You posted:
these poor athletes who are under-compensated for their efforts, and maybe some of them get an education too (which often they are getting shortchanged on, when the demands of your revenue sports makes it incredibly difficult to enroll in a degree that you might wish to and better fits your educational aspirations). But don't look over here at others who are being fairly compensated for their efforts, even though both of you are responsible for the product being sold.
When your argument fell apart, you claimed:
i said "under-compensated relative to market value" not "under-compensated to effort". Big difference.
Then you wrote:
Name me any other sport market anywhere in the world where this such disparity between coaching pay and athlete pay other than NCAA revenue sports. just one. That's not proof by itself, it's just another corroborating point.
I gave a direct, real-life response which encompasses dozens of examples:
All high school and college athletics -- every sport -- fits that definition.
Your response:
This is a silly argument.
You went on to claim:
Internships are similarly time boxed, and yet interns are paid market wages (which sometimes in some industries in rough economies is 0 or negative).
My reply:
And internships? Wasn't it you who argued the unfairness of the medical system and how interns are treated and paid? Are you changing your tune?
To which you stated:
don't compare medical residencies to regular internships in many other industries. Medical residencies absolutely are not market rates. Most other internships are.
unless I missed something, what exact examples did you give? all i saw was more silly explanation for why college sports is different and justify why student athletes should be paid below their market rates.
So, yes, you changed your tune. And you repeatedly change it when your arguments are slipping. You claim that opinions and real-world examples countering your stance are “silly”, so you pretend they don’t exist. You deny making statements that are here in black and white when it turns out they obviously do not support your argument.
Just another person who moves the goalposts when they see their arguments are failing. I don't know how NIL will work out, but I expect that people can discuss it logically, with intellectual honesty, and without the drama.