How can you say they have no choice? Someone from Georgie kidnap AJ Green?
What you are saying is they have no better choice. They could play in Europe. They could probably play in Canada. They could simply work out for a few years.
The free market shows that there is a huge demand to play for Georgie. AJ Green gets to play in exchange for all-expenses paid. Other players play for free. Hundreds of kids pay their own way to go to camps dreaming of the opportunity for the "raw deal" AJ Green is getting.
If you want to argue collusion that the colleges (through the NCAA) are working together to limit the "compensation", I'll listen to that point. Is that really legitimate? I do not know. (but giving all players the same tiny stipend doesn't change that).
One last point, if you don't think that your employer can make you sign away your likeness, you are sadly mistaken. Georgie, like all colleges, have all the ability in the world to have that as a condition of their agreement.
First---there is no real choice here--there is a clear monopoly. But that's an arcane legal discussion I'd prefer not to get into today.
Second, the free market would allow a player to negotiate his wage: the NCAA declares you ineligible if you try to do that. The other options generally don't exist because the NCAA and NFL have worked out a fairly cozy agreement---the NCAA gives the NFL unfettered access to evaluate talent at relatively low costs. In return then NFL doesn't start a leagueup for minor league talent.
Third, the NCAA teams make huge profits from football and then redistribute it to other sports, coaches, and insanely nice facilities. These things often taken on the form of indirect compenstation, which is allowable (nice locker rooms with tv's, etc.)
Fourth, while most players recieve a net benefit, the real stars--like AJ Green and Calvin Johnson--generate revenue far beyond what they recieve. If the NFL were forced to evaluate talent at the HS level or some other level, they'd still find them. Instead, its more efficient for the NFL to have this situation with college.
But all of this creates a tension between a university's academic mission, the NFL's desire for accurate scouting, the university's profit motives, and a player's best interest. It leaves several players getting paid peanuts compared to what they generate for the school.
The argument can't be "they are getting a great deal" because if that's true, then the universites will necessarily be subsidizing or at best, breaking even on the athletic front. And if that's the case,you've run afoul of the academic mission. Or, if it is about redistributing the revenue to other athletes in other sports---I think we know how some of you feel about redistribution. And for all of this, the athletes get an education that some do not want or care for. Others do want that education and benefit immensely, many because of the "great" atheletes among them.
All of this is to say I don't think a lot of this is clear cut. But I think one of the most base examples of things getting out of hand is a school sellign a jersey with someone's name on it.
At that point, the school is using an athlete's own name to generate a lot of revenue for itself.
I know an employer can bargain for the right to your image, but the bargain is part of the game. I'm suggesting, and I think quite rightly, that a player agrees to play and have their image broadcast, but not to be a merchandising tool for the school.
Keep in mind I've never said AJ shouldn't be punished. I think the punishment of 4 games is about right. Maybe 5 or 6 would have been better. But the punishment emphasizes the hypocrisy here---not that the rule that he violated is bad (it isn't) but the fact that the other things are done at the same time makes the NCAA and schools out to be bad actors.
