1st paragraph of Jacobs article. Stealing from the late Alan Greenberg.

[VAHuskyFan]

1. The players earn money that is then plowed into their coaching, their training, their tutoring, their facilities, their travel, etc . . .

2. If you paid the players, do you think the school would then NOT compete for coaches (top dollar) or build top notch facilities? . . .

3. The cost of other college athletics argument is effectively irrelevant these days. Budgets are approaching $150m at schools. Most schools run their entire Olympic athletic programs for $5-10m tops. It is a very small part of the budget.

Of course schools would still compete for coaches and build facilities, but those would become secondary forms of competition. What’s going on now is what happened with the airlines during price regulation. They couldn’t gain extra customers by offering lower fares, so they offered extravagent meals, free drinks, upgraded the cabins, etc. Did people like those things? Sure! That’s why the airlines did them. But once prices price regulation ended, we’ve seen what’s happened because most people would rather have an extra $200 in their pocket than a “gourmet” meal and an extra-wide seat.

If schools are allowed to pay players, paying players will become the FIRST thing schools focus on doing to attract talent and the budget will bite in other areas. They will still spend on upgrading coaches and facilities going forward, but they will spend less. This is just how markets work.

 

[CL82]

You raise a very good point. Yes, it’s true that the NCAA argues that paying players would ruin the experience for us as fans. The NCAA has a lot riding on that story and they go to great lengths to promote it. I’m not sure there’s a lot to back it up.

And if it is true, we should all be asking ourselves some pretty searching questions. Namely, why does our enjoyment require that the players we profess to cheer for be denied the right to get paid the market value for their talent and hard work?

We cheer for the schools. That's why. We cheer for our alma maters. For our state schools. Just like we did in high school.

Can't say that any better than Upstater did.

Your entire argument takes as a given that college sports are just an alternative pro league in the minds of fans. That assumption is wrong.

 

[upstater]

Of course schools would still compete for coaches and build facilities, but those would become secondary forms of competition. What’s going on now is what happened with the airlines during price regulation. They couldn’t gain extra customers by offering lower fares, so they offered extravagent meals, free drinks, upgraded the cabins, etc. Did people like those things? Sure! That’s why the airlines did them. But once prices price regulation ended, we’ve seen what’s happened because most people would rather have an extra $200 in their pocket than a “gourmet” meal and an extra-wide seat.

If schools are allowed to pay players, paying players will become the FIRST thing schools focus on doing to attract talent and the budget will bite in other areas. They will still spend on upgrading coaches and facilities going forward, but they will spend less. This is just how markets work.

I think we just disagree.

They will never spend less.

UConn is in the hole $30m a year.

When are they going to start spending less?

ANSWER: when they decide to stop playing sports at a high level.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Of course schools would still compete for coaches and build facilities, but those would become secondary forms of competition. What’s going on now is what happened with the airlines during price regulation. They couldn’t gain extra customers by offering lower fares, so they offered extravagent meals, free drinks, upgraded the cabins, etc. Did people like those things? Sure! That’s why the airlines did them. But once prices price regulation ended, we’ve seen what’s happened because most people would rather have an extra $200 in their pocket than a “gourmet” meal and an extra-wide seat.

If schools are allowed to pay players, paying players will become the FIRST thing schools focus on doing to attract talent and the budget will bite in other areas. They will still spend on upgrading coaches and facilities going forward, but they will spend less. This is just how markets work.

Thanks for the contribution, but I'm not so sure that the unadorned word "just" in your final sentence captures things as broadly and with such certainty as it reads.

 

[VAHuskyFan]

Can't say that any better than Upstater did.

Your entire argument takes as a given that college sports are just an alternative pro league in the minds of fans. That assumption is wrong.

No, it doesn’t. Coaches get paid big bucks and no one would watch their teams if they were merely the d-league Hartford Thundercats or whatever. Schools want to win and are willing to pay for the coaches, administrators, and facilities to make that happen. Funny how this argument about the value all coming from the school name only ever applies to the athletes themselves.

The only question is whether college athletes should get paid. There will be college sports one way or the other.*

*The only way paying students wouldn’t work is if fans’ delicate feelings about “amateurism” are so hurt that they refuse to watch their college teams anymore. And if that’s the case - if fans’ enjoyment of college sports requires that an anticompetitive cartel deny teenagers the ability to profit from their talents the way any other American can, then we should just burn the whole thing down.

 

[VAHuskyFan]

I think we just disagree.

They will never spend less.

UConn is in the hole $30m a year.

When are they going to start spending less?

ANSWER: when they decide to stop playing sports at a high level.

I’m not saying they will spend less overall.

If you’re the AD, you are still going to spend every dollar you can to attract the best athletes and field winning teams. I think we agree on this point.

So let’s say you have a budget of $80M a year. It’s now legal to pay players.

If it’s me, I’m suddenly allocating a bunch of that money to paying top players to enroll at my school. I’m putting other stuff on hold and looking for ways to squeeze money out of the budget to win a bidding war for the prized 5* recruit who can take our team to the top level.

Maybe you’d do things differently.

 

[CL82]

No, it doesn’t. Coaches get paid big bucks and no one would watch their teams if they were merely the d-league Hartford Thundercats or whatever. Schools want to win and are willing to pay for the coaches, administrators, and facilities to make that happen. Funny how this argument about the value all coming from the school name only ever applies to the athletes themselves.

The only question is whether college athletes should get paid. There will be college sports one way or the other.*

*The only way paying students wouldn’t work is if fans’ delicate feelings about “amateurism” are so hurt that they refuse to watch their college teams anymore. And if that’s the case - if fans’ enjoyment of college sports requires that an anticompetitive cartel deny teenagers the ability to profit from their talents the way any other American can, then we should just burn the whole thing down.

Wow, once your core assumption got challenged you got a little bitter huh?

Tell you what. Instead of 'burning the whole thing down', how about you just stop watching and the rest of us will go on enjoying college sports.

 

[whaler11]

1. The players earn money that is then plowed into their coaching, their training, their tutoring, their facilities, their travel, etc. They have a setup (facilities, trainers, coaching) that no other pro minor league int he entire world has. Emeka Okafor just wrote an article about his experiences this season in the NBDL (middle school gyms, long bus rides, etc., Gold's Gym) that make the differences stark. In other words, the schools have no interest in losing more money when all the proceeds already are used in that arms race.

2. If you paid the players, do you think the school would then NOT compete for coaches (top dollar) or build top notch facilities? Of course they would. There would still be an arms race. Not to mention the fact that players already get $5k over and above their tuition, food, housing, utilities and fees.

3. The cost of other college athletics argument is effectively irrelevant these days. Budgets are approaching $150m at schools. Most schools run their entire Olympic athletic programs for $5-10m tops. It is a very small part of the budget. I know a MAC school that ramped up D1 football, and their budget went from $7m for the entire athletic program to $30m+ in 2 years.

So why not let the market determine their compensation beyond the scholarship. Why not let Johnny Football sell his autograph? Why not let Katie Lou sell cars for Bertera Subaru? If some random kid's You Tube channel throws off money why not let him keep it?

You know as well as anyone that European soccer academies have better facilities, better trainers and better coaches.

They don't have to lose more money - they could save money by just giving up the illusion of amateurism. If Adidas wants to pay Michael Porter to wear their sneakers, why not let them? It's pretty stupid to pretend that Kwinton Williams should be compensated like Ben Simmons.

 

[olehead]

Compensation is key. Base compensation on revenue generated. Is the coach worth $3 million per year vs. the UConn basketball player's value loosely calculated at $106,000 a year (this includes room, board, tuition, books, fees and other expenses for the UConn student)? The walk-on's value, the last man on the bench has value relative to the generation of revenue. If men's b-ball generated revenue, factoring in all revenue streams tied to the program is significantly greater than 106k per player, pay the players and staff accordingly. This should result in an extreme market adjustment for the salaries of coaches, university athletic program staffers, and administrative higher-ups. I believe players and their families will soon grow tired of this charade of amateurism and begin to seek out other options. The driving force is the NBA best interest. There are plenty of corporate bodies desiring to seize on this opportunity to snatch up top 100, top 200 high school talent and either place them overseas or for the purpose of establishing a league (see LaVar). If these options vying for great high school talent becomes of substance, perhaps the NBA begins to feel the heat and will need to make adjustments. Certainly, one and done would be dead. The G-league would have to become an attractive option, the No. 1 option for great high school talent. And in order to do so, it would need a substantial upgrade, starting with salaries. Whether the FBI ultimately simply kicks up dirt or it seriously strikes NCAA basketball (and later football), the real impact is that players and families that may have never considered their market value and immediate economic power are now doing so, mainly because this FBI investigation and the commentary which has flowed from the investigation has made it crystal clear which now makes the NCAA far from the only game in town.

 

[olehead]

Oh, and by the way, the result might be a less talented college game. The NCAA failure to budge may create a market for less gifted athletes who see paid for higher education as compensation enough, they are satisfied. They are well informed of their options, recognize their value and decide upon a scholarshipped education versus the high-level basketball player who may well desire higher education but recognizes the ability to command the appropriate compensation which may include the ability to afford to pay for higher education at some institution (brick and mortar or online).

 

[whaler11]

Compensation is key. Base compensation on revenue generated. Is the coach worth $3 million per year vs. the UConn basketball player's value loosely calculated at $106,000 a year (this includes room, board, tuition, books, fees and other expenses for the UConn student)? The walk-on's value, the last man on the bench has value relative to the generation of revenue. If men's b-ball generated revenue, factoring in all revenue streams tied to the program is significantly greater than 106k per player, pay the players and staff accordingly. This should result in an extreme market adjustment for the salaries of coaches, university athletic program staffers, and administrative higher-ups. I believe players and their families will soon grow tired of this charade of amateurism and begin to seek out other options. The driving force is the NBA best interest. There are plenty of corporate bodies desiring to seize on this opportunity to snatch up top 100, top 200 high school talent and either place them overseas or for the purpose of establishing a league (see LaVar). If these options vying for great high school talent becomes of substance, perhaps the NBA begins to feel the heat and will need to make adjustments. Certainly, one and done would be dead. The G-league would have to become an attractive option, the No. 1 option for great high school talent. And in order to do so, it would need a substantial upgrade, starting with salaries. Whether the FBI ultimately simply kicks up dirt or it seriously strikes NCAA basketball (and later football), the real impact is that players and families that may have never considered their market value and immediate economic power are now doing so, mainly because this FBI investigation and the commentary which has flowed from the investigation has made it crystal clear which now makes the NCAA far from the only game in town.

Oh, and by the way, the result might be a less talented college game. The NCAA failure to budge may create a market for less gifted athletes who see paid for higher education as compensation enough, they are satisfied. They are well informed of their options, recognize their value and decide upon a scholarshipped education versus the high-level basketball player who may well desire higher education but recognizes the ability to command the appropriate compensation which may include the ability to afford to pay for higher education at some institution (brick and mortar or online).

Thought provoking.

My first conclusion.

Paragraphs are under valued.

 

[olehead]

Thought provoking.

My first conclusion.

Paragraphs are under valued.

My bad.

 

[Fishy]

My bad.

Don’t apologize to him.

I’ve spent more time than I’d care to admit trying to decipher some of his post-happy hour missives.

 

[whaler11]

Don’t apologize to him.

I’ve spent more time than I’d care to admit trying to decipher some of his post-happy hour missives.

That’s @Walker11. Keep us straight.

 

[Walker11]

That’s @Walker11. Keep us straight.

Hard to deny when recent posting history details drinking so much beer in the past month that I became sick of IPAs.

Anyways, I woke up to a warning from a mod for being political outside of the Cesspool when I sure as hell wasn't.

 

[upstater]

So why not let the market determine their compensation beyond the scholarship. Why not let Johnny Football sell his autograph? Why not let Katie Lou sell cars for Bertera Subaru? If some random kid's You Tube channel throws off money why not let him keep it?

You know as well as anyone that European soccer academies have better facilities, better trainers and better coaches.

They don't have to lose more money - they could save money by just giving up the illusion of amateurism. If Adidas wants to pay Michael Porter to wear their sneakers, why not let them? It's pretty stupid to pretend that Kwinton Williams should be compensated like Ben Simmons.

I am in favor of them getting paid by outside sources, even though I believe it would ruin the game. Because boosters would then be involved.

The soccer point is irrelevant though. Soccer is a money making enterprise in Europe. In the USA, it is a money-leeching enterprise. But the larger point about the academies is that kids go through without much of an education, not that the NCAA does a good job, but it's better than Europe.

The NBDL has nowhere near the support of college basketball, resources, facilities, etc.

 

[whaler11]

I am in favor of them getting paid by outside sources, even though I believe it would ruin the game. Because boosters would then be involved.

The soccer point is irrelevant though. Soccer is a money making enterprise in Europe. In the USA, it is a money-leeching enterprise. But the larger point about the academies is that kids go through without much of an education, not that the NCAA does a good job, but it's better than Europe.

The NBDL has nowhere near the support of college basketball, resources, facilities, etc.

The only difference would be that people can’t pretend away the reality of today’s situation.

 

[upstater]

The only difference would be that people can’t pretend away the reality of today’s situation.

It would ruin the game because open bidding would create a new dynamic. The call for scholarships for these kids would come under questions. The idea of the student athlete in these sports would erode further. At some point, people would compare the non-students playing in the NCAAs to the on-students playing in the NBDL.

 

[whaler11]

It would ruin the game because open bidding would create a new dynamic. The call for scholarships for these kids would come under questions. The idea of the student athlete in these sports would erode further. At some point, people would compare the non-students playing in the NCAAs to the on-students playing in the NBDL.

Only because people choose to believe that isn’t already the case.

 

[upstater]

Only because people choose to believe that isn’t already the case.

It's not the case. Every kid doesn't get paid. Some kids do go to class.

We're talking entire classes 1-13 bid by SEC types. No one goes to class.

 

[whaler11]

It's not the case. Every kid doesn't get paid. Some kids do go to class.

We're talking entire classes 1-13 bid by SEC types. No one goes to class.

That’s not going to happen. There aren’t that many kids who have real value.

No one goes to class now at those programs.

 

[upstater]

That’s not going to happen. There aren’t that many kids who have real value.

No one goes to class now at those programs.

Boosters won't care about that. They will overload. Value to them is meaningless. Winning games is more important, not extracting cash from future earnings (i.e. agents).

Plus, you might see an avalanche of money now that the agents can cut out the runners. Agents can go direct and give more money.

 

[whaler11]

Boosters won't care about that. They will overload. Value to them is meaningless. Winning games is more important, not extracting cash from future earnings (i.e. agents).

Plus, you might see an avalanche of money now that the agents can cut out the runners. Agents can go direct and give more money.

Won’t someone think of the runners!

 

[upstater]

Won’t someone think of the runners!

Yes, that is exactly the point of the discussion, my overriding concern for the runners, not how the elimination of runners will allow people to pay even more money in a cleaner, faster way to more players!! You read that correctly.