As we watch the ongoing race to pay, Andy Schwarz makes a wonderful point.
To critics of amateurism such as economist Andy Schwarz, the ease with which schools added stipends undercuts the argument made by some schools in 2011 that such stipends could lead schools to eliminate unprofitable sports.
“The rhetoric that you hear a business say before a fixed price changes is just that: rhetoric. The actions that you’re seeing now are more telling,” said Schwarz, who uses clinical economic terms when discussing college sports that would make some school officials cringe.
“This is a great natural experiment. We’re getting to see change in an economic environment and see how firms react,” Schwarz said of the new stipends. “We’re learning a ton about the real preferences of schools with where they decide to put their money.”
Not that it’ll stop anyone from making up stuff about the next bridge too far.
Get The Picture 
Ivory Towers and Thin Air Indeed…
LikeLike
This reminds me of some talk a few years ago in baseball or football or one of those pro sports. Lots of organizations were making noise about moving because they were losing money in their current spots, but then someone did some digging and realized that the teams who were claiming losses also had owners who were taking a cut of the payroll; if those owners who already had tons of capital didn’t take a cash stipend, the teams would have been fine.
I’m not an economist, but that seems like the same case Schwarz is making here.
I’m eager for someone to uncover the formula that teams like Auburn and UGA are using because there has to be a discrepancy somewhere. Also, wouldn’t a high COA end up impacting regular students, too, in terms of leaving them with even more debt after leaving school?
LikeLike
What happens next? When the softball and volleyball and tennis team members want a COA allowance, what does the school say to them? If the COA numbers are legit, wouldn’t they apply to all students, not only athletes?
In my opinion, the COA is a Pandora’s box of problems. It will be a very slippery slope once schools start handing out money for “ordinary” costs to athletes. The scholarship is worth a lot of money and it seems an athlete’s family should be able to come up with enough money for the basics of life. If an athlete is from such a destitute family that they cannot afford even the most basic things outside of the tuition, room, board, books, laundry money, etc, provided by the scholarship, they might need to forego playing sports at all and get a job to help their family. It appears most athletes have enough money for a car and tatoos. They may simply need to reorganize their priorities or take out some student loans to make up the difference.
LikeLike
In other words, athletic participation should only be available for those who can afford it. How very Chariots of Fire of you.
LikeLike
if there was such a person Obama and the left would have already sat him or her next to the first lady at the state of the union.
LikeLike
The Left is coming to take your pickup truck away
LikeLike
mercedes.
LikeLike
Please come take my Honda Accord. Anybody…steal it, I will look the other way.🎈🚘
LikeLike
I hear it can’t stay out of the sand…
LikeLike
Stipend = COA….same thing. It is a necessary evil. At the end of this week we will have some answers. Let’s hope the right thing is done for ALL our Student Atheletes in the SEC.🎈🏈🏀⚾️🎾⚽️⛳️🏊🏼🐎
LikeLike
Hey now….there are some men down here who know just how to get a damsel in distress out of that sand. 🐬🎈
LikeLike
I guess the regular students who have to take out loans for ALL expenses just needed to practice sports a little harder and they would DESERVE to have all of their attendance expenses paid? Being a good athlete gets a student the chance to have all tuition, fees, books, room, board, etc paid by someone else. Why do athletes somehow deserve to have the rest of their expenses picked up by the school and regular students don’t? What will your next thing be that athletes deserve, a car that is nice enough, a wardrobe that meets a certain standard, a minimum number of vacation days? People come from different backgrounds. Some can afford to do things others can’t, that’s life.
You, and the other “pay the players” crowd totally dismiss the value of the scholarship. In a given year, there may be 1 or 2 players on a given team who can legitimately expect to make money off of their name and/or likeness. That leaves 100 or so who are getting a great deal with their scholarship.
LikeLike
One man’s “deserves” is another’s “earns”.
Again, nobody is totally dismissing the value of a scholarship. Some of us simply question whether it’s a fair amount of compensation for what student-athletes playing revenue generating sports contribute. Even you admit there are at least a few who aren’t receiving what they could expect in an open market.
LikeLike
We’re obviously never going to totally agree. I do admit there are a scant few who could make money at football right out of high school. This takes us back to what, in my mind, is the root of the problem, the age discrimination practiced by the NFL. If those few players were not forced to play college football by the NFL’s arbitrary 3 year rule, they could be making money playing football. However, the NFL’s rule is not a legitimate reason to expect colleges to start paying football players any more than colleges should have to pay students on a music scholarship for their performances with the university symphony or other bands. The difference is; the music major CAN get a paying job as a musician if they choose to do that instead of going to college. The NFL ensures that football players do not have that option.
The NFL’s illegal (in my opinion, not in the courts, so far) rule should not be made into the college’s problem. If the scholarship is not enough money for a player to make it on, the player should get a student loan for the difference, like many other students not on full ride scholarships have to. The student loan could either be easily paid back when the player got his NFL contract. If the player was not NFL quality, the loan would be incentive to get the degree and a good job so the player could pay back the loan. At approx $3-4,000 a year for the COA amount, after 5 years of eligibility, the player would have $20,000 max student loan debt. That is hardly a crushing number and that amount would only be for the player that was from such a poor background that he/she would have zero money from their family.
I think paying the players is a slippery slope that will ruin college sports in short order. The current system should be fixed.
LikeLike
I’ll let you in on something: the schools are fine with the NFL’s rule. In fact, they wish the NBA would match the same age limit.
And regardless, how does that excuse a college football or basketball player being denied the right to profit off his/her NLI, just like any other citizen of this country?
LikeLike
I know the schools are fine with it, that still doesn’t make it right. In fact, it makes it more wrong in my opinion. The only real solution to all of this is for athletes to no longer get any special treatment with regards to test scores and gpa for admission. If college adopted more of a high school model, many of the top players would not be able to use college for their NFL audition. I know that’s not going to happen any time soon, if ever.
We all know why the rules are the way they are. If players could profit from their likeness, the corruption would be unimaginable. If I had the solution, I certainly wouldn’t be posting here, I’d be famous and rich.
LikeLike
I’m not saying the schools’ approval makes it right.
It makes it profitable, though.
LikeLike
There is a resolution to all this. Unfortunately the Powers that Be will not be able to reach a resolution. CF will be forever known as the Halcyon Days.🎈😥
LikeLike
I knew two good players in BHam who were given scholarships for FB. One a full ride to Clempson, the other to Navy. The Clempson Daddy was a lawyer, the Navy Daddy was an orthopedic sports Doctor. My Orthopedic Surgeon in fact. He would Bark like a Dawg when I went in for my appointments. Auburn Undergrad….bless his heart. These boys played FB with my Son beginning at 7 years old. Both very privileged, both very successful presently. Another boy got a scolorship to Alabama. Very poor, no Daddy and a Mother on Drugs. Did okay for awhile. Got into some trouble and no one wanted the hassle, Not even 2nd Chance U. They do not transfer from Al. To AU. We have no idea where he is. My guess and that of the other Boys is Prison. Very, very sad. 😥🏈
LikeLike
“It appears most athletes have enough money for a car and tatoos.”
I have to admit that’s funny. But seriously, I think the explanation is at least partly that the most destitute of students get Pell grants based on financial need. I don’t think that receiving the athletic scholarship precludes ther Pell grant. So I don’t think the COA issue is really about how destitute athletes are.
If I could hone in on one thing, it would be this: there is a pile of money generated by ESPN deals, conference networks, playoffs, etc. Someone is going to get that money. I would hate to see that someone continue to be coaches and administrators. Besides, some money is already given to athletes in the way of athletic facilities; I don’t see a big difference in giving them cash and letting them spend it how they choose.
LikeLike
Agree.
Today we hear folks say ‘the kids don’t have to participate if they don’t like the deal’. Tomorrow we’ll hear the same folks say ‘pay the kids whatever it takes’ if the top recruits start committing to aubie and utk.
LikeLike
Universities have some of the most creative accounting practices in all phases of the University. In my past life long long ago I was an auditor for what was then the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Universities used to have to establish their fixed and variable costs to be allocated to grants for reimbursement from the Feds. This was like playing advanced Hide and Seek. If the SEC thinks they can get these schools to share there secret formulas they have a better chance with the Coca Cola Company.
LikeLike
It is the way of the world. Especially, in our country. If you can’t pay you can’t play. 🎈🏈
LikeLike
sounds to me like either tickets prices are going up or the Hartman fund is about to get a new first cousin…
LikeLike
Still don’t understand where the stipend discussion got switched to the COA issue. One can be firmly set on a level playing field, the other will always be mired in some BS discussion and rationalization. I fear fairness is unwinnable in a COA approach and that seems to be the road that was chosen. How and why? Things were moving along smoothly, and players would have gotten what they had been asking for without this never ending, constantly changing argument
LikeLike