(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.