Quite the opposite. There seems to be a lot of issues with the concept of paying college athletes. Would the schools still compete in the NCAA? Would le IX come into play? Who would pay the athletes? How many schools actually operate in the black? Would the athletes have agents? Could the agents coerce students to go to this or that school? Could alumni pay athletes to attend a school of the alumni's choice?
I'm all for students getting some of the money. Just seems to be a lot of prefabbed roadblocks, perhaps intentionally so or perhaps it wasn't originally intended to be a cash cow but became one, and so rules were built to keep the money with the wealthy. It just seems it could crumble pretty easily.
I thought this whole thing was about kids being allowed to collect monies from endorsements without repercussions, not schools actually paying the players?
I get that certain schools in big markets might have an implicit edge over smaller schools for recruiting, but players are still raw as coming out of highschool (Lebron notwithstanding), it doesn't sound like it would be a major issue, and it's generally a gamble.
That article you posted was BS one sided accounting. I have never worked at a place where the computer or similar work instruments I worked on, the office I worked in, the training classes I attended etc was counted as part of my compensation. Health care is not cut and dry considering that the universities offer clinical care as part of their tuition and further because of the injuries that are incurred from the service they provide. For the sake of argument lets include health care as compensation.
The average yearly cost of going to Stanford, a private school renowned for being costly, is $75k. That is room, board, tuition, books, etc. Health insurance for a 21 year old is on average $200/month or $2400/year. So they compensate college athletes with at most $80k.
We both know that all american athletes would all be making $1m or more given a free market. It's wage suppression plain and simple.
Why do you support a communist ideal?
How many places have you worked at that require you to pay $40K fees to be there normally?
Right now almost anyone who would have endorsements would get paid if they entered the draft anyhow. Some choose to stick it out through school. If you create a vacuum toward the big name schools, the compe ion will cease to exist and the program will fail overall. It's a simple ecology system. Not everything is as exciting in nature as a lion vs a bear, there's a shrimp vs an eel that... meh. You still need all of them to maintain the balance. If you allow the shrimp and eel to suffer so the lion and bear show can get all the wildlife funding, that would make all the Irwins cry.
There is nothing saying that the NCAA should be dissolved. Let the free market decide.
le IX is an NCAA construct. Let the free market decide if it is viable.
Who cares how many schools would operate in the black? Let the market decide.
Athletes should have the freedom to choose their own representation.
Agents would have to operate within the law. Otherwise let the free market decide how successful an agent is.
And of course an alumni could pay someone. That is free market.
All of your questions demonstrate a decided lack of faith in the free market on your part.
The $40k is not to play football. i guarantee you when they get their bill it says nowhere on there anything about their ability to play a sport representing the school. The $40k is for the education.
That is the point. There is a finite dollar value associated with the scholarships the NCAA affords some student athletes. The walkons are really getting screwed.
I don't give 2 s about college sports.
I presented the talking points those opposed or undecided would present. When the smoke clears and all the cute quips fade, those talking points will be what drives debate.
Why doesn't the free market already exist? Basically someone else start a football program and hire the students to play ball. If a student is going to accept a scholarship knowing the rules, isn't that free market? Don't you have the right to start your own football league?
The NCAA is a trust. Do you not understand how monopolies control markets?
You should stop writing in declarations about things you have no way of knowing. My sig is all about that.
In a free market monopolies arise for two reasons: 1. A business drives compe ors from the market by being more efficient or providing a better product, or 2. An entrepreneur is the first to offer a new product. In each case, if the monopoly persists it means that provider is more efficient or more innovative than its rivals. When government protects businesses from compe ion or subsidizes costs, efficiency and innovation suffer. But that, of course, is not the free market.
So, free market or no? If the rules are only NCAA rules, ignore them and create a better system.
Ah but le IX isn't NCAA construct (as you said). It's a federal thinggy.
Can't I change my mind as the event unfolds like you do?
Or independent firms collectively agree to fix the market thus creating a trust which is the case here. Or all manner of other reasons.
And I have to say that 1) is incredibly naive. Now some monopolies may be formed by benign or admirable methods as you describe but the issue is what happens once they dominate the market. Prices go up, innovation and product/service quality goes down amongst all manner of undesirable outcomes occur because there is no compe ion. There are centuries of empirical evidence demonstrating this dynamic.
Personally, I am all for a mixed economy where free market is the default. In the case of trusts, markets of scale, societal need, vertical demand markets, and similar phenomenon I support market intervention. I reject economic puritanism either way. For myself, you have hundreds of firms in the market and zero economic basis for intervention when it comes to the NCAA beyond the trust itself. End the collusion and let the market decide as they compete for market share.
I just find it interesting that conservatives who tend towards said puritanism lose their religion when it comes to NCAA athletics.
Explain why you cannot start your own football league and pay the athletes. Colleges attract students, and those students sometimes have special skills colleges can use to sell entertainment. They make an agreement with the student and it works for both, historically.
It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Free market is free market. Intervention to prevent monopolies isn't free market. It might be better for the market health overall but it's not free market. So if you're ok with market intervention for the sake of market health, why aren't you concerned with the college football market? How will the health of that market fare if all the talent is pooled in just a few big name schools? With those types of incentives that some schools cannot afford, that would happen. Do you care? Maybe not, let it crumble since it's free market, but it's hypocritical to be for intervention for one market and not for the other. It's as if the college market (and it is a college market, the demand doesn't exist elsewhere yet and we saw how the USFL and other "leagues" fared) doesn't need health to survive as long as it churns out NFL prospects. Is college ball really just a farm for the pros?And I have to say that 1) is incredibly naive. Now some monopolies may be formed by benign or admirable methods as you describe but the issue is what happens once they dominate the market. Prices go up, innovation and product/service quality goes down amongst all manner of undesirable outcomes occur because there is no compe ion. There are centuries of empirical evidence demonstrating this dynamic.
Personally, I am all for a mixed economy where free market is the default. In the case of trusts, markets of scale, societal need, vertical demand markets, and similar phenomenon I support market intervention. I reject economic puritanism either way. For myself, you have hundreds of firms in the market and zero economic basis for intervention when it comes to the NCAA beyond the trust itself. End the collusion and let the market decide as they compete for market share.
I just find it interesting that conservatives who tend towards said puritanism lose their religion when it comes to NCAA athletics.
The NCAA is a trust and monopolizes the market with it's agreement with the NFL. The NFL at least has a collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated with the players and is renegotiated periodically. The NCAA charter was not created in a similar fashion. It was done by the firms themselves. I am fine with a collectively bargained agreement with the players.
And the US has been having its cake and eating it too ever since the Roosevelts ended the laissez faire stupidity a century ago. It's not hypocritical because I do not espouse to be puritan. i simply say that you can only intervene in markets with cause else it defaults to free market. Monopolies are certainly cause.
And all the talent is already concentrated in a handful of schools. And no I do not care if some sports programs fail because the market will not bear their existence. And the USFL, XFL, etc all have to deal with a trust. It's collectively bargained so it is exempt from the Sherman Act but it's still there. At least their workers aren't getting screwed.
While I personally won't mind seeing the whole thing unravel if that's what happens because I subscribe to the George Carlin theory of Chaos, I don't believe those in power will allow that to happen because .. Well you know why.
The only positive. The return of NCAA series
boom
NCAA yields to pressure, to allow players to profit from their names
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
