Socialism can never work in life because of generational momentum. (If we all start at time zero with a level playing field, the children of parents who made strong choices, even if by chance, have an instant advantage.)

But college athletics can operate as a highly functioning form of socialism because of one thing, the participant turnover. College athletics has a restart button every year so to speak when kids graduate. That reduces momentum in a much more predictable, sizeable manner that makes it even possible to pursue such a business model.

If I know anything about socialism, one of the first places to start wouldn't be regulating redshirting, it would be requiring all participants play the same number of home games.

And the sales pitch for such a move is easy: If a free market game like Major League Baseball requires the Yankees and Pirates to play the same number of home games, why doesn't OHIO and Ohio A&M? That's a pill that can be swallowed by the masses. Even the sheep. And for us non-AQ universities, I think a move to the same number of home games would be the biggest game changer (bigger than a playoff).

Last Edited: 8/4/2013 2:53:46 AM by BillyTheCat

Come on man.

All the NCAA is or can aspire to be is an imperfect form of socialism corrupted by capitalistic tendencies. (And America an imperfect form of capitalism corrupted by socialistic tendencies). Within the closed system, look at the insanely regulated populus, all in the name of equality or equity. (Title IX, impermissible benefits, amateurism clause)

LC makes what I think is a good point. Preventing the Big Conferences from redshirting would force them to gobble up more recruits. But the equal and opposite reaction to such a rule would be the sales pitch to these kids. Some are genuinely interested in completing their degree. The unique ability to spread the course load over 5 years maybe a selling point. Also maturity is real issue. Some kids need more time to develop. That extra year does wonders. Keith Moore, former walk-on and redshirt senior, is at least projected by Meyerberg to compete for defensive player of the year. 

All this being said, what really caught my eye about Pataskala's post was what maybe wan't even implied. If big these conferences, even all conferences, are going to have pay these kids, will they have to pay a stipend for a redshirt year?

Think about it. Sure they're practicing with the team, helping the team develop. But if all this fuss is about paying athletes their fair share, why would the equivalent of a practice squad guy get paid the same as Tim Tebow? It's a tough sell already to pay all the active players at the same rate. But will the inactive players have to be paid the same? Will a guy who sits out an entire year with a broken leg get a stipend? That would be like a grad student getting a stipend for a research or teaching assistantship without actually doing research or teaching.

P.S.

Bro,

I'm not talking about creating a Utopia. I'm talking about playing the same number of home games. If you don't see the inherent value of playing the same number of home games at any level of sports, you are lost.
 

Last Edited: 8/4/2013 11:31:51 AM by The Situation