When the romance dies

When it comes to compensation for student-athletes, this describes my personal evolution on the subject perfectly:

I was once a die-hard college football fan who thought that paying college players would destroy college sports, and thus was staunchly against it. However, I eventually realized that schools make far more money than they claim, hide profits, don’t offer real educations to athletes, and lie in court to continue to stuff their coffers. With revenues still rising, college athletics executives give themselves massive raises and hire unneeded support staff to appear broke in financial reports so they can continue to trick the public into thinking that paying athletes would destroy college sports.

Amateurism is not a principle; it’s whatever the NCAA decides it is that day. One day it was nothing beyond an academic scholarship, then nothing beyond an athletic scholarship, then nothing beyond the cost of attending a university. It’s a nostalgic tool used by the NCAA to give schools absolute power over their athletes, and its definition changes whenever there’s even the hint of a new revenue stream.

Consider the words of former NCAA president Walter Byers: “This is not about amateurism. This is about who controls negotiations and gets the money.”

Or, if you prefer a shorter definition, it’s about control.

Those of you who have a hard time accepting my point of view, I understand.  After all, I was once with you on it.  It’s simply impossible for me now to reconcile standing on tradition in this one area when the lords of the college athletics universe have managed to toss out tradition in virtually every other nook and cranny in their relentless chase to leave no dollar unturned.  You being able to turn a blind eye to that is what I have a hard time accepting.  To each his own, then.

Advertisements

81 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

81 responses to “When the romance dies

  1. Amen. I was in that same camp. AJ-gate (and if you don’t think the suspension of AJ changed that season, I have some prime real estate in Hahira to sell you) turned me to the ability to trade on name and likeness. Gurley-gate turned me completely against the NCAA on this issue. All of that combined with the failures to penalize schools who thumbed their noses at the NCAA turned me into a “Burn it down, Kessler” guy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. paul

    Preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned. We gave up our tickets a few years ago and feel better about it every year. Heck, I just finished hard wiring my entire house with cat 5e and I’m cutting the cable in favor of Roku and Sling. No more Hartman Fund, no more Comcast Xfinity bundles. Dang, I’m getting rebellious in my old age.

    Like

  3. Scorpio Jones, III

    One morning you wake up and realize that 80 years ago yo daddy sold his soul to a whore disguised as a state university. But hey, its the off-season, the doldrums, that thought will probably, maybe fade by fall. Maybe.

    Like

    • It was the early ’80s when Georgia and Oklahoma went after the NCAA on broadcast rights for CFB. Now the money that produced is threatening to burn the whole system to the ground.

      By the way, what are your favorite girls saying about the fall?

      Like

  4. Connor

    Preach on, Senator. History will not be kind to the NCAA’s definition of “amateurism”.

    Like

    • Got Cowdog

      History has never been kind to this type of top heavy industry. However, in this case the product providers have advantages to historical models of monopolies that have had to make consideration to an unfairly compensated labor base.First, the status of non profit. Second, the NCAA and it’s missive of “Amateurism”. Third, and possibly the most important advantage is that the product they offer is basically free to the customer. there will be no hue and cry from the masses to reduce the cost of the product and there will be no reduction in demand because of the cost because for most of the customer base it’s free or nearly so.
      Hell, this is the perfect business model!
      No responsibility to shareholders
      No tax burden
      Subsidized product
      Captive subcontract labor force (No labor burden!)
      No wonder they are fighting so hard to keep it.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. dawgfan

    What’s going on at UGA is no different from what goes on in any government when times are good and the money is flowing. Levels of beauracracy and unneeded positions are set up, empires are created within, and there is no incentive to question the need for additional positions. Nothing of substance gets done but there is a lot paper shuffling, meetings to attend, there is a lot to talk about during the day, and the reserve fund grows.

    Like

  6. Macallanlover

    It in’t dead, but true that it is dying. Also ignores that in addition to the value of a scholarship, players are now receiving about $10K a year more than they were 18 months ago. For tax-free. walking around money, that is a significant increase and more than enough. Players have also benefited from improved training facilities, equipment, and personnel, plus facilities. We can all agree that increased salaries for coaches and administrators has been excessive, and abused. These monies could have been spent on facility improvements for fans, but don’t agree it should be given to players. As you said, we all are entitled to our opinions.

    Like

    • Atticus

      Agreed MLover. Paying players more than the scholarship, stipend, housing, food and any additional fringe benefits like bowl benefits, healthcare….whatever……paying them thousands of dollars will NOT be the answer. The big schools reap HUGE rewards and profit and its only going up and yes there is HUGE imbalances and corruption. And there will still be that if you pay them. It won’t solve those problems. But it would create, many, many more.

      The players are there for 4 or 5 years. They receive tremendous benefits otherwise not available to most. Is it fair, not exactly. Life isn’t. And it wouldn’t be after arbitrarily increasing that to additional cash per month of which no number would be backed up by any factual data. Just pick a number then, lets say $1,000 per month. You have NO IDEA the can of worms that would open. None. These kids aren’t forced to play, they know the landscape coming in, and none of them go without. If they do, they are at the wrong school because if a kids needs something, they get it.

      The coaches make too much money there is no doubt. But they take on the risk and for those at the big schools, there are hundreds at the small schools working twice as many hours as the players do and putting their families in riskier situations moving year to year.

      Tell me how much a kid is worth to his school? There were 92,000 fans in the stands for Matthew Stafford and Knowshon, there were 92,000 fans for Aaron Murray and Todd Gurley, there were 92,000 fans in the stands for Jacob Eason and Nick Chubb and there will be for Fromm and Swift. The players don’t matter and yes that sounds unfair. If it is don’t play. But you can’t say they are given tremendous rewards. What matters is that there are millions of fans willing to watch the games regardless of who the players are and in the instance where you have kids like Deshaun Watson (again Clemson sells out regardless of whether he is the QB or not) or Cam Newton or Tim Tebow, then figure out some sort of trust account for the sales of their jerseys that could go into an account to be received after they leave. And for all the players if you think they need more, create a general account for every player to receive a sum of money for healthcare or post grad or housing…..and for the universities receiving increased revenue it has only increased the on campus opportunities for other sports, for much better facilities, housing, and better food, academics and tutoring.

      I won’t go on about this, the system is a mess. The money is increasing not because of the players, there will always be more players…. but because of the TV negotiations and conference contracts and revenue streams. Not because Nick Chubb is a stud RB. And you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, it is already going down a bad road. If you want to increase the stipend, go ahead, but if you go farther and try to make something “fair” you will eventually kill the goose. It will likely happen anyway but there will be a day where the $$ runs out.

      Like

      • This stance is the “romantic” view of college sports. The bottom line is that you would NEVER agree to have your compensation capped by your employer. Assuming you work for a company, that company will continue to exist whether you work there or not, so using your logic, you really don’t matter and are only worth what your employer gives you (and you should be happy to accept it). Thankfully, if you aren’t happy with the circumstances of your employment, you can decide to take your services freely elsewhere and earn a salary more in line with what the market believes you are worth.

        Guess what? A student-athlete doesn’t have the same rights with his/her services. A price-fixing cartel known as the NCAA and its member institutions limits your earning potential to the value of the scholarship and the player development you receive. That same cartel limits your choices to take your services elsewhere through the transfer rules. That same cartel also enables its institutions to offer 1-year renewable scholarships that can be revoked for any reason and then subject you to the same transfer rules. That same cartel doesn’t allow you to market your name and likeness and limits your ability to get a job outside of your athletic pursuits while at the same time sells your number on a jersey in the bookstore or offers signed memorabilia in an auction conducted to raise money for said athletic association with no compensation.

        This cartel can offer this arrangement because the profession it feeds “graduates” to has its own rules in its collective bargaining agreements with its player associations/unions about eligibility that don’t allow you to be eligible for employment until you are either 3 or 1 year out of high school. These 2 organizations don’t offer developmental leagues for athletes who want to pursue their career professionally after high school because they don’t want to spend money on something they currently get for free (by the way, that’s those organizations’ prerogative under the current law).

        It’s not an unfair system … it’s an unjust system.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Atticus

          Incorrect. They aren’t employees. A worker/employer relationship is based on the workers individual ability to help the company generate revenue. It is market and labor based. Yes they can ;eave. But the same thing applies to these kids. If you think the system is unjust, don’t play. Go find a job or go get an education. I never said the system was fair, but unjust?? LMAO. This isn’t romantic its reality. They are commodities like it or not. Stafford wasn’t worth anymore to UGA than Murray or Eason in terms of real revenue.Yes my employer can’t cap my income if I can find a better position. This is a ridiculous argument.

          Like

          • A worker/employer relationship is based on the workers individual ability to help the company generate revenue.

            What are you talking about? There are millions of people employed in jobs that don’t have anything to do with revenue generation.

            It is market and labor based.

            That’s exactly the opposite of amateurism.

            Like

          • Keep holding on to that romantic vision of college sports, sir. Why don’t you ask Stafford, Murray or Eason what they think about the current system? Why don’t you ask Todd Gurley why he took the money from that cretin in Rome? They are providing a service in exchange for some level of compensation (a price-fixed compensation), so yes, they may not be classified as employees legally but they really do look like employees. Why does the NCAA need all of these rules if these athletes weren’t worth something that schools are willing to break the rules to recruit and sign?

            Like

          • A worker/employer relationship is based on the workers individual ability to help the company generate revenue.

            What in the hell are you talking about? Corporate lawyers, accountants, HR people, treasurer, IT support function, etc. all work in what are referred to as cost centers (i.e. we’re all cost). We all perform a necessary function of the business, but we sure as shit don’t help it generate any revenue.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Atticus

              EVERY position helps generate revenue. You have a skill and if its marketable based upon the competition, then you get hired, if not you don’t. But the NCAA isn’t an open market, you have a skill (tremendous skills actually to play football) but it can’t be applied anywhere else because its not a free market except when I sign or if I choose to transfer. You want to go ahead and open it up and try to run the system “justly” and like a free market industry? Go ahead. I never said don’t do that if that’s what eases your conscience. But to say it is unjust is just horsh—.

              Like

              • But the NCAA isn’t an open market, you have a skill (tremendous skills actually to play football) but it can’t be applied anywhere else because its not a free market except when I sign or if I choose to transfer.

                I think that’s the problem.

                Like

                • Atticus

                  Agreed. You want to solve it? Take away the scholarship, housing food, etc…. and education and pay them and make it completely professional. Yes that will work.

                  Like

                  • Gosh. It’s so black and white for you. Romance.

                    How about starting by letting the players have control over their names, likenesses and images, like every other American? If the players matter as little as you insist they do, it’s not like that’ll cost anything.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • How about letting that 2nd string guard who is on scholarship get a job in the summer to send some money home to his parents or to have extra walking around money just like the college student who is attending UGA on a Foundation Fellowship? Oh yeah, I know the reason … the coaches want said guard in the athletic complex lifting, watching film or something else.

                      Like

                    • Atticus

                      I don’t disagree with that either. But that’s not what you were talking about you were saying the system is unjust. So let the players market their likeness and all that but here’s the deal there’s not many of them A few on each team? What are you doing about the rest of them that isn’t solving the issue

                      Like

                    • I’ve never uttered the word unjust. I’m a free market guy, period.

                      Here’s what I don’t get — in one breath, you passionately argue that the players bring nothing monetary to the table, that all the value comes from the schools, but in the next, you fear what a free market would unleash. If there’s nothing there, why the worry?

                      Like

          • Got Cowdog

            That’s Bullshit. Player X can’t leave his present employer without penalizing himself thanks to the NCAA transfer rules.(See: Servant, Indentured). And the 92000 fan stadium capacity cap on player worth is bullshit, whoever said that.That for sure went out the window with expanded TV coverage.
            If (for example) Jacob Eason leads UGA to a national championship the added exposure will be much more lucrative for his “employer” than Hutson Mason (Great interview yesterday on 92.9, by the way. Smart kid and DGD) who did not.

            Like

            • Got Cowdog

              Sorry Blutarsky that was for the guy above you.

              Like

            • Atticus

              But that’s a fallacy in what you’re presenting because you were presenting one individual case of a player winning a national championship to justify your stance. But that can’t be the reason why you change an entire system. And it’s not just the 92,000 fans in the stadium although they are there regardless of who’s wearing the UGA uniform for the most part the bigger issue is the TV audience and the TV audience is there because the entire system is set up by the institutions and yes it’s on fair I’ve never said it wasn’t but where I have a problem is people saying that these players are being taken advantage or its unjustly because they’re not given more than several hundred thousand
              dollars in education, housing and food

              Like

              • Unfair vs. unjust — sounds to me like you’re really arguing over semantics more than anything.

                Like

                • Atticus

                  Possibly that’s the case. People throw around the word unjust and I completely disagree with that. So maybe I am arguing over semantics but to me words do matter if you think unfair and unjust of the same things then I will defer to you on that. These players are given hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits and many of them clearly deserve more but many of them never play a down and yes they give a lot of their time but is it worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? The system is never going to be equitable. The stipend was a good step. But where I do draw the line is when somebody says they’re being abused and taken advantage of or is unjust and trying to compare institutions of higher learning to a free

                  market industry. As I said just make them professional and let the chips fall where they do.

                  Like

                  • I don’t know from unfair or unjust. I simply know that college athletes aren’t permitted to seek their market value because of an NCAA construct that’s been ruled a violation of law. If it’s okay for coaches and administrators to get paid their market value, the same should be the case for student-athletes.

                    Like

        • Macallanlover

          “romantic”, cartel, unjust, “plantation” my ass. These are talented athletes who have potential who are offered the opportunity to train and learn from some of the best in the business, but they are raw and lack the skill set/maturity/strength to hold the job they are looking for at the professional level. In a work environment they would be a trainee for the first 6 months or a year and would not be “average” until sometime after that. What kind of salary/benefits would an employee earn during those first five years?

          My kids both graduated in three years and we spent about $250-300K on each for tuition, room, meals, books, spending money. That was 15-18 years ago and those costs have increased significantly since then. Add a year, or two for these athletes to graduate in 4-5 years and it is fair to say the value for this scholarship with benefits to be about a half a million dollars—$500K tax free. Now put them with a new company as a beginner and tell me, coming out of HS, a hundred grand a year clear of taxes and other costs isn’t a fairly attractive job. Forget that they eat better, get more “fast track” attention, super medical attention, live in a nice place, and are provided tutors. Yeah, that is really taking advantage of them. And the Fortune 200 companies are larger than any one of these individual businesses, with even more waste.

          I get that many of you hold beliefs about giving the store away to every poor proletariat walking the Earth and taking it from those you despise, but even for you Komrade Soros “tear it down” folks, this is really a pitiful example of a needy group to help. Sure, your opinion, that can rationalize it any way you prefer to twist it, but it is pretty silly to some of us “romantics”….and that is our opinion. I only agree with the part where you wish they would manage the excess better, then I leave the train you guys are riding on and smoking some really tricked up stuff. “oh please don’t throw me in that briar patch”, it would sho nuff be 4-5 years of pure hell! LMAO

          Like

          • Mac, I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but on this issue, we’re on opposite sides, and I guarantee you I’m no Komrade or Soros fan.

            “These are talented athletes who have potential who are offered the opportunity to train and learn from some of the best in the business, but they are raw and lack the skill set/maturity/strength to hold the job they are looking for at the professional level. In a work environment they would be a trainee for the first 6 months or a year and would not be “average” until sometime after that. What kind of salary/benefits would an employee earn during those first five years?”

            Guess what? The NFL and NBA don’t have developmental leagues and have specific labor union protection that allow them to use the system as it’s designed today. Unlike a high school baseball player who can go straight to the minors rather than play college ball, these guys can’t get a market-based salary/benefits for their current skill set/maturity/strength to hold said job.

            “Add a year, or two for these athletes to graduate in 4-5 years and it is fair to say the value for this scholarship with benefits to be about a half a million dollars—$500K tax free.”

            I have never said the scholarship doesn’t have value. It has a hell of a lot of value if it’s taken advantage of just like a kid who gets a Foundation Fellowship to attend UGA. Guess what? The kid who gets a Foundation Fellowship doesn’t have restraints on what they can and can’t do outside of their scholarship. They get a job to earn extra spending money, pay for their own car, etc. Why can’t the starting TB for State U get the same type of benefit from their name, likeness or abilities?

            “I only agree with the part where you wish they would manage the excess better, then I leave the train you guys are riding on and smoking some really tricked up stuff.”

            Guess what, Mac? The excess is created to bypass the price-fixing the cartel has put in place. Ask Jacob Eason if he would deal with practicing outdoors in exchange for a piece of the $30,000,000 spent on the CJPMIPF. I imagine I know what the answer would be.

            In summary, a little free market economics would do the student-athletes some good just as it has for the funding of the athletic associations. The universities clearly don’t mind it on the revenue side. Why do they resist on the cost side? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

            Like

          • Mac – I honestly appreciate your conviction on this and you have been absolutely consistent with your belief. That said…

            The Cliff’s Notes version of what I just read is that because your children weren’t blessed with a talented skillset in an entertainment field that generates a ton of value in our economy (rightfully or wrongfully so) and because you had to spend a lot of money to get them through college, athletes that generate tons of revenue shouldn’t be allowed to let the market dictate whether the current compensation is sufficient (or too high!) and if I disagree with that it makes me a Communist?

            Why must one undergo years of training, or pay their dues, in order to make lots of money if the market will bear it. This is America for crying out loud. Terrible example – but just go with it. Justin Bieber got recognized on freaking Youtube. He didn’t work his way up as a travelling musician or spend years at the Julliard honing his craft. Do you think he shouldn’t have been paid as much, or as little, as the market would bear because other musicians that aren’t as talented, or lucky, have to spend years funding their way through fine arts school with student loans to work their way up in the industry?

            Like

            • Macallanlover

              That is a pretty bad interpretation of what I said, or think, but OK, we disagree. The point was the SA’s current situation is far from what it is characterized as, especially when you add in that I don’t care if they go straight to the NFL/NBA. Yes, I think they are doing better than they would if a developmental league were an option, and I wish it was, and yes, if they were in other “talent areas” (authors, artists, musician, etc.) they could go their own way and be handsomely rewarded for it, if successful. You see, I wish they would go somewhere else, European or Canadian leagues if possible.

              I don’t care if 300-500 of the top talents would choose another door, CFB would still be competitive and my favorite football option. (I would also like to watch the gifted ones play developmental games if they weren’t on opposite CFB.) And the reason for mentioning what was spent on my children’s undergrad educations, was not from bitterness AT ALL. That was the market, and I paid the ante. I had never thought of it in over a decade until this whole “we are exploiting these poor children” dribble came up. These are not people to be pitied so it pisses me off, but not because of my kids. They were great and are doing well. And I tell them the people whining about their circumstances in this country should spend a little time looking at their plight in other countries (gay folks, women, blacks, prisoners, factory workers, SAs on scholarships, etc.) to get some perspective. It is not that we can’t do better, because there are some wrongs still to be righted, but we can’t get past the flood of tears to get traction enough to build on the progress we have made. And full scholarship athletes in today’s time isn’t even worthy of making the list of things to whine about. But, it is done by those who actually believe it is something significant, I simply don’t. And you are right, I am sincere about my position….and I was one who argued for spending money for full scholarship athletes long before it because a hot topic, decades ago. I didn’t like the way the COA was handled, but it certainly went far enough to make me think this is all a non-issue at this point. Frankly, nothing can ever satisfy “cause people” when they get on their stump and start preaching, so why think this will?

              Like

          • CB

            Superstar athletes going to college and playing for no more than COA and a full ride is pretty much the same as making reservations at a 5 star restaurant and getting told upon arrival you can have as much Stevie Bi’s pizza as you want, also you shouldn’t complain about it bc there are starving people all over the world. Sure you’re gonna get your fill, but it’s still complete and total bull shit. Especially since the guy who came in after you without a reservation is in a private room eating steak and lobster.

            Like

      • What matters is that there are millions of fans willing to watch the games regardless of who the players are…

        That would explain the tremendous ratings that D-III football gets on ESPN… oh, wait.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Atticus

          Dude give it a rest. Your snarky comments just get old. You don’t present facts. You do a great job on your blog I love reading it but you have such a huge chip on your shoulder for this subject its unbelievable.

          Like

          • You make a non-factual assertion about fan demand for the product, and when I point out that reality varies from your perception — nobody watches D-III football — you dismiss it as fact-free.

            I bet you believe you don’t lose many arguments.

            Like

            • Atticus

              FACT: 100,000 fans fill Neyland Stadium for UT football when Peyton played. They fill it now.

              FACT: 92,000 fill the stands for UGA football for Aaron Murray. They fill it now.

              Fact: Bama has won a ton of titles. They did when Bear was there, they did with Stallings they do now with Saban. Their stadium is always full and the entire state watches the games. Who is more responsible for the huge increases in revenues at Bama (and in their endowment and enrollment), Jay Barker, Julio Jones, AJ MCarrron, Derek Henry……or Nick Saban?

              D3 football is a ridiculous argument because they are not state schools and have NEVER filled their stadiums to 100,000 and don’t have hundreds of thousands/millions of alumni and fans that live in the state.

              Like

              • “Who is more responsible” implies that players have some effect.

                Boosters have paid players under the table since the beginning of the sport. Schools are paying players now. If players don’t matter, why pay them at all?

                Your argument ignores television audiences, which are the most significant drivers of college money these days, which is why I made the D-III reference. Surely you’re not arguing that the only people who watch ESPN are fans of a particular school.

                Like

                • Atticus

                  Can you please read everything, I never said ignore television audiences that is why I said millions because the state of Georgia has millions of fans that watch college football but it’s not because of any individual players it’s because of the system In the system was created like it or not by the fact that there are institutions of higher learning that happened to create athletic sports for men and then women and television obviously is the driver of most of the revenue. and a significant amount of that revenue is passed on to the players and I agree with you that it’s not fair it’s not equitable but it’s no way unjust.

                  Like

                  • If there’s zero interest in individual players, can you explain why there’s so much interest — including commercial interest — in recruiting?

                    Like

                    • Atticus

                      The coaches still have to win to justify their existence. As you said earlier uga revenues are less affected by winning and losing them they are by the overall SEC TV contract. So recruiting is for the purpose of winning games and to keep your jobs as a coaching staff or athletic director, but you watched UGA games five years ago just as much as you do now not based as much on AJ Green or Sony Michel ( and its not as though they get nothing) but on the fact that it’s UGA
                      football.

                      Like

                    • … you watched UGA games five years ago just as much as you do now not based as much on AJ Green or Sony Michel ( and its not as though they get nothing) but on the fact that it’s UGA football.

                      Actually, as I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, I don’t.

                      As far as coaches winning goes, they get paid as much when they win as when they lose. Just ask Charlie Weis.

                      I’m not sure what you’re arguing regarding recruiting, but fans are focused on the recruits. Do you not remember LSU promoting Ben Simmons to its fan base before he had even enrolled and set foot on campus?

                      Like

                  • The NFL and its teams pre-existed the players currently in the league and there is certainly plenty of value in their respective brands. People that watched the Dallas Cowboys back in the 1990’s are still watching them now and buying tickets to their games despite the changing players. However, for some reason, the Cowboys pay its players market value for their services. Coca-Cola pays its people very competitive salaries despite its significant brand awareness internationally.

                    I guess I’m not understanding what the popularity of an institution / brand has to do with its participation, or lack thereof, in the labor market.

                    Like

                    • Atticus

                      There is one difference these are institutions of higher learning and many are state institutions. The revenues brought in by these institutions increases the academic opportunities available to its populace and student body. The revenues Friday and also provide more opportunities for the student athletes and have significantly increased the level of participation for women. The Cowboys do not fund 15 other sports nor do they put money into the institution for more buildings academic excellence better professors and more
                      opportunities for the overall student body.

                      Like

                    • The revenues brought in by these institutions increases the academic opportunities available to its populace and student body.

                      But only after the coaches, administrators, and lavish facilities get theirs first, AMIRITE?

                      Liked by 1 person

      • CB

        “no number would be backed up by any factual data”

        Numbers would be calculated on an open market just like every other industry.

        “You have NO IDEA the can of worms that would open.”

        Do you? If so, please enlighten us all about the impending doom of fair compensation. If kids Youtube can be millionaires with no real issues to speak of why can’t college athletes?

        “The coaches make too much money there is no doubt. But they take on the risk”

        If making $X million annually with exorbitant buyouts in the event of termination is a risk then sign me up.

        “Tell me how much a kid is worth to his school?”

        Let those star players go elsewhere, start losing more games than you win, and see how long it takes for UGA to start looking like Georgia Tech on gameday.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Atticus

          ^^^ No clue ^^^

          Open market–LMAO you want to go that direction fine by me.

          Senator have a good day. Enjoyed your blog.

          Like

          • CB

            ^ whn u can’t defend ur own position

            Like

            • Atticus

              My position is the system is not unjust and people that use that phrase are wrong. Unfair yes, but unjust is ridiculous.

              Like

          • You are the perfect example of who I refer to in my post. You appreciate the romance of amateurism, and I get that. It’s the contempt you have for those who disagree that makes your position tough to debate with.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Atticus

              “You appreciate the romance of amateurism”.

              How do you know what I appreciate? You are guilty of the exact same thing.

              Yes i show contempt for people that say it’s unjust. I do because its ridiculous. Unjust means they are being taken advantage of they are being abused. Tell that to someone who is truly being a victim of injustice. To say its unfair I give you that. But unjust is ridiculous.

              Like

              • “The players are there for 4 or 5 years. They receive tremendous benefits otherwise not available to most. Is it fair, not exactly. Life isn’t. And it wouldn’t be after arbitrarily increasing that to additional cash per month of which no number would be backed up by any factual data. Just pick a number then, lets say $1,000 per month. You have NO IDEA the can of worms that would open. None. These kids aren’t forced to play, they know the landscape coming in, and none of them go without. If they do, they are at the wrong school because if a kids needs something, they get it.”

                Call that whatever you want. Free market it ain’t.

                Like

              • I’ll take a shot at the “unjust” comment because it was mine.

                The bottom line is that the athlete is trapped in a system where every economic decision is tilted against them and they have no alternative. Would I accept that in my line of work? No way. The student-athlete in Power 5 football and men’s basketball is being taken advantage of. Their compensation and their ability to earn money is artificially capped by a cartel! That by itself legally is unjust, and either Jeffrey Kessler will burn the whole thing to the ground, or the cartel is going to have to make changes to satisfy the President and Congress to receive an anti-trust exemption.

                Like

        • I’m so sick of the argument that you have no idea what this will mean. Every other fucking labor market in the history of time that operates truly freely has figured out what the market will bear for labor costs. This one is no different and we’ll figure it out.

          If the argument is that by creating market standard for player compensation, it will hurt the schools that generate lesser revenues, I’m slightly sympathetic to that . However, let’s be real – the schools that can afford to pay the most ALREADY get the best players out of high school anyways. The competitive balance that already is tilted towards the bigger schools isn’t going to change. Better stated , under the current system – if you put the following teams on pieces of paper in a hat and drew one name, there’s a good chance you’d pull the national champion in any given year; Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Texas, Florida, Florida State.

          Just because Alabama or Ohio State can offer Joe “5 Star” more money that Central Michigan doesn’t mean that Central Michigan had a chance at that player under the system of non-compensation. There will be a market for middle to low tier players at those types of schools where the scholarship will likely be sufficient compensation anyways.

          I’m so tired of the romantics trying to pretend that figuring out how to play players is more complicated than it really is.

          Liked by 2 people

          • CB

            Also, perhaps Central Michigan does a great job scouting a 3 star who has an offer from Bama, but they put together a better package to get him to come to their school as the top priority. In the current system that kid goes to Bama every time because everyone is compensated the same, plus Bama has better history and facilities etc, but if CMU shows him a better offer sheet than Bama then they might get a diamond in the ruff.

            Like

          • Atticus

            Never said it was. Only 1 small part of it. And you made the point. The system at 90% of the schools will collapse with the collective “revenues” and likely the smaller non revenue generating sports will go away. But that wasn’t my point. The issue for me is saying its unjust, and that is horsh—.

            Like

            • CB

              Haha, doomsday argument that has no basis in fact. Nice. Could you provide a comparable example as a reference so all of us simpletons might be able to gain some insight into the magnitude of your omniscient knowledge of college athletics?

              You’re way to hung up on the term”unjust.” Give it a rest,dude. Arguments over semantics are stupid.

              Like

  7. Got Cowdog

    Again, when I first became a fan CFB was a regional sport, at least to its audience. There were few nationally broadcast games, most were on regional radio. Like it or not, the sport has morphed with modern communications into “The National College Football League” and with that comes a greatly increased revenue stream. I find myself leaning more and more towards some type of scale where players are compensated based on the income they generate for the school with COA functioning as a “minimum wage” of sorts.

    Like

  8. Any remaining romance died with the “one and dones” of college basketball and the Cam Newton saga. I still say that the solution is playing with kids who get into your school just like any other student. I don’t think most of our fans would give one damn if our WLOCP looked more like Harvard vs. Yale than the Colts vs. the Broncos. In fact, I think that if we knew these were students like anyone else, our interests would actually be heightened. I also think it would encourage guys with potential to hit the books rather than coast through high school.

    As it is we don’t know who is functionally illiterate or who is going through the motions waiting on draft day or what threats to society are being brought onto a college campus in order to win games. It is total bullshit and they need to burn it the fuck down and start over.

    I agree that paying them is the solution under the current system, but there’s a better way.

    Like

  9. AusDawg85

    I have a suggestion…if we’re not going to redirect the vast revenue streams to the players, how about sending it to the other students in the form of better educational facilities? Or better game day experience (in all sports) for the fans?

    Like

    • Got Cowdog

      Because students and stadium seat fans don’t pay the bills anymore.
      TV revenues do, and to get the most exposure you need a top 10 championship level program. To have a top 10 championship level program you need:
      State of the art facilities
      Top of the line Coaches
      Top tier players
      Can anyone tell me which of these three is not like the others?

      Like

  10. Friedrich Hayek

    I’m sorry, but a free market does exist for football players between 18-21 years old. Senator, you’re free to start your own league to compete against college football. The success of college football is 100% dependent on the lack of supply. Feel free to meet the growing demand with a resource. Nothing is stopping you, so go do it. Or, just complain.

    Like

  11. Some things never change, Soros fan or a communist or the other side of the fence. A number of you folks are consistent, I will give you that. The USA is doomed, I say, or hey it will be ok.
    I am on the commie side or the free market, pay them and pay them well, the NCAA amateur crap is old and outdated.

    Like

  12. Oh yeah, the romance died about 10-15 years ago. So I am a 70 year plus commie or Soros supporter. Go figure.

    Like

  13. martham1016

    Hey Senator – you forgot “without paying taxes.”

    Mark Richt lost control of Sec. 501(c)(3) !!!

    Like

  14. DoubleDawg1318

    The romance isn’t dead for me yet but it’s been trending toward life support the past few years. I don’t really want to see a full blown market with guys signing shoe deals and getting more concerned about their brand than the team but it’s absolutely nonsense that a guy can’t sell a jersey or his autograph for some side money.

    As someone who was a good athlete in school, I found having the skill of athleticism was pretty worthless on the job market after college graduation. In theory it’s a fantastic trade to use your athletic abilities to get a degree but as we’ve seen those degrees are often dubious in value. The NCAA says the vast majority of athletes will never “go pro” so why not let them use their athletic skills to gain some income while those skills are valuable? That could help make up for not getting internships and part time jobs like the rest of us students. There are a lot of good players in college that won’t make it in the NFL. Why not allow them to gain monetary utility from their talents?

    Like