Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote: You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by 133743Hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by 133743Hokie »

HvilleHokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
fatman wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
How did you calculate that this exact figure fairly compensates the jocks. At many schools it probably does. For a top 20 hoops team or an SEC football team, the employees aren't getting a fair share of tickets, tv, video games, merchandising $$$. It would be hard to argue otherwise. I agree with IP,miss a lawsuit waiting to happen. Men's non revs may be decimated as a result.
"Fair Compensation"? "Fair Share"? Really? Since when do employees/staff have a right to a fair share? Is that normal in business? That isn't theirs to place demands on. Like in business, the owners (NCAA and schools) and officers (AD and coaches) drive the business, take the risks, and make the big money. The players are replaceable, interchangeable parts. A commodity. They are compensated commensurate to what they provide and as management sees fit. And when you look at all they get they have good compensation. And if they don't like it they can go elsewhere or do something else.
i'm not sure where you work, but i negotiated a salary. thats my fair share based on what i believe i'm worth. my employer agrees so they agree to pay it to me. thats what fair share is.

college athletes don't have that right because of a collusion among all the schools to prohibit them from doing so. that sort of collusion is illegal in any other industry.

a fairly recent case about it was settled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech ... Litigation
You negotiated your salary and the company had a range that they were willing to pay you, i.e. what they perceive your value to be. If you believed your value to be higher than they were willing to pay then you would have looked, and possibly gone, elsewhere. And that's the same with players. They know the value of the package offered by a school. If they want more (better academics, better conference, coaches, facilities, exposure, etc.) then they opt for a different program offering what they perceive to be the appropriate comp for their talents.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13123
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by HokieJoe »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
Employees are allowed to leave and/or negotiate for themselves. Neither of these options are available to NCAA athletes.

In your analogy (which I think is accurate), the athletes basically have their salary set by a governing body. It’s the antithesis of a free market.
So, like a government employee then?
Yep. If we're going with the 'employee' analogy, then the athletes are paid by the tax payer and/or donations.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. So what?
HvilleHokie
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by HvilleHokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
Employees are allowed to leave and/or negotiate for themselves. Neither of these options are available to NCAA athletes.

In your analogy (which I think is accurate), the athletes basically have their salary set by a governing body. It’s the antithesis of a free market.
So, like a government employee then?

Few thoughts...

* the ncaa (or more accurately the member schools) are profit seeking entities. that's why 133743Hokie's original comparison to a corporation is apt. this differs from a government entity whose cannot seek profit.

* schools receive money from a multitude of sources... donations, tv contracts, ticket sales. all willingly given for value received. this is very different from the government who takes their money via force.

* even government employees are allowed to leave and pursue other opportunities within their field. a cop can go to the next town over if they are offering more money. ncaa athletes aren't allowed to do this without having to sit out and losing a year of eligibility.

* government employees' salaries are set from top to bottom. in the ncaa, coaches and AD's make a ton of money because of the profits that are being garnered. they are doing so at the expense of their players who cannot be paid.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by USN_Hokie »

HvilleHokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
Employees are allowed to leave and/or negotiate for themselves. Neither of these options are available to NCAA athletes.

In your analogy (which I think is accurate), the athletes basically have their salary set by a governing body. It’s the antithesis of a free market.
So, like a government employee then?

Few thoughts...

* the ncaa (or more accurately the member schools) are profit seeking entities. that's why 133743Hokie's original comparison to a corporation is apt. this differs from a government entity whose cannot seek profit.

* schools receive money from a multitude of sources... donations, tv contracts, ticket sales. all willingly given for value received. this is very different from the government who takes their money via force.

* even government employees are allowed to leave and pursue other opportunities within their field. a cop can go to the next town over if they are offering more money. ncaa athletes aren't allowed to do this without having to sit out and losing a year of eligibility.

* government employees' salaries are set from top to bottom. in the ncaa, coaches and AD's make a ton of money because of the profits that are being garnered. they are doing so at the expense of their players who cannot be paid.
1. Don't see how that's relevant. Most of the member schools are public too.

2. You're also describing a non-profit. Don't see how that's relevant.

3. A federal government employee can't. They're paid a GS rate (adjusted for cost if living). Also, your argument assumes all scholarships are valued the same. An academy degree is worth more than one from ODU.

4. The athletes are willing participants. They are not slaves who get chained up at the end of the game.

I feel like this conversation (maybe unintentionally) has taken a turn towards infantilizing these athletes as slaves/livestock with no free will. They *choose* to play college football because they want to make a lot of money.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. So what?
So the NCAA can’t change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. So what?
So the NCAA can’t change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, I thought we were worried about ath-o-letes getting paid, not taking money from the NCAA like Robin Hood.

You could lobby the NCAA, or the NFL. I think a lot of folks in this argument want to keep the "student athletes" on the NCAA plantation. Myself...i think the players worried about fame and fortune leaving for the NFL would make college football better.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. So what?
So the NCAA can’t change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, I thought we were worried about ath-o-letes getting paid, not taking money from the NCAA like Robin Hood.

You could lobby the NCAA, or the NFL. I think a lot of folks in this argument want to keep the "student athletes" on the NCAA plantation. Myself...i think the players worried about fame and fortune leaving for the NFL would make college football better.
You seem to think the NFL has a vested interest in making college sports better. But you are free to discuss the issue, with your understanding of the facts. I wold think the mental energy would be better applied based on the real world facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Just let kids go straight from high school to the NFL.
This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. So what?
So the NCAA can’t change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, I thought we were worried about ath-o-letes getting paid, not taking money from the NCAA like Robin Hood.

You could lobby the NCAA, or the NFL. I think a lot of folks in this argument want to keep the "student athletes" on the NCAA plantation. Myself...i think the players worried about fame and fortune leaving for the NFL would make college football better.
You seem to think the NFL has a vested interest in making college sports better. But you are free to discuss the issue, with your understanding of the facts. I wold think the mental energy would be better applied based on the real world facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If these kids are really being held back by not being paid, the NFL should have an interest in letting them play :idea:
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by cwtcr hokie »

This is not the NCAA’s decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Sure. So what?[/quote]

So the NCAA can’t change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Sorry, I thought we were worried about ath-o-letes getting paid, not taking money from the NCAA like Robin Hood.

You could lobby the NCAA, or the NFL. I think a lot of folks in this argument want to keep the "student athletes" on the NCAA plantation. Myself...i think the players worried about fame and fortune leaving for the NFL would make college football better.[/quote]

You seem to think the NFL has a vested interest in making college sports better. But you are free to discuss the issue, with your understanding of the facts. I wold think the mental energy would be better applied based on the real world facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

If these kids are really being held back by not being paid, the NFL should have an interest in letting them play :idea:[/quote]

considering there is a very limited number of player jobs available in the NFL compared to people that want to do that job I have a feeling the players there now are not in a rush to bring more competition in for THEIR jobs.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by USN_Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote: considering there is a very limited number of player jobs available in the NFL compared to people that want to do that job I have a feeling the players there now are not in a rush to bring more competition in for THEIR jobs.
Well, by IP's argument, the market is manipulated by the evil NCAA taking advantage of the players. Maybe giving players more options would allow the NFL to expand?
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by VisorBoy »

133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by 133743Hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).
There is so much more to athletes compensation beyond fixed tuition, room and board, as I've enumerated above in two locations. This is the part that is variable from school to school and is part of the athletes decision making process during the recruiting stage. As such, total compensation varies school to school and the prospective athlete is free to explore before making any decisions.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by cwtcr hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:6. A full tuition, books, room and board scholarship, plus "cost of attendance" money, plus training table, plus professional coaching, plus fitness center, plus professional fitness and nutrition staff, plus exposure to professional scouts is plenty of compensation and nothing else need be done.
Agree, but that doesn't address the whole "schools make millions, these kids don't get a piece of the pie and it goes on under the table anyway" crowd.. as if every 18 year old that throws a ball is entitled to millions before their pro payday.
I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).


So the cost to attend duke is the same as the cost to attend VT..... not even close

So if we pay athletes can we cut their pay by 90% if the kid throws three interceptions in a game, or if the OT misses a block and gets the QB injured....how much does he get paid that next play?
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by VisorBoy »

133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).
There is so much more to athletes compensation beyond fixed tuition, room and board, as I've enumerated above in two locations. This is the part that is variable from school to school and is part of the athletes decision making process during the recruiting stage. As such, total compensation varies school to school and the prospective athlete is free to explore before making any decisions.
It doesn't matter if it varies school to school. The anti-competitive part is the cap. That cap is the sum of top of the line facilities + tuition+ etc... A school is unable to give $1 more to any student athlete by rule.

Also, the compensation type is limited (schools are limited in giving cash directly to athletes).
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by cwtcr hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).
There is so much more to athletes compensation beyond fixed tuition, room and board, as I've enumerated above in two locations. This is the part that is variable from school to school and is part of the athletes decision making process during the recruiting stage. As such, total compensation varies school to school and the prospective athlete is free to explore before making any decisions.
It doesn't matter if it varies school to school. The anti-competitive part is the cap. That cap is the sum of top of the line facilities + tuition+ etc... A school is unable to give $1 more to any student athlete by rule.

Also, the compensation type is limited (schools are limited in giving cash directly to athletes).
ok, except the scholarship to duke is worth about 300- 400k, the scholarship to vt is worth maybe 200k. But I agree, pay them, and when the QB cost us a game we cut his pay by 80% (just like in real life) or we fire the sucker (again, real life) and then the poor kid has to figure out how to pay 50k for college that year in order to get his degree. Of course this goes across every sport, so the 20th string golf guy gets the same as the star QB, and the women volleyball player (pay equality, right)
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by 133743Hokie »

VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: I address it this way. The school is the company. The AD is the president and the head coaches are VPs. They run the ship. They drive the business. They make the hard decisions. They make the big money when things go well and they get fired, often with golden parachutes, when they don't succeed. The players are the rank and file staff. They are compensated well for what they do (see my post above for all that they get), but they are just rotating parts. They are all replaceable. They are a commodity. They're just employees. Now, when they perform well they get the benefit of starting, of regional or national recognition, and the chance to try and go professional.
That is anti-competitive and non-capitalistic. You're advocating the rights of employers to collude monopolistically to cap wages at a maximum (in this case, tuition, room/board, etc).

Whether you believe the employees currently receive 'plenty of compensation' is immaterial. The market should allow them to earn whatever they can within the constraints of what college can afford to pay them.

Putting in a price floor due to Title IX is also anti-competitive, but it is currently in place and working.

The end result of this is that schools with more AD revenue will attract better recruits. But that won't change the cumulative landscape of CFB. There will still be the same number of employees and employers, with the possible exception of fewer borderline players declaring early for the draft.
It's neither anti-competitive nor anti-capitalistic. Players are free to choose which school they attend. In fact they experience pretty extensive recruiting pushes from their suitors. It is the right of an employer to pursue who they want and to "hire" who they want. Compensation varies by school based on such things as marketability/value of a degree from that school, the quality of the facilities, the quality of the competition, exposure, coaching, etc. It's pure capitalism.
Compensation cannot vary above the costs incurred for tuition, room/board, incidentals. This cap is set and enforced by fiat by the NCAA. Capping salaries arbitrarily (i.e. not letting the market dictate) is as close to anti-competitive as it gets.

Sure, companies have their internal salary ranges for employees, but the caps are not set nor enforced by the government. An employee can interview with employers who are free to offer whatever they deem appropriate. Not so in the NCAA, where no school can offer above the limits set by the NCAA (and agreed contractually by member institutions).
There is so much more to athletes compensation beyond fixed tuition, room and board, as I've enumerated above in two locations. This is the part that is variable from school to school and is part of the athletes decision making process during the recruiting stage. As such, total compensation varies school to school and the prospective athlete is free to explore before making any decisions.
It doesn't matter if it varies school to school. The anti-competitive part is the cap. That cap is the sum of top of the line facilities + tuition+ etc... A school is unable to give $1 more to any student athlete by rule.

Also, the compensation type is limited (schools are limited in giving cash directly to athletes).
Doesn't have to be cash. And schools are almost unlimited in what they can give. . Clemson just built water slides and miniature golf courses. It's endless. Keep trying, but you can't discount what I'm saying as it's fact.
Vienna_Hokie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: libertarian

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by Vienna_Hokie »

I guess we're having a protected class war again.....

I guess they forget that the $billions the NCAA makes pays for all the non-revenue producing sports which includes every women's sport except basketball at maybe 5 schools.

So pay the men that play basketball and football and there is no money to pay for any other sports.

Don't like the agreement of getting a scholarship and all the exposure of playing in the NCAA, fine... go to the G League and play in front of 250 fans so no one knows who you are when you are drafted.
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by nolanvt »

Vienna_Hokie wrote:I guess we're having a protected class war again.....

I guess they forget that the $billions the NCAA makes pays for all the non-revenue producing sports which includes every women's sport except basketball at maybe 5 schools.

So pay the men that play basketball and football and there is no money to pay for any other sports.

Don't like the agreement of getting a scholarship and all the exposure of playing in the NCAA, fine... go to the G League and play in front of 250 fans so no one knows who you are when you are drafted.
I don’t think people are arguing that the schools should pay the players. Although, I do think it’s fascinating that there those who tend to be conservative who argue against paying athletes based on the welfare of the non-revenue sports, essentially advocating socialism. The converse is true for liberals when arguing for a more market-based approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Mcl3 Hokie
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by Mcl3 Hokie »

Title IX was not put in place by conservatives. However, now that the liberal left has in place, the money has to come from somewhere. I guess that convenient fact isn’t in your head.

As for anti-competitive, no one is stopping the formation of other leagues for football and basketball. Baseball already addresses this with the minor leagues.
nolanvt wrote:
Vienna_Hokie wrote:I guess we're having a protected class war again.....

I guess they forget that the $billions the NCAA makes pays for all the non-revenue producing sports which includes every women's sport except basketball at maybe 5 schools.

So pay the men that play basketball and football and there is no money to pay for any other sports.

Don't like the agreement of getting a scholarship and all the exposure of playing in the NCAA, fine... go to the G League and play in front of 250 fans so no one knows who you are when you are drafted.
I don’t think people are arguing that the schools should pay the players. Although, I do think it’s fascinating that there those who tend to be conservative who argue against paying athletes based on the welfare of the non-revenue sports, essentially advocating socialism. The converse is true for liberals when arguing for a more market-based approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Huge momentum to "pay" college athletes now. Where

Post by nolanvt »

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Title IX was not put in place by conservatives. However, now that the liberal left has in place, the money has to come from somewhere. I guess that convenient fact isn’t in your head.

As for anti-competitive, no one is stopping the formation of other leagues for football and basketball. Baseball already addresses this with the minor leagues.
nolanvt wrote:
Vienna_Hokie wrote:I guess we're having a protected class war again.....

I guess they forget that the $billions the NCAA makes pays for all the non-revenue producing sports which includes every women's sport except basketball at maybe 5 schools.

So pay the men that play basketball and football and there is no money to pay for any other sports.

Don't like the agreement of getting a scholarship and all the exposure of playing in the NCAA, fine... go to the G League and play in front of 250 fans so no one knows who you are when you are drafted.
I don’t think people are arguing that the schools should pay the players. Although, I do think it’s fascinating that there those who tend to be conservative who argue against paying athletes based on the welfare of the non-revenue sports, essentially advocating socialism. The converse is true for liberals when arguing for a more market-based approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re confusing me with someone who wants the universities to pay athletes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
BG Hokie
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by BG Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:#1 and #2 are the closest.

There is so much money on the table, I think paying the kids a relatively modest stipend would actually clean the sport up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or you tell the 15 or so schools that are scum and pay these kids cash from boosters to clean up and try to compete like everyone else. I think Tom Izzo could wins some games with real college kids. This is changing the rule for 319 schools, when really only a small percentage cheat- because really a small percentage of these 18 year old basketball "stars" have "market value" anyway.
I have no idea if and how many schools are paying kids. As you know, the agents are a documented problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we can come to a reasonable guess/hypothesis... If VT (a top 25 football and top 50ish hoops) program is paying Ahmed Hill and DeShawn McClease, we need to get our money back. I think it is a really, really safe bet to say this is limited to the top 15 schools give or take.
I would be shocked if there weren't some players at VT (football or basketball) that weren't paid. As long as there is a large incentive to get better, no matter what the value of the recruit is, I'm sure there are financial incentives. A coach gets an extra 100k (or 500k) for winning a conference, or to make the tournament. Or, just the opportunity to field a better team which gets you your next coaching gig.
Paid in what form? Cash payments by boosters? Quite honestly, I would doubt it. We simply don't have that kind of network and alumni involvement. I'm sure people have paid for some meals here and there maybe even found a way to help subsidize or fund unofficial visits but I don't think we're handing over a thousand bucks here or there (or more) to pay for play. I don't think we're in that "elite" class of institutions where the bag man culture is entrenched and part of the game. I think we're pretty damned clean, at least on the football front. Basketball is a corrupt business, I don't doubt anything though I do think based on who Buzz recruits that we're not really one of those teams either...
BG Hokie
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: Huge momentum to

Post by BG Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Can’t pay revenue athletes without paying the non-revenue athletes. I’m perfectly fine with some variation of the Olympic model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you mean by that? Olympians are 100% outright pros now- have been for years. LeBron James played in the olympics. Not sure what you mean?
They are not paid by the IOC. I believe they’re getting paid for endorsements and things of that sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes, great team chemistry, the one guy is driving new cars and spending money hand over fist... the OL guy is eating ramen noodles and can't afford a movie...that would work out real well.
Why do you hate capitalism?
Post Reply