Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

College athletes "Juneteenth" has arrived:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1000310043/the-supreme-court-sides-with-ncaa-athletes-in-a-narrow-ruling

Seeing this shake out is going to be fascinating!

it seems pretty clear the "Other Nike"  will eventually step on the NCAA's ability to control pricing and paying student-athletes.

its tough to rationalize anti-trust powers screwing college athletes.

But somehow the SEC and B1G will prosper as the rich usually find a way to get richer.

It may be on a team basis above a league basis. The Big Flexible and Undetermined Amount and God's Conference may do better generally, but a prize 5 star prospect interested in monetizing his status ain't choosing Indiana or Purdue over Ohio State. Or Arkansas over Alabama or LSU.

I expect Bama and Duke and tOSU will all do fine, But, and this is the point, IU or whomever, can become a player for the 5-star recruits with price competition for talent. Business is business. And if IU can offer a better financial package than a traditional power, I wouldthink a 18 YO kid would have to listen. $500K per year at IU or free room and board at tOSU?
You'd have to give it some thought.

Shit, how much would you as the President of Clemson ok, for the school to pay Trevor Lawrence?

His value to the school had to be close to $100 million or more. And he got room and board and the NCAA deciding whether seconds on spaghetti was a breech of the rules.

Steinbrenner discovered the secret to rebuilding the Yankees in the 70s, and others soon followed.

My point is the financial packet is likely to be better at tOSU or Alabama because of their profiles. Or to use your example,.where do you think the financial opportunities would have been better for Lawrence, Clemson or Wake Forrest?

[facilitatorn]

Is it worth more to a Bama, Clemson, or OSU to by a team that stays on top than it is to a Purdue to buy one that surpasses them? However schools try to play that game, the more money from the programs that goes to the athletes directly, the better. There’s a good chance the whole thing breaks the sport on the collegiate level which I don’t see as any kind of negative outcome for football, or college, or the American way of life.

[bankshot1]

College athletes "Juneteenth" has arrived:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1000310043/the-supreme-court-sides-with-ncaa-athletes-in-a-narrow-ruling

Seeing this shake out is going to be fascinating!

it seems pretty clear the "Other Nike"  will eventually step on the NCAA's ability to control pricing and paying student-athletes.

its tough to rationalize anti-trust powers screwing college athletes.

But somehow the SEC and B1G will prosper as the rich usually find a way to get richer.

It may be on a team basis above a league basis. The Big Flexible and Undetermined Amount and God's Conference may do better generally, but a prize 5 star prospect interested in monetizing his status ain't choosing Indiana or Purdue over Ohio State. Or Arkansas over Alabama or LSU.

I expect Bama and Duke and tOSU will all do fine, But, and this is the point, IU or whomever, can become a player for the 5-star recruits with price competition for talent. Business is business. And if IU can offer a better financial package than a traditional power, I wouldthink a 18 YO kid would have to listen. $500K per year at IU or free room and board at tOSU?
You'd have to give it some thought.

Shit, how much would you as the President of Clemson ok, for the school to pay Trevor Lawrence?

His value to the school had to be close to $100 million or more. And he got room and board and the NCAA deciding whether seconds on spaghetti was a breech of the rules.

Steinbrenner discovered the secret to rebuilding the Yankees in the 70s, and others soon followed.

My point is the financial packet is likely to be better at tOSU or Alabama because of their profiles. Or to use your example,.where do you think the financial opportunities would have been better for Lawrence, Clemson or Wake Forrest?

Right now Bama has a brand name. That could change with a playing field reshaped by free agency and a free market bidding for players.

Remember when AT &T was the world leader in telecomm and an apple was a fruit? 

Innovation and free markets market are good things.

I suspect Wake could have built a program around Lawrence like Clemson did.

It wasn't that long ago Clemson was just another ACC college in the shadows of Duke, UNC and the rest of tobacco road.

And then yabba dabba Dabo came to town.

Point is you can turn chicken shit into chicken salad with enough brains and money.


and mayo
So to re-address my question, if you were the president of Clemson what would you ok for compensation for the next Trevor Lawrence, in a free market, who gives you millions in tv money, prestige and a shit ton of publicity and panache to market the school?

$20 million a year?

More?

[Hairy Lime]

I have no clue, banks. I have not examined the economics of the decision on college budgets. I just suspect that the rate of pay will be roughly equal for most monetarily endowed teams. It is the other money that would be the real issue.

[bankshot1]

I have no clue, banks. I have not examined the economics of the decision on college budgets. I just suspect that the rate of pay will be roughly equal for most monetarily endowed teams. It is the other money that would be the real issue.

Harvard beats out U Texas and Stanford in a bidding war for talent.

[Yankguy1]

If you were the president of Clemson what would you ok for compensation for the next Trevor Lawrence, in a free market, who gives you millions in tv money, prestige and a shit ton of publicity and panache to market the school?

$20 million a year?

More?

I don't think that would be up to the president of the University no matter what paying the players model is arrived at. 

[Hairy Lime]

I have no clue, banks. I have not examined the economics of the decision on college budgets. I just suspect that the rate of pay will be roughly equal for most monetarily endowed teams. It is the other money that would be the real issue.

Harvard beats out U Texas and Stanford in a bidding war for talent.

Maybe, for a specific player. And maybe a higher percentage of those who can qualify for Harvard will look at it as the best long term move. But most players? The best of the best? Nope.

[bankshot1]

If you were the president of Clemson what would you ok for compensation for the next Trevor Lawrence, in a free market, who gives you millions in tv money, prestige and a shit ton of publicity and panache to market the school?

$20 million a year?

More?

I don't think that would be up to the president of the University no matter what paying the players model is arrived at.

The Chancellor?

Alumni Board?

The Chief Investment Officer of the Endowment Fund?

Point is a free market is a free market and prices are determined by supply and demand, and if the barrier to the free market is lifted prices for a talent like Trevor Lawrence who may have a value in the tens of millions, will likely rise sharply above the MSRP of  $75,000 for a year of college. 

[Yankguy1]

If you were the president of Clemson what would you ok for compensation for the next Trevor Lawrence, in a free market, who gives you millions in tv money, prestige and a shit ton of publicity and panache to market the school?

$20 million a year?

More?

I don't think that would be up to the president of the University no matter what paying the players model is arrived at.

The Chancellor?

Alumni Board?

The Chief Investment Officer of the Endowment Fund?

Point is a free market is a free market and prices are determined by supply and demand, and if the barrier to the free market is lifted prices for a talent like Trevor Lawrence who may have a value in the tens of millions, will likely rise sharply above the MSRP of  $75,000 for a year of college.

As a State University Clemson gets money through state budgeting.

[LarryBnDC]

From the Daily Kos link that Fac posted....an actual ON TOPIC post!

This means raising taxes on the rich. The majority of Democrats in Congress agree on that. They're trying to reestablish the idea that everyone paying their fair share of taxes is just how government is supposed to work, and they see this huge, absolutely essential, and highly popular  infrastructure proposal as the way to do it.

"What we're doing is generating revenue, but we are also making a major area of American government more fair, so people don’t feel they've been played while the rich person gets off scot-free," Sen. Ron. Wyden, the Oregon Democrat chairing the tax-writing Finance Committee, told The New York Times. He's been working on tax policy changes for corporations, the energy industry, and the rich. That means raising corporate taxes from the 2017 GOP tax scam rate of 21%—it was 35% pre-2017, and Democrats have proposed rates of 25% and 28%. They should go back to 35%, but we'll see how much they want to fix this.

Wyden's team is eyeing a couple of other 2017 measures, including one that’s letting millionaires using partnerships and limited liability companies take a tax break meant for small businesses, and the carried-interest loophole that allows private equity firms to claim the fees they get from clients as capital gains (taxed at 20%) instead of income (taxed at 37%). Wyden is also proposing getting rid of a range of tax breaks—44 separate provisions—that give the fossil fuel industry a windfall and replacing them with tax breaks for green energy producers.

For the super-rich, Biden wants to raise the top tax bracket from 37% to 39.6% and to tax stock sales for millionaires as income rather than capital gains. There's support for that among rank-and-file Democrats in Congress. "Taxes need to be raised on corporations and need to be raised on that wealthiest of people who got a terrible, tremendous windfall from the Trump tax game," Rep. Steve Cohen a Democrat of Tennessee, told the Times.

Voters like the idea, too. As Kerry Eleveld writes, "For nearly two decades, more than two-thirds of American taxpayers have told Gallup they don't think corporations pay their fair share in taxes … In fact, just a couple months ago, Pew Research Center polling found that at least 80% of Americans said one of their biggest complaints about the federal tax system was the fact that some corporations and wealthy individuals don't pay their fair share."

80 percent.  Time for our elected reps to start listening to their constituents.  This just makes sense.  And how many of those rich people got rich on the backs of people working really hard for meager wages?  If anything, Democrat's proposals are too tame.  It is time to stop apologizing for long overdue wealth distribution.  Who really earns our nation's wealth - some dude in an office masturbating with numbers on a screen, or someone busting their hump in a sawmill where it's 110 inside and the air is full of sawdust?

Here is some food for your thought on this complex matter: 1. Wealth inequality has increased but is not exploding.

The share of domestic wealth held by the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans rose from 7% to 14% over the past four decades, 1978–2016.[4] That increase is significant, but it is only half as large as the estimates that proponents of a wealth tax frequently cite.
The richest Americans tend to be self-made entrepreneurs: 67% of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are self-made, and eight of the top 10 all got to where they are by creating successful businesses.

There is no evidence that reducing wealth inequality will increase economic growth. It may even harm growth because it discourages saving and investment.

2. Of all the possible types of ways to collect revenue, wealth taxes are the least desirable.

Wealth taxes are inefficient and ineffective because wealth is inherently more difficult to measure. Privately held companies, for example, are not traded in public markets, which means that there are no stock prices by which one can objectively gauge their value. Also, financial assets can be hidden or moved abroad with the click of a mouse or converted into other assets that are hard to value.

A dozen European countries had a wealth tax in 1990, but most abandoned them because they were ineffective and expensive to administer. In part, the taxes failed to raise much revenue because wealthy individuals easily moved their assets across borders to avoid taxation. Today, only Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and Spain still have wealth taxes, but the rates—0.3%–1%, 0.85%, 0.15%, and 0.2%–2.5%, respectively—are much lower than the 2%–6% proposed by advocates such as Senator Elizabeth Warren for the United States. With a small enough rate, there is much less incentive to evade the tax, but far less revenue is raised. Switzerland collects the most from its wealth tax; and it only brings in about 3% of its tax revenue.[5]

Wealth taxes distort behavior in a way that is harmful to economic growth and national prosperity. By taking a fraction of people’s wealth each year, the tax reduces the return to investing and discourages saving. This can reduce growth because investing and capital accumulation are critical to innovation.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/whats-wrong-with-a-wealth-tax

I know that only addresses part of what you posted, but it is interesting.

I guess the billionaires (Koch Foundation, eat all) who fund the Manhattan Institute would be against a wealth tax.

Unfortunately the information about wealth taxes failing in Europe is outdated as of earlier this month:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/05/g-7-nations-reach-historic-deal-on-global-tax-reform.html

[Hamilton Samuels]

The economics of college is a subject that should extend well beyond athletes pay. When we start drafting and paying big bucks to kids for their science, math, or critical thinking brains instead of their ferocity as a linebacker, we might be on to something in this country.

[facilitatorn]

I’d imagine it would be the AD in the GM role while the other folks mentioned create the constant hubbub around firing his or her ass and occasionally pulling the trigger.

The economics of college is a subject that should extend well beyond athletes pay. When we start drafting and paying big bucks to kids for their science, math, or critical thinking brains instead of their ferocity as a linebacker, we might be on to something in this country.

I’m having to fucking agree with you again, Ham. This feels very very weird…

[Hamilton Samuels]

From the Daily Kos link that Fac posted....an actual ON TOPIC post!

This means raising taxes on the rich. The majority of Democrats in Congress agree on that. They're trying to reestablish the idea that everyone paying their fair share of taxes is just how government is supposed to work, and they see this huge, absolutely essential, and highly popular  infrastructure proposal as the way to do it.

"What we're doing is generating revenue, but we are also making a major area of American government more fair, so people don’t feel they've been played while the rich person gets off scot-free," Sen. Ron. Wyden, the Oregon Democrat chairing the tax-writing Finance Committee, told The New York Times. He's been working on tax policy changes for corporations, the energy industry, and the rich. That means raising corporate taxes from the 2017 GOP tax scam rate of 21%—it was 35% pre-2017, and Democrats have proposed rates of 25% and 28%. They should go back to 35%, but we'll see how much they want to fix this.

Wyden's team is eyeing a couple of other 2017 measures, including one that’s letting millionaires using partnerships and limited liability companies take a tax break meant for small businesses, and the carried-interest loophole that allows private equity firms to claim the fees they get from clients as capital gains (taxed at 20%) instead of income (taxed at 37%). Wyden is also proposing getting rid of a range of tax breaks—44 separate provisions—that give the fossil fuel industry a windfall and replacing them with tax breaks for green energy producers.

For the super-rich, Biden wants to raise the top tax bracket from 37% to 39.6% and to tax stock sales for millionaires as income rather than capital gains. There's support for that among rank-and-file Democrats in Congress. "Taxes need to be raised on corporations and need to be raised on that wealthiest of people who got a terrible, tremendous windfall from the Trump tax game," Rep. Steve Cohen a Democrat of Tennessee, told the Times.

Voters like the idea, too. As Kerry Eleveld writes, "For nearly two decades, more than two-thirds of American taxpayers have told Gallup they don't think corporations pay their fair share in taxes … In fact, just a couple months ago, Pew Research Center polling found that at least 80% of Americans said one of their biggest complaints about the federal tax system was the fact that some corporations and wealthy individuals don't pay their fair share."

80 percent.  Time for our elected reps to start listening to their constituents.  This just makes sense.  And how many of those rich people got rich on the backs of people working really hard for meager wages?  If anything, Democrat's proposals are too tame.  It is time to stop apologizing for long overdue wealth distribution.  Who really earns our nation's wealth - some dude in an office masturbating with numbers on a screen, or someone busting their hump in a sawmill where it's 110 inside and the air is full of sawdust?

Here is some food for your thought on this complex matter: 1. Wealth inequality has increased but is not exploding.

The share of domestic wealth held by the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans rose from 7% to 14% over the past four decades, 1978–2016.[4] That increase is significant, but it is only half as large as the estimates that proponents of a wealth tax frequently cite.
The richest Americans tend to be self-made entrepreneurs: 67% of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are self-made, and eight of the top 10 all got to where they are by creating successful businesses.

There is no evidence that reducing wealth inequality will increase economic growth. It may even harm growth because it discourages saving and investment.

2. Of all the possible types of ways to collect revenue, wealth taxes are the least desirable.

Wealth taxes are inefficient and ineffective because wealth is inherently more difficult to measure. Privately held companies, for example, are not traded in public markets, which means that there are no stock prices by which one can objectively gauge their value. Also, financial assets can be hidden or moved abroad with the click of a mouse or converted into other assets that are hard to value.

A dozen European countries had a wealth tax in 1990, but most abandoned them because they were ineffective and expensive to administer. In part, the taxes failed to raise much revenue because wealthy individuals easily moved their assets across borders to avoid taxation. Today, only Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and Spain still have wealth taxes, but the rates—0.3%–1%, 0.85%, 0.15%, and 0.2%–2.5%, respectively—are much lower than the 2%–6% proposed by advocates such as Senator Elizabeth Warren for the United States. With a small enough rate, there is much less incentive to evade the tax, but far less revenue is raised. Switzerland collects the most from its wealth tax; and it only brings in about 3% of its tax revenue.[5]

Wealth taxes distort behavior in a way that is harmful to economic growth and national prosperity. By taking a fraction of people’s wealth each year, the tax reduces the return to investing and discourages saving. This can reduce growth because investing and capital accumulation are critical to innovation.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/whats-wrong-with-a-wealth-tax

I know that only addresses part of what you posted, but it is interesting.

I guess the billionaires (Koch Foundation, eat all) who fund the Manhattan Institute would be against a wealth tax.

Unfortunately the information about wealth taxes failing in Europe is outdated as of earlier this month:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/05/g-7-nations-reach-historic-deal-on-global-tax-reform.html

Looks like you didn't read the piece, Larry.  The wealth tax they were discussing was on individuals. What you linked to regards corporate tax.

[bankshot1]

If you were the president of Clemson what would you ok for compensation for the next Trevor Lawrence, in a free market, who gives you millions in tv money, prestige and a shit ton of publicity and panache to market the school?

$20 million a year?

More?

I don't think that would be up to the president of the University no matter what paying the players model is arrived at.

The Chancellor?

Alumni Board?

The Chief Investment Officer of the Endowment Fund?

Point is a free market is a free market and prices are determined by supply and demand, and if the barrier to the free market is lifted prices for a talent like Trevor Lawrence who may have a value in the tens of millions, will likely rise sharply above the MSRP of  $75,000 for a year of college.

As a State University Clemson gets money through state budgeting.

I have no clue, banks. I have not examined the economics of the decision on college budgets. I just suspect that the rate of pay will be roughly equal for most monetarily endowed teams. It is the other money that would be the real issue.

Harvard beats out U Texas and Stanford in a bidding war for talent.

Maybe, for a specific player. And maybe a higher percentage of those who can qualify for Harvard will look at it as the best long term move. But most players? The best of the best? Nope.

Then let the colleges compete freely to determine who they pay for play. And some will get bargains and some will make mistakes.

But that seems to be where we may be going. 

and I suspect the NCAA lawyers are already writing their motions protesting they should be protected from making costly mistakes. 

[Hamilton Samuels]

I’d imagine it would be the AD in the GM role while the other folks mentioned create the constant hubbub around firing his or her ass and occasionally pulling the trigger.

The economics of college is a subject that should extend well beyond athletes pay. When we start drafting and paying big bucks to kids for their science, math, or critical thinking brains instead of their ferocity as a linebacker, we might be on to something in this country.

I’m having to fucking agree with you again, Ham. This feels very very weird…

You'd be amazed at how much we agree upon, fac.

That's why I am not the rightwing bastard you'd hate me to be or the prog walking lockstep with the woke world, either.

If you really want to be amazed, you should consider how much banks and I agree on things, and our loathing for each other has likely the longest history here---