Hey, just another hospitalized player after an organized team workout story. In June.
It’s not a year-round job, though, amirite? At least not for student-athletes. For head coaches paid millions, it’s a whole other ball game.
Jeez, these people.
- Bloviation for the Dawgnation
-
Quote Of The Day
-
“We remember the Sugar Bowl, I think it my junior year of high school, we let Alabama beat us twice,” Brinson said of a team that also lost to the Crimson Tide in the SEC Championship game. “We’re not letting Alabama beat us twice. In the Sugar Bowl in 2018, they… thought they should have been in the playoffs and lost to Texas.” -- AB-H, 12/27/23
Search
Categories
Archives
Blogroll (ND)
- 82 Sluggo Win
- And The Valley Shook
- Banner Society
- Black Heart Gold Pants
- Black Shoe Diaries
- Blatant Homerism
- Braves & Birds
- Brophy Football
- College Football Talk
- EDSBS
- Eleven Warriors
- Lost Angeles
- MGoBlog
- RazorBloggers Network
- Rock M Nation
- Rocky Top Talk
- Saturday Down South
- Saturday Tradition
- Shakin The Southland
- Smart Football
- Team Speed Kills
- The National Championship Issue
- The Wizard of Odds
- Tide Bits
Dawg Blogs
Dawg Links
Media Links
Stats/Info Links
- All-Time Division 1-A CFB Standings
- American College Football
- American College Football – Rankings
- cfbstats.com
- College Football at Sports-Reference.com
- College Football by the Numbers
- College Football Data Warehouse
- College Football Recruiting Map
- College Nicknames
- Football Outsiders – College
- Football Study Hall
- GBE College Football Ratings
- MapGameDay.com
- NCAA Division I Football Statistics
- SEC Statistics
- Statistically Speaking
- Strangestbrew's College Football Schedulizer
- The Helmet Project
- Varsity Numbers
Useful Links
Time, time…
GATA
Blog Stats
- 73,803,336 hits
Get The Picture · Bloviation for the Dawgnation
Get The Picture 
Kids aren’t compensated with education, room and board, the best medical treatment available, etc. during the summer semester?
I did not know that.
LikeLike
My post was about player compensation?
I did not know that.
And as far as the best medical treatment goes,
I guess it’s a comfort to their families. I’m sure they have your thoughts and prayers, too.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what your post was about to be honest. Are there people that say keeping a high level of fitness is not needed for mantaining a D1 scholarship offer? Of course it’s a year round job.
LikeLike
Yeah, well, you and I know that’s obvious, but ask the NCAA and schools about that.
LikeLike
And I always thought summers were about academic pursuits … who knew?
LikeLike
You really should decide which is more important, getting players paid or getting McGarity fired. Focus!! 😉
LikeLike
I’m a multi-tasker. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you work these circumstances into a free market economics construct?
https://www.dawgnation.com/baseball/cole-wilcox-georgia-baseball-mlb-draft
Clearly the kid could have made bank. More than UGA is offering. But not enough to dissuade him from choosing college.
Seems this kid is putting quite a premium on his opportunity to sign a LOI and play for free. Do you really think the schools could pay more than what the yankees would have paid this kid? If he turned down what he could make, whether it was 1.5 mil or 2 mil, doesn’t that suggest that the college path has significant value over and above scholly and room and board?
I know many are exploited. But couldn’t you argue that some are being quite overcompensated since they’d never get anything like what was being offered to this pitcher? After all, thousands of kids that sign D1 scholly KNOW they aren’t gonna be pros.
LikeLike
You’re using one individual example to try to make an overall construct. Not sure how sound that is.
Every kid is different, not to mention the economics of baseball’s labor market are different from football’s.
In the end, everyone gets paid based on what the market will bear, or at least should get paid that way. You really think colleges will pay strictly on the basis of what a 17-year old kid’s potential pro market value may be? Seems more likely to me it’ll be based on what the school thinks is best in its own selfish interest.
A lot of you guys seem far more concerned about what might happen, even though none of know at this point how things will play out, rather than acknowledging that the exploitation currently in play needs to be addressed. Maybe if some of that was fixed, the worry on the back end would subside somewhat.
LikeLike
All I’ve ever suggested is to fix the exploitation. You do that by not bringing in and hand holding kids that don’t belong (and/or don’t want to be) on campus.
But as far as economics are concerned the point remains that there is a market value of signing a LOI that is significant. Much greater than most 2 star OG prospects that sign with Kansas.
I also think that if my “fever dream” came true and a minor league of some sort started, that college eligible kids would turn down what was being offered there and enroll in college hoping to get a much better deal down the road.
So my point is two fold: 1) even for very good prospects the opportunity to go to college is very valuable. 2) for most college players who will never cash a ck, the deal is unbelievably good for them. 3) the guys for whom it’s either a bad deal or a waste of their time are so few that I don’t know why we have to burn the whole thing down to suit their needs.
Raise the academic standards and seperate the “wheat from the chaff.” Everyone gets what they want and deserve.
LikeLike
The dots aren’t connecting here. You argued the other day that Prop 48 indicates that college athletics would be just as financially viable in a post-chaff setting, which would mean there would still be economic exploitation under a continuing amateurism framework. Now you seem to be suggesting that by getting rid of the chaff, the remaining kids would not be financially exploited, presumably because the finances would be affected.
LikeLike
The importance of the Prop 48 issue, as well as APR, is to suggest either: a) the ncaa actually does do things to their financial detriment OR 2) it has no financial impact. The third option of course is that it was thought the appearance of giving a fuck was of greater benefit than whatever the costs. Even with the third option we’d have to admit those costs must have been somewhat negligible if they exist at all.
However, no matter which you choose my point is that at some point you can attract students who don’t need to be hand held and who don’t feel like they’re biding their time for draft day AND also present a viable product all at the same time. This course is a better course than the current one or the one you propose IMHO.
LikeLike
Then why haven’t they already done so?
I don’t think viable in this context means what you think it means.
And you’re still dodging the point I made — if the product remains viable and you still don’t pay the players who remain after your new paradigm is implemented, there is still financial exploitation in the system.
LikeLike
I think the story I linked to raises questions about whether the financial exploitation is present at all with many players, to a lesser degree than you’re suggesting even with viable pro prospects like the pitcher and where is exists it is limited to a very elite few.
This pitcher said “it’ll take 3 mil for me to pass up UGA.” Having no takers he’s going to college. I get that its one kid. But if the NFL set up a minor league and signed kids for say 100k a year, how many would say “No thanks?”
I think the number would be very high.
Its difficult no doubt to do, but what is the value of a full scholly to UGA? To Alabama? To Cal? In terms of actual costs its huge. In exposure, its huger. In development its bigger. In opportunity at a high placement in a draft, its stratospheric. And keep in mind that as the kid gets more talented those intangibles gain more and more value to the kid.
I think schollys are far more valuable than market for MOST signees. So where’s the exploitation financially for say Georgia Tech’s back up right guard or Duke’s 4th year Junior back up corner? I think its more on the academic side where you take a kid who can’t really do the work in order to win games. That’s exploitation in my view.
On the money side, I’d say those who are worth more than the full ride are quite few. I also think that if you brought market economics into it, it would be extremely undisciplined and irresponsible like pro sports have historically been.
What have they done in response? Brought in very strict controls to protect themselves from each other and from themselves.
If the Yankees and the Dodgers can’t be responsible with their money, what chance does Auburn and Alabama have over “the next Bo Jackson from Prattville?” None. Which in a vacuum is fine. They get what they deserve, BUT what happens is that the programs are seen as “too valuable to fail” so stop gaps are put into place to keep things going so everyone can make money.
We can see that future and its not good. My idea on the other hand solves all problems with very little notice. Hence, its better, get it?
LikeLike
Your feelings ain’t facts. Again, this isn’t an argument; it’s a wish list.
LikeLike
Please tell me the facts:
What is the value of a scholarship to Alabama for Mark Ingram or to Trent Richardson? Looking backwards what would they agree to pay today, not to be limited to playing at say Bowling Green?
What is the value of a scholarship to Stanford for Alameen Murphy?
What does Georgia owe to Marquis Elmore (the Mudcat of Mudcat’s car fame) to even things up? Or is the other way around? He was 5 star that played about as many snaps in his career.
How about Albert Hollis who never played at all?
Just the facts JACK!
The exploitation isn’t financial in practically every case. Where it really exists is in academics. In fixing the latter you solve the other.
LikeLike
The fact that’s relevant to me is simple: players are told they have to accept the current arrangement on a take it or leave it basis by an organization that has been found to have violated federal antitrust law.
That’s not speculation or wishful thinking.
LikeLike
I’ve watched you two debate this for a while and it’s the first time I’ve seen your point Derek. What about the three star kid that signs, rides the pine for three years but gets developed, has a breakout year his senior season and is able to parlay that into a pro contract. What’s it worth to him? You’d also have to figure since he wasn’t a producer that his market value would be null until he breaks out the senior year. I doubt his program goes back and adjusts the money for his senior season. Does that mean he’s exploited, even in the pay for play market? Lots of questions come up each time the debate goes in depth.
LikeLike
It is a better solution. Good arguments, I have not seen it explained much clearer.
LikeLike
As far as why they don’t do it? One thing is that they probably don’t want to deal with the howls of institutional racism they dealt with in the mid-1980’s when they were passing Prop 48.
LikeLike
Not squarely on point, but I wonder whether these small ‘voluntary’ summer workouts are especially dangerous. Can’t think of a specific reason, but . . .
LikeLike
Cause it’s fucking hot?
LikeLike