(12-07-2014 06:25 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote: (12-07-2014 01:41 PM)Benchwarmer Owl Wrote: This situation sounds much more like a failure of capitalism than a failure of socialism or communism (which are two different concepts). A socialist system would divide the riches among all of the conferences without regard for conference strength and television ratings. The current playoff system and the bowl system reward the rich as measured by strength on the field and television ratings.
So much this.
I agree that the system of shutting out the G5 and pretty completely making them into a distinct second class of D1 football is terrible.
This has little to no relation to either communism or socialism, and is in fact much closer to a moneyed elite using developing market forces to push people further and further down, like classic robber baron capitalism (and contemporary capitalism).
Socialism, Communism, and Marxism are also grossly misunderstood. Nobody has better appreciated and articulated the value of a hard day's work than Karl Marx. See especially the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
Thanks for the posts so far. If this was in the Quad, then almost no one would see it, even less would post much comment, so appreciate keeping it here, as the analogy is what's currently happening in football.
To the above comments: I can certainly understand how at first glance the learned knee-jerk reaction is to label the system as "capitalism out of control," but my point of perspective digs deeper than surface reactions.
A leftist asserts their goal is a level, fair playing field for all, and that they and they alone (the leftist intellectual elite) are the only ones best suited or even capable of deciding the rules and the relative merits and best "placements" of the participants.
Keep in mind the CFP "Committee" (and how they got there--it wasn't merit, it was commie cronyism) when reading my thoughts:
As Hillary famously told Dennis Hastert on the original attempt at healthcare: "But we can't let the people control and make equal decisions on their own healthcare dollar spending--we know better how they should be spending their money," and what opportunities they should have.
Let's bring the CFP analogy back and see how that fits: "But we can't let all the teams control and make equal decisions on their own football destinies--we know better who the haves and have-nots should be and what opportunities they should have." Hence P5 and G5 come into being as labels. And bowl opportunities are segregated. "Separate but equal?"
To me a true capitalist would say: "The field is open to everyone who wants to play the games. No one is forced to do anything. The merits of each team/school will be decided on the field, not in the backrooms. The best team will end up being the champion, no matter who it happens to be or what they happen to 'look' like." Think "Hoosiers," if you have a hard time understanding. Indiana State HS championship open to all teams, no favoritism or handicaps. Yes, some teams are smaller, some are bigger; some richer/some poorer. etc...etc... Tell me, who did you root for in the Coliseum scene in "Gladiator"? Here's the ball. There's the field of play. You have the same clock as everyone else. The rest is up to you.
Owl 69/70 and Ham and RuOwls have posted numerous times about how Rice needs to utilize it's athlete's brains better with more creative styled scheming and play-making that we can use to neutralize the bigger school's advantage. That's the spirit of entrepreneurship in capitalism. A leftist argument as to what Rice should do would be: 'Rice should invest in lobbyists to have a handicap added to its scores before each game of "x" points to compensate for the fact that it is a small more academically focused school.' Or 'Rice should lobby for 5 downs per possession instead of four since it is at an inherent disadvantage to most of the big schools it plays.'
I know--look at how ridiculous that sounds. But replace a few words and you get: 'X group should have favored status for contracts since they are at a disadvantage.' It's the same thing. We wouldn't accept it as anything but ludicrous for a football game, but in society many insist on the very same idea. That's the part that amazes me and other capitalists.
Limiting competition is
not a capitalistic concept. Despite what you may have been taught or believe, no true capitalist wants to limit competition. They want to compete against the best of everyone. Ask most any entrepreneur or small businessman. Like most successful "up-and-comer" type of football coaches, they treat games against the "big Boys as opportunities to win and make a name for themselves, not practice exercises to be endured. Limiting competition is actually a form of social elitism, or oligarchism.
A true capitalist is not afraid of all-comers competition, on the football field or in life, because they do not feel they need to game the system to be the best.
A coward seeks to bend the rules and create special categories/ quotas and favored groups to game the system and alter the game in their favor, because they know they cannot win if all things were equal. That is the very nature of the leftist/socialist manifesto. The lie is that it is done to "help" the poor. Instead, it creates artificial rules and a "system of purported fairness" which is inherently unfair, creating inequality and resentment, along with creating an upper ruling class that is most often not truly deserving. And worst, a socialist system hurts the poor and have-nots worst of all, but lowering their expectations and belief in themselves. By telling them the "need" these favors and quotas to be able to compete. Instead of working and investing and learning how to be a better football team or player, they come to depend and rely on the system for their status. Their confidence and belief in themselves erodes, and their ability to persevere through difficult hardship to get better is vanquished. All in the name of helping them compete.
You run 100 yard dash. You pay the winner with a trophy and title of "fastest 100 yard dasher." But what about the poor guy who has no legs--it's not fair to him? What about the guy with asthma, he needs special drugs to help him be more equal. What about the guy who always got picked last for his teams in school--it's not fair to him because, well, because. What about women-they can't run as fast-that's just not fair.
So, we give them all special categories, different standards of how far they each have to run to win the 100-yard dash. Start some at the 50 yard line. Start some at the 30. Start some at the 10, etc... Oh, and the people who get to decide--to choose--are an intellectual elite who by and large know little about the actual experiential paradigm of the various classes they themselves decided to create or designate. But fear not, they've read lots of the "right" books and internet articles produced by these who overwhelmingly agree with their skewed point of view, science and actual facts be damned, they have been "approved" to be elite as they attended the right schools and universities, and they all had the right friends appoint them to the elite ruling board or Committee, and really, shouldn't you just "trust them?" That's how those in Communism/Marxism/socialism maintain their power.
How about just running the race, everyone gets the same shot, and the best man (or woman) wins, no quotas, no handicaps, no whining? But we can't have that, because it would be "WRONG." Or so we have been told by much of our education system. A coward fears pure competition. A Leader and a capitalist fears no contest on an equal field. Football or life.
The examples you try to cite of what you THINK capitalism is, are actually anything but capitalistic. They share more in common with leftist "picking and choosing winners" approach, whether in football or in other areas, than with true capitalism, which is always may the best person win, fear no competition.
I understand you may think this idea of capitalism is off, but then, remember who has been teaching most of you about capitalism. They probably were not capitalists themselves at the time, if they ever were. They likely sought out a "protected" status with concepts like "tenure" and "academic notoriety" to insulate themselves from the consequences of the market. A capitalist's tenure is a won contest. They are confident enough in their abilities that they don't need to wimp out.
Long time ago, a very wise old and successful salesman said: "The sale is considered made when the check clears the bank and doesn't bounce. You don't 'book' anything one second before- because it is not real until that moment. It is a phantom otherwise. Debt is for suckers, and people who fear partners or are insecure and impatient in their own abilities. The man not willing to risk losing what he has to invest is a coward, and seeks to ride free on the backs of others. The fight belongs to the man in the arena, willing to muddy himself, and accept the consequences of failure. Accrual is baloney--that's why there's so much wealth robbing in societies." I would tend to agree with his assessment.
/
College Football and Communism
College Football and Communism 
