently dropped several sports.

There are broad swathes of schools playing NCAA sports, and most of them are going to be completely unaffected by this decision. To be an employee you have to be involved in economic activity, and most NCAA schools are spending, not making money. The top and vast bottom are going to be fine. There is a middle tier of schools that face a choice between narrowing their focus to keep up with the Joneses and abandoning their dreams of being Louisville.

The problem is: they already face that choice. They run with a D-I minimum of sports and throw their resources at the revenue generators. This won't "cripple" them any more than their already short resources do.

Maryland dropped several sports because it was run by an idiot, a problem orthogonal to this discussion.

if this decision stands they will have just walked tens of thousands of student athletes right out of college sports.  title IX will be effectively gutted.   your daughter that wanted to row/field hockey/basketball, etc, kiss that good bye.  your son who wanted to play a sport that really doesn't generate revenue, say gymnastics, wrestling, and track,   well that's all done too.  nice job [insert expletives here].

There are 311 Division II institutions that make zero money on sports. There are 449 D III institutions. There are hundreds—thousands—of D-II and D-III field hockey, rowing, basketball, gymnastics, wrestling, and track programs. The chance that a high revenue program that has to deal with a player union is forced to drop sports is very low, and the overall number of opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics is not likely to change in any significant way.

And even if it did, I don't think there's any compelling reason to privilege generally wealthy nonrevenue athletes over the general student population and especially the relatively poor and underprivileged revenue athletes.



The athletes do not draw in the money. The name does. Michigan Football brings in the revenue. I didn't watch Denard any more closely than Sheridan. I don't watch Derrick Walton more often than Darius Morris. Have you ever said you were going to stop tuning in because a player left? Probably not, so it's not the players drawing in the money. The coaches play a big role, because they determine which players get recruited and how well the team performs (more fans watched Beilein than Amaker, for example).

Lots of players come and go every year, and the amount of revenue is not affected.

The hell you say. Traffic patterns during the last two football seasons here certainly indicate a correlation between success and engagement, and while football teams have a pile of goodwill built up all you have to do is look at ticket availability at Minnesota versus Wisconsin, or Northwestern, or Purdue, or Indiana to get an idea that the players make the name over a long period of time. If Michigan had a string of 3-9 seasons over the last 30 years, Michigan Stadium would be a decaying half-full wreck.

Meanwhile, I note you compared Derrick Walton to… uh… Darius Morris. I will expect a full report on the details of Gavin Groninger's career by Tuesday, in exacting detail.

So a 4 year full ride scholarship is not getting paid? This concept is a mockery of the system.

It may or may not be a 4 year full ride, and that full ride is not like getting an engineering degree (most of the time—I see you, Jordan Morgan). Many of the kids coming in are under-prepared to get a meaningful degree and have to spend 50 hours a week year round on their chosen sport. For many the value of their degree is approximately zero, both in terms of vocational knowledge gained and their ability to apply that to a real world job.

This is not because they did not "take advantage of their opportunity." It is because the opportunity was to play football and the rest of it was window dressing.

Also, CAPA was arguing that the scholarship is payment. The issue is that these players are compensated, making them employees, and the NCAA illegally colludes to cap compensation at a certain amount. That is not legal.

And the system is a mockery of you, man.

It's not free labor, they pay them in the form of education, meals, $1,200 month stipend, etc. Nobody is telling these kids that they can't go to college unless they play football, they can take the normal route and get student loans and be a normal student. That's what grinds my gears about the whole thing.

They are telling them that this is the deal, take it or leave it, if you want to get to the NFL. And oh by the way as you're embarking on your probably-failed quest to have an NFL career that's going to be about 3 years long even if you do make it, we are going to make millions of dollars off your single outstanding skill.

It is ludicrous that everyone in college is all about getting theirs and we bristle at the idea of the players doing the same. Any moral high ground the NCAA had—and they did try to cap assistant pay back in the day—is 20 years gone.



I wonder what cut the IRS will get from these Unionized employees

lets say 50000 a year for tuition, food, room, board, books and everything else

thats 50000 x .25 since thats 25 percent tax bracket = 12500 taxes

12500 x 4 = 50000 taxes owed

good luck kid

This was capably addressed by BiSB: the NLRB has nothing to do with the IRS and vice versa, and even if it did the way the law is currently written athletic scholarships should already be taxable. If anything, negotiating a provision that the scholarship still applies even if the player leaves the team puts the non-taxability of scholarship on more solid footing. Meanwhile, room and board money is already taxed.

What happens when needs aren't met? Strike? What happens then?

What prevents players from sitting down now? 

If the medical benefits, etc. that these players want really comes to fruition, what is that going to do to ticket prices?  The schools are going to try to come up with some sort of calculations as to what these new benefits to the players is going to cost and almost certainly try to figure out where the money is going to come from to fund the new player benefits.  Odds are it's going to be the consumer (ie - fans) that are going to be asked to help fund the new player benefits.

If ticket prices had any relationship to the cost of supporting the athletic department they would not have quadrupled in real dollars since 2000. If NCAA athletic departments were not trying to wring out every last dime they can already, Rutgers and Maryland would not be joining the Big Ten next year to the outrage of 90% of current Big Ten fans. If athletic departments could not afford to shift some of their money towards the athletes under their care, coaching salaries would not have gone up 70% since 2006.

Does this mean that Northwestern can fire all of their underperforming players and replace them with better ones now?




March 27th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^

That's fair, but an extended rut wouldn't be because of any one group of players, because that rut would have included years of players.  A rut would be due to poor leadership, either from the AD or coaching staff.  Extended success or failure has a lot more to do with the HC and his staff than it does the players, mostly because the HC and his staff are in charge of choosing and recruiting the players.  

The example I used in that post was that Texas doesn't see a revenue change between Vince Young Rose Bowl Texas and 2013 Texas.  Because Longhorns fans love the Longhorns, not just the guys they happen to trot out this year.

Come On Down

March 27th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^

True, but you could make the same argument about employees of a corporation.

Take a widely read newspaper like Washington Post as an example. As am employer, the Washington Post lends a certain amount of credibility and value to its employees. A person who writes for the paper is valued not necessarily because of anything that he or she may have done personally, but because of a track record that spans several decades. The trust people have in the newspaper is not derived from or dependent on any one reporter in particular yet each employee is seen as having an economic value to the organization.

Athletics is no different, the current value of a department is not the direct result of an action taken by anybody up to and including the athletic director himself. This does not mean, however, that a group of people participating in the enterprise shouldn't be seen as making valuable contributions. 


March 27th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^

That's not a bad analogy, but I agree with you that most people grab whatever newspaper they grab not because of the particular writers, but because that's the paper they like the most.  

Although an individual writer has a lot more impact on a newspaper than an individual player does to a football team, and a college football team sees far more turnover than a newspaper does.  Someone might like reading a column they've been reading for 6 years, or like the sports guy who has been covering their team for a decade.  

Here's one big way that's different - if your favorite columnist left the Detroit Free Press to do write for the Detroit News, you're probably going to continue liking him and reading his column, right?  But when Boren transferred to OSU, you sure didn't continue cheering for him.  He was the same player!  But the name on the front was different, so now he was the enemy.  Same thing with Ryan Mallett.  I have a feeling the Michigan fans saw Mallett differently with Arkansas than when he was with Michigan.

Come On Down

March 27th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

But isn't that beside the point?

Your argument, as I understand it, is that players should not be considered employees because they are not the primary driver the ADs profit. The source of the profit is the brand. You would continue to support the brand whether it had the current roster or any other 85 guys under the sun.

My argument is that the players collectively are the brand and the collective output of the players over time determines the value of the brand. So, even if the players do not stay at the school for very long they still serve as the primary reason for the profits and should be treated as such. 


March 27th, 2014 at 2:29 PM ^

My argument has nothing to do with whether or not they should be employees, just whether or not their are responsible for the bulk of the revenue.  I see statements such as "football generated millions in revenue that isn't shared with the people who generate it."  This is the statement I disagree with.  I don't think the players generate most of the revenue.  It's like when I go to see a my favorite musical on Broadway.  Sure, the talent is great, but I don't go to see those particular actors, since they are all different than the last time I saw the show, I go to see the show.  The actors aren't completely interchangeable, and they bring value.  But they aren't generating the bulk of the revenue.  The "show" is, and althought the show contains actors, it is essentially the same as the actors change.  

Ivan Karamazov

March 27th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^

How would your enjoyment of your favorite musical on Broadway change if you knew that the actors were not being compensated in a fair manner for the talent that they provide?

And to your point on "the bulk of the revenue"; just because I don't generate the bulk of the revenue for my employer doesn't mean my compensation for contributions should stay the same as revenues increase.  At the very least, if my employer disagrees with my desire for increased compensation I should be able to have a discussion with them to discuss the issues at hand. 

Ivan Karamazov

March 27th, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^

Should the athletic departments impose an open market on addtional benfits based upon contributions? I dont think so because that is entirely too drastic and unreasonable given the current state of college athletics.  On the other hand if Jabrill Peppers jerseys start selling like hotcakes in Ohio is it unfair for him to have the right to negotiate for a portion of those revenues?


March 27th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

If the actors on the Broadway show haven't left for another gig, I will assume they're fairly compensated.  That's how that stuff works.  If someone is willing to pay you more (for a comparable job), you leave and go there.  If no one is willing to pay you more, you stay.  I've had bad jobs with bad pay or poor working environment.  I took the job because I couldn't find a better one.  I left when I did.  

If your employer is making more money, but they decide that their increase in revenue isn't because of you, then they shouldn't give you a raise.  Just because a company has a revenue increase doesn't mean they need to give every employee in every department a raise.   


March 27th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^

But you knew that before you took the job on Broadway.  You knew what the pay was, and you said, "yes, that sounds good to me."  In my opinion, you can't decide you want to change it later.  It was a deal, and you accepted it.  You can leave if you want, but you can't change the deal.


March 27th, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^

Nonsense.  No high school graduate who wants to play football professionally has to go to a university to do so.  There are any number of semi-pro leagues he can play in.

It is true that he won't have the exposure, coaching, or facilities that the colleges offers, but he wouldn't be under NCAA restrictions, either.  He could make millions for his team and thus millions for himself... if he is worth millions.


March 27th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^

But your going to need to write another fleecing to all the awesomely entertaining, highly thoughtful, insanely credible responses that will no doubt spawn from this thread.


March 27th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^

To some extent, the poster that talked about us watching Michigan football because it's Michigan football and not to watch a specific player has a point. We know and like the players, but how many of you are really turning on Jacksonville games just to watch Henne play? Or New England just for Brady? Or Indianapolis when Hart was subbing in at RB? Do I think the players should be able to sell their likeness while in college? Sure, why not? Do I think all monies should be out into a trust until they graduate? Yep. But the idea that these players are valuable because of who they are is patently false. They're valuable because of what they represent, which is UM. Send Denard to CMU, and nobody's buying jerseys (except CMU fans obv, but in much smaller numbers).


March 27th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

I do. I have watched games featuring all three of those teams solely to watch each of those players you mentioned. I'll watch every Patriots game that's on solely becuase of Brady and I definitely didn't do that before he got there. I tuned into Colts preseason games ro catch a glimpse of Hart. My interest in them is becuase they played for Michigan and becuase of what they did when they were here. How much press coverage or airtime do you think Northern Illinois would've had gotten the last year without Jordan Lynch as their QB?


March 27th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^

I do too, but I don't think that changes the overall point.  I watch them because they were Michigan, not for any other reason.  Them doing well reflects well on Michigan.  Supported Hart and Brady in the NFL is cheering for an extension of Michigan football.  

But as much as I loved Brady at Michigan, when he left, I didn't cheer for Michigan any less the following year.  I didn't buy fewer tickets or tune in to fewer games.  Every year there is roughly a 25 player turnover, but my attention is not altered in the slightest.  Think of your 5 favorite Michigan players of all time:  Did you watch less Michigan football the year after they left?  If your asnwer is no, then their existence played a very small role in how much revenue the team brought in that year, because you were watching for the Team, not for them.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

But I think the rooting interest is in part because the best players UM got won a bunch of games, making it enjoyable for you to root for them.  When I was at UM and the basketball team was muddling through seasons, rarely did the arena sell out and fandom was down.  I don't want to discredit anyone's level of passion for UM, but "love for the university" and "love for winning" are probably more synonymous than most likely to admit.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^

I don't think so, because I cheer for the ex-M players who didn't win just as much as the ones who did.  Denard won less than most any of the other M players in the NFL, and I cheer for him plenty just as much.  

I agree that winning makes a big difference, so basketball is a lot different than football (which is what this who issue focuses on) because of the variance in basketball attendance, but even that can be attributed more to the coach than to the players.  

We cheer for the players because we like them.  But we like them because the played at Michigan, not the other way around.  None of us would be huge Denard fans had he chosen a rival.  OTOH, had Sammy Watkins picked us instead of Clemson, we'd be talking about him like crazy leading up to the draft, but instead we're not.  There is a constant influx of players, but we like them pretty much the same every year.


March 27th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^

I agree that people do cheer for alumni regardless of success to a degree, but a major reason you do cheer for Denard and co. is because you have fond memories of them, and while they didn't win as much as others, they certainly weren't horrible players or failed to produce some memorable moments at the school.  And I think that most fans don't cheer for everyone the same; personally, I'd boo the sh*t out of Braylon if he ever got back into the NFL because he strikes me as kind of a jerk.  At some point, a UM player will do something pretty horrible in the NFL and not everyone will cheer for him even if he was a winner.  

Obviously we root for players who played at UM over those on other programs, but I guess my point is that a major reason we are "fans" of UM is because it had a winning football team.  And I think the fandom argument also ignores somewhat the major issue here, which is how to fairly compensate these people who play a sport for our team, and do so in such a way that we are proud of them and, by extension, the school they represent.  It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation, and one that probably will always be at the root of this debate.  But I tend to believe that while I cheer for my alma mater, I do it more because they were good at football and I have a positive association with them.


March 27th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^

as WolvinLA2 posted somewhere else, while the players obviously had a lot to do with the increased success of Michigan basketball, how much of that success should be credited to John Beilein?  Are those players coming to Michigan if Tommy Amaker is still the coach?  If those players do come to Michigan and Amaker's the coach, does last year's team make the Final Four?

That's a lot of hyypothetical's but I don't think one can say that the increased success of the Michigan basketball team is solely due to the players.


March 27th, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^

I would never say the players are "solely" responsible for the team's success, but they definitely have an outsized influence and should have some stake in the proceeds of those efforts that are greater than the relatively small amount they receive now.  I don't think anyone is saying the football team should divide up however many millions the AD brought in last year from ticket sales and TV revenue and nobody else should receive it.  But fandom is so tied to winning and success that while people may say they cheer for the laundry, part of the reason that laundry is so appealing to you is because you have fond memories of the people in that laundry doing well.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

M went 2-7, let's say (1962 record) for eight years in a row, I don't know if I would follow M with the same voracity. It's not JUST the name, but some kind of success associated with the name, as well.

I do turn on Pats because of Brady, but that's because of Brady coming from M, and a history of success.

M with shitty players probably wouldn't be the same M; the players do matter.

I agree on players selling their likeness -- and the NCAA says it thinks this will sully the purity of amateur sports. Excuse me while I look for a barf bucket.


March 27th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^

I have no sympathy for the universities, or the NCAA for that matter.  They are getting what they deserve.

I deal with unions for a living.  The number one reason why a group seeks to unionize is that they are not happy with the way that supervision treats them.  This whole thing boils down to this point.  If the NCAA (the "supervisor") didn't make such a convoluted mess of rules, regulations, policies with the universities turning the other way, it would never have come to this.

But beware, college players.  Unions are businesses, they are in it for one  And this is a big money grab.  You will now be dues paying members.  Good luck being able to get a hold of your business agent when you need him.  Good luck dealing with the fact that you will be treated just like everyone else, regardless of your talents and achievements.  And I wouldn't trust them to fiscally manage anything correctly or honestly.  Just ask the millions of union members who are dependent on the Central States Pension Fund for their retirement, which is underfunded by about $17 billion.



March 27th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^

Technically yes...but the drive by the athletes to look into this was due to the painfully convoluted structure that the NCAA has built, which are, in effect, the "rules of the supervisor".  NU and all other universities give tacit approval by establishing their own rules to remain in compliance with NCAA regulations.  Take the whole RichRod issue and the athletic dept compliance office...why does that office even exist?  To satisfy the NCAA and it's rules structure.

Both the NCAA and the universities created the pain.  Union organizers are trained to hunt this angst out in work forces.  Now here come the consequences.



March 27th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^

It's absolutely clear that something is rotten in NCAA-land.

But is a union the answer?

I think tearing down the restrictions/denials of the athlete's earning power would go a long way to a more equitable treatment of major college athletes.

Why couldn't Denard do commercials?  That attempt to quash all competition for marketing dollars by the hypocrites in the NCAA and member universities is at the heart of the problem.

Bo used to say, identify the problem, and then fix only that.

Replacing one set of Rube Goldberg rules with another isn't the answer, IMO.


March 27th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^

athletes don't spend 50 hours a week, year round, on their chosen sport. That is a lie. There may be outliers but the far majority is well below that made up number, especially football players.

French West Indian

March 27th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^

College football players have just been legally ruled as "employees", a potential sea change in the sporting landscape of America that could lead directly to the demise of college football...and a blog that makes it living as a parasite of college football is excited about the change?

Yeah, fight the power and all...but be careful of what you wish for.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

had the same level of concern for unknowable outcomes as do college sports fans. There, I would consider it well-placed. Here, not so much. The NCAA has had 50 years to address the aspects of college sports that infuriate people, and it has done nothing. Time to reap the whirlwind.


March 27th, 2014 at 9:29 PM ^

the cheap shot was intended for the reasoning process that goes "We better maintain a plainly hypocritical system of organizing college sports because if we try to redress its transparent shortcomings who knows what might happen."

I chose the FDA out of the blue (not our blue) as an agency that I WISH would be more anally retentive about exercising its regulatory powers.

With some trepidation at sidetracking the discussion, a quick search digs up an admittedly advocacy sight, ,

with the following general comments easily confirmable at multiple other sources (ie, this isn't the first time I've encountered the following):

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently lists 3,000 food additives approved for food use in the United States . . .

But is also important to note that while the FDA lists some additives that are approved for food use, many more additives are never approved by the FDA. There is actually very little oversight for many of the additives and other ingredients in our food supply. The term GRAS refers to “generally regarded as safe,” the moniker the FDA uses to regulate food additives, dyes, and preservatives . . . the GRAS designation is a voluntary process—instead of being required to register food additives, companies can notify the FDA about their product, but only if they so choose.

n 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the FDA is not ensuring the safety of many chemicals.


March 28th, 2014 at 8:01 AM ^

I'm familiar with the GRAS designaiton and it's very useful (my MS is in RA and I work with, not for, FDA).  Most people don't have a clue as to what FDA regulatory oversight means though, and be careful what you ask for.  Obtaining clinical data on the safety of hundreds of thousands of existing food additives as well as the new ones that are made each year isn't really feasible, and the agency doesn't have enough funding to enforce the already existing regs.   GRAS is a real time saver for the manufacturer and a real money saver for the consumer.  


March 29th, 2014 at 5:47 AM ^

I have to say that I was speaking from what I would call the common wisdom that real food quality regulation is possible or meaningfully exists; what you are pointing out is that the scale of industry practices is far beyond the point that meaningful regulation is politically and economically, or perhaps even physically, possible.

I suppose my real kvetch is that the illusion of regulation is more-or-less maintained while the reality is, plainly, nonexistent. I would be better off commenting on the political economy of pet food, where I have made at least a slight effort to be informed. In this case, I have come to realize that, after arrogating to themselves the role of licensing and regulation, many state governments have promptly delegated that responsibility to advocacy entities for industries that they are supposed to be regulating. Consequently, industrial perogatives acquire the force of law. The most flagrant example of this, off the top of my head, is the not-yet legally mandated AVMA raw-food policy which becomes the source of speaking points for every vet licensed through a system essentially managed by the AVMA. This policy is written not by dieticians or even vets, but by people whose expertise is marketing and whose loyalty is to corporations who are locked into a symbiotic economic relationship both with the finances of the AVMA and with the business model of most AVMA-schooled vets. Pets and pet-owners have no dedicated advocates inside this system. My inherent naivety requires me to be constantly shocked at the pervasive self-misrepresentation (unconscious or otherwise) of all the players in this system.


March 29th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^

The way the regs are written there's supposed to be self-enforcement, and companies are supposed to stay current with the science and the compliance.  It doesn't always happen, of course.  FDA enforcement is mainly reactive, however, but when they do come down they usually come down hard.  Most medium sized business don't survive, small businesses have to close up.  Usually only deep pocketed pharmas or food companies can survive the beat down. 

I understand where you're coming from and your point is valid.  There's a lot of sausage being made.

French West Indian

March 27th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.


If there is no college football, is there an Mgoblog?  Yet what does Mgoblog contribute to college football?   Best case it that it fills in some gaps of our collective knowledge base.  But that could also be spun as contributing to the growing obsessiveness with college sports and placing an unnecessary burden upon the student athlete by feeding the insatiable beast that is the contemporary fan.  This blog (and others too) have played a role in increasing the interest in college sports and that has brought even more money into the game.  Money which furthers the corruption of the "student-athlete" model and now appears headed for collapse.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^

Odd to ask the question "what does MGoBlog contribute to college football?" and then like two sentences later say "this blog (and others too) have played a role in increasing the interest in college sports and that has brought even more money into the game."

Parasite: I do not think it means what you think it means.


March 27th, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^

If you honestly think college football is disappearing because of this ruling, I don't know what to tell you except that it will take a way bigger stone than that to fell this giant.

I don't disagree about the "parasite" argument, but then again LOTS of industries exist in this country that benefit from a system that may be inconsistent with all of their positions.  I'm looking at you, the prison system.