The two best reads I've come across thus far regarding realignment

[OkaForPrez]

There is a lot of noise right now: Who wants to be picked by who, who is commited, who is not committed. This teams gone, this teams back, etc.

With all that noise its tough to lock in on why this is happening. Many of you know the past and present very well already, but if you are like me and really were taken by surprise with most of this, then the following two articles are very enlightening.

#1: The shame of college sports
- I came across this link I believe on another board, if its referenced somewhere else in the panic dome that is now the 'yard, I apologize. This 28 page article in the atlantic is everything you want to know about:

• the origins of major college sports in this country
  • The history of paying for players under the table as it started back in the Ivy League
• how the NCAA came to be and why it acts like a cartel
• the "speed trap" enforcement of NCAA bylaws
• the term student athlete and its origins to shield the NCAA from workmens comp claims for injured (and killed) athletes.
• Why the NCAA will eventually be cut out completely by its member universities
  • This is the critical point of the article that starts to give motive for the mass centralization and super conferences
• Current Major Cases moving through the court system regarding college athletes rights to their own likeness filed by Ed OBannon; slayer of Ray's 96 team.

Once you are up to speed on that, here is a much shorter economic viewpoint as to why reallignment is occuring:
Why Realignment will not end well.
This article was tweeted by Bilas today and compliments the atlantic article well.
If anybody else has any good resources regarding the actual economic motivations of this shift, I'd love to read them.

 

[upstater]

There's poor logic. The analysis of splitting revs according to the NFL's 50/50 formula is a farce. Claiming the term student athlete was invented as a shield is also a farce since there are a bunch of legally exploited employee's on campus in the same category, with the same bans on external work, and they don't get paid for their work either. Colleges exploit labor, always have: it's called apprenticeship. And they do it because people agree to be exploited in order to join the university, as athletes, as teachers, researchers, etc. This is not anything new. Nor is it a surprise to realize there have always been scandals.

What I find totally disingenuous about such articles is the total lack of economic analysis.

 

[huskiesNhoos]

As far as I'm concerned college athletes are getting paid. My college education cost me $30k+ a year for 4 years...theirs costs $0

 

[progrocks]

As far as I'm concerned college athletes are getting paid. My college education cost me $30k+ a year for 4 years...theirs costs $0

yes, but the NCAA is saying that everyone has to be making the same amount. How about Congress passing a law that every kid coming out of college can only make $30k, no matter what they do or how good they do it. Does that make sense? Would you be for it? No, you get what the market thinks you are worth. Let the kids test the market.

 

[upstater]

yes, but the NCAA is saying that everyone has to be making the same amount. How about Congress passing a law that every kid coming out of college can only make $30k, no matter what they do or how good they do it. Does that make sense? Would you be for it? No, you get what the market thinks you are worth. Let the kids test the market.

The market is purely a factor of the college's reputation. You take the school's name off the jerseys and absolutely no one wants to see these kids play. They are not that good. It would be like watching the Peoria Peons play the Fayetville Flames. The whole enterprise would collapse instantly if they were playing outside the college market. Now, that doesn't mean no one wants to pay these players, of course the boosters and agents do. But in a market where you have one entity (colleges) not paying, it would seem there's a huge opportunity for a competitor to start a minor football league. So why hasn't that happened? Because the market is weak.

Look at the NBDL, what's their attendance like?

 

[HuskyBaggins]

There's poor logic. The analysis of splitting revs according to the NFL's 50/50 formula is a farce. Claiming the term student athlete was invented as a shield is also a farce since there are a bunch of legally exploited employee's on campus in the same category, with the same bans on external work, and they don't get paid for their work either. Colleges exploit labor, always have: it's called apprenticeship. And they do it because people agree to be exploited in order to join the university, as athletes, as teachers, researchers, etc. This is not anything new. Nor is it a surprise to realize there have always been scandals.

What I find totally disingenuous about such articles is the total lack of economic analysis.

compensation is one thing. protection against harm is another. i would be very curious to know if an "unpaid" lab assistant would get workman's comp in the event of a lab explosion.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

indeed, the second linked article is outstanding and is very likely the way forward:

Schools need to permanently cut back on athletics spending. The major football powers must break away from the NCAA. The bowl system needs to go. If conference realignment brings us closer to these goals, then it will have been worth it.

we as UConn fans just have to hope that when the music stops, there is a chair available for us at the "major football powers" table.

the thing I most look forward to is the major football powers breaking away from the NCAA. eventually, after that, the NCAA will soon cease to exist.

 

[upstater]

compensation is one thing. protection against harm is another. i would be very curious to know if an "unpaid" lab assistant would get workman's comp in the event of a lab explosion.

Of course they wouldn't.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

Of course they wouldn't.

based on... ? your assumption ? if you have an implied employment contract, whether or not you are explicitly compensated does not disqualify your rights. in fact, in most cases you cannot waive the kind of rights granted under workmans compensation laws, or other employment laws

i don't know if the issue of workmans comp for "student athletes" is even true, but it is the definition of "employee" they appear to be trying to get around. internships are almost always defined as "employees"