(09-16-2021 04:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 04:37 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 02:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  I get why fans and many admin would want to keep the 85 limit. I am saying it is not fair and should be stricken down. Limiting the choice of people is not fair. I hope one of these cases throw out this rule and students more choices. It is wrong.

Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

Shouldn't the students be the judge of what is fair? Why should they be limited? If they want to join an ND or Alabama that has a 150 scholarship athletes why should they be stopped? Equity of choices ( allow them to go where they want), not of outcomes. ND should never have to turn away a student athlete if we want them and they want us. I get the "why" people do not want it for their schools, but this is about choices for athletes.

But the competition of the sport will not be fair. The brand programs, or those with the most funding, will have lasting advantages.

In addition, the impacted students’ welfare is only marginally impacted. The 86th-150th choice to Notre Dame will still get a scholarship offer to Northwestern, Boston College, Stanford, etc. It’s not like the kid will miss out on excellent opportunities. You know that these kids already have the choice to play high-level football at 20 or 30 FBS programs. Although you may believe that a Notre Dame education and experience is unparalleled…NW, BC, Stanford, etc. may also have legitimate claims to the same story-line.

Fair? This whole thing is not fair to the student-athletes. I believe every school should sell their brand and experience. But students should not be limited by a number just because. If ND can afford to sign 500 athletes than so be it. If BC can great! No one is stopping them. This is a free market man.

All “free markets” still have rules. You’re letting your passion for Notre Dame football to develop rules that clearly favor your team. Using the guise of supporting student-athletes to help ND football.

(09-16-2021 04:54 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 04:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 04:37 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:57 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Not sure that I understand your definition of fairness. If Notre Dame athletics has excess revenue, it can always give more revenue back to the academic side and provide additional funding for minorities and individuals with financial need. IMO, a true measure of fairness is giving opportunities to the under-served. Allowing brand programs (like ND) to hoard talented football players who will have fewer opportunities to play and develop their skills is just a means of stacking-the-deck in order to have a competitive edge in sports. Scholarship limits (similar to roster limits in professional sports) promotes equitable competition…providing students with more choices is best done with need-based scholarships by academics.

Shouldn't the students be the judge of what is fair? Why should they be limited? If they want to join an ND or Alabama that has a 150 scholarship athletes why should they be stopped? Equity of choices ( allow them to go where they want), not of outcomes. ND should never have to turn away a student athlete if we want them and they want us. I get the "why" people do not want it for their schools, but this is about choices for athletes.

But the competition of the sport will not be fair. The brand programs, or those with the most funding, will have lasting advantages.

In addition, the impacted students’ welfare is only marginally impacted. The 86th-150th choice to Notre Dame will still get a scholarship offer to Northwestern, Boston College, Stanford, etc. It’s not like the kid will miss out on excellent opportunities. You know that these kids already have the choice to play high-level football at 20 or 30 FBS programs. Although you may believe that a Notre Dame education and experience is unparalleled…NW, BC, Stanford, etc. may also have legitimate claims to the same story-line.

Fair? This whole thing is not fair to the student-athletes. I believe every school should sell their brand and experience. But students should not be limited by a number just because. If ND can afford to sign 500 athletes than so be it. If BC can great! No one is stopping them. This is a free market man.

All “free markets” still have rules. You’re letting your passion for Notre Dame football to develop rules that clearly favor your team. Using the guise of supporting student-athletes to help ND football.

It could benefit ND, but that is not really the point. It is either true and fair, or it is not. I believe it is unfair to limit choices.

With all these changes I believe this archaic rule needs to die.

Pardon the observation, but "fair" is a function of whether the same rule applies to everyone equally. Satisfy that.... equally to all schools who otherwise have to abide within the D1 guidelines... equally to all student athletes who would want to play for a D1 school... and you have "fair."

And to the assertion that "Well, sure, but it's not fair that we have all this scholarship money that the guidelines prevent us from giving out to student athletes who would otherwise take it."...

First... "fair" wouldn't be the accurate term. It might not be "right" in a person's opinion, but it's not a matter of "fair."

Then, reduction to the absurd, if you had 500 scholarships to give out but with no earthly hope that the vast majority of those would ever see a single play of actual football, where's the integrity in that?... the point being, there's actual reason to having some limit... the point of a football scholarship is to, naturally, play football.

(09-16-2021 05:25 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Pardon the observation, but "fair" is a function of whether the same rule applies to everyone equally. Satisfy that.... equally to all schools who otherwise have to abide within the D1 guidelines... equally to all student athletes who would want to play for a D1 school... and you have "fair."

And to the assertion that "Well, sure, but it's not fair that we have all this scholarship money that the guidelines prevent us from giving out to student athletes who would otherwise take it."...

First... "fair" wouldn't be the accurate term. It might not be "right" in a person's opinion, but it's not a matter of "fair."

Then, reduction to the absurd, if you had 500 scholarships to give out but with no earthly hope that the vast majority of those would ever see a single play of actual football, where's the integrity in that?... the point being, there's actual reason to having some limit... the point of a football scholarship is to, naturally, play football.

Nice words... But in the end this should all be the players choice. They should be afforded more power to decide where they want to play, not less. If they do not get the amount of game time then they can transfer.

No offense, but "nice words" is not an actual counterpoint. And repeating assertions already stated isn't either.

If you give me some actual counterpoint to chew on, I promise, I have the humility to chew on it and reconsider. (And yes, I'm proud of that, as oxymoronic as that may be.) (Do you?)

(09-16-2021 05:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  No offense, but "nice words" is not an actual counterpoint. And repeating assertions already stated isn't either.

If you give me some actual counterpoint to chew on, I promise, I have the humility to chew on it and reconsider. (And yes, I'm proud of that, as oxymoronic as that may be.) (Do you?)

You refuted nothing and you provided a shallow argument. Getting philosophical on the "fair" word did not reduce the the truism of the argument of freedom of association (not in a constitutional manner). If an individual wants to associate with a college and the college wants them why should you have the power to tell them no?

My only premise is that in a society of free-people, the student athletes, much like their (regular college student) counterparts throughout the country should be able to choose the school they want to play for. No matter the scholarship numbers.

The only argument you have is for restriction of student rights and I do not agree with that. If you restrict numbers, you restrict movement. Hence, the statement of "nice words". They mean nothing because you are advocating for less freedom.

The only complaints are mostly from school fans that will be affected. That is not a reason to restrict choice. You call it absurd, while call it the market. The argument you presented while nicely presented really did not veer to far off anyone else's points made previously.

(09-16-2021 05:52 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 05:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  No offense, but "nice words" is not an actual counterpoint. And repeating assertions already stated isn't either.

If you give me some actual counterpoint to chew on, I promise, I have the humility to chew on it and reconsider. (And yes, I'm proud of that, as oxymoronic as that may be.) (Do you?)

You refuted nothing

That's simply not a credible response. It's a defensive one. But/and it's not credible.

Credible would be that you acknowledge that it's not a matter of "fair," but of your sense of right.

And that you acknowledge that it is reasonable to assert that giving out football scholarships ought to actually be anticipated to be given to players under the rational expectation that they'll have a chance to... yes, you got it... play football.

Now, if you want to discuss what is a reasonable limit, that's up for a good adult debate.

But my takeaway (correct me if I got it wrong) had been that you're asserting that limits aren't reasonable, period.

(09-16-2021 05:52 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  and you provided a shallow argument.

You'd have to actually give some reason that it's that. You don't get to just throw out the word "shallow," and as-if a voice on Mt. Sinai, it's so. Real, productive adult conversation tries to stay away from characterizations of the other person's assertion, and just deal with the substance itself.

(09-16-2021 05:52 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Getting philosophical on the "fair" word did not reduce the the truism of the argument of freedom of association (not in a constitutional manner). If an individual wants to associate with a college and the college wants them why should you have the power to tell them no?

To the first part of that... nor did it attempt to. The term gets thrown around pretty often in this era where "fairness" and "equality" tends to be so authoritative as to preempt any reasoned discussion.

To the second part of that... it might help for context to know that I have very similar libertarian inclinations.

But what I don't see in your calculus so far... institutions also have rights, just as individuals do. Your employer, for instance, normally has complete autonomy to decide how many employees are too many, and whether you're already employed, or whether you've only applied, it's their call, not yours, whether you should get to be or remain on their payroll.

And even using your own direct analogy, just because my desired school doesn't give me a football scholarship obviously doesn't keep me from being admitted. If I want to go there--assuming, of course, I meet the rest of their standards--that will happen.

So much of your response needs to take this into account, and either offer some counterpoint or have the integrity to reconsider your position.

(09-16-2021 05:52 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  My only premise is that in a society of free-people, the student athletes, much like their (regular college student) counterparts throughout the country should be able to choose the school they want to play for. No matter the scholarship numbers.

(Repeating yourself again.)

I'll try to limit repeating myself.

Key point: "play for."

If there's a legitimate chance the student athlete might play, and the coaches want him, I can buy that.

But that it's a literal impossibility that every student athlete would ever make the field, it is logical that a limit be established that applies... fairly... across all of the D1 subdivision.