Concentration of talent

[cashisking884]

We can't agree. Look at for example things like Canadian health care. they run that just fine without a market. Free universities in Germany, no market. The NFL is not a free market system. All of those things are standing up to the market and not letting the market determine everything. You can argue about how successful that stuff is, but they are examples. Sure these things happen within the giant world market, but they don't let the market rule the results.

What? The market has obviously responded to those things. There are high end health car providers for the rich in those areas. There are a lack of lower to middle end providers in those areas since they have been priced out and don't want to compete. People take trips to other countries to receive health care.
You still don't understand. All of this exists within a market. It's action and reaction within the market place of health care.
I also don't understand the point of anything you just wrote as it relates to what you're advocating, but I do understand that you don't either.
You're pointing to a government run operation, as evidence that private actors should "Stand Up" to other private actors within the employment market place, regardless of what the market consequences of their actions are?
This is what is so insane about everything you've said. You actually admit your actions will probably destroy systems.

"Unionize the steel workers. Get yours, and when it crashes, who cares, you got fat."

"Socialize health care. If it destroys the private market, so what."

"Stand up to Alabama. When the blue bloods leave and blow up the entire thing, I'll have no problem watching Pitt play in front of 5,000 people."


You admit that you will be blowing up everything but you just don't care. Which is fine, you're allowed to be narcissist and want everything you want. it's just funny you seem to be so upset that the rest of us aren't so eager to hand you a match.

 

[Pitt79]

I won't comment on the other, because that veers into areas the mods don't seem to want these threads to go. But the NFL most DEFINITELY adheres to the free market. They exist for profit and structure it to maximize that profit. If it was more profitable overall to contract to 12 or 16 super teams or more profitable that the teams in the biggest cities with the richest owners won every single year, they'd embrace that model. The fact they do NOT do that, and have the most successful enterprise imaginable by setting up a structure that allows for reasonable talent distribution, is testament to why college sports should pursue similar. The masters of the product have shown how well it works.

If NFL was free market, there would be no draft or salary cap, Jerry Jones could offer the top 20 college prospects a billion dollars and take them all. He could have a $500 million payroll while Jacksonville or the Rooneys have $100 million payrolls. You are right over all, but really they are like a single entity, not individual clubs/businesses competing against each other without limits. They limit market forces.

 

[Jpripper88]

The thing that I love is that I work for government, and my salary is almost 3 times the median income currently. Twenty years ago when private sector salaries where up, people would say it's justified that government salaries are lower, now that our salaries are better in many cases you say we are overpaid. It's a joke, when the market said we where underpaid, that was OK, but now that we're overpaid compared to the market, it's not! LOL! Well I'll happily cash my overpaid check and take my six weeks vacation, THANK GOD I LIVE OUTSIDE MARKET FORCES! LOL

Actually, government salaries are not higher vs. the actual comparative private sector positions where any skill or intelligence matters. The government janitors and low level are paid WAY more than their private sector counterparts, but educated job holders are at a disadvantage in pay. Of course, there is security and schedule benefits that may outweigh that for many people.

So then you don't get many people wanting to be teachers? And really it is a more important job than hedge fund manager. I know you won't agree, but I think it is.

But it is a lot, lot easier to become a teacher. Like unbelievably easier.

I understand economics very well, I just don't think we should let the market drive everything in our lives. There are alternatives. Other countries regulate things outside of market forces and it works well for them.

It really, really doesn't.

 

[Pitt79]

What? The market has obviously responded to those things. There are high end health car providers for the rich in those areas. There are a lack of lower to middle end providers in those areas since they have been priced out and don't want to compete. People take trips to other countries to receive health care.
You still don't understand. All of this exists within a market. It's action and reaction within the market place of health care.
I also don't understand the point of anything you just wrote as it relates to what you're advocating, but I do understand that you don't either.
You're pointing to a government run operation, as evidence that private actors should "Stand Up" to other private actors within the employment market place, regardless of what the market consequences of their actions are?
This is what is so insane about everything you've said. You actually admit your actions will probably destroy systems.

"Unionize the steel workers. Get yours, and when it crashes, who cares, you got fat."

"Socialize health care. If it destroys the private market, so what."

"Stand up to Alabama. When the blue bloods leave and blow up the entire thing, I'll have no problem watching Pitt play in front of 5,000 people."


You admit that you will be blowing up everything but you just don't care. Which is fine, you're allowed to be narcissist and want everything you want. it's just funny you seem to be so upset that the rest of us aren't so eager to hand you a match.

But you are just wrong when you say that nobody anywhere stands up to or manipulates or limits the market forces.

 

[Jpripper88]

I would never ask that because I know the company would go bankrupted like all States and the Federal government currently is paying for legacy cost. A person would have to be a real moron to think companies can pay these legacy cost and stay functional. Look at what legacy cost did the the US automotive and Steel industries. They are shells of there former selves.

Companies could easily afford the same structures. They would just do so at the limitation of pay for their highest officers/employees. Since they are the ones making the decisions, they surely will not do that.

 

[Jpripper88]

Under the current structure, it's plain dumb for Pitt and many other schools to field teams. We (and most others) start out each season with practically zero hope for competing for championships, which even Pitt says is their stated objective for fielding teams.

And it's not even as beneficial to the blue bloods to have the monopoly they do, because as the other major sports have found, better opportunity for success for all lifts all boats.

Built in advantages of most of the blue bloods still would give them better odds of domination like they now have (giving them no reason to scorn the concept) , but would give more hope to more programs to attract a legit talent base.

More and better teams across P5 makes for more meaningful games week in and week out, maintaining fan interest and viewership. With no harm in the least to the appeal of the blockbuster blue blood prime time matchups.

Except Pitt makes boatloads of money by fielding the football team and further the University in marketing in ways that would otherwise not be available or cost feasible.

We can't agree. Look at for example things like Canadian health care. they run that just fine without a market. Free universities in Germany, no market. The NFL is not a free market system. All of those things are standing up to the market and not letting the market determine everything. You can argue about how successful that stuff is, but they are examples. Sure these things happen within the giant world market, but they don't let the market rule the results.

Canadian health care doesn't "run just fine" if you have a serious health issue. If you have a serious health issue in Canada and you have money, you go/pay private (and likely to the US) to get it treated. You do not rely on the Government because if you do, you die waiting.

 

[cashisking884]

The thing about the NFL, with the long standing revenue sharing that has allowed teams to compete equally, you have more "brands" than you do markets. Pittsburgh and especially Green Bay are not particularly large markets that move the needles, but these franchises are more "brands" which have global reach, and are essentially more important than larger markets such as an LA franchise or even say the Jets or Bears.

Yeah, the sports world has a kind of market that doesn't always follow the media markets.
But most of the sports world, regardless of the individual power dynamics within the markets, have all kind of eased into a certain number of teams. It deviates some, but for the most part, this is the number. Across every league.
This gives those teams a certain amount of power, because they are needed. Which is why you can get some of the revenue sharing and stuff you have. Because there is a need for the teams that are needed, to be competitive.
Most college football teams are not needed by Alabama. They are not needed by the blue bloods. They don't need Oregon State. They could form their 30 to 35 team league, and tell Pitt79, "Enjoy that 5,000 seat venue game against CMU." And they would go on just fine.
Now, once you got to that 30 to 35 team Super League, when you have arm length parties, then you'd have the kind of things some in this thread are talking about it. Because you'd have some market power among the individual teams.

 

[cashisking884]

But you are just wrong when you say that nobody anywhere stands up to or manipulates or limits the market forces.

The government does, sure. But the market responds.
What I've really said is everything is a product of the market. Of the individual people and companies and entities, engaging with each other. Acting and reacting. There is nothing outside of that.
You seem to think there is. You talk about the market as if it's the final boss in a video game that if you defeat it, you get the princess. It's not.

 

[Pitt79]

Actually, government salaries are not higher vs. the actual comparative private sector positions where any skill or intelligence matters. The government janitors and low level are paid WAY more than their private sector counterparts, but educated job holders are at a disadvantage in pay. Of course, there is security and schedule benefits that may outweigh that for many people.

Here's what I do, IT Manager. The difference isn't great. But I like my super flexibility, benefits and 6 weeks vacation every year ( I get that much because I'm here 32 years), I'll take that over a few thousand dollars. Lots of people leave more money behind and take the federal job for the vacation time and the stability. The money difference is not great, I'm in the middle of this range- $121,195 and $169,170.

"federal government IT manager’s make between $95,000 and $173,000 annually, which is slightly below similar positions in the private sector, notably private senior software engineers who make between $121,195 and $169,170. Federal software engineers themselves make on average $82,300 annually, more than $17,000 less than similar private sector positions."

 

[McKee Place]

Except Pitt makes boatloads of money by fielding the football team and further the University in marketing in ways that would otherwise not be available or cost feasible.


Canadian health care doesn't "run just fine" if you have a serious health issue. If you have a serious health issue in Canada and you have money, you go/pay private (and likely to the US) to get it treated. You do not rely on the Government because if you do, you die waiting.

Pitt is getting money from ACC distributions, merchandise and gate receipts, no? ACC money is certainly better than Big East money and has helped. But otherwise, athletics appears to be a hand to mouth operation that is heavily subsidized by necessity by the school general funds. Doesn't seem to be ideal. As far as promotional value, i see promotional value for SUCCESSFUL teams, but more of a negative when they are mostly unsuccessful, like ours. If "any publicity is good publicity" is your citation for that claim of value, that's about the extent of the value.

 

[Pitt79]

It really, really doesn't.

It does, I'd say if my daughter could get a college education for free, then it worked well, FOR ME, and that's what I care about, I wouldn't care if some person with no kids chipped in for it.

 

[Pitt79]

Most college football teams are not needed by Alabama. They are not needed by the blue bloods. They don't need Oregon State. They could form their 30 to 35 team league, and tell Pitt79, "Enjoy that 5,000 seat venue game against CMU." And they would go on just fine.
Now, once you got to that 30 to 35 team Super League, when you have arm length parties, then you'd have the kind of things some in this thread are talking about it. Because you'd have some market power among the individual teams.

But why would you watch this? It's still MINOR LEAGUE compared to the MAJOR LEAGUE of football, which is the NFL. And also these are SCHOOLS, so you totally discount the ALMA MATER factor, you'd stop being a Pitt fan to follow the CFB Super League? I'm a Pitt fan because I'm from Pitt, not because I want to see the best quality CFB, so yeah, I wouldn't watch minor league football a level below NFL, I'd watch COLLEGE football meaning loyal to MY COLLEGE

 

[Pitt79]

Canadian health care doesn't "run just fine" if you have a serious health issue. If you have a serious health issue in Canada and you have money, you go/pay private (and likely to the US) to get it treated. You do not rely on the Government because if you do, you die waiting.

You can say that all you want, and I can find multiple Canadians that I know personally that will testify to the opposite-who say you don't wait too long, you can go find 100 articles about that being the case and I can go find 100 telling me it works great. Sorry, that's just fact. I have relatives in Toronto that swear by how great it is, some of them lived in the USA would go back to Canada for treatment. So you can find the people that have the bad experience, and I know people that LOVE it.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

Lol. Please just stop.

If he would post his address I'll deploy the people with the butterfly nets to capture him and take him to one of those secret places up on the hill with barb wire around the property.
The Freakin Crazy House!

 

[Jpripper88]

Here's what I do, IT Manager. The difference isn't great. But I like my super flexibility, benefits and 6 weeks vacation every year ( I get that much because I'm here 32 years), I'll take that over a few thousand dollars. Lots of people leave more money behind and take the federal job for the vacation time and the stability. The money difference is not great, I'm in the middle of this range- $121,195 and $169,170.

"federal government IT manager’s make between $95,000 and $173,000 annually, which is slightly below similar positions in the private sector, notably private senior software engineers who make between $121,195 and $169,170. Federal software engineers themselves make on average $82,300 annually, more than $17,000 less than similar private sector positions."

Right. Also, you would be basically at that upper limit. There isn't that private sector upper limit. There is much more bonus opportunity AND there are VP and higher career positions where the dollars jump in huge ways. It does not compare in the public sector. My brother is in IT for NASA and makes the same decision for the same reasons.

 

[Pitt79]

If he would post his address I'll deploy the people with the butterfly nets to capture him and take him to one of those secret places up on the hill with barb wire around the property.
The Freakin Crazy House!

Cool, then we can finally meet, I assume you and Mrs. Buffet will be in the fenced in exercise yard practicing with your 60 degree wedges?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Yeah, the sports world has a kind of market that doesn't always follow the media markets.
But most of the sports world, regardless of the individual power dynamics within the markets, have all kind of eased into a certain number of teams. It deviates some, but for the most part, this is the number. Across every league.
This gives those teams a certain amount of power, because they are needed. Which is why you can get some of the revenue sharing and stuff you have. Because there is a need for the teams that are needed, to be competitive.
Most college football teams are not needed by Alabama. They are not needed by the blue bloods. They don't need Oregon State. They could form their 30 to 35 team league, and tell Pitt79, "Enjoy that 5,000 seat venue game against CMU." And they would go on just fine.
Now, once you got to that 30 to 35 team Super League, when you have arm length parties, then you'd have the kind of things some in this thread are talking about it. Because you'd have some market power among the individual teams.

The funny (scary) think is Pitt79 admitting that he is "OK" in watching that Pitt/CMU game in front of 5,000 people as his personal "FU" to the blue blood system (aka "the man") and can't understand why so many others feels like he does. He has a unique perspective on life and how things work.

 

[Pitt79]

Right. Also, you would be basically at that upper limit. There isn't that private sector upper limit. There is much more bonus opportunity AND there are VP and higher career positions where the dollars jump in huge ways. It does not compare in the public sector. My brother is in IT for NASA and makes the same decision for the same reasons.

I know, but I'd rather have all this time outside of work than be in the building morning until night fighting for the big promotion that might or might not ever come. I'd rather take the $150K and see every single high school soccer game my daughter plays. Rather then be in an office somewhere trying to get ahead.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

But why would you watch this? It's still MINOR LEAGUE compared to the MAJOR LEAGUE of football, which is the NFL. And also these are SCHOOLS, so you totally discount the ALMA MATER factor, you'd stop being a Pitt fan to follow the CFB Super League? I'm a Pitt fan because I'm from Pitt, not because I want to see the best quality CFB, so yeah, I wouldn't watch minor league football a level below NFL, I'd watch COLLEGE football meaning loyal to MY COLLEGE

Here's a clue. Most college football fans are not necessarily an alumni of that school.

 

[Pitt79]

The funny (scary) think is Pitt79 admitting that he is "OK" in watching that Pitt/CMU game in front of 5,000 people as his personal "FU" to the blue blood system (aka "the man") and can't understand why so many others feels like he does. He has a unique perspective on life and how things work.

It wouldn't change much for me. I'm a Pitt fan above a CFB fan I'd watch Pitt/CMU over Bama/Auburn 110% for sure-It's about the SCHOOL, not the quality of play. I don't really want that to happen, but to be honest, I'm not as convinced that it would happen as you are. If you think taking the scholarships from 85 to 70 would do that, I think your crazy?

 

[Pitt79]

Here's a clue. Most college football fans are not necessarily an alumni of that school.

And I find that to be weird. Like I know a guy in Chicago, who went to Northwestern, who is a big UNC fan. You think I'm crazy, I find what he is totally insane. He lives in Chicago, near his alma mater! WHO CARES how good they are, it's like your family! HOW, can you care about UNC?

 

[McKee Place]

The objective would be to lobby for the sweet spot of adjustment that would juice increased revenues for all with no harm to the dominance the blue bloods enjoy now. It was attempted before, with 85. That appears to be not significant enough to help competitiveness. Like anything these these days, Analytics would need to be worked up to show the improvements to convince all involved. Maybe this has been done and the numbers aren't there, in which case, never mind. But I've not seen indication it's been attempted. All i know is, i can't see how the status quo is working out for Pitt and many others, struggling for sales, attendance, dwindling recruit interest, and even student interest (isn't student interest at least theoretically supposed to be a priority?). And it's questionable how tenable it is for the future.

 

[Pitt79]

his personal "FU" to the blue blood system (aka "the man")

The "Blue Blood System", is not a system, it's like the 2 party system of American politics, people could change it if they had the will.

 

[Pitt79]

The objective would be to lobby for the sweet spot of adjustment that would juice increased revenues for all with no harm to the dominance the blue bloods enjoy now.

So you want a system where the blue bloods still dominate and make the playoffs every year but Pitt goes 9-4 sometimes instead of 7-6? I'd want changes so that sometimes, maybe every 20 years, Pitt might be in the playoffs. Not Bama in there 18 of 20 still.

 

[Jpripper88]

Pitt is getting money from ACC distributions. But otherwise, athletics appears to be a hand to mouth operation that is heavily subsidized by necessity by the school general funds. Doesn't seem to be ideal. As far as promotional value, i see promotional value for SUCCESSFUL teams, but more of a negative when they are mostly unsuccessful, like ours. If "any publicity is good publicity" is your citation for that claim of value, that's about the extent of the value.

"But otherwise"

You can't really play that card. The ACC money is enormous and what bankrolls everything. If your argument is about cutting ALL athletics, that is a different argument entirely, but you can't cut football off and still get the ACC dollars. Pitt would be spending FAR more general dollars on keeping those other sports.

You are looking at it as Clemson vs. Pitt. It is Pitt vs. Rutgers on the P5 level. Without that marketing (not just actual commercials, but coverage as well), lots of people see and recognize Rutgers, but practically nothing for Pitt. That puts Pitt at a decided disadvantage. It becomes even more stark when it is Pitt vs. non FBS schools. Like it or not, many people only recognize schools and options which are overly local, have a family connection, or are advertised in some way. Otherwise, Pitt would be as largely anonymous nationally as, say, Case Western, and many people put a school on a list or pick them because they want a large school experience with all the trimmings (like major sports) vs schools that are much, much more regional.

 

[McKee Place]

So you want a system where the blue bloods still dominate and make the playoffs every year but Pitt goes 9-4 sometimes instead of 7-6? I'd want changes so that sometimes, maybe every 20 years, Pitt might be in the playoffs. Not Bama in there 18 of 20 still.

You won't get that. They drive the bus and to prevent them for taking the bus to a different county, you need the sweet spot that shows they still have their inherent advantages.

I think there is such a sweet spot that would help schools like Pitt that desperately need it, but not appear too arduous to the blue bloods and networks. It's just not 85. The point of this thread, i thought.

Frankly the way things are now, Pitt is doing a great job when it can go 6-6 regularly. Two 8-5 in a row were frankly amazing.

Look at expectations, most objective folk think we're a 5 win team at best this year, and this with an exciting prospect at the sports most important position. I had a knowledgeable friend ask me yesterday earnestly if I think we can win ... this week. Not the PSU game. The Albany game. That's where we are now. Not tenable.

 

[Jpripper88]

I know, but I'd rather have all this time outside of work than be in the building morning until night fighting for the big promotion that might or might not ever come. I'd rather take the $150K and see every single high school soccer game my daughter plays. Rather then be in an office somewhere trying to get ahead.

And I think that is perfectly reasonable and, frankly, a decision a lot of society is making within the younger generation. Before the angry old men chime in about "no work ethic", that isn't the case either. More and more people realize time to vacation or be at their kid's game is more important than a title or $10k more. That doesn't mean they don't work as hard, but that they want to be rewarded or incentivized in different ways and see efficiency as far more valuable than time spent.

 

[Pitt79]

You won't get that. They drive the bus and to prevent them for taking the bus to a different county, you need the sweet spot that shows they still have their inherent advantages.

I think there is such a sweet spot that would help schools like Pitt that desperately need it, but not appear too arduous to the blue bloods and networks. It's just not 85. The point of this thread, i thought.

This is why I wouldn't care if we played CMU in front of 5000 fans, because you admit, no matter what we do, we can never beat them we always have to agree to defer to them and them always being on top.

 

[Pitt79]

And I think that is perfectly reasonable and, frankly, a decision a lot of society is making within the younger generation. Before the angry old men chime in about "no work ethic", that isn't the case either. More and more people realize time to vacation or be at their kid's game is more important than a title or $10k more. That doesn't mean they don't work as hard, but that they want to be rewarded or incentivized in different ways and see efficiency as far more valuable than time spent.

Why is that "no work ethic" I've worked at this job 32 years, 40-50 hours per week, non-stop! Is that not enough? I have known people who work 6-7 days, 10-12 hours/day, and I actually did that for a couple years in a previous life, but why?

 

[Jpripper88]

Why is that "no work ethic" I've worked at this job 32 years, 40-50 hours per week, non-stop! Is that not enough? I have known people who work 6-7 days, 10-12 hours/day, and I actually did that for a couple years in a previous life, but why?

Did you read what I wrote?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

And I find that to be weird. Like I know a guy in Chicago, who went to Northwestern, who is a big UNC fan. You think I'm crazy, I find what he is totally insane. He lives in Chicago, near his alma mater! WHO CARES how good they are, it's like your family! HOW, can you care about UNC?

What if you went to a small school or a school with no team? Hell, there are PSU grads who are Pitt BB fans, because they are Pitt BB fans before they went to PSU>

 

[McKee Place]

This is why I wouldn't care if we played CMU in front of 5000 fans, because you admit, no matter what we do, we can never beat them we always have to agree to defer to them and them always being on top.

With 85, there are a few on the fringe who manage to muster good teams and make isolated runs. It's just not enough. Make it 70, and I think you'd see more, yet the usual suspects would still be in the mix annually. That would be great for all, lift all boats.

 

[Pitt79]

Did you read what I wrote?

I'm not responding to you, just in general, some people have this attitude that work is everything.

 

[Pitt79]

With 85, there are a few on the fringe who manage to muster good teams and make isolated runs. It's just not enough. Make it 70, and I think you'd see more, yet the usual suspects would still be in the mix annually. That would be great for all, lift all boats.

It would help for sure, the BBs would still get the best players for a long time, but this way, others would be able to challenge, like if Pitt or Louisville or UCF had a couple great years and actually won a title, then maybe they'd win recruits over the Bamas of the world and join the BB category for awhile. The bad part is the BIAS would remain, if Pitt and Bama both went 13-0 and they had to choose between the two, Bama would still get it because of their name.

 

[McKee Place]

It would help for sure, the BBs would still get the best players for a long time, but this way, others would be able to challenge, like if Pitt or Louisville or UCF had a couple great years and actually won a title, then maybe they'd win recruits over the Bamas of the world and join the BB category for awhile. The bad part is the BIAS would remain, if Pitt and Bama both went 13-0 and they had to choose between the two, Bama would still get it because of their name.

Maybe, but if that actually came to pass it would be wondrous! As it stands today though, winning Powerball and the Cash 5 and Publishers Clearing House on the same day seems more likely than Pitt going 13-0. Or Syracuse, or Georgia Tech etc.

Let me add I don't realistically think such a change would transform Pitt automatically. Still need willing, athletically minded administration and eager boosters and clever coaches and all of that. We've only had those things at once in the 1930s and then briefly from 74-81.

 

[cashisking884]

The "Blue Blood System", is not a system, it's like the 2 party system of American politics, people could change it if they had the will.

But it’s not like that at all.
You can’t escape the government. It decides your life, regardless of what you want. So there does seem to be something “unfair” about Pitt79 being able to force his will onto others. Regardless of what the market would determine in a world of voluntary exchange.
Whereas the “CFP” isn’t forced onto Pitt. Pitt can leave the system whenever it wants. And the system is largely a creation of market forces (fans that care more and donate more, dominate).
That’s actually what your problem is. The system is nothing like the two party American system, so you can’t vote to force your notion of “fairness” onto the rest of us.

 

[Mikefln]

All this Blue Blood talk in annoying. Guys not that long ago Bama and Clemson was average and USC/Miami/LSU were the toast of the town. Yes it is always Blue Bloods at the top, but they do rotate between blue bloods. Occasionally you get a team that makes a run. Once Saban retires, Bama will come back to earth unless they hit another HR with a coach. Chances are they will get a good one but not a Saban type again and they will not be what they are now. It is what it is.

 

[Pitt79]

But it’s not like that at all.
You can’t escape the government. It decides your life, regardless of what you want. So there does seem to be something “unfair” about Pitt79 being able to force his will onto others. Regardless of what the market would determine in a world of voluntary exchange.
Whereas the “CFP” isn’t forced onto Pitt. Pitt can leave the system whenever it wants. And the system is largely a creation of market forces (fans that care more and donate more, dominate).
That’s actually what your problem is. The system is nothing like the two party American system, so you can’t vote to force your notion of “fairness” onto the rest of us.

It is just WHAT I SAID. You could exit the 2 party system by voting for 3rd parties, you could hurt the BB system by not watching the playoff games. Of course that would not happen, because It's probably true that most fans want Bama vs. Clemson EVERY YEAR. But theoretically if the ratings flopped enough maybe you could tweak the system. The problem is that fans of the non-blue blood schools fans watch the BB games, sometimes even before their own teams.

 

[cashisking884]

It is just WHAT I SAID. You could exit the 2 party system by voting for 3rd parties, you could hurt the BB system by not watching the playoff games. Of course that would not happen, because It's probably true that most fans want Bama vs. Clemson EVERY YEAR. But theoretically if the ratings flopped enough maybe you could tweak the system. The problem is that fans of the non-blue blood schools fans watch the BB games, sometimes even before their own teams.

No, you can’t exit the two party system. There is consent there. You could vote third party, but so what? The third party, but you are stuck in the “system” because government has control over you regardless of how you vote. You don’t have any choice in the matter.
That’s not true of the current college football system. Pitt and all the other teams being treated “unfairly” could leave, and the NCAA couldn’t stop that, because it’s a voluntary partnership.

 

[Pitt79]

No, you can’t exit the two party system. There is consent there. You could vote third party, but so what? The third party, but you are stuck in the “system” because government has control over you regardless of how you vote. You don’t have any choice in the matter.
That’s not true of the current college football system. Pitt and all the other teams being treated “unfairly” could leave, and the NCAA couldn’t stop that, because it’s a voluntary partnership.

You could! IF enough people voted for a 3rd parties or other parties besides either D or R could take the majority, then it would not be a 2 party system. If they could go further and change the constitution to a parliamentary system or a proportional representation system, then that could defeat the 2 party system, all that is highly unlikely, probably 0.000000000000001% chance of something like that ever happening, but yes, you could get rid of the two party system. It wasn't always that way, there was the Whigs, the Federalists, it could change again. probably not but theoretically it's possible.