Coach Nell thanks the NCAA

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Isn’t the rule that they can’t go straight to the nfl? They have to play at least 3 years of college ball? Didn’t Maurice Clarett try to do that?
The NFL does limit how old someone can be before they sign with an NFL team. But players are welcome to get paid by agents before that (many do) or to play in a different football league or whatever else they want to do. ...they just can't claim to be amateur athletes after they get paid for being football players.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,301
I hadn't heard about this aspect before, interesting. Usually with antitrust there's smaller companies being boxed out by the monopoly, right. Are there any colleges and universities that would want to be a part of a non-NCAA NCAA? I'm sympathetic to the idea that there could at least be an education + higher-pay choice for athletes, if there were any educational institutions interested in providing it.

Edit: Is there something that would at present prevent schools from starting an NCAA alternative and coexisting with the NCAA?
That is not the only way to violate anti trust law. Back in the early 2010s, a bunch of big tech companies were sued for having informal policies not to poach employees from each other. It was argued that this constituted an agreement among them to artificially suppress the compensation of tech professionals, which was a violation of antitrust law. They ended up settling the case for hundreds of millions of dollars and changed their policies even though there were plenty of other smaller tech companies who were not doing this and were still hiring tech professionals.

Obviously there are differences between that and college football, but the situations are similar at least in spirit. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so it's impossible for me to comment on how it will all play out, but I think that this is a huge aspect of the player pay discussion that almost never gets talked about. It's not about whether it's "fair" to not pay players, but rather whether an agreement across many separate schools to cap the compensation of players at room+board+stipend+etc. is illegal. Especially when under-the-table payments show that the true value of at least some of the players to the schools is indeed higher than the cap.

 

Bbz_13

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
8
I agree with this. I think this pro model would lose out to the amateur model. Or, if the amateur model is no longer allowed to exist for some reason, this pro model would lose out to the preexisting professional leagues.
There is a good case for more compensation of college athletes, but it’s advocates miss two big points.

The first is the contribution of capital (the school), which you are making. Yes athletes provide the labor, but labor and capital are necessary. I am really looking forward to watching Gibbs play this fall. But if he didn’t play for GT, but instead played for a hypothetical semi pro team called the Midtown Marauders I don’t know that I would care.

The second is that they are compensated - ask anybody putting their kid through GT, or a kid trying to pay his or her own way, if tuition and housing are free. I am not sure if the business model of my hypothetical Midtown Marauders would be able to support salaries worth more than the cost of attending GT. G-
League salaries suggest that might not necessarily be the case for football.

The athletes may not be in a free market for their labor, but it’s far from clear that an alternative structure could pay them more.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
The NFL does limit how old someone can be before they sign with an NFL team. But players are welcome to get paid by agents before that (many do) or to play in a different football league or whatever else they want to do. ...they just can't claim to be amateur athletes after they get paid for being football players.
I just looked at the nfl draft from 2019. Although there were some names in there I wasn’t familiar with, it looked like every player drafted came from college.
So it appears to me that college is the gate keeper for being able to play in the nfl. College requires you remain an amateur while they make millions off of you.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
There is a good case for more compensation of college athletes, but it’s advocates miss two big points.

The first is the contribution of capital (the school), which you are making. Yes athletes provide the labor, but labor and capital are necessary. I am really looking forward to watching Gibbs play this fall. But if he didn’t play for GT, but instead played for a hypothetical semi pro team called the Midtown Marauders I don’t know that I would care.

The second is that they are compensated - ask anybody putting their kid through GT, or a kid trying to pay his or her own way, if tuition and housing are free. I am not sure if the business model of my hypothetical Midtown Marauders would be able to support salaries worth more than the cost of attending GT. G-
League salaries suggest that might not necessarily be the case for football.

The athletes may not be in a free market for their labor, but it’s far from clear that an alternative structure could pay them more.
Of course. College football has history and a fan base already in place. If you don’t have a problem with them being “compensated” with tuition and room and board, then why would you have a problem with them being compensated with money.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
I'm not exactly sure why you're repeating this point. I agree that labor law and employment law are different. But whether someone is an employee is a question at issue in labor law, employment law, tax law, tort law, lots of different fields of law. I was just responding to the question that was raised earlier ITT – I don't think we have to shoehorn students into any employment category. Students are students.


I don't think this is true. Players do have to go to class, take tests, etc. Sadly you are correct that transferring is becoming a lot more common, and to discourage it I'd like to see the NCAA maintain the rule that you have to sit out a year. Otherwise kids will chase playing time instead of all the other reasons they should be choosing a school, a team, teammates, coaches, etc.

But I agree that the professionalization of the sport is ruining it. And the NCAA is basically the only entity that's trying to keep a check on it, even though so many uninformed cynical posters on this board assume they 'look the other way' for everyone but Tech.
(1) how do you get my post broken in two like that?
(2) I’m just trying to point out they don’t have to be employees in order to get paid.
(3) I think it is true.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
I just looked at the nfl draft from 2019. Although there were some names in there I wasn’t familiar with, it looked like every player drafted came from college.
So it appears to me that college is the gate keeper for being able to play in the nfl. College requires you remain an amateur while they make millions off of you.
Only colleges don't "make millions" off of you. It is telling that in our always-incoherent-but-progressing MSM, the debate about college athletics is completely schizophrenic... half the articles are: "students are slaves on college plantations as higher ed makes millions off of them" and the other half are: "academics go bankrupt while colleges pour millions into college athletics." So is major college athletics a terrible waste of resources from academics or a cash cow built on the backs of slaves?

Neither, obvs. Some athletics departments require subsidy from the university (just like the theater department and the arts department do), and others break even or even provide a small (couple million dollar) subsidy to the university.

And for you to look at the NFL draft tells me that we're debating different things. Obvs the best HS football players go to college. This isn't evidence they aren't free to try another route, whatever they might think that is. Rather, it is evidence that colleges (and donors like you and me) have voluntarily invested hundreds of millions of dollars in building an infrastructure (weight rooms, stadiums, "academic success centers," you name it) to enable these students to mature, develop and thrive, both as players and as students.

The idea that 'colleges' are making millions off of student athletes is ridiculous. Rather, construction companies and university administrators are making millions off of football-motivated donors like me. The student athletes get a lot of training and a free education for their role in the mechanism. I didn't get anything but a dumb clear plastic bag and a window flag. When you think about it, I'm the one who needs some revenue sharing.

And to be clear, the kids that play football overwhelmingly *love playing football,* which they would not be able to do with this level of support (medical, academic, fan, media, you name it) if they insisted on being treated as a professional at the age of 18.

The idea that poor players are having their arms twisted by some cruel and relentless capitalist Scrooge to lay their bodies on the line for the benefit of old fat white guys like me, is absurd. Players scratch and crawl over one another to get a D1 scholarship, as well they should – it's a lot of fun, it's a great deal, and you get both a great education and a chance to make millions playing football, if you happen to be among the lucky few that are talented enough for that.
 
Last edited:

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Of course. College football has history and a fan base already in place. If you don’t have a problem with them being “compensated” with tuition and room and board, then why would you have a problem with them being compensated with money.
That goes both ways. If you think compensation with money is fair, why isn't compensation with tuition and room and board fair? What justifies paying a back up third string punt returner more than the six figures he's already getting?

The reality is that when you add up all the value the college kids are getting, they're getting way more than (for example) minor league baseball players. Be careful what you wish for athletes... if we go to straight cash, the overall benefit you receive is likely to go way, way down.
 

WracerX

Dr. Dunkingstein
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
17,005
Imagine how you'd feel if you were a woman and the men were being treated like kings and you were slumming it.
Imagine you are a man who can out play every single female BB player in the tournament, but you are slumming it and paying for your own school.

But I guess we have a solution to that problem on the way.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,301
Imagine you are a man who can out play every single female BB player in the tournament, but you are slumming it and paying for your own school.

But I guess we have a solution to that problem on the way.
Imagine if you're one of the best players in the country at lacrosse, put in just as much effort in a game that requires just as much talent as football and basketball, and then when you graduate you have to go work an entry level office job for low six figures instead of signing a seven figure contract to play sports.
 

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,296
Imagine you're a coach and you want your team to have access to decent facilities during a championship tournament and generally be treated like human beings, and a discussion of that fact by the people who should be your biggest supporters devolves into a pissing match over legal terminology regarding a tangentially related subject because most of them don't have the balls to support you.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,301
Imagine you're a coach and you want your team to have access to decent facilities during a championship tournament and generally be treated like human beings, and a discussion of that fact by the people who should be your biggest supporters devolves into a pissing match over legal terminology regarding a tangentially related subject because most of them don't have the balls to support you.
You just described pretty much every discussion that's ever taken place on the Internet.
 

OptionJacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
321
If you don’t think the big programs could easily break away from the NCAA then you probably were also laughing at guys like me who said a D1 playoff system was coming. For years those of you who don’t follow the money beat the drum it would never happen. Now here we are and it will keep expanding. You saw the power of the big programs just last year. The Big 10 and the northeast schools thought they were the standard bearers and the country would just roll over when they delayed or cancelled (Ivy) fall football. It took all of a few days for the SEC and ACC to flip them the bird and do their own thing. And the networks ate it up because of money. When all this paying athletes/so called equity issues reaches the flash point I fully expect the powerhouses to create their own entity to pay players outside of the NCAA. The monetary impact this will have on the NCAA will devastate women sports who can’t stand on their own dollar. Let’s face it, the SEC calls the shots and the rest of the south follows. Imagine the SEC schools creating their own entity and then inviting Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., GT, Miami, UCF, VT, and others to join. It wouldn’t be long before schools were begging to join.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Imagine you're a coach and you want your team to have access to decent facilities during a championship tournament and generally be treated like human beings, and a discussion of that fact by the people who should be your biggest supporters devolves into a pissing match over legal terminology regarding a tangentially related subject because most of them don't have the balls to support you.
"be treated like human beings"
 

Bbz_13

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
8
Of course. College football has history and a fan base already in place. If you don’t have a problem with them being “compensated” with tuition and room and board, then why would you have a problem with them being compensated with money.
I don’t. I was just trying to make the point that scholarship athletes are compensated now, and it is not clear to me that there are other options, existing or hypothetical, that would be worth more than what they get now. Particularly for athletes who aren’t superstars. Of course, reasonable people could disagree about that.

Although I could see why some athletes might prefer to earn $35-70k a year in something like the G-league without any academic obligations over getting the equivalent in tuition, residence, and a small stipend.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Imagine if you're one of the best players in the country at lacrosse, put in just as much effort in a game that requires just as much talent as football and basketball, and then when you graduate you have to go work an entry level office job for low six figures instead of signing a seven figure contract to play sports.
Do you envision this to be a good dream or a bad one...?

What I imagine is letting people do whatever they want, and the invisible hand of the free market satisfies the largest number of people's largest number of needs and preferences.

Which means that, yes, it is entirely possible that the pinochle king of the world is going to make less money from his pinochle talents than the coding king of the world is going to make from his coding. And thank heavens for that!

This all goes back to an old problem in estate law – when doling out the family cash, is it "fair" to treat your overachieving son and your underachieving son equally? Or is it "fairer" to give more to the guy that has demonstrated better ability to steward it? Or is it "fairer" to give more money to the guy that has demonstrated a greater need for it?

You can tell you're in a policy discussion where people are just voting with their feelings, contingent upon their personal histories and what they ate that morning, when they rely upon "fairness" to justify the outcome. I used to tell my kids "fair" was a four-letter word that wasn't allowed in our household.
 

GTCrew4b

Get That Corn Outta Ma Face
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
24,923
Imagine you're a coach and you want your team to have access to decent facilities during a championship tournament and generally be treated like human beings, and a discussion of that fact by the people who should be your biggest supporters devolves into a pissing match over legal terminology regarding a tangentially related subject because most of them don't have the balls to support you.
Imagine being providing food, hotels, working with local governments for weeks to provide pandemic safety protocols stronger than nuclear power plants, coordinating with several conferences, travel agencies, supporting the education and athletic opportunity of all the participants that their parents could only dream of TV exposure and promotion on the biggest sports network in the country exclusively and then being told the weight room is unfair.
 
Top