Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 17, 2020 7:01:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 7:01:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 17, 2020 9:47:13 GMT -6
"They would hire a staff to resolve disputes, suggest changes to rules and investigate wrongdoing with the power to subpoena witnesses."
That part really scares me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 17, 2020 10:26:10 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 10:26:10 GMT -6
"They would hire a staff to resolve disputes, suggest changes to rules and investigate wrongdoing with the power to subpoena witnesses." That part really scares me Suggest my ass!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 17, 2020 10:37:45 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 17, 2020 10:47:52 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be?
I have a strong dislike for government over-reach but I have to agree with you here... Just trading one group of overpaid bureaucrats for a group of overpaid politicians and I don't know which is worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 17, 2020 11:08:05 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be? My concern would be specific rules changes made/advised in favor of under the guise of player safety. I feel as if congress would be more inclined to go overboard in making major changes to the game that would fundamentally alter the sport, as congressmen seek constant re-election they are in need of things they can claim as 'accomplishments'. These changes would then trickle down to the high school level and so on. Clearly football has the potential to be dangerous, I've had players loose limbs, and while I dont want this to devolve into a 'what we should do to make the game safer' argument I think that congress would have a greater likelihood of going too far (compared to the NCAA) in changing the way the game is played. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 17, 2020 11:21:10 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be? My concern would be specific rules changes made/advised in favor of under the guise of player safety. I feel as if congress would be more inclined to go overboard in making major changes to the game that would fundamentally alter the sport, as congressmen seek constant re-election they are in need of things they can claim as 'accomplishments'. These changes would then trickle down to the high school level and so on. Clearly football has the potential to be dangerous, I've had players loose limbs, and while I dont want this to devolve into a 'what we should do to make the game safer' argument I think that congress would have a greater likelihood of going too far (compared to the NCAA) in changing the way the game is played. I understand your point, but I think the various football lobbying agencies will keep things close to the status quo. I mean as long as smoking is around, I just can't imagine football is going anywhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 11:49:28 GMT -6
I would suggest the shift is Drastic. The NCAA is not the federal government.
|
|
|
|
Shift!!!
Dec 17, 2020 12:05:10 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Defcord on Dec 17, 2020 12:05:10 GMT -6
I would suggest the shift is Drastic. The NCAA is not the federal government. They are not but they are big money so they are in bed with them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 17, 2020 12:09:26 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 12:09:26 GMT -6
I would suggest the shift is Drastic. The NCAA is not the federal government. They are not but they are big money so they are in bed with them. the ncaa would be worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 17, 2020 12:33:02 GMT -6
They are not but they are big money so they are in bed with them. the ncaa would be worthless. Some would say they are already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 12:46:01 GMT -6
the ncaa would be worthless. Some would say they are already. I wont argue that. I will pound the table against the idea of a federal takeover of athletics. THAT IS THE END OF FOOTALL as anybody visiting this board knows. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 17, 2020 14:16:06 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be? If there were really a federal athletic commission, it would be different from the bureaucratic agencies you have in mind, because those were joined voluntarily by the organizations that composed them -- although in the case of the NCAA, there was some informal government pressure applied. A federal athletic commission would have hegemony; how could any athlete or organization escape their dictates? |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 17, 2020 14:18:34 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be? My concern would be specific rules changes made/advised in favor of under the guise of player safety. I feel as if congress would be more inclined to go overboard in making major changes to the game that would fundamentally alter the sport, as congressmen seek constant re-election they are in need of things they can claim as 'accomplishments'. These changes would then trickle down to the high school level and so on. Clearly football has the potential to be dangerous, I've had players loose limbs, and while I dont want this to devolve into a 'what we should do to make the game safer' argument I think that congress would have a greater likelihood of going too far (compared to the NCAA) in changing the way the game is played. Plus, you never know but that you'd get someone like Trump in who thinks football isn't dangerous enough. It would be a political football. |
|
|
|
Post by chi5hi on Dec 17, 2020 19:03:20 GMT -6
There are just too many GD bureaucrats (government or otherwise), who have the dream of making the rest of us live the lives that they want us to live.
Because they know what's good for us and we're too dumb to realize that.
Oh, yeah...and they all need to be paid exorbitant salaries...for life!
|
|
|
|
Post by junior6589 on Dec 17, 2020 19:36:39 GMT -6
I’ve had enough government this year to last me a lifetime. Nooooo thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 6:33:36 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be? If there were really a federal athletic commission, it would be different from the bureaucratic agencies you have in mind, because those were joined voluntarily by the organizations that composed them -- although in the case of the NCAA, there was some informal government pressure applied. A federal athletic commission would have hegemony; how could any athlete or organization escape their dictates? By joining the NAIA lol |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 6:33:51 GMT -6
I’ve had enough government this year to last me a lifetime. Nooooo thanks. I had enough before 2020 |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 6:37:44 GMT -6
Some would say they are already. I wont argue that. I will pound the table against the idea of a federal takeover of athletics. THAT IS THE END OF FOOTALL as anybody visiting this board knows. How so? I just don't see it. Seems more of a play for a bigger share of control and money. Until smoking is completely banned, I really don't see there being a major overhaul of football. I do believe that it would be a negative outcome, I just don't think it would end things. The thing that disturbs me is that politicians would be lobbying to make decisions based on their favorite teams, which they probably do already. But I would hate the last participant in the college football play to be decided by who has more members in congress. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 7:22:06 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2020 7:22:06 GMT -6
I wont argue that. I will pound the table against the idea of a federal takeover of athletics. THAT IS THE END OF FOOTALL as anybody visiting this board knows. How so? I just don't see it. Seems more of a play for a bigger share of control and money. Until smoking is completely banned, I really don't see there being a major overhaul of football. I do believe that it would be a negative outcome, I just don't think it would end things. The thing that disturbs me is that politicians would be lobbying to make decisions based on their favorite teams, which they probably do already. But I would hate the last participant in the college football play to be decided by who has more members in congress. we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. |
|
|
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 7:48:11 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 7:48:11 GMT -6
How so? I just don't see it. Seems more of a play for a bigger share of control and money. Until smoking is completely banned, I really don't see there being a major overhaul of football. I do believe that it would be a negative outcome, I just don't think it would end things. The thing that disturbs me is that politicians would be lobbying to make decisions based on their favorite teams, which they probably do already. But I would hate the last participant in the college football play to be decided by who has more members in congress. we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. I just don’t see it. You can drink a fifth of whiskey with a dip in and then smoke a pack of unfiltered Pall Malls, but you can’t tackle someone? There’s too much money in it. |
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Dec 18, 2020 9:00:25 GMT -6
So the power would shift from one bureaucratic agency to another. How different are things really going to be?
I have a strong dislike for government over-reach but I have to agree with you here... Just trading one group of overpaid bureaucrats for a group of overpaid politicians and I don't know which is worse.
I do |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 18, 2020 9:19:21 GMT -6
If there were really a federal athletic commission, it would be different from the bureaucratic agencies you have in mind, because those were joined voluntarily by the organizations that composed them -- although in the case of the NCAA, there was some informal government pressure applied. A federal athletic commission would have hegemony; how could any athlete or organization escape their dictates? By joining the NAIA lol No, that's the point: A federal athletic commission would have their say over the NCAA, NAIA, and anyone else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 9:56:28 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2020 9:56:28 GMT -6
we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. I just don’t see it. You can drink a fifth of whiskey with a dip in and then smoke a pack of unfiltered Pall Malls, but you can’t tackle someone? There’s too much money in it. i don’t equate smoking and football... yet.... cause govt is in head over heels with big tobacco. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 18, 2020 10:12:26 GMT -6
we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. I just don’t see it. You can drink a fifth of whiskey with a dip in and then smoke a pack of unfiltered Pall Malls, but you can’t tackle someone? There’s too much money in it. The difference is that since most localities have banned smoking in public places none of these things is contagious. |
|
|
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 10:52:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 10:52:27 GMT -6
No, that's the point: A federal athletic commission would have their say over the NCAA, NAIA, and anyone else. It was a joke! |
|
|
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 11:30:20 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 11:30:20 GMT -6
I just don’t see it. You can drink a fifth of whiskey with a dip in and then smoke a pack of unfiltered Pall Malls, but you can’t tackle someone? There’s too much money in it. The difference is that since most localities have banned smoking in public places none of these things is contagious. Is football contagious? I don’t get your point. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 18, 2020 11:33:13 GMT -6
The difference is that since most localities have banned smoking in public places none of these things is contagious. Is football contagious? I don’t get your point. I may have missed yours. I thought you were talking about Covid restrictions. |
|
|
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 11:35:20 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Defcord on Dec 18, 2020 11:35:20 GMT -6
How so? I just don't see it. Seems more of a play for a bigger share of control and money. Until smoking is completely banned, I really don't see there being a major overhaul of football. I do believe that it would be a negative outcome, I just don't think it would end things. The thing that disturbs me is that politicians would be lobbying to make decisions based on their favorite teams, which they probably do already. But I would hate the last participant in the college football play to be decided by who has more members in congress. we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. I don’t think so. You also told me there would be a 0 percent chance that Georgia would play high school football this year and the season is still going strong. I think our game is in danger of change, certainly. But I don’t think it will become contactless or extinct anytime in the next 50 years. My biggest fear as a former offensive lineman is that it becomes 7 on 7. I don’t think the government’s motives in getting involved are fueled by actual safety concerns. I suspect it is mostly a money and power grab. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shift!!!
Dec 18, 2020 11:41:34 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2020 11:41:34 GMT -6
we will be grabbing flags. If this had been in place 10 yrs ago, football would be long gone. I don’t think so. You also told me there would be a 0 percent chance that Georgia would play high school football this year and the season is still going strong. I think our game is in danger of change, certainly. But I don’t think it will become contactless or extinct anytime in the next 50 years. My biggest fear as a former offensive lineman is that it becomes 7 on 7. I don’t think the government’s motives in getting involved are fueled by actual safety concerns. I suspect it is mostly a money and power grab. 7v7 is not football. It’s a disaster in GA. Gov. Involvement is about controll aka football is dead. |
|
