NCAA = Slavery You can't make this stuff up

[T-TownVol]

Most of the top-100 guys can credibly claim to have an NBA future if things go well, and far more than that can make money elsewhere. If your choices are A) pay to go to school, facing awful competition, making no money and B) get paid to play in Europe or the D-League, facing better competition that will make you more likely to get drafted, 98% of the guys who receive monetary offers are taking them. It would make no sense to pay to play college basketball, at all. You'd just have the 2-stars who have no other choice.

You value the talent more than is reality......Europe is an option now.......let em go......game will not suffer......college fans support teams, individual players come and go every year......

 

[bamawriter]

That’s life man. How do you think a Fortune 500 Company works?

The difference is that if you pursue employment at a Fortune 500 company, you do so while pursuing fair market value for your services.

Also, they get a lot more than a free education.

I'm going to disagree with your use of "a lot."

 

[LouderVol]

"You get a free education. I get millions upon millions of dollars. Everybody wins!"

once again you are being obtuse to ignore the points that you can't/won't address.

Getting a life changing degree would be considered a win. or even the opportunity for it.

there is no way for this to be a zero sum game with the students getting paid as much as the university is. fair doesn't come into it. if you want to apply capitalistic principals to the NCAA the students won't be getting much more than they already are. CEOs make millions while the workers get less. there will still be an imbalance. the players definitely get more in value than some of the lower paid coaches do and definitely more than any of the non coaches do that they work with.

 

[FleeceItOut]

The difference is that if you pursue employment at a Fortune 500 company, you do so while pursuing fair market value for your services.



I'm going to disagree with your use of "a lot."

Nutritionist, top notch training, endless amounts of free swag, meals, room and board, tuition, access to the best facilities, flights, hotels, opportunity to network with big name people, chance to get a grad degree for free, priority when it comes to classes and schedules, access to top tutors, most are able to get into college as an athlete whereas they wouldn’t qualify as a normal student, chance to see the world for free (basketball teams go on euro trips during the summers to compete in tournaments).

$1000 handshakes. This one gets me the most. We know the top guys are getting paid, so let’s stop acting like they’re not. Let’s also stop acting like these kids are missing meals. If they are playing at a major D1 school they are well taken care of.

Only a handful of these guys will go pro, and the ones that don’t are still be taken care of as long as they took advantage of their “free education” which you don’t seem to place a high value on.

Ex collegiate athletes have strong networks and are given top priority when it comes to jobs after graduation. Heck look at almost any medical device sales company and it will be littered with ex athletes getting paid 6 figures.

 

[bamawriter]

once again you are being obtuse to ignore the points that you can't/won't address.

I haven't skirted any of your questions or assertions.

Getting a life changing degree would be considered a win. or even the opportunity for it.

For some, this is absolutely true. But not for all. There is a significant percentage of athletes that have no business is a college classroom, who are pushed thru the system while learning very little, and who gain next to nothing beyond the piece of paper they are handed at graduation. It's nice to believe that every person would benefit from a college education. But it's also naive.

there is no way for this to be a zero sum game with the students getting paid as much as the university is. fair doesn't come into it.

You're right. "Fair" is not the right word if one means anything close to "equal" in this instance. I mean "fair" in the sense that if a school can exploit a player's name and likeness for financial gain, then it is only "fair" that the player be able to do the same.

if you want to apply capitalistic principals to the NCAA the students won't be getting much more than they already are.

Can you provide some kind of math to support this assertion.

CEOs make millions while the workers get less. there will still be an imbalance.

Imbalance is not the issue. An entry-level worker might not make as much as the CEO, but the entry-level worker isn't legally restrained from pursuing more. He can ask for a raise or even pursue a higher-paying job elsewhere. The NCAA "amateurism" model places an artificial cap on earnings. Comparing it to the job market doesn't work.

 

[LouderVol]

The "no-name rule" was instituted by the NCAA for this very reason. But, if it were to be pursued, I imagine a guy like Peyton Manning or Tim Tebow could win on the merits. It's how the players won the O'Bannon lawsuit despite a lack of names in the NCAA video games.



They certainly should.



UT beat UGA because Jennings caught the ball. If he'd dropped it, the photo wouldn't exist, much less be worth buying.

the photo would exist. the guy clicked the button. he didn't know if it was going to be caught or not. some UGA grad might have bought instead of UT. if we are assigning fair market value, that picture is only valuable to the university it favors. again value to the school. there probably isn't a market for a picture of Jennings jumping up in the air. there probably isn't even a market of him catching a ball. the market isn't that Jennings won the game. anybody catches that ball and that photo is valuable to us. Why? certainly not because of the specific player. but the school.

 

[bamawriter]

Nutritionist, top notch training, endless amounts of free swag, meals, room and board, tuition, access to the best facilities, flights, hotels, opportunity to network with big name people, chance to get a grad degree for free, priority when it comes to classes and schedules, access to top tutors, most are able to get into college as an athlete whereas they wouldn’t qualify as a normal student, chance to see the world for free (basketball teams go on euro trips during the summers to compete in tournaments).

$1000 handshakes. This one gets me the most. We know the top guys are getting paid, so let’s stop acting like they’re not. Let’s also stop acting like these kids are missing meals. If they are playing at a major D1 school they are well taken care of.

Only a handful of these guys will go pro, and the ones that don’t are still be taken care of as long as they took advantage of their “free education” which you don’t seem to place a high value on.

Ex collegiate athletes have strong networks and are given top priority when it comes to jobs after graduation. Heck look at almost any medical device sales company and it will be littered with ex athletes getting paid 6 figures.

You seem to think that I am advocating for college athletes to be treated like employees. I'm not. I openly acknowledge the fact that the players are receiving "compensation" even if it isn't in the form of cash. It may not be fair market compensation, and it certainly shouldn't be under the guise of "amateurism," but it is compensation nonetheless. I was in favor of reasonable stipends, and I will give the NCAA credit for the "cost of attendance" provision (though I think it needs some revision).

My gripe truly focuses on the exploitation of an athlete's name and likeness by the school, including well after he has exhausted his eligibility, all while preventing the player from doing the same. I find that ethically distasteful.

 

[LouderVol]

You asked. Don't get upset when I answere



To the extent they do now? Of course not. Just like you noted about the advent of television, long-distance travel options were greatly limited prior to the middle of the last century. Of course, this is clearly reflected by the fact that college venues had much smaller capacities back-in-the-day.



Because it's a completely different animal. I was on my public high school team, and we all had to pay fees to cover the program's various expenses (which, of course, were negligible compared to a major college). We all had to buy our own pads, cleats, etc. And the school doesn't have some mecca of a stadium, nor was the playing surface cared for to an extent beyond that which was required for basic safety.

sounds like your high school experience is completely different than what is happening in college. kids aren't paying for their stuff. they aren't playing in crap stadiums, or dealing with terrible fields, of course the state of shield watkins at points in the last couple years probably wasn't much better than some high schools. sounds like they are getting something a lot better. way better.

ever seen Texas high school ball? or even some of the big time public school programs here in Atlanta? plenty of support that goes beyond a national television deal.

 

[NashVol11]

You value the talent more than is reality......Europe is an option now.......let em go......game will not suffer......college fans support teams, individual players come and go every year......

Europe becomes a much better option if you start demanding that players pay to play in college against terrible competition. No one in their right mind would do that. You might enjoy paying to watch Norfolk State-caliber players wearing Tennessee jerseys, but the vast majority of American sports fans would change the channel and the schools would lose money.

 

[LouderVol]

Technically, there is almost no chance this is the best system.

But to answer the spirit of your question, we could easily arrive at a better system if there were competition, IMO.

Think about it like this...the NCAA wanted to severely limit TV broadcasting. They could do and say whatever they wanted, even if it was the dumbest idea in the world and bad for their own interests. Why did they change? The threat of competition.

OU threatened to leave the NCAA and start their own league if they weren't granted the rights to broadcast games. The NCAA caved and has been raking in the $ ever since. They're ****ing idiots.

Another example, as I understand the history the NCAA wasn't interested in women's sports until a competing organization built up a women's college basketball league. Someone may have to correct those details. My Dad explained that to me a while back and not sure he had every detail right or that I remember everything right.

The NCAA's a bureaucracy that faces no realistic competition. Of course they haven't come up with the best system.

not worried about the NCAA. talking about college ball, the universities.

 

[n_huffhines]

not worried about the NCAA. talking about college ball, the universities.

What? The NCAA is the system. How do you separate college ball from the NCAA when evaluating college ball's system? It is the system.

 

[FleeceItOut]

You seem to think that I am advocating for college athletes to be treated like employees. I'm not. I openly acknowledge the fact that the players are receiving "compensation" even if it isn't in the form of cash. It may not be fair market compensation, and it certainly shouldn't be under the guise of "amateurism," but it is compensation nonetheless. I was in favor of reasonable stipends, and I will give the NCAA credit for the "cost of attendance" provision (though I think it needs some revision).

My gripe truly focuses on the exploitation of an athlete's name and likeness by the school, including well after he has exhausted his eligibility, all while preventing the player from doing the same. I find that ethically distasteful.

I agree with you on that piece of it. If a player can benefit from their likeness while in school then he should be able to.

I just don’t agree with the blanket statement of “they should be paid.” Again, only a handful of them would be able to profit from their likeness, so to me that doesn’t warrant paying players.

 

[bamawriter]

the photo would exist. the guy clicked the button. he didn't know if it was going to be caught or not.

You are correct there. I should have said "it wouldn't have much value." It certainly would exist either way.

some UGA grad might have bought instead of UT. if we are assigning fair market value, that picture is only valuable to the university it favors. again value to the school.

You contradicted your first point in the next sentence. The photo has value to the individual who wants to purchase it. If the photo were only valuable to the school, then it wouldn't be for sale at all.

the market isn't that Jennings won the game.

Except that he did. I see what you're saying, but you can't separate the player from the act. Even if it's true that...

...anybody catches that ball and that photo is valuable to us. Why? certainly not because of the specific player. but the school.

This is also true. And if it had been any other player had caught that pass he'd be as deserving of compensation for the use of his likeness as Jennings.

It's not a picture of an empty Tennessee jersey; it's a picture of Jauan Jennings. He's present in the photo because of his actions, and but for his presence the photo would have significantly different value or none at all.

 

[LouderVol]

I haven't skirted any of your questions or assertions.



For some, this is absolutely true. But not for all. There is a significant percentage of athletes that have no business is a college classroom, who are pushed thru the system while learning very little, and who gain next to nothing beyond the piece of paper they are handed at graduation. It's nice to believe that every person would benefit from a college education. But it's also naive.
same thing could be said of cash. they are given something of value, it is up to them to do with it as they please. this is like saying the stars in the NFL who piss away their millions aren't paid because at the end of the day they are broke.


You're right. "Fair" is not the right word if one means anything close to "equal" in this instance. I mean "fair" in the sense that if a school can exploit a player's name and likeness for financial gain, then it is only "fair" that the player be able to do the same.
normal students don't get this chance. anecdotal but I can tell you UT made a significant amount of money off of my work, and likeness. look up the UT 2011 Solar Decathalon. I used to come up several times, no idea about now its been a minute. same can be said of some of the others in those same sources.


Can you provide some kind of math to support this assertion.
depends on what you think their fair market value is. if you want to argue its 1,000,000 bucks you are out of your mind. half that seems high to me. 250k? and is that a year or their total value? how much are you going to pay that 3 year bench warmer for his one year of play? no idea how to calculate how much the average player plays. does 2 years work out of 4? University of Tennessee Tuition, Costs and Financial Aid - CollegeData College Profile out of state cost of attendance at UT is 50k a year. I would say the value a player gets is far beyond that. maybe 75k a year. four years of free ride is 300k. that times 85 players is around 25 million extra. bama and some of the huge dogs may be able to afford that, but the rest? I doubt we are finding that in many budget. just some thoughts, lets bounce numbers around.


Imbalance is not the issue. An entry-level worker might not make as much as the CEO, but the entry-level worker isn't legally restrained from pursuing more. He can ask for a raise or even pursue a higher-paying job elsewhere. The NCAA "amateurism" model places an artificial cap on earnings. Comparing it to the job market doesn't work.

what if that entry level worker signs a contract that says they won't seek outside income as part of the job. its an upfront part. Not many are going to take it in the real world, but kids fight for that chance at a college.

 

[LouderVol]

You are correct there. I should have said "it wouldn't have much value." It certainly would exist either way.



You contradicted your first point in the next sentence. The photo has value to the individual who wants to purchase it. If the photo were only valuable to the school, then it wouldn't be for sale at all.



Except that he did. I see what you're saying, but you can't separate the player from the act. Even if it's true that...



This is also true. And if it had been any other player had caught that pass he'd be as deserving of compensation for the use of his likeness as Jennings.

It's not a picture of an empty Tennessee jersey; it's a picture of Jauan Jennings. He's present in the photo because of his actions, and but for his presence the photo would have significantly different value or none at all.

you could say that about all the players on the field. Dobbs making the throw, Oline and whoever else was blocking, blocking. UGA's player who got the penalty. Evans great run back.

this isn't an artist making something. Jennings wasn't a lone actor. all of it was made possible by UT. if UT wasn't giving anything to Jennings you would have an argument. as it stands I have to disagree.

 

[bamawriter]

normal students don't get this chance.

Sure they can.

anecdotal but I can tell you UT made a significant amount of money off of my work, and likeness. look up the UT 2011 Solar Decathalon. I used to come up several times, no idea about now its been a minute. same can be said of some of the others in those same sources.

I'm unfamiliar with the event, but was it a part of your coursework? There is a difference between a product that you created as part of your coursework and the exploitation of your name and likeness. In the real world, if you create a product for an employer, it belongs to your employer because it's work-for-hire. If you leave, the employer can still exploit your work because you did it for them, but they can't continue to slap your face on it.

University of Tennessee Tuition, Costs and Financial Aid - CollegeData College Profile out of state cost of attendance at UT is 50k a year. I would say the value a player gets is far beyond that. maybe 75k a year. four years of free ride is 300k.

I think we can agree that the 75k number doesn't actually reflect what it costs to educate, house, and feed a player for a year. But let's assume that a school only breaks even on the cost of attendance:

75k x 85 scholarship players is 6,375,000 per year. UT football made more than 120 million last year (and the schools don't include the 40 million plus in media rights in the football number, since the rights technically cover all sports). That's a hair over 5%. Even if you add in staff salaries, equipment, facilities, etc it's not even close to a break-even proposition for the school.

what if that entry level worker signs a contract that says they won't seek outside income as part of the job. its an upfront part. Not many are going to take it in the real world, but kids fight for that chance at a college.

The entry-level worker at least had a choice. He could seek employment at a company without the requirement. There is no such choice for college athletes.

 

[bamawriter]

you could say that about all the players on the field. Dobbs making the throw, Oline and whoever else was blocking, blocking. UGA's player who got the penalty. Evans great run back.

You're absolutely right. And anyone who is visible in the photo that is sold should be compensated for the use of his image. I didn't mean to imply that my argument only applies to Jennings.

this isn't an artist making something. Jennings wasn't a lone actor. all of it was made possible by UT. if UT wasn't giving anything to Jennings you would have an argument. as it stands I have to disagree.

No, it wasn't made possible by UT. Jennings could have made a similar play for any other school. Where UT comes into play is that the school indirectly determines the audience who might be willing to pay for the photo. If Jennings makes the play for Iowa, Syracuse, Texas, or USC then the fans of those schools would be the likely purchasers of any hypothetical photo.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

What? The NCAA is the system. How do you separate college ball from the NCAA when evaluating college ball's system? It is the system.

Not exactly. The schools are voluntarily members of the ncaa. They can leave it whenever they choose to.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not exactly. The schools are voluntarily members of the ncaa. They can leave it whenever they choose to.

We're talking about whether or not we've arrived at the best "system". Then I guess he was saying "college ball" and "universities" are the system, which I'm not sure what that means. Now you are saying they can leave the NCAA (which I consider to be the system), which I agree with, but don't get how it pertains.

 

[rjd970]

.

 

[05_never_again]

I think it is fair to say that if we were going to create a system today for amateur football, it wouldn't look like the system we actually have. That's probably an indication that the system needs to change.

If we created a system today it'd be much more akin to baseball, where high school kids can be drafted and sign a professional contract right out of high school, or if they choose college, they must stay there as a amateur for a certain period of time. Thus, they can become a professional immediately and get paid for their play, but wouldn't be in the "major leagues" yet.

Instead, today, high school football players are forced into a "minor league" system that does compensate them, but via a scholarship at a university.

It's also interesting how college sports seems to be virtually an American thing too. Have you ever tried to explain college football/basketball to someone from Europe? It's quite entertaining.

 

[TBrown]

They don't need college. They need development, and the NFL is more than happy to let the schools run a farm league.

Can’t this be said about almost every job in America?

 

[TUSKtimes]

The entry-level worker at least had a choice. He could seek employment at a company without the requirement. There is no such choice for college athletes.

How people fall in love with the idea that college students should be equal to employees of cooperate America is amazing. The vast majority of students getting an education don't believe it and as they continue to live out their more carefree years driving around campus on their parent's dime seldom conduct themselves as the entrepreneurs' they are someday thriving to be.

Which brings us to the athletes driving around campus on the university's dime. One sportswriter, obviously advocating his personal cause of social justice, recently argued that the difference between what the head football coach was driving was a world apart from the cars these players were parking on campus.

A college football coach who probably had to wait until his mid 40's, at the earliest, to get a HC job at a major football school and even then had to prove his worth by being a part of winning football for multiple seasons. My first thought was, what was this guy driving when he was playing college football and driving around campus as a student?

These comparisons being made between student life and the games they play and cooperate America are about as bogus as it can get.

 

[bamawriter]

How people fall in love with the idea that college students should be equal to employees of cooperate America is amazing. The vast majority of students getting an education don't believe it and as they continue to live out their more carefree years driving around campus on their parent's dime seldom conduct themselves as the entrepreneurs' they are someday thriving to be...

...These comparisons being made between student life and the games they play and cooperate America are about as bogus as it can get.

The problem with this argument is that, right or wrong, it's within this context (college/student life) that a multi-billion dollar enterprise has been constructed.

 

[TUSKtimes]

The problem with this argument is that, right or wrong, it's within this context (college/student life) that a multi-billion dollar enterprise has been constructed.

Because Universities are corporate America. And they are paying out millions of dollar to their many hired employees to keep their business going. The students, all of them, are their product.