this debate will go on and on, and the Northwestern ruling has the potential to blow up college sports

I've read the arguments that players should get paid, and I agree they should get a stipend

Much of the counter arguments point to the value of the scholarship, which are worth anywhere from $100K to $300K.

BUT WHAT I DON'T HEAR

College sports is a super marketing campaign for players, and its value CAN meet the value of the big revenues that a player brings to a college.

Colleges are providing a high value stage for 5 star players to grow their 'brand', get max exposure to their future employers, and develop their skills and body to prepare for the pros.

The 'deal' is even better for good, but not star players out of HS. Most players would not even get a look without the exposure and development in college. College gives these players a chance to prove themselves on the national stage. Otherwise, these players would get lost in obscurity and have no shot at a pro career

THE REAL EQUATION

[U]What the college gets:[/U]
1. TV money
2. Revenue from ticket and merchandise sales
3. Revenue from bowl participation
4. PR for the school, and it's benefits to fund raising

[U]What the player gets:[/U]
1. scholarship
2. room and board
3. professional level skill development in their sport
4. professional level training (e.g. weight training, nutrition, etc)
5. developing and growing players brand
6. national exposure, PR, advertising
7. assistance with obtaining the 'interview' with future potential employers

Seems like a pretty even deal to me

8. trim

I believe that football and men's basketball players should and will eventually get a stipend. If you evaluated a college athlete like you evaluate professional athletes, you would get a sense of their value.

From my understanding, a scholarship is a year by year contract that can be terminated by both the school and the athlete. So hypothetically, you could think of each high school recruit and every college athlete as a "free agent" after every year. So for example, let's say Ivan Rabb is a free agent and can accept bids from any school and can go to the highest bidder. How much money do you think a school (and their donors) would be willing to pay for his services. Or since scholarships are a per year contract, let's say Johnny Manziel was allowed to hit the open market after his freshman year at A&M. How much money would schools be willing to pay for the rights to his sophomore season. Keep in mind that during his freshman campaign A&M generated $37 million in media exposure.

I understand that both of these athletes are considered by many to be among the best in their respective sports. And that if you looked at the kicker at a school, he would not have nearly the same value. But the point of my argument was that if you truly want to get the sense of an college athletes value, you have to view them as an asset that can be purchased (just like professional athletes).

Once again, I DON'T think this is the way that college athletics should operate. Administrators, coaches, and professors all have the opportunity to have their services valued on the open market. And I believe that in order to get at the true value of a college athlete, you need to view them in a similar manner.

HoopDreams;842301051 said:

---

this debate will go on and on, and the Northwestern ruling has the potential to blow up college sports

I've read the arguments that players should get paid, and I agree they should get a stipend

Much of the counter arguments point to the value of the scholarship, which are worth anywhere from $100K to $300K.

BUT WHAT I DON'T HEAR

College sports is a super marketing campaign for players, and its value CAN meet the value of the big revenues that a player brings to a college.

---

You don't hear it because it is impertinent. A reasonable debate exists on the nature of the employment relationship between the players and the programs. If they are not in fact employees, then the particulars of their compensation is rightfully the arbitrary discretion of the schools. If they are in fact employees, then they are entitled to a fair market in which to seek the value of their labor. It would not be up to schools to unilaterally determine that the value of the benefits the players are receiving is a fair exchange for the value of their labor.

HoopDreams said:

---

Colleges are providing a high value stage for 5 star players to grow their 'brand', get max exposure to their future employers, and develop their skills and body to prepare for the pros.

The 'deal' is even better for good, but not star players out of HS. Most players would not even get a look without the exposure and development in college. College gives these players a chance to prove themselves on the national stage. Otherwise, these players would get lost in obscurity and have no shot at a pro career


THE REAL EQUATION

[U]What the college gets:[/U]
1. TV money
2. Revenue from ticket and merchandise sales
3. Revenue from bowl participation
4. PR for the school, and it's benefits to fund raising

[U]What the player gets:[/U]
1. scholarship
2. room and board
3. professional level skill development in their sport
4. professional level training (e.g. weight training, nutrition, etc)
5. developing and growing players brand
6. national exposure, PR, advertising
7. assistance with obtaining the 'interview' with future potential employers

---

The marketing which the players undoubtedly benefit from is not designed for their benefit. ADs market their players to market their program. That is the only reason they do it. If it didn't raise the profile of their program, leading to more success and more money, they wouldn't do it. If tomorrow the players were paid by contracts, the schools would continue to market them to the same extent. Why? Because they make money off of it.

The irony behind your argument is it only highlights another exploitation in the current relationship: the schools are allowed to leverage the players in marketing for their own purposes with no immediate benefit to the player, and indeed without their consent. It's ridiculous that the schools are allowed to profit off of the player's image without the player being allowed to do the same.

What has always been striking to me is the degree to which people like yourself are willing to rationalize certain properties of the employee-employer relationship here that they would never accept lying down in their own jobs. If you were a software developer whose skills fetch $50/hour on the open market and your skills enable the operations of your multi-billion dollar company, would you be cool if they came to you and said, "Bob, we know you're worth $50 an hour, but since working for Google is going to be such an attractive line on your resume, we're going to pay you $20 an hour instead." No, of course you wouldn't be cool with it. You'd start looking for other jobs. Except in this twisted world, every IT department in the country has entered into a compact with each other to only pay their developers $20 an hour, so you're left without a recourse.

Your arguments regarding the benefit that players receive from their development in college are really dumb. Does Cal develop their players out of players out of altruism? No, of course not. They develop their players so they can win games (and correspondingly, make more money).

Aside from the point that the schools are not doing it out of altruism, does anyone believe that if college football programs decided tomorrow that they were no longer going to invest in the resources that allow for the development of football players that a new market would not be formed which would do so? No, of course not. If all college football programs closed their doors tomorrow, high level minor leagues would quickly be organized. Would they be as lucrative revenue machines as college football programs? No. Would it harm the quality of development that players get? Probably. Do these facts weigh in your favor? Ultimately, no, because in this terrible world, colleges are no longer making $2.2 billion/year off of the players (that's just FBS programs, too). So who gets hurt worse?

HoopDreams said:

---

Seems like a pretty even deal to me

---

Cool. Then you should have no objection to submitting it to the rigors of a fair market economy, where the schools are forced into open financial competition with each other for the player's services. If the value of the player's labor is really worth no more to the school than the current cost to the school in employing the player, then ultimately the players as a group will get no larger a share of the revenue pie than they presently do.

btsktr;842301079 said:

---

I believe that football and men's basketball players should and will eventually get a stipend. If you evaluated a college athlete like you evaluate professional athletes, you would get a sense of their value.

From my understanding, a scholarship is a year by year contract that can be terminated by both the school and the athlete. So hypothetically, you could think of each high school recruit and every college athlete as a "free agent" after every year. So for example, let's say Ivan Rabb is a free agent and can accept bids from any school and can go to the highest bidder. How much money do you think a school (and their donors) would be willing to pay for his services. Or since scholarships are a per year contract, let's say Johnny Manziel was allowed to hit the open market after his freshman year at A&M. How much money would schools be willing to pay for the rights to his sophomore season. Keep in mind that during his freshman campaign A&M generated $37 million in media exposure.

I understand that both of these athletes are considered by many to be among the best in their respective sports. And that if you looked at the kicker at a school, he would not have nearly the same value. But the point of my argument was that if you truly want to get the sense of an college athletes value, you have to view them as an asset that can be purchased (just like professional athletes).

Once again, I DON'T think this is the way that college athletics should operate. Administrators, coaches, and professors all have the opportunity to have their services valued on the open market. And I believe that in order to get at the true value of a college athlete, you need to view them in a similar manner.

---

Yes, all of this.

who is the pimp and who is the hoe ? in this relationship

I think the question is really simple. Should athletes that go to college prioritize :

A) 1. Athletics
2. School

B) 1. School
2. Athletics

If the answer is A, your likely to fall in the category that what we have now is good.
If the answer is B, your likely to fall in the category that what we have now is not good.

In the past, universities were very selective in their process of acceptance. In the present, for profit has taken hold of acceptance rates. That really can't be denied except for the upper elite.

I understand the 'give everyone a chance to succeed' idea. I just think our measure of success shouldn't be tied to a piece of paper. Feel free to disagree with me at any point here. As I'm sure this last statement is more idealistic than realistic.

KevBear;842301081 said:

---

You don't hear it because it is impertinent. A reasonable debate exists on the nature of the employment relationship between the players and the programs. If they are not in fact employees, then the particulars of their compensation is rightfully the arbitrary discretion of the schools. If they are in fact employees, then they are entitled to a fair market in which to seek the value of their labor. It would not be up to schools to unilaterally determine that the value of the benefits the players are receiving is a fair exchange for the value of their labor.




The marketing which the players undoubtedly benefit from is not designed for their benefit. ADs market their players to market their program. That is the only reason they do it. If it didn't raise the profile of their program, leading to more success and more money, they wouldn't do it. If tomorrow the players were paid by contracts, the schools would continue to market them to the same extent. Why? Because they make money off of it.

The irony behind your argument is it only highlights another exploitation in the current relationship: the schools are allowed to leverage the players in marketing for their own purposes with no immediate benefit to the player, and indeed without their consent. It's ridiculous that the schools are allowed to profit off of the player's image without the player being allowed to do the same.

What has always been striking to me is the degree to which people like yourself are willing to rationalize certain properties of the employee-employer relationship here that they would never accept lying down in their own jobs. If you were a software developer whose skills fetch $50/hour on the open market and your skills enable the operations of your multi-billion dollar company, would you be cool if they came to you and said, "Bob, we know you're worth $50 an hour, but since working for Google is going to be such an attractive line on your resume, we're going to pay you $20 an hour instead." No, of course you wouldn't be cool with it. You'd start looking for other jobs. Except in this twisted world, every IT department in the country has entered into a compact with each other to only pay their developers $20 an hour, so you're left without a recourse.

Your arguments regarding the benefit that players receive from their development in college are really dumb. Does Cal develop their players out of players out of altruism? No, of course not. They develop their players so they can win games (and correspondingly, make more money).

Aside from the point that the schools are not doing it out of altruism, does anyone believe that if college football programs decided tomorrow that they were no longer going to invest in the resources that allow for the development of football players that a new market would not be formed which would do so? No, of course not. If all college football programs closed their doors tomorrow, high level minor leagues would quickly be organized. Would they be as lucrative revenue machines as college football programs? No. Would it harm the quality of development that players get? Probably. Do these facts weigh in your favor? Ultimately, no, because in this terrible world, colleges are no longer making $2.2 billion/year off of the players (that's just FBS programs, too). So who gets hurt worse?



Cool. Then you should have no objection to submitting it to the rigors of a fair market economy, where the schools are forced into open financial competition with each other for the player's services. If the value of the player's labor is really worth no more to the school than the current cost to the school in employing the player, then ultimately the players as a group will get no larger a share of the revenue pie than they presently do.

---

the players still have little leverage to change anything meaningful at this point. they need to collaborate and have a widespread movement. the fact that Bill Tyndall is one of the main plaintiffs on a lawsuit tells you all you need to know about how well the players are organized. it will be interesting to see what develops, but at this point i see little that will actually change the sport

KevBear;842301081 said:

---

Cool. Then you should have no objection to submitting it to the rigors of a fair market economy, where the schools are forced into open financial competition with each other for the player's services. If the value of the player's labor is really worth no more to the school than the current cost to the school in employing the player, then ultimately the players as a group will get no larger a share of the revenue pie than they presently do.

---

It's not an open market because the NCAA determines eligibility. The idea of paid free agency for amateur athletes is preposterous. If it's a fair market for athletic talent colleges would be signing guys off NFL practice squads. Kain Colter wouldn't even be a NW football player. He would then have plenty of time to take his pre med classes on his own dime.

Much of this debate revolves around one fact. Many of those pushing this want the NCAA system to go away and are using these kids to advance their agenda. A lot of kids will lose their opportunities but so what. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Right?

Why stop at college athletes? Why not pay high school athletes? Same argument applies right?

I personally don't think schools need to pay college athletes other then the benefits of free/subsidized education. No one is forcing them to go to college.

about this and not talk about it from a distance

idea : pay them if the AD / chancellor has to take little less so be it they wont miss 10-20k year and split it among the paying sports ( maybe the teams will do better ?)

if you are happy with the way things are football/ basketball wise you agree to not pay anything ever .. if you want change @ CAL you better give them some scraps , nothing crazy like 3k a semester ... pocket money


some players run out of meals and if they have no money then what ? starve?

group a yes throw them crumbs and expect something from the players as in terms of yall get this change , rules will be workplace like "wow " that brings in HR stuff complex to say the least remember sharing is caring

group b F yall shut up too bad so sad basically " F you couch"

Well at least we can fire them now if they throw picks. And boo too. Things are looking up

nice free market economics argument
thanks for the thoughtful post

first, we ARE NOW operating in a free market economy regarding college sports.

If players don't like the deal, they shouldn't take it.

They should graduate from HS, hire a trainer, hire a PR agency, grow their brand, send their resume and video to the NFL, and go from there.

No one is forcing them to take such a lousy deal.


If you don't like that argument, that's fine. We will need to change just about everything in college sports, which is what I meant by 'blow up'

What that would look like, and how it would effect everything including schools, teams, star players, other players, non-revenue sports, band members, cheerleaders, high school sports, etc is hard to determine.

I think we will start to find out with Northwestern. Should be interesting.


p.s. your argument that it only counts if value is provided for the other's benefit, and that it doesn't count if an entity does it for their own benefit, is not sound economics. you could argue that EVERYTHING a company provides to their employees are for the company's benefit, not the employee's benefit.

KevBear;842301081 said:

---

You don't hear it because it is impertinent. A reasonable debate exists on the nature of the employment relationship between the players and the programs. If they are not in fact employees, then the particulars of their compensation is rightfully the arbitrary discretion of the schools. If they are in fact employees, then they are entitled to a fair market in which to seek the value of their labor. It would not be up to schools to unilaterally determine that the value of the benefits the players are receiving is a fair exchange for the value of their labor.




The marketing which the players undoubtedly benefit from is not designed for their benefit. ADs market their players to market their program. That is the only reason they do it. If it didn't raise the profile of their program, leading to more success and more money, they wouldn't do it. If tomorrow the players were paid by contracts, the schools would continue to market them to the same extent. Why? Because they make money off of it.

The irony behind your argument is it only highlights another exploitation in the current relationship: the schools are allowed to leverage the players in marketing for their own purposes with no immediate benefit to the player, and indeed without their consent. It's ridiculous that the schools are allowed to profit off of the player's image without the player being allowed to do the same.

What has always been striking to me is the degree to which people like yourself are willing to rationalize certain properties of the employee-employer relationship here that they would never accept lying down in their own jobs. If you were a software developer whose skills fetch $50/hour on the open market and your skills enable the operations of your multi-billion dollar company, would you be cool if they came to you and said, "Bob, we know you're worth $50 an hour, but since working for Google is going to be such an attractive line on your resume, we're going to pay you $20 an hour instead." No, of course you wouldn't be cool with it. You'd start looking for other jobs. Except in this twisted world, every IT department in the country has entered into a compact with each other to only pay their developers $20 an hour, so you're left without a recourse.

Your arguments regarding the benefit that players receive from their development in college are really dumb. Does Cal develop their players out of players out of altruism? No, of course not. They develop their players so they can win games (and correspondingly, make more money).

Aside from the point that the schools are not doing it out of altruism, does anyone believe that if college football programs decided tomorrow that they were no longer going to invest in the resources that allow for the development of football players that a new market would not be formed which would do so? No, of course not. If all college football programs closed their doors tomorrow, high level minor leagues would quickly be organized. Would they be as lucrative revenue machines as college football programs? No. Would it harm the quality of development that players get? Probably. Do these facts weigh in your favor? Ultimately, no, because in this terrible world, colleges are no longer making $2.2 billion/year off of the players (that's just FBS programs, too). So who gets hurt worse?



Cool. Then you should have no objection to submitting it to the rigors of a fair market economy, where the schools are forced into open financial competition with each other for the player's services. If the value of the player's labor is really worth no more to the school than the current cost to the school in employing the player, then ultimately the players as a group will get no larger a share of the revenue pie than they presently do.

---

HoopDreams;842301128 said:

---

nice free market economics argument
thanks for the thoughtful post

first, we ARE NOW operating in a free market economy regarding college sports.

If players don't like the deal, they shouldn't take it.

They should graduate from HS, hire a trainer, hire a PR agency, grow their brand, send their resume and video to the NFL, and go from there.

No one is forcing them to take such a lousy deal.


If you don't like that argument, that's fine. We will need to change just about everything in college sports, which is what I meant by 'blow up'

What that would look like, and how it would effect everything including schools, teams, star players, other players, non-revenue sports, band members, cheerleaders, high school sports, etc is hard to determine.

I think we will start to find out with Northwestern. Should be interesting.


p.s. your argument that it only counts if value is provided for the other's benefit, and that it doesn't count if an entity does it for their own benefit, is not sound economics. you could argue that EVERYTHING a company provides to their employees are for the company's benefit, not the employee's benefit.

---

+1

Agree, we are in a free market. There is nothing preventing an entrepreneur from starting their own league to attract young basketball talent that has no interest in playing college ball.

There is probably a good reason why that hasn't happened yet. But let's assume there was. How much do you think a league that bridged high school to the NBA would be willing to pay their athletes? Maybe we can start by looking at the NBA D-league's salaries to determine market value.

"Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000 for the league's three player classifications, which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits. The D-League also employs a per-team salary cap of $173,000 ... with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, just like in the NBA, for teams that go over that amount. Foreign teams that want to pull players out of the D-League must pay $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000, depending on the player's classification, to buy out their D-League deals."

So you tell me, which is a better deal for a college age athlete? Getting a full ride and a free education and getting better exposure or letting the non-college "market" dictate your value?

UCBerkGrad;842301136 said:

---

+1

Agree, we are in a free market. There is nothing preventing an entrepreneur from starting their own league to attract young basketball talent that has no interest in playing college ball.

There is probably a good reason why that hasn't happened yet. But let's assume there was. How much do you think a league that bridged high school to the NBA would be willing to pay their athletes? Maybe we can start by looking at the NBA D-league's salaries to determine market value.

"Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000 for the league's three player classifications, which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits. The D-League also employs a per-team salary cap of $173,000 ... with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, just like in the NBA, for teams that go over that amount. Foreign teams that want to pull players out of the D-League must pay $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000, depending on the player's classification, to buy out their D-League deals."

So you tell me, which is a better deal for a college age athlete? Getting a full ride and a free education and getting better exposure or letting the non-college "market" dictate your value?

---

Actually it really isn't a free market, because there are barriers to entry. The big one is Television. Although with the internet now, its only a matter of time till someone figures it out. Although with Net neutrality gone, thats probably another barrier.

although I also said we are operating today in a free market, of course that is not true. there are very little totally free markets in operation.

I could certainly argue that the NCAA and the colleges are colluding to create an oligopoly and are artificially creating barriers to entry.

p.s. net neutrality is not 'gone', it is actually in limbo. However this is a different matter entirely!

MinotStateBeav;842301146 said:

---

Actually it really isn't a free market, because there are barriers to entry. The big one is Television. Although with the internet now, its only a matter of time till someone figures it out. Although with Net neutrality gone, thats probably another barrier.

---

MinotStateBeav;842301146 said:

---

Actually it really isn't a free market, because there are barriers to entry. The big one is Television. Although with the internet now, its only a matter of time till someone figures it out. Although with Net neutrality gone, thats probably another barrier.

---

There are actually very few barriers to entry. Easy to find players and easy to rent facilities.

The barriers are limited revenue opportunities.

A) NCAA MBB and FB are NOT free markets because the labor pool has major restrictions on their movement.

B) Profit for the MBB and FB were $1 BILLION in 2010, schollies and other related expenses student-athletes receive are NOT equal to profits made. That's not exactly a fair exchange.

I completely agree with everything that KevBear said. That is what I was trying to explain, he just went more in depth and is a better writer lol.

Let me just add that even the NCAA knows that the current situation is EXPLOITIVE. Why do you think they no longer give EA Sports the rights to produce NCAA Football (which include player's likenesses)? And if people only cared about having the ability to play as the schools' brands in the game, then why is it no longer being produced. People bought the game because it was authentic, even though it didn't include player's names. Last year, you would have been able to identify every player on Cal's starting roster.

Also last year, the NCAA was selling an A&M #2 jersey with "Football" on the back on their website. When Jay Bilas called them out for it, it was quickly removed from their website (the NCAA is only allowed to sell jerseys with no names). The way they handled Manziel's autograph situation was also telling. They only suspended him for half of a game for a proven rules violation. In my opinion, they did this because if they suspended him for multiple games there would have been outrage. How can a player not be allowed to use their own autograph for profit. As a student I could have sold my autograph if I wanted too. Only problem is that people won't pay for an autograph from Joe Blow (but the point is I had the right to my likeness).

If we look back historically, there was a time when a scholarship was enough compensation. There was a time that professional athletes had to work two jobs but once free agency was created salaries went up. Also, once TV revenue increased salaries of professional athletes' salaries went up. College football is the second most popular sport in the U.S. (behind the NFL) and MLB is the next most popular sport. Just for comparison, the MINIMUM salary for an MLB player is $500,000. Obviously, there are other MLB players that make quite a bit more. MLB players also get the right to sell their likeness (autographs, endorsements, etc.).

And as far as football players being used to generate revenue that goes to other athletic scholarships, think of it this way. Let's say that you have been given a scholarship to Cal and that in order to maintain this scholarship you need to perform a job for the school. This job generates millions of dollars for the school. You have to come to work everyday at the risk of great personal injury and possible long term health problems. And if you don't come to work and perform, your scholarship can be revoked. In addition, your scholarship is paying for your education, yet the job takes precedent over your education should a conflict arise (see Final 4 post in MBB forum). The revenue the school generates is used pocketed by everybody except you.

There was a time when a scholarship was enough compensation for football and MBB players, but to think that time still is exists is in my opinion asinine. There was a time where the NFL, MLB, and NBA also basically colluded to keep salaries down (without free agency). But players sued (Curt Flood being the first) and while Flood did not win in 1972, the existence of free agency today shows that his cause was proved just eventually. But perhaps, the most important aspect to come out of Flood's case was that professional athletes now have a seat at the table. Collegiate athletes do not have this same seat currently, but unionization by Northwestern might change this.

If you don't think that the players' are the main generator of the revenue in college sports, consider professional lockouts or strikes. When the players refuse to play in the NBA, NFL, or MLB how much do revenue do those leagues lose. Consider the 1987 NFL players' strike which forced the NFL to use replacement players for 3 games. At the end of the season the NFL's TV revenue was down 20% compared to the year before. Imagine if one day all college football players went on strike. Colleges are forced to make teams consisting of other students that are on their campus. How would ticket sales be for those games? How much money would television networks be willing to pay to televise games between ordinary Joes' from college campuses?

regarding your point (A), I agree. That is one of the reasons that they are not totally free markets, but I already stated another reason we aren't totally in a free market today, and I could add more

but I'm not so sure there are 'major restrictions' on their movement. Look at college basketball. Isn't the stat that something like 40% of college players transfer during their career?

regarding your point (B)...

My point is in a deal you exchange value, not cost

The value that schools are providing players are way more than the cost of schollies and expenses.


Totally free markets exist in very few situations. Just because we there is free agency in the NFL/NBA does not mean it's a totally free market. For example, team salary cap is an artificial barrer. You could argue that the amount of the salary cap is negotiated in collective bargaining.

Basically, there are so many ways to look at this complex issue, that my basic point is many of the discussions I've seen on this topic are simplistic, emotional, or just leave major factors out.

I hope that we don't get to a point where college sports is blown up, but I certainly don't advocate blocking anyone from doing what they think is right.

Big change is coming, so much of this is just discussion board fodder anyway. We will soon see where this leads us, and my guess is it's not going to be good for Cal, the sports programs, nor Berkeley the University.

beelzebear;842301178 said:

---

A) NCAA MBB and FB are NOT free markets because the labor pool has major restrictions on their movement.

B) Profit for the MBB and FB were $1 BILLION in 2010, schollies and other related expenses student-athletes receive are NOT equal to profits made. That's not exactly a fair exchange.

---

HoopDreams;842301128 said:

---

first, we ARE NOW operating in a free market economy regarding college sports.

---

No, we are not. In a free market, employers are not permitted to fix wages. Market forces determine wages. In the CFB market, wages have been artificially fixed by a compact between schools to only offer scholarships as compensation. That is why this is not a free market.

HoopDreams said:

---

If players don't like the deal, they shouldn't take it...No one is forcing them to take such a lousy deal.

---

The implications of that statement run counter to the fair labor practices that this country subscribes to.

In this country, employers are not allowed to band together to offer employees an industry wide unfair deal and have that collusion justified by "if you don't like it, don't take it." That's not how this country's labor laws work. We have laws such as these to protect workers from the coercive effects of the power advantage that enterprise owners could wield in an industry if they were to work together to exploit workers. We have these laws to protect workers from being stuck in a situation where they have to choose between a raw deal and no deal at all. Remember that.

HoopDreams said:

---

They should graduate from HS, hire a trainer, hire a PR agency, grow their brand, send their resume and video to the NFL, and go from there.

---

All irrelevant.

No one is denying that the players who go on to play in the NFL benefit from participating in what is a de facto NFL prep league, just as CFB benefits from the participation of those players in its ranks. The fact that it is a symbiotic relationship does not justify allowing one side of the relationship to unilaterally dictate the terms of the relationship.

HoopDreams said:

---

If you don't like that argument, that's fine. We will need to change just about everything in college sports, which is what I meant by 'blow up'

What that would look like, and how it would effect everything including schools, teams, star players, other players, non-revenue sports, band members, cheerleaders, high school sports, etc is hard to determine.

I think we will start to find out with Northwestern. Should be interesting.

---

This is the true source of most of the opposition to the player's attempts at mobilization. People are afraid that the entire college athletics system would be unpleasantly revolutionized--perhaps destroyed, even--and they may be right. But that does not change the merit behind the college football and men's basketball players' position. As a group, they are having their labor rights suppressed for the benefit of the schools, non-revenue athletes and us the consumer. Arguments against their position on the basis of the threat it represents to the system as a whole is logically no different than arguments in the antebellum South against abolishing slavery--everyone stood to lose, except for the slaves.**

**Please note I am not comparing the morality of college revenue sports to slavery. The analogy is meant only as pertains to the point about the dynamic between individual rights and systemic risks.

HoopDreams said:

---

p.s. your argument that it only counts if value is provided for the other's benefit, and that it doesn't count if an entity does it for their own benefit, is not sound economics. you could argue that EVERYTHING a company provides to their employees are for the company's benefit, not the employee's benefit.

---

Yeah. That's why the company does those things. And everything an employee does for the employer is actually for the employee's benefit (at least, in a perfectly rational economic system). So what? I never said that "it only counts if value is provided for the other's benefit." I only wanted to dispel any notion that this is a service the teams provide for the purposes of the players rather than for their own purposes. It was intended to get people to keep their eye on the ball.

The benefits the players derive from the experience of being on the team--the physical/skill development and potential marketing to future employers, not to mention the enjoyment of just being on the team--are real and potentially have considerable value. But whether they are itemized expressly or delivered implied, they are a part of a compensation package which by rights ought to be subject to fair market forces. Presently, they are not subjected such.

Presently, a cartel of enterprise owners have told these workers what they will be compensated, and they you are coming in here and eyeballing the compensation and saying "Yep, looks equitable to me," all the while not realizing that it's not your call to make. Your sole responsibility in the arrangement between the workers and the owners is to make sure that neither side uses means which we as a society have deemed illegitimate--like wage fixing--in order to coerce the other side. And you're failing.

UCBerkGrad;842301136 said:

---

Agree, we are in a free market. There is nothing preventing an entrepreneur from starting their own league to attract young basketball talent that has no interest in playing college ball.

---

No, there is something preventing an entrepreneur from starting their own league to attract football and basketball talent in competition with the NCAA. That something is called high barriers to entry, and they are found where monopolies and oligopolies have been allowed to entrench themselves into industries. In this case, the industry is minor league football/basketball. The barriers to entry are television and infrastructure.

UCBerkGrad said:

---

There is probably a good reason why that hasn't happened yet. But let's assume there was. How much do you think a league that bridged high school to the NBA would be willing to pay their athletes? Maybe we can start by looking at the NBA D-league's salaries to determine market value.

"Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000 for the league's three player classifications, which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits. The D-League also employs a per-team salary cap of $173,000 ... with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, just like in the NBA, for teams that go over that amount. Foreign teams that want to pull players out of the D-League must pay $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000, depending on the player's classification, to buy out their D-League deals."

---

No, you cannot start by looking at the D-League. The D-League exists in "competition" with a monopolistic monster which has its tentacles firmly wrapped around the "bridge league" niche. I put the word 'competition' in quotes because they are not in reality in competition at all.

The NBDL is not really a for-profit enterprise, it's really an NBA subsidiary. Yes, technically the individual franchises are businesses, but the purpose of the league is as a farm league for post-college players that can't cut it in the NBA. Half of the 17 teams in the league lose money. Player salaries are paid by the NBA, not by the NBDL. The league would not exist if the NBA did not subsidize it.

But technically, the league does allow for an alternative to NCAA ball for post-high school players. So if the NCAA system is so unfair to BB players, why have they not flocked to the NBDL? The answer is more complicated, but it boils down to a simple fact: all of the money is already in the NCAA.

The value of a scholarship is less than what NCAA players as a group are worth, but more than they get in the NBDL. Additionally, the NCAA has the television and coaches to facilitate exposure and development. The establishment of the NCAA as the destination for prime talent means that if you're a HS player with NBA aspirations, your best chance to get to the NBA is to go to college to prove yourself against the highest grade talent.

So why doesn't the above paragraph undercut the players in their claims? Because it misses salient details about monopolies and markets. The "high school to NBA" bridge niche that you aptly pointed out does not naturally support more than one major enterprise. Just like the ABA and NBA, AL and NL, AFL and NFL, NFL and USFL, etc., pro sports markets will tend to consolidation. They are industries which are most efficient with one producer. It is why there will never be a legit minor pro league as long as there is the NCAA.

And this is where we return to the top of the post. The NCAA has had a monopoly on minor league football and basketball in this country for generations. They have developed strangleholds on their industries. No new minor league would be able to succeed in competition with them, and no significant minor league can co-exist with them.

Does this mean they get to do whatever they want? No. This country allows monopolies and oligopolies to exist, so long as they do not use their disproportionate power to abuse consumers or workers. In case you're wondering, the NCAA schools represent the oligopoly, and the agreement between them to only offer scholarships as compensation is abusive.

UCBerkGrad said:

---

So you tell me, which is a better deal for a college age athlete? Getting a full ride and a free education and getting better exposure or letting the non-college "market" dictate your value?

---

This mistakes the issue. Having concluded that the NCAA is a monopoly to which there is no practical alternative, we must stop thinking of it as an entity in competition with other entities in an industry (other minor FB/BB leagues) and start thinking of it as a closed system, as an industry in and of itself. Within this industry there are enterprise owners (the schools) and workers (the players). Under fair market principles, the enterprise owners should compete with each other for the services of the players in open competition. This is what is not occurring here, and it's one half of the reason why the players have a legitimate bone to pick with the NCAA.

KevBear;842301259 said:

---

No, there is something preventing an entrepreneur from starting their own league to attract football and basketball talent in competition with the NCAA. That something is called high barriers to entry, and they are found where monopolies and oligopolies have been allowed to entrench themselves into industries. In this case, the industry is minor league football/basketball. The barriers to entry are television and infrastructure.



No, you cannot start by looking at the D-League. The D-League exists in "competition" with a monopolistic monster which has its tentacles firmly wrapped around the "bridge league" niche. I put the word 'competition' in quotes because they are not in reality in competition at all.

The NBDL is not really a for-profit enterprise, it's really an NBA subsidiary. Yes, technically the individual franchises are businesses, but the purpose of the league is as a farm league for post-college players that can't cut it in the NBA. Half of the 17 teams in the league lose money. Player salaries are paid by the NBA, not by the NBDL. The league would not exist if the NBA did not subsidize it.

But technically, the league does allow for an alternative to NCAA ball for post-high school players. So if the NCAA system is so unfair to BB players, why have they not flocked to the NBDL? The answer is more complicated, but it boils down to a simple fact: all of the money is already in the NCAA.

The value of a scholarship is less than what NCAA players as a group are worth, but more than they get in the NBDL. Additionally, the NCAA has the television and coaches to facilitate exposure and development. The establishment of the NCAA as the destination for prime talent means that if you're a HS player with NBA aspirations, your best chance to get to the NBA is to go to college to prove yourself against the highest grade talent.

So why doesn't the above paragraph undercut the players in their claims? Because it misses salient details about monopolies and markets. The "high school to NBA" bridge niche that you aptly pointed out does not naturally support more than one major enterprise. Just like the ABA and NBA, AL and NL, AFL and NFL, NFL and USFL, etc., pro sports markets will tend to consolidation. They are industries which are most efficient with one producer. It is why there will never be a legit minor pro league as long as there is the NCAA.

And this is where we return to the top of the post. The NCAA has had a monopoly on minor league football and basketball in this country for generations. They have developed strangleholds on their industries. No new minor league would be able to succeed in competition with them, and no significant minor league can co-exist with them.

Does this mean they get to do whatever they want? No. This country allows monopolies and oligopolies to exist, so long as they do not use their disproportionate power to abuse consumers or workers. In case you're wondering, the NCAA schools represent the oligopoly, and the agreement between them to only offer scholarships as compensation is abusive.



This mistakes the issue. Having concluded that the NCAA is a monopoly to which there is no practical alternative, we must stop thinking of it as an entity in competition with other entities in an industry (other minor FB/BB leagues) and start thinking of it as a closed system, as an industry in and of itself. Within this industry there are enterprise owners (the schools) and workers (the players). Under fair market principles, the enterprise owners should compete with each other for the services of the players in open competition. This is what is not occurring here, and it's one half of the reason why the players have a legitimate bone to pick with the NCAA.

---

why is a scholarship only abusive? in some schools a scholarship can be worth anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 per year. to me guys like our own bill tyndall did not play enough to really even warrant this amount. Theres guys that are stars that are probably worth more than their scholarship and guys worth less. if they want to start basing things purely on the market, well then our backup olineman should be probably getting 1/4 scholarship, while we pay our qb 3-4 times what his current scholarship is worth.

i honestly think that the road that this is going down is a bad one for the players as a whole. i think youll see a number of schools drop college football and basketball alltogether with the stars of college football becoming overpaid with the guys like tyndall suffering and because i feel that if theyre paid what theyre really worth, theyll be paid less. to me its a lot easier to fix it at a set amount, the amount being a scholarship and fighting for health care for injured players. if players actually do get paid, i feel theyll implode college football and youll see a drastically reduced numbers of athletes participating in the sport because of reduced number of schools that will carry the sport and i dont feel that people want to watch more overpaid athletes.

gobears725;842301272 said:

---

why is a scholarship only abusive? in some schools a scholarship can be worth anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 per year. to me guys like our own bill tyndall did not play enough to really even warrant this amount. Theres guys that are stars that are probably worth more than their scholarship and guys worth less. if they want to start basing things purely on the market, well then our backup olineman should be probably getting 1/4 scholarship, while we pay our qb 3-4 times what his current scholarship is worth.

i honestly think that the road that this is going down is a bad one for the players as a whole. i think youll see a number of schools drop college football and basketball alltogether with the stars of college football becoming overpaid with the guys like tyndall suffering and because i feel that if theyre paid what theyre really worth, theyll be paid less. to me its a lot easier to fix it at a set amount, the amount being a scholarship and fighting for health care for injured players. if players actually do get paid, i feel theyll implode college football and youll see a drastically reduced numbers of athletes participating in the sport because of reduced number of schools that will carry the sport and i dont feel that people want to watch more overpaid athletes.

---

Technically, you are correct; in a system where market forces were purely allowed to determine an individual player's value, those values would vary wildly between players. Yet, there is no reason why the distribution has to be unregulated. In the NBA, the players through their union worked with the owners to create a salary structure that sees the most valuable players make over $20 million and the least valuable make less than $1 million, but the median value comes out to $2.7 million. Is that fair? Well, it exists with pretty much no complaints between the players over the distribution, but the real key is that it is bilateral. The players themselves collectively had a real voice in establishing it, and that legitimizes it.

The arbitrary nature of the process is not all that makes the scholarship system abusive. It's the proportion of the revenue in the enterprise that demands friction. In all of the big professional US sports leagues the players get between 40-50% of the league revenue in their collective salaries. In FBS football, the scholarships amount to about 15% of the combined revenue the football programs bring in. Of course, the percentage was not always so small. Decades ago, the percentage of the revenue the players received through the scholarships was much larger--perhaps even exceeded the pro leagues. But the percentage has been shrinking for decades as CFB revenues have skyrocketed. In any ordinary industry, when the industry becomes more lucrative for enterprise owners, it becomes more lucrative for industry workers. This is true in pro sports leagues. Why not in this one?

KevBear;842301289 said:

---

Technically, you are correct; in a system where market forces were purely allowed to determine an individual player's value, those values would vary wildly between players. Yet, there is no reason why the distribution has to be unregulated. In the NBA, the players through their union worked with the owners to create a salary structure that sees the most valuable players make over $20 million and the least valuable make less than $1 million, but the median value comes out to $2.7 million. Is that fair? Well, it exists with pretty much no complaints between the players over the distribution, but the real key is that it is bilateral. The players themselves collectively had a real voice in establishing it, and that legitimizes it.

The arbitrary nature of the process is not all that makes the scholarship system abusive. It's the proportion of the revenue in the enterprise that demands friction. In all of the big professional US sports leagues the players get between 40-50% of the league revenue in their collective salaries. In FBS football, the scholarships amount to about 15% of the combined revenue the football programs bring in. Of course, the percentage was not always so small. Decades ago, the percentage of the revenue the players received through the scholarships was much larger--perhaps even exceeded the pro leagues. But the percentage has been shrinking for decades as CFB revenues have skyrocketed. In any ordinary industry, when the industry becomes more lucrative for enterprise owners, it becomes more lucrative for industry workers. This is true in pro sports leagues. Why not in this one?

---

i dont think the amounts are going to be worth it. lets just say the instead of a scholarship, the players receive a stipend. i think that stipend may end up being a few thousand more per semester than what a scholarship is worth. when it comes out, players will have to pay taxes, union dues, retirement, health care, etc. i think theyll come out paying more out of their stipend, than what they recieve as a scholarship tax free.

another thing i think the players should fight for instead of outright payment is to change the length of scholarships to 6 years. that way they can take reduced loads during the season and have an extra year paid for by the school after they use up their eligibility.

if im a player, i dont want to be paid. i want to remain an amateur on scholarship but i want better perks and benefits. getting paid gets messy, you have to deal with taxes and it will dramatically alter the game. i also would want the ncaa to allow players the ability to do things like sell their own memorabilla for F's sake and allow the stars to make money on endorsements

gobears725;842301292 said:

---

i dont think the amounts are going to be worth it. lets just say the instead of a scholarship, the players receive a stipend. i think that stipend may end up being a few thousand more per semester than what a scholarship is worth. when it comes out, players will have to pay taxes, union dues, retirement, health care, etc. i think theyll come out paying more out of their stipend, than what they recieve as a scholarship tax free.

---

I suspect a lot of people expect as you do, which is a big part of the problem. Your picture of the situation is badly distorted by this false expectation.

FBS programs bring in $2.2 billion per year in revenue. Currently, players receive approximately $360 million in the plain value of their scholarships (calculating the cost of a scholarship at an average of $35,000/year). That's 17% of the revenue pie, compared to the 40-50% that professional athletes receive. Hypothetically, let's bring CFB players to the low end of the spectrum by doubling their share of the pie to 34%. That means they will not be receiving "a few thousand more" per semester, but $35,000 more per year. Take out the necessary additional expenses and they still stand to profit an average of tens of thousands of dollars individually.

But wait, you may ask, "Can college football afford to do this and still be profitable?"

The answer is yes. FBS programs currently bring in a profit of $1.1 billion per year. If the players share is doubled, as I just hypothetically proposed, FBS football would still be over $700 million per year in the black.

gobears725 said:

---

another thing i think the players should fight for instead of outright payment is to change the length of scholarships to 6 years. that way they can take reduced loads during the season and have an extra year paid for by the school after they use up their eligibility

---

For the record, and not for the first time, I hope some well-crafted compromise prevails. There are a lot of complicating factors, the biggest being the fact that almost all Division 1 athletic departments are already leveraging the massive profits from football and men's basketball to fund all of the other sports, all of which are unprofitable. But what is happening is a sham, and it has to be faced.

Reading, writing, critical thinking ... necessary at good to excellent academic schools to get a degree. For many, if not most, players, getting a scholarship is the only means to attend Cal or any decent university.
Without question, football requires a lot of time, including getting to and from the stadium and, after practice, recovering from fatigue and dings and diving back into the books and papers to write.

Why? I'd love to see a decent study with a huge sample asking just two questions:
1) How important is it to you to get to the NFL?
2) How important is it to you to get a good education and a degree?
Brazinski (as demonstrated) would have scored the first question low, the second question high. Alex Mack would have scored both questions high.
Most SEC players would probably score the first high and probably wouldn't understand the second (maybe even writing in "WTF").

So, how realistic is the NFL as a goal? This chart was on a Yenser tweet. Probably used by most or all of our coaches in recruiting.
_____________________________________
Football Recruiting by the numbers

High School Football Players 1,086,627
High School Football Seniors 310,465
NCAA Football Players 70,147
NCAA Freshman Players 20,042
% of Players HS to NCAA 6.5%
NCAA Senior playing 15,588
Players Scouted by NFL 6,500
Players Invited to Combine 350
Players Drafted 256
Rookies Making NFL Team 300
% of Players NCAA to NFL 1.6%
NFL Players reaching Year 4 150
2014 NFL Minimum Salary $420,000
Income After Taxes (est.) $252,000

So, if you’re lucky enough to be one of the 6.5% to become a college football player, and one of the 1.5% of that group to make it to the NFL, you’ll be lucky to get three years out of it. At a minimum salary, you won’t make enough to live on for the rest of your life.
What’s going to provide you and your family after football is over?
Your college education!

KevBear;842301295 said:

---

I suspect a lot of people expect as you do, which is a big part of the problem. Your picture of the situation is badly distorted by this false expectation.

FBS programs bring in $2.2 billion per year in revenue. Currently, players receive approximately $360 million in the plain value of their scholarships (calculating the cost of a scholarship at an average of $35,000/year). That's 17% of the revenue pie, compared to the 40-50% that professional athletes receive. Hypothetically, let's bring CFB players to the low end of the spectrum by doubling their share of the pie to 34%. That means they will not be receiving "a few thousand more" per semester, but $35,000 more per year. Take out the necessary additional expenses and they still stand to profit an average of tens of thousands of dollars individually.

But wait, you may ask, "Can college football afford to do this and still be profitable?"

The answer is yes. FBS programs currently bring in a profit of $1.1 billion per year. If the players share is doubled, as I just hypothetically proposed, FBS football would still be over $700 million per year in the black.



For the record, and not for the first time, I hope some well-crafted compromise prevails. There are a lot of complicating factors, the biggest being the fact that almost all Division 1 athletic departments are already leveraging the massive profits from football and men's basketball to fund all of the other sports, all of which are unprofitable. But what is happening is a sham, and it has to be faced.

---

This isn't an equal comparison. Major League franchises usually are subsidized a great deal by public funds. Infrastructure often heavily subsidized by tax dollars in the form of stadium funding. Public funds won't be available for the far greater number of college teams especially when they are competing with far better competition for such funds (pro sports). Also, in a free market, the NFL and NBA couldn't collude not to compete on different days, so the NFL could start playing on Saturdays and Sundays so that every NFL game is nationally televised, thus reducing the revenue of NCAA teams.

KevBear;842301295 said:

---

I suspect a lot of people expect as you do, which is a big part of the problem. Your picture of the situation is badly distorted by this false expectation.

FBS programs bring in $2.2 billion per year in revenue. Currently, players receive approximately $360 million in the plain value of their scholarships (calculating the cost of a scholarship at an average of $35,000/year). That's 17% of the revenue pie, compared to the 40-50% that professional athletes receive. Hypothetically, let's bring CFB players to the low end of the spectrum by doubling their share of the pie to 34%. That means they will not be receiving "a few thousand more" per semester, but $35,000 more per year. Take out the necessary additional expenses and they still stand to profit an average of tens of thousands of dollars individually.

But wait, you may ask, "Can college football afford to do this and still be profitable?"

The answer is yes. FBS programs currently bring in a profit of $1.1 billion per year. If the players share is doubled, as I just hypothetically proposed, FBS football would still be over $700 million per year in the black.



For the record, and not for the first time, I hope some well-crafted compromise prevails. There are a lot of complicating factors, the biggest being the fact that almost all Division 1 athletic departments are already leveraging the massive profits from football and men's basketball to fund all of the other sports, all of which are unprofitable. But what is happening is a sham, and it has to be faced.

---

i suspect that the majority of profits are big time programs. programs like ours brings in a modest profit but i doubt will result in our players getting significantly more than what they already get

nice debate, but you better be careful. much of what you are talking about is not a totally free market. again, very few totally free markets exist

for example, minimum wage is not a free market law

another point for Cal to consider is if the players get paid and are no longer recognized as student athletes but as employees, how much stronger does the political faction of the university that wants to see all athletics cut start to gain traction? i believe that people like barskys argument only strengthens

Cal like most schools have student-employees on work study, PT. It's not a stretch to consider revenue sports student-athletes get paid something along the lines of other work study students: hourly for practice and future medical considerations.

briloker;842301348 said:

---

This isn't an equal comparison. Major League franchises usually are subsidized a great deal by public funds. Infrastructure often heavily subsidized by tax dollars in the form of stadium funding. Public funds won't be available for the far greater number of college teams especially when they are competing with far better competition for such funds (pro sports).

---

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why do college teams lose any source of infrastructure funding if some proposal that augments the player's compensation is adopted?

briloker; said:

---

Also, in a free market, the NFL and NBA couldn't collude not to compete on different days, so the NFL could start playing on Saturdays and Sundays so that every NFL game is nationally televised, thus reducing the revenue of NCAA teams.

---

I don't know the genesis of the scheduling division between the NFL and CFB. My understanding is that college football has always been played primarily on Saturday and consequently when the NFL was getting started it chose to schedule games on Sunday in order to not compete with the more popular college game. If that is the case, that is not collusion because there was no agreement to not compete. It is simply a consequence of marketing. A deciding not to compete with B is not the same thing as A and B agreeing not to compete.

Yet, even if the scheduling of CFB and the NFL was coordinated, that does not necessarily make it collusion. Collusion involves an agreement toward an illegitimate objective, which is not found here. In this arrangement, everyone wins: the NFL, CFB and consumers.

HoopDreams;842301380 said:

---

nice debate, but you better be careful. much of what you are talking about is not a totally free market. again, very few totally free markets exist

for example, minimum wage is not a free market law

---

You'll note that I am not generally referring to a "free" market. I generally refer to a "fair" market, which is a market that is regulated to curtail practices that result in inefficiency or threaten individual commercial rights. I'm aware that "free" markets are unicorns.