And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?
If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]
They are trying to have common sense changes, but the “no one forces” you inane arguments don’t work apparently.
So your contention is that “the market” has determined kids shouldn’t be able to sign autographs for money, star in commercials, have their names on the back of jerseys and get paid for their video game sales?
You sure by “the market” you don’t mean THE monopoly that is the NCAA?
Voluntary exchange does not equal free market no matter how much you keep repeating it. Econ 101 man. [/quote]
No one is stopping someone else from creating a competing league.
an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
NCAA = privately owned business. No one has stopped someone from trying to compete against the NCAA. Just b/c the NCAA creates rules for its privately owned product (college sports), that does not mean it’s not participating in a free market.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
And without employees you don’t have a business, but my boss isn’t exactly sharing what I would consider a “fair share” of profits with me?
If kids hate it so much, stop playing sports and then see what happens. Until then, the market has dictated that people are willing to do this at the price given. That’s how a free market works.[/quote]
When you use terms like free market and kids together you have to recognize the incongruity of the relationship. Especially when you talk about kids who are undereducated, inexperienced, poor and gullible. Just how free are they?
And I don’t see how free market arguments apply when state schools are subsidized by tax payers. [/quote]
They don’t. Free market keeps getting thrown around when it is isn’t a free market. Maybe if you say free market enough it becomes one? [/quote]
How is it not a free market? Perhaps you don’t know what a free market is?
The NCAA and College organizations decided that a league they created and owned has to follow rules. The government didn’t come in and say they had to do all of this.
It’s no different than NFL/NBA/CFL/MLB/MLS organization rules. Then the people who want to participate in the organization’s product (the game), they have to follow the rules set up.
Would you say the any of those organizations are not participating in a free market?[/quote]
Seems like a lot of these people are confused on what a free market is as well?
You keep bringing up voluntary exchange and saying that makes it a free market. That’s because you don’t know what a free market is. A CHOICE does not equal a free market.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]
I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?
[quote]
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]
Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question. [/quote]
Actually that’s not true. They don’t HAVE to pay players to do this. They just have to give kids the opportunity to make money off their own names. See the Olympics for an example. Why would it be wrong to allow a kid to be in a commercial if the demand was there? We let it happen in the Olympics. We let those “amateurs” do it. Things seem to work out ok.
The NCAA doesn’t have to do shit, but stop with the bullshit restrictions that exist to keep things “fair.” If kids start making a lot of money then it’s going to be hard to sell that horsecrap student athlete line to all the lemmings who still eat that up. [/quote]
I seriously doubt very many players would make money off there name in college. [/quote]
Only 1-2% of college students have athletic scholarships. Of that 1-2%, 1-2% make it pro…the people who MIGHT make money off endorsements and stuff.
So we are making a big to do about 0.01 to 0.04% of ALL college students. And, as USMC states, of all the guys going pro.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I bet you would be surprised. [/quote]
I doubt it. I bet 2-3 players per team would make some money. Everyone else would get scraps.
Free market remember. I think you’d have a better argument if you called the NCAA a monopoly on student athletes or pre-pro athletes if you’d prefer.
You’re taking that statement out of context. You wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
What do YOU think will happen if the NCAA stops being a hypocrite and isn’t the only person to make money off the kids and the kids can make money off themselves? [/quote]
to which I replied:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Only way that happens is if they pay players, which brings me right back to my question.[/quote]
The vast majority of players will only make money if the NCAA or their specific college pays them. Some (few imo) will make money off merchandise, autographs, TV deals, etc…, but that’s irrelevant because those things have nothing to do with the NCAA. If the NCAA lifts restrictions on income earned the athletes will make money from a third party not the NCAA. So in order for them not to be a hypocrite they would need to pay the athletes out of their own income.
Which again brings me back to, what happens to the other sports programs and non-scholarship athletes if players get paid by their college or the NCAA?
[quote]H factor wrote:
The NCAA can lift restrictions and let kids make money off themselves which would be much higher than you anticipate. [/quote]
This is just your opinion. My opinion is 1-3 players per team will make a hit ton of money 100s of thousands to millions, but hte vast majority will get peanuts. If players start getting paid to play, again my opinion, is that the non-stars will get even less because scholarship money will likely (opinion) disappear.
So, again my opinion, paying athletes will be detrimental to the vast majority of students that use college sports as a means to help pay for their education (because they will not go pro) so that a very very small minority gets paid the big bucks.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]
I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?
Not everyone goes pro. And for some of these athletes they have high value WHILE in college but not after. How many former college athletes do things like commercials or write books AFTER they graduate? They can’t sign a jersey while in school even thought they would make money off of it. They can’t be in a commercial even though they would make money off of it.
Why are you ignoring the articles that talk about what an athlete is worth and would make in a fair market? Are you just not willing to read something counter to your opinion?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The vast majority of players will only make money if the NCAA or their specific college pays them. Some (few imo) will make money off merchandise, autographs, TV deals, etc…, but that’s irrelevant because those things have nothing to do with the NCAA. If the NCAA lifts restrictions on income earned the athletes will make money from a third party not the NCAA. So in order for them not to be a hypocrite they would need to pay the athletes out of their own income.[/quote]
Those things have everything to do with the NCAA. The NCAA is the one keeping them from doing what you keep saying they need to do. Be able to make money. The NCAA is the ONE fighting this and the one trying to keep it from happening. You think they WANT kids making money off themselves? No. Why not? Because no business wants their laborers to make more money if they don’t have to. And they don’t have to because lemmings buy the student athlete argument and talk about voluntary exchange. It’s as shady as it gets. Everyone is getting fatter and fatter off the athletes and the athletes remain the same.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is just your opinion. My opinion is 1-3 players per team will make a hit ton of money 100s of thousands to millions, but hte vast majority will get peanuts. If players start getting paid to play, again my opinion, is that the non-stars will get even less because scholarship money will likely (opinion) disappear.[/quote]
Your opinion is wrong, but we will never know that because the NCAA won’t let it happen. Why would they? You don’t think they love the current system?
That small minority would be much bigger than you think, but it’s hard to prove it because it won’t be allowed to happen.
The NCAA doesn’t NEED to pay athletes. They just need to let athletes have the ability to get paid. Something you’ve said over and over again and yet you keep arguing against it.
You can keep pretending this is amateur sports and this is a game and students first priority is education. This is what the NCAA wants you to believe. They need to keep the myth going. As long as you buy it you’ll support them. The moment you see them for what they are the house of cards tumbles.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Substitute fair market for free market if you keep getting hung up on this, but it’s quite simple.
Voluntary exchange does not mean free market. [/quote]
You can apply this to any market as I pointed out earlier. [/quote]
Of course you can, but that does NOT make it free.
Like I said. Obamacare is a free market system because you are free not to get insurance you can always pay the fine. That’s the type of logic being thrown out and it’s fine and dandy, but hilariously flawed. Like I said slaves didn’t have to work, they could have committed suicide. Fair system. I mean the kids could always go work at grocery stores.
That’s just an intellectually lazy argument. We should be talking about if things should change in a system. Not that “ya know no one makes you bail out the banks with your tax dollars you could always move.”
[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong [/quote]
Just lol… [/quote]
I fail to see the humor. You called out my opinion and then gave your opinion. Clearly you think mine is wrong, why is pointing out that I think yours is funny?
A better question for your opinion:
Why do YOU think the NCAA fights so hard against these changes? You’ve already said you think kids should be able to make money. So why aren’t you mad at the institution that is keeping that from happening.
And no the NCAA DOESN’T have to pay them. Why would they? They just need to free them to be the same as you and I. Able to make money off our own endeavors.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Really, academics? Why isn’t it doing more with that money to make sure college athletes graduate? Remember that thing they pay lip service to? [/quote]
I thought all these “athletes” were there because they have to be? Why waste money on people that don’t want to graduate?
Not everyone goes pro. And for some of these athletes they have high value WHILE in college but not after. How many former college athletes do things like commercials or write books AFTER they graduate? They can’t sign a jersey while in school even thought they would make money off of it. They can’t be in a commercial even though they would make money off of it.
Why are you ignoring the articles that talk about what an athlete is worth and would make in a fair market? Are you just not willing to read something counter to your opinion? [/quote]
I’ve read them all. I get the arguments and, as USMC, Aargon, and a few others have stated, I don’t disagree the NCAA should lighten up on some of the OUTSIDE stuff.
But I don’t feel bad for these kids. Their situation is no different than anyone taking an entry level position or whatever. Someone takes a risk on them, and these schools ARE taking a risk on giving them a scholarship over someone else, you are paid less than market but you choose to be paid less than market, and you now have an opportunity of going pro.
Risk/Work vs Reward. These kids take a big risk for hopefully a big reward. That’s just how life is.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I’ve read them all. I get the arguments and, as USMC, Aargon, and a few others have stated, I don’t disagree the NCAA should lighten up on some of the OUTSIDE stuff.
But I don’t feel bad for these kids. Their situation is no different than anyone taking an entry level position or whatever. Someone takes a risk on them, and these schools ARE taking a risk on giving them a scholarship over someone else, you are paid less than market but you choose to be paid less than market, and you now have an opportunity of going pro.
Risk/Work vs Reward. These kids take a big risk for hopefully a big reward. That’s just how life is. [/quote]
Wait I thought the market was free? Clearly it isn’t because as you are showing no one gets paid market value.
Actually that’s not true. Coaches get paid market value. AD’s get paid market value. Universities get market value TV deals. Market value shoe deals.
Athletes don’t deserve market value because universities are taking a risk on them? Really? Ask yourself why universities take that risk so often? Because it pays off…handsomely.
And as the payoff gets bigger guess what has changed for the athletes? Not a thing. Still every bit as restricted as when the game was much smaller.
The NCAA fights to keep them from getting more. They don’t fight to keep coaches from getting more. AD’s from getting more. Shoe companies from giving more. TV companies from giving more. Bowl payouts from being bigger. Endorsements for the games from getting bigger.
Who do they fight against? The people who are the reason you’re watching.
I don’t care if you don’t feel sorry for someone. Just ask yourself if what happens is right. Ask yourself WHY with all this big money the people at the top fight hard against the kids getting a bigger cut. Ask yourself how long you’ll buy the myth that this isn’t professional sports already.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The vast majority of players will only make money if the NCAA or their specific college pays them. Some (few imo) will make money off merchandise, autographs, TV deals, etc…, but that’s irrelevant because those things have nothing to do with the NCAA. If the NCAA lifts restrictions on income earned the athletes will make money from a third party not the NCAA. So in order for them not to be a hypocrite they would need to pay the athletes out of their own income.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
Those things have everything to do with the NCAA. The NCAA is the one keeping them from doing what you keep saying they need to do. Be able to make money. The NCAA is the ONE fighting this and the one trying to keep it from happening. You think they WANT kids making money off themselves? No. Why not? Because no business wants their laborers to make more money if they don’t have to. And they don’t have to because lemmings buy the student athlete argument and talk about voluntary exchange. It’s as shady as it gets. Everyone is getting fatter and fatter off the athletes and the athletes remain the same. [/quote]
No they do not. Under Armour makes UMDs uniforms. So if athletes got paid off uniform sales it would be through a deal with Under Armour not the NCAA. Who will they sign deals with? Like 2 players per team. The rest will have to be payed to play if they are going to make any money.
I already said like 12 times the NCAA should lift these restrictions.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is just your opinion. My opinion is 1-3 players per team will make a hit ton of money 100s of thousands to millions, but hte vast majority will get peanuts. If players start getting paid to play, again my opinion, is that the non-stars will get even less because scholarship money will likely (opinion) disappear.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong, but we will never know that because the NCAA won’t let it happen. Why would they? You don’t think they love the current system? [/quote]
I love being told my opinion is wrong even though the opposite opinion isn’t provable at this point either.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That small minority would be much bigger than you think, but it’s hard to prove it because it won’t be allowed to happen.
The NCAA doesn’t NEED to pay athletes. They just need to let athletes have the ability to get paid. Something you’ve said over and over again and yet you keep arguing against it.
You can keep pretending this is amateur sports and this is a game and students first priority is education. This is what the NCAA wants you to believe. They need to keep the myth going. As long as you buy it you’ll support them. The moment you see them for what they are the house of cards tumbles. [/quote]
Like I said, if there is this huge market for pre-pro athletes a bunch of investors would get together and make a new league. Then all the super star non-students can get paid (for a year) before going pro. Why hasn’t this happened? Because 99.99% of student-athletes need a degree to get a job after college because they won’t go pro. The cost benefit between being paid to play for four year or a scholarship for a four year degree = take scholarship 999/1000 times.
It’s amateur sports for 999/1000 student-athletes.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong [/quote]
Just lol… [/quote]
I fail to see the humor. You called out my opinion and then gave your opinion. Clearly you think mine is wrong, why is pointing out that I think yours is funny?
[/quote]
I disagree with your opinion. I have never said it is wrong because the bottom line is we won’t know until/if the NCAA changes their rules.
Wait I thought the market was free? Clearly it isn’t because as you are showing no one gets paid market value. [/quote]
I’m not paid market value. I guess there should be a rule that my salary has to equal to everyone with my years of experience, skills, abilities, and education. or maybe everyone should be paid % of the revenue’s of their companies? Quick, someone make a law for this!
[quote]
Actually that’s not true. Coaches get paid market value. AD’s get paid market value. Universities get market value TV deals. Market value shoe deals.
Athletes don’t deserve market value because universities are taking a risk on them? Really? Ask yourself why universities take that risk so often? Because it pays off…handsomely. [/quote]
Same reason why Warren Buffet invests money. He loses very often but he’s good so he wins more often. I guess I’m not sure why that matters? What do you have against being good at taking risk?
That’s certainly not true. They get better coaches, better equipment, better teams, better conferences, and therefore, better chances of making it pro.
And all the non-revenue generating sports get better coaches, better equipment, better teams, better conferences, more scholarships, a more wide array of sports opportunities. Sounds like a lot of people benefit.
Yes, b/c they want the money to go back to the schools to better the programs and make them more attractive to other students. If I get accepted to Eastern Michigan University and University of Michigan, who’s going to win that choice? The one with awesome sports, extracurricular activities, beautiful campus, etc.
The idea of controlling what the student athletes do on the side is about leveling the playing field as much as possible. I understand the arguments in one of your article saying that if schools are able to just pay students, that would level the playing field. I would highly disagree with that. The case the provided was god awful. If these schools don’t have the money to attract top talent now, what makes you think they’ll magically come up with more money to attract top talent?
In fact, the controlling of what students can do is to control schools from indirectly paying students to play at their school. Example: Alabama pays some restaurant $100k/year to “hire” a couple of players, but those kids never actually work there, but the kids get paid. Alabama is just trying to circumvent the rules. The NCAA isn’t sitting up there, hands tented, thinking of ways to fuck over students.
[quote]
I don’t care if you don’t feel sorry for someone. Just ask yourself if what happens is right. Ask yourself WHY with all this big money the people at the top fight hard against the kids getting a bigger cut. Ask yourself how long you’ll buy the myth that this isn’t professional sports already. [/quote]
You do realize college sports is more about recruiting students than it is about making money right?
[quote]H factor wrote:
Your opinion is wrong [/quote]
Just lol… [/quote]
I fail to see the humor. You called out my opinion and then gave your opinion. Clearly you think mine is wrong, why is pointing out that I think yours is funny?
[/quote]
I disagree with your opinion. I have never said it is wrong because the bottom line is we won’t know until/if the NCAA changes their rules. [/quote]
I get that. My point was that you said this is just your opinion and then countered with something that was just your opinion. Neither of them are provable so pointing it out I thought was fruitless.
Wait I thought the market was free? Clearly it isn’t because as you are showing no one gets paid market value. [/quote]
I’m not paid market value. I guess there should be a rule that my salary has to equal to everyone with my years of experience, skills, abilities, and education. or maybe everyone should be paid % of the revenue’s of their companies? Quick, someone make a law for this!
[quote]
Actually that’s not true. Coaches get paid market value. AD’s get paid market value. Universities get market value TV deals. Market value shoe deals.
Athletes don’t deserve market value because universities are taking a risk on them? Really? Ask yourself why universities take that risk so often? Because it pays off…handsomely. [/quote]
Same reason why Warren Buffet invests money. He loses very often but he’s good so he wins more often. I guess I’m not sure why that matters? What do you have against being good at taking risk?
That’s certainly not true. They get better coaches, better equipment, better teams, better conferences, and therefore, better chances of making it pro.
And all the non-revenue generating sports get better coaches, better equipment, better teams, better conferences, more scholarships, a more wide array of sports opportunities. Sounds like a lot of people benefit.
Yes, b/c they want the money to go back to the schools to better the programs and make them more attractive to other students. If I get accepted to Eastern Michigan University and University of Michigan, who’s going to win that choice? The one with awesome sports, extracurricular activities, beautiful campus, etc.
The idea of controlling what the student athletes do on the side is about leveling the playing field as much as possible. I understand the arguments in one of your article saying that if schools are able to just pay students, that would level the playing field. I would highly disagree with that. The case the provided was god awful. If these schools don’t have the money to attract top talent now, what makes you think they’ll magically come up with more money to attract top talent?
In fact, the controlling of what students can do is to control schools from indirectly paying students to play at their school. Example: Alabama pays some restaurant $100k/year to “hire” a couple of players, but those kids never actually work there, but the kids get paid. Alabama is just trying to circumvent the rules. The NCAA isn’t sitting up there, hands tented, thinking of ways to fuck over students.
[quote]
I don’t care if you don’t feel sorry for someone. Just ask yourself if what happens is right. Ask yourself WHY with all this big money the people at the top fight hard against the kids getting a bigger cut. Ask yourself how long you’ll buy the myth that this isn’t professional sports already. [/quote]
You do realize college sports is more about recruiting students than it is about making money right? [/quote]
Ok so you DON’T realize how markets work which is why you keep saying this.
An athlete does NOT have a better chance of making it pro now than 10 years ago. Labor market didn’t change. We don’t have more NFL teams. Today’s athletes probably have a lower chance of going pro in most sports due to international competition. See the NBA draft.
Better chance of making it pro is not only false, it is probably the opposite compared to how it was 15 years ago.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, if there is this huge market for pre-pro athletes a bunch of investors would get together and make a new league. Then all the super star non-students can get paid (for a year) before going pro. Why hasn’t this happened? Because 99.99% of student-athletes need a degree to get a job after college because they won’t go pro. The cost benefit between being paid to play for four year or a scholarship for a four year degree = take scholarship 999/1000 times.
It’s amateur sports for 999/1000 student-athletes. [/quote]
There is a huge market and it is being controlled by a monopoly.
See TV deals, shoe contracts, AD contracts, etc.
Tons of money is already being thrown around and now some people think the status quo needs to be changed. Why would a new market happen when we already have a monopoly on one?
Why would someone start a new league to pay kids money when a professional sports development league already exists under the guise of “college” sports? We already have what you’re talking about, I’m just not pretending it isn’t professional sports.
The NCAA loves feeding you guys commercials like “most of us will go pro in something else.” Yeah, many will. And the NCAA is going pro on running the monopoly that is college athletics. We just don’t need to pretend it is something it’s not. Kids aren’t there for school (some are, some aren’t). School isn’t the number one priority. And huge money exists that is not being shared with the people responsible for it because if you call it what it is people will be disheartened by it. If you can pretend it’s something else then it’s ok.