NCAA basketball = slave plantation

Discussion in 'Basketball' started by 18in32, May 7, 2018.

  1. beej67

    beej67 new around here

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    53,017
    Loc:
    the smouldering hellscape of east cobb
    Team:
    GT
    Because they have a monopoly.

    If there were two NBAs, it'd be no big deal. If there were a paid development league, no big deal.

    It's not just age discrimination, its discrimination against people who don't want, or perhaps even shouldn't, go to college.

    Its, like, the entire problem with college sports.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. gtg970g

    gtg970g Varsity Lurker

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    Loc:
    Decatur, GA
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    Not arguing your primary point but there is a paid development league. Problem is the pay is s**t and it doesn't do anything to promote your brand. I favor a baseball type system with a required commitment to college or a professional path. The professional path is not as glorious as many may believe but would come with a nice signing bonus for the best of the best.
     
  3. 18in32

    18in32 Puritan Wannabe

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,339
    Loc:
    Atlanta
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    The reason the development league doesn't pay much is because talent is worth almost nothing without the accoutrement of team — those long-standing, built-in fan affiliations that Wendell Carter did nothing to develop. Today's players get a great deal.
     
  4. eg1

    eg1 Dodd-Like

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,734
    Loc:
    Ontario
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    Or, as Seinfeld put it, we're "cheering for laundry" ...
     
  5. Vespidie

    Vespidie Jolly Good Fellow

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,581
    Loc:
    North of the gnat line
    Team:
    University of Georgia Technology Institution
    Respect is earned, not given.
     
  6. andrew

    andrew Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    20,873
    Loc:
    New York City
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    If talent was really worth as little as you say, they wouldn't be paying coaches so much.

    You can't say the revenue is generated almost exclusively due to long standing fan affiliations rather than talent while also saying we need to pay coaches several million dollars a year because winning brings in a lot more revenue than losing.

    I believe players in revenue generating sports and leagues should be paid, but I'd be a lot more okay with not paying them if coaches were paid in line with professors.
     
  7. gtg970g

    gtg970g Varsity Lurker

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    Loc:
    Decatur, GA
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    I'm in agreement with 18in32 that the revenue is derived from the long standing fan affiliations. If skill was the primary driver of revenue the D-league would be outdrawing CBB and that's just not the case. Over time there is a chance the D-league could develop into something more but that will take a long time and could never happen. Paying the college revenue sports athletes would be the end of non-revenue sports.
     
  8. andrew

    andrew Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    20,873
    Loc:
    New York City
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    But then why do schools pay coaches millions of dollars a year? Seems like a waste of money if the revenue is related only to the long standing fan affiliations.

    It's incongruous to say that it's worth paying coaches millions of dollars a year because winning drives revenue, but players shouldn't be paid because their skills (which obviously have a huge effect on wins and losses) don't drive revenue.

    Note I'm not saying that long standing fan traditions don't have an impact. Obviously they have a huge impact. But it's equally as obvious that the skill of the players also has a huge impact because winning drives donations, apparel sales, ticket sales, NCAA tournament appearances, etc.

    I'm also not saying that there are no legitimate arguments against paying players, because there are. But their skills not contributing to a school's bottom line is not one of them.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  9. 18in32

    18in32 Puritan Wannabe

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,339
    Loc:
    Atlanta
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    Respectfully, I don't think you read my post very carefully. I didn't say talent wasn't worth anything... I said it wasn't worth anything *without* the accoutrements of team. Winning is obviously a huge factor in building team/brand enthusiasm, and winning does depend on (relative) levels of talent.

    The point of my comment is that Wendell Carter's mom wildly underestimates how much of a benefit her son gets from being allowed to play at Duke. The perceived "unfairness" of his situation is manifestly laughable — he voluntarily chose it with full information beforehand, he competed hard for years in hopes of getting the opportunity, it has provided him training, exposure, competition far beyond what most of his peers get, etc. etc. The bottom line is that players in revenue generating sports *are* paid, quite a lot — obviously not as much as non-amateurs. But then, do we prefer to cheer for Tech students or Tech employees?

    (It doesn't talk long of listening to coaches talk to realize that coaches' loyalty to their schools is the temporary, contingent loyalty of an employee to an employer. But listen to Pat Swilling talk about Tech and you'll see the kind of loyalty that I get excited to cheer for. Professional sports just isn't very much fun, and I don't want to give up the fun of college athletics.)
     
  10. andrew

    andrew Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    20,873
    Loc:
    New York City
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    I suppose that is true, but then again that's true of almost any job. Few people have skills which are worth a lot without the accoutrements of a company such as infrastructure, marketing, brand loyalty built up over years, etc.

    I also agree college basketball are paid, just not at market value. I guess the reason I get worked up over this and think it's unfair is that all the justifications given for not paying players at market value (fans prefer to root for amateurs with a connection to the school, loyalty of fans to school, etc.) also apply to coaches.

    The difference is that the schools essentially banned together and agreed to a cap on what players could be paid, but didn't do any such thing for coaches or administrators involved in the game. That seems patently unfair, and in most industries in America it would constitute collusion.
     
  11. 18in32

    18in32 Puritan Wannabe

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,339
    Loc:
    Atlanta
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    I'm gonna take the undeniable universality of my argument to be a strong mark in its favor.
    Why does it apply to coaches? You think to be consistent about the ideals of amateurism, collegiate teams should be coached by students also? I'd be happy to have a long conversation about amateurism and how it is implemented in collegiate athletics. But the bottom line is that, in trying to strike a balance between the point of collegiate athletics (ie, it's students not professionals), and the market response to collegiate athletics (ie, enthusiasm and hence money), we've decided over the course of the past 100 years that the coaches — who are supposed to have a pedagogical function, after all — should be employees rather than students. That wasn't a *necessary* outcome of this historical development, but it certainly isn't arbitrary or unfair.
    This kind of talk drives me crazy. Schools across America decided long ago that amateur athletics served an important function in their overall pedagogical mission. A very small sliver of schools have enough alumni, and enough history, and enough overall interest in athletics, that there's a market for their athletic product. Why is preserving amateurism in the face of that market interest "collusion"? It's the opposite of collusion... think how much more money the colleges could make (if that were actually their only goal) if they said, "forget classes, you athletes need to be dedicating all your time to training, practicing, promoting the brand, etc. — just like a real NFL player."

    College football was for a very long time much bigger than the NFL, and the only reason it isn't today is because college football voluntarily abandoned those dollars decades ago in order to strike a better balance between their actual missions (educating these kids) and the dollars they generate. There's no such thing as a monopoly in charitable activity, and the mission of Georgia Tech in educating (say) Nate Cottrell, on the field and off, is fundamentally a charitable one — as proven by the oft-reported fact that most schools have to subsidize their athletics.
     
  12. gtg970g

    gtg970g Varsity Lurker

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    385
    Loc:
    Decatur, GA
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    If we paid players at market value we would have maybe 75 schools with "athletics programs" and the only surviving sports would be men's basketball and football.
     
  13. BrentwoodJacket

    BrentwoodJacket Varsity Lurker

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    189
    Loc:
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Team:
    Georgia Tech
    The sports would survive as they do today at Division III.

    This raises several interesting questions for the 75 schools:
    1) Would the players negotiate one year contracts instead of scholarships?
    2) Would the players be able to move between teams each year based on the best offer?
    3) Would there be a limit on the number of players that can be signed?
    4) Would the school have any future obligation to players who are injured?
    5) Would the transfer rules along with the other useless NCAA rules go away.
    6) Would the players have to be enrolled in classes since their real purpose is playing football or basketball.