Look, I think this is a straw man argument, though I recognize that many of you agree wholeheartedly with what Nebraska’s AD says here:
“And he put the pencil to it of the value, a one-year value, of let’s just say a football player or men’s basketball player at an average institution in major college athletics. And when you factored in the value of the tuition, the boarding room, all the fees, the transportation, the nutrition, the strength and conditioning/training room, on and on and on, and now the stipends that they get for the cost of attendance, he penciled it down to be $200,000 a year.
“And I would argue that that’s a pretty good salary for a 19-year-old kid. Now they do have alternatives, if they don’t want to go to class, and they don’t want to represent a university and get an education. It’s called the NBA, the NFL and major league baseball. So there are options. But I will go to my grave believing that in college athletics it needs to be amateurs to be there for the right reasons, and to value that education. Many places, out-of-state tuition for a year can be up to $80,000 to $100,000 just by itself, and sometimes much more.”
But I’ve got a question for you and Moos. If the NCAA’s policy on amateurism is voided by the courts and player compensation is left to the conferences to determine, what do you think the odds are that Moos maintains that same stance?
Get The Picture 
There’s no doubt there’s an investment made by the school. But calling that a “salary” is just offensive, IMO. It’s not a SALARY.
(Plus, I thought they were amateurs. What are they doing collecting a salary?)
LikeLike
No kidding! I wonder if he considers his office part of his salary too? And transportation to games is a “salary”? No employer I have ever worked for talked crazy like that.
LikeLike
At your job, do some of the workers get paid to be there (scholarship) and other workers pay to be there (the rest of us schmucks who had to pay dearly for our education)? Otherwise not a real good comparison.
LikeLike
I think part of the problem with going full professional in college is that it won’t be based in market economics.
It will be based entirely on gross speculation. The continued over-commitments to wash outs and losers will lead to the sort of NFL owner socialism they’ve installed to control outcomes.
Salary caps
Drafts
Roster cuts
Imagine Willie Williams recruitment but with actual cash. It would be a nightmare. And then they’d find another way.
If these guys are signing position coaches to multi-year guaranteed contracts what sort of irresponsibility will we see when a guy like Cam Newton is on the market? There’s not enough tv money on the planet to keeps these fools from going bankrupt. So they’ll set up a system that protects themselves from themselves.
In the end, it won’t be any fairer and the ones who get really screwed will be the average run of the mill, 2nd teamer who, despite his 3.3 GPA on track to graduate, has his scholly pulled to make room for some idiot with more stars.
LikeLike
Your first sentence makes zero sense. Of course it will be. It’s just that in every market, there are some actors who are more rational than others.
Your basic argument is that players deserve to suffer from illegal price fixing because the schools can’t be trusted to behave intelligently. That’s some pitch.
LikeLike
Market economics presupposes rationality. If the state of the human condition were such that every person on the planet would spend every penny they have and could borrow on a box of Cheerios, there would cease to be any such thing as market economics.
It may be economics, but it won’t be “market economics.” We’re dealing ultimately with college football fans. There is no rationality. At all. Any rational actor would be immediately fired for lack of effort.
We’ve seen how the owners create socialism for themselves within a capiltialist construct. The players are subject to the rules of the jungle. The owners are insulated from every possible negative outcome.
Didn’t win a game? Here’s the first pick.
You want to sign a player to a quintillion dollar lifetime contract? No, we have rules against that.
As far as the victims of professional league in college football, I do think that the unintended victims will be the kids who aspire only to convert their talents into an opportunity for a college education. It may be worth it to shower Todd Gurley with cash, but you can’t argue with the fact that Michael Chigbu and Jackson Harris don’t graduate in December 2018 as paid players at Georgia in a pro system. I, personally, don’t think that’s a great outcome.
LikeLike
Only in the macro sense. On the individual level, we all behave differently because we are… different.
Don’t forget, college athletics aren’t monolithic like current pro sports leagues are. The conferences compete with each other in the marketplace now for things like broadcast deals. Schools compete with each other on things like facilities.
You have no idea how things shake out. None of us do. But your underlying argument that because schools are bad actors, it’s okay to rig the market for players is pretty sad.
LikeLike
But we do. We know how pro leagues work both in terms of insulating the owners from the harshness of economic realities and eliminating any player whose abilities aren’t worth the outlays in light of the potential of a younger player.
The evidence is in on this. We know how it goes.
The clippers owner can make $ with a losing product for decades upon decades while a player is playing for his job each and every day and the team is looking to replace you every day, if they can.
Somehow this pipe dream of being the nfl to Athens will break out of that tried and true construct? I’m skeptical.
LikeLike
Again, you are comparing the experience of monolithic professional leagues to college conference aligned sports. There is no way to know from here how closely the experience will track.
And it still doesn’t justify rigging a labor market illegally. You seem to keep skipping past that.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced it’s a “labor market.”
LikeLike
If the courts force the issue, then the schools cannot legally do what you are talking about without an anti-trust exemption. IOW, it won’t happen. What do you think the Senators in Idaho, Wyoming, etc. will want from the NCAA in order to grant that exemption? The P5 conferences will either be forced to share a LOT more of their revenue with smaller schools, or with the players and maybe both if they get an anti-trust exemption.
LikeLike
Maybe. In which case it will cease to exist.
LikeLike
Salary cap? Yes. Roster cuts? Already exist. Draft? Lol, that’s the one drum you gotta stop beating. Could never happen.
LikeLike
Sure “transportation” does a good deal of the heavy lifting in that 200,000.
LikeLike
Who knew that getting players to a venue to make money for the schools is a player benefit?
LikeLike
I think he considers a lot of expenses benefits to the players. Can you imagine your boss telling you to be grateful for all of the parts of your compensation package like his secretaries salary, donuts in the coaches break room, HR, and your desk?
Is this chutzpah or stupidity I’m witnessing?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
College is overpriced as hell, but it’s nowhere remotely close to $200,000 per year to attend.
LikeLike
^This. Our cost is roughly 25k annually with the Hope scholarship. Young squire gets his ride (No campus parking pass) off campus apartment, on campus meal ticket, allowance or stipend, health insurance, etc.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call it a straw man. It’s not like he’s inventing people who argue that players aren’t compensated. Regardless of whether you think it is a fair package, a free college education (and a few other benefits) is a form of compensation.
LikeLike
He’s not arguing it’s a form of compensation. His position is that it’s sufficient compensation.
Why don’t you answer my question at the post’s end?
LikeLike
It’s still not a straw man argument.
As to the end, because I don’t care about it? I mean, of course if paying players is forced on the schools they’ll act in whatever they see as their best interests, and their arguments will change accordingly. I’m under no illusion that college administrators are forthright and consistent.
LikeLike
The courts won’t force the schools to pay players. What they will do is stop the colleges from colluding to set player pay. Once that happens, a school will be free to pay whatever they want to the players. Senator’s question is a good one. Will this guy keep on with his model and tell us all how good his model is? Or will he pay players to keep the money train to the school coming? I doubt seriously he’ll hold to the former.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s totally correct.
As far as I can tell, the courts see the conferences as legitimate competitors. I think that if the NCAA’s protocol is tossed out, an individual conference will be free to set limits on what its members can offer student-athletes. You just won’t have an overarching limit imposed on all schools by a centralized entity any more.
LikeLike
If it is a limit imposed by the NCAA or a limit imposed by the SEC how is that any different for the player affected? May be different for the schools involved, but not the player. If the NCAA set the limit at $1000 a month and the SEC says no it should be $2000 a month. The player feels he is the best at his position and the best player on the team and feels he is worth $5000 a month. How is it any different for him whether the NCAA or the SEC limits his free market ability to be compensated?
LikeLike
What if he could get a better deal from Ohio State?
LikeLike
Oh, you mean like a certain player who will remain nameless? You are making my point for me. Either there is an entity that limits compensation for all or there is free market. Who is then to say that UGA could not sign 75 players each cycle if they can afford them?
LikeLike
Nope. I mean like competition between conferences.
LikeLike
It’s a good question if you ever expect ADs to be consistent about anything, I guess. I don’t. However paying players shakes out, they’ll do what they have to to keep boosters happy and television revenues coming in. The money spent on ridiculous facilities to entice recruits will likely be diverted elsewhere in service of whatever competitive advantage the new model encourages.
LikeLike
It’s a straw man argument, BR, because the people who oppose amateurism aren’t making the argument that players don’t receive any compensation. They’re simply asserting that schools would pay more compensation in an open market setting.
LikeLike
To some… not to all.
Again, there are guys on scholly who would be FIRED under a pro model.
As someone who walked on in a non-revenue sport this entire argument is ludicrous.
Was I an indentured servant? Should I have sued under the 13th amendment?
The vast majority of these kids will never play pro sports. They just want to save their parents the cost of an education, period.
LikeLike
That, too, is a straw man argument.
Might as well drop this, Derek, if that’s the best you’ve got.
LikeLike
The best? No. Still valid.
What was Rodrigo doing kicking for free?
It’s not a “job.” The terms are clear. Free education for sport. Same for every sport, even those that make less than nothing.
And you get it even if it turns out that you’re not terribly good at it.
Why should Michael Chigbu or Jackson Harris be sent home rather than leave with a diploma?
I’m sorry but modifying this thing for the guys who don’t need it is crazy. Todd’s fine now. He really is.
LikeLike
You’re ignoring the part where advocates for paying players justify the rule change under the idea of fairness. It’s not like they or you are making an economic observation. The whole argument is what kind and level of compensation is fair, which you’ve already stated is what his argument addresses. So no, it’s not a straw man.
LikeLike
So, arguing for a free market approach to player compensation isn’t an economic observation?
Cool story, brah.
LikeLike
Don’t be obtuse. It’s supporting justification for a moral argument about fairness.
LikeLike
I’m not making a moral argument about fairness. I’m making an economic argument about fairness.
If you can’t see the difference, that doesn’t make me the obtuse one here.
LikeLike
Fairness is inherently about morality. You’re making a moral argument supported by economic analysis. Economics doesn’t care who benefits or doesn’t. It’s just a social science that tries to figure out how markets function and what elements you might manipulate to achieve a desired outcome. The desired outcome is determined at a basic level by your values.
LikeLike
Ah, I see where you’re coming from. I disagree with your basic assumption, but I understand it now. I think this is one of those agree to disagree debates.
LikeLike
Zero.
LikeLike
I’ll take “What is a Straw Man argument” for $200, Alex.
Wait, was that rhetorical?
LikeLike
Someone needs to learn economics:
8:40 a.m.: Georgia adds a preferred walk-on at wide receiver in Ty James. Had a scholarship offer to Yale before deciding to stay home and play for Georgia.
Doing something for free that someone else was willing to pay for? SMH…
LikeLike
The training as compensation is almost insulting. Zamir, do you know the cost of this world class ACL doctor—just think, if you weren’t playing football, where would you go to fix that ACL you never tore ?
I, however, think the compensation of tuition and living expenses is enough. Student debt is going to be the main monkey on the back of current and future generations. If you can get a college degree with zero debt, your entire lifestyle is appreciably better for the decade plus you would otherwise be paying on that debt. You have living/locale/job flexibility that your peers don’t. Pretty valuable.
I look forward to following the Mettenberger name (on the back of the jersey) for my Memphis Express spring football league. There will probably be 10,000 people in the stands and the league will go belly up but you guys keep on telling me it’s the name on the back of the jersey, not the front.
LikeLike
From an actual free market viewpoint, if you don’t favor the scholarship offer, you don’t have to take it. Just as any in prospective career, you can choose another path if you don’t like the salary.
In my opinion, the real problem is that many of these young men do not want to be in college in the first place and they (unlike most college students) do not believe their future depends on academic success. Yet we persist in the hypocritical fiction that everyone does value the educational opportunity.
I think the NFL should provide a developmental league as MLB does, and players who want to get paid fair market value can do so right out of high school. Or even sooner.
Of course this will affect the quality of what we see on the field, but I’m willing to make the trade. In the end, the almighty dollar will kill college football if we follow any other path.
LikeLike
You claim to understand the mindset of student-athletes. Do you not understand why the NFL has zero interest in this?
LikeLike
Oh yes I do and that is the point, actually. What real value is there for the services of a high school athlete? For a select few, it would be millions. Why indeed should they be forced to accept the pittance that a college scholarship offers? They should be able to sell their potential to anyone who wants to purchase it. So let the NFL pay them, then.
Except the NFL won’t pay most players because in fact there is little or no value there in the large majority of cases. In my own case, I willingly fork over hundreds of dollars per year to see these guys play—in a Georgia uniform. In a minor league uniform? Nothing. So most of the real monetary value in this case is the college connection, not the player himself.
So my idea is simple: force an individual choice to be made and let’s be done with the fiction that college is the best choice for everyone. If you see value in college, take the deal. If you can make more money elsewhere, you should be free to do that.
Senator, you appeal to fairness. What could be fairer than this?
I do realize that my idea stands no chance of being adopted. There are too many interests out there making gobs of money from the present system. But I have no patience for the contention that college athletes are an oppressed class who are being mercilessly exploited. If they are, then give them the freedom to expose themselves to the economic realities that everyone else faces. I notice that no one is arguing for that in court, however—they just want more cash, like everybody else. If the athletes can get it, good for them, but the idea that they are different from the other parties is tiresome.
LikeLike
The NFL won’t pay players because it doesn’t have to.
LikeLike
If a portion of our tax funds amateurism, and it grows into big returns, then no brainer, we get to claim the gains
LikeLike