Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou
Ha! That's rich.
Sure he does now, and I'm just fine with that.
Pffft. Logic has long been abandoned in this thread, so why so concerned with it now? *shurg*
|
Are you kidding me? You have offered no substantive response other than that Michigan and Texas make a lot of money, which tells us little, if anything, about this policy debate.
The fact that Michigan and Texas make money--even lots of it--playing football tells us nothing about whether a taxpayer-funded institution best fulfills its societal goal by continuing to fund them. The fact that you--despite how highly you may value your own opinion--are "fine" with institutions violating antitrust laws tells us nothing about whether society benefits from not enforcing them. The fact that you simply disregard--"Ha! That's Rich!"--a major tax policy that subsidizes a sport you happen to like tells us nothing about whether society benefits from continuing to provide it.
The question is not whether certain schools should eliminate their football programs. The question is whether, in the interest of improving society--whether to improve education, to reduce injuries, to increase fairness to football players or whatever reasons may exist--we should completely ban it at the level at which schools complete today. Nothing you have offered in this thread makes any legitimate against that proposition.