"That said, how can we prevent self-serving, chaotic oneupmanship from states without punishing states that refuse to respect the rules from the national party?"

The problem is that the DNC is not punishing the people who are most responsible for moving up the date, namely the Republican governor and legislature. Actually, they are being rewarded by seeing Democrats disenfranchised and demoralized. Their own party is just taking away half their delegates.

If you want respect, you don't punish your friends and reward your enemies.

The date of the primary election was not set by Democrats in Florida. It was changed by an act was which passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist (R). The Florida House and Senate are both 35% Democratic.

So enough of this nonsense about Florida Democrats acting like spoiled children. Wouldn't you complain if the Democratic Party took away your vote because of a decision you had nothing to do with?

"The party rules are not fiats handed down from the mountain. They are the result of democratic decision making of the party, in which the Florida Democrats could and did take duly part. They just didn't like the result."

The policies of the US government are not fiats handed down from the mountain. They are the results of the democratic decision making of the country, in which Salon readers could and did take duly part. They just don't like the result.

If the Dems truly didn't want this outcome, all they had to do was RESIST the bill (even knowing that they couldn't stop it) and they would have fulfilled the "rules" of the DNC...

So basically I am being disenfranchised because my state legislators weren't smart enough to act like characters in a bodice-ripper romance. Can't the DNC just send them to a Catholic high school or something?

Either you've got the balls (ovaries) or you don't. Anyone can put on a skirt.

Let's consider two observations that Lewis makes:

#1. College players work for minimal pay, and

#2. Only a tiny percentage will ever have an NFL career.

If you think about it in economic terms, #2 largely explains #1. The vast majority of college players simply aren't good enough at playing football to get paid real money for it. This is proven when they leave college and the NFL is not interested in paying them to play. If there were no college football, the best they could hope for is to play for a minor league team for lousy wages.

It may sound cold, but most of these guys are probably better off under the current system than if there were no scholarship athletes. Only a few stars like Vince Young are really getting screwed.

Karlos,

Sure the system is corrupt, but relative to what?

Look, I am a liberal. I think that everyone who qualifies for college should be able to get a free education at a public university. The fact is, however, that most students have to get into debt to get an education. Scholarship student-athletes don't, and their graduation rate is comparable to other students. This is even true for Division I football players. You can look it up (http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/instAggr2007/1_0.pdf).

College football players are, by and large, people who are physically gifted with marginal academic skills. (I realize there are exceptions.) If athletic scholarships were abolished tomorrow, who would reach out to these people? If anyone wants to replace athletic scholarships with free college education, I'm on board!

"The vast majority of college players aren't good enough at playiing football to play in the NFL. That doesn't mean they aren't good enough to get paid real money for it. Obviously, they are, because they're playing for teams that generate huge amounts of revenue."

There are a few college programs that make tens of millions of dollars of revenue. Most make quite a bit less. Keep in mind, moreover, that they can give out 85 athletic scholarships. A million dollars divided by 85 people is about $12,000. You also have to consider that they have other costs besides player labor, and that the colleges are banking on their name in addition to the quality of play. (Take Notre Dame. Please.)

I will grant there is a certain collusion between the NFL and the NCAA. They should get rid of minimum age.

Karlos,

There is an easy way to avoid the opportunity costs: don't accept an athletic scholarship. A student who is willing to borrow the money and work (like any student without athletic gifts) is free to study whatever they want and work as hard as they want.

Karlos,

If they're old enough to join the Army, they're old enough to decide whether an athletic scholarship is a good deal for them.

But I'm all for transparency. Maybe the NCAA should an information packet that lays out all of the options and the particular costs and benefits.

I am only going to defend the status quo so far. There is no question that it is hypocritical and phony. But if we are going to talk about reforming it, we need to make sure we aren't working from false premises. For one thing, we need to let go of this assumption that colleges are making oodles and oodles of money off of these guys. As Murray Sperber (no admirer of the current system) likes to point out, most college athletic departments operate at a loss. The players aren't missing out on their cut of the profits, because they're aren't any.

Perhaps the fairest thing would be to set things up so colleges have to pay market value for the players. I would suspect, however, that the vast majority of players would actually come out behind. We don't want to push a reform that harms the people it is supposed to help.