Let me see if I’ve got this straight. College football has survived, even flourished, in an era when sheer greed has driven it to blow up longstanding rivalries, remake conference alignments at a dizzying rate, explode the amounts paid to head coaches (the average salary for head coaches in the SEC West next season will be $4 million), create conference networks that require us to pay extra money for games we were already getting, enlarge the postseason to squeeze even more money out of fans…
But it’s player compensation that’s gonna drive a stake in our hearts. Right. Got it.
The idea that college athletes “play for the love of the game” is the core notion of college sports, Pilson said. “To the extent that the viewing public believes in this ideal, paying student-athletes would undermine the cornerstone of the viewing public’s belief that student-athletes play for the love of the game,” Pilson wrote.
It’s sure killed the Olympics.
Oh, but this wouldn’t be complete without a disclaimer.
In a deposition, Pilson said he has not run an economic model on model [sic] on his prediction of a 15- to 20-percent ratings decline.
And one of the greatest example of logic chopping you’ll ever see.
What the O’Bannon plaintiffs “call the ‘commercialization’ of college sports is nothing more than schools’ decisions not to refuse revenues available to them,” Pilson wrote.
Yeah, not refusing money must be exactly how it works when Mike Slive sits down with ESPN. Too bad the players don’t get the same opportunity. But at least they’ve got the love of the game to keep them going when they don’t have enough money at the end of the month to do anything. It’s a win-win: the players stay pure of heart and the schools don’t get their revenue streams cut.
All of this puts me in mind of a (definitely NSFW) clip from North Dallas Forty:
You can’t put a price tag on love of the game. Well, at least the players can’t.
************************************************************************
UPDATE: Can’t believe I missed this.
In court papers filed last Thursday, the NCAA argued that college athletes are not entitled to revenue from live broadcasts of their games. The NCAA’s theory rests on the First Amendment, which generally allows broadcast companies to televise live news events (such as political events or press conferences) without compensating persons shown in those events. The underlying logic is that the public has a stake in knowing about live events and broadcast companies should not be deterred from covering news out of concern they may be sued if they don’t pay. The NCAA contends this same principle applies to live broadcasts of college games.
That begs for a rebuttal so obvious, even a caveman could do it.
O’Bannon will likely ask why does the NCAA and its members demand payment from broadcast companies to televise games if those games are free news?
Love of the game, beyotch.