Market power

For those of you who like to promote the concept that if college athletes don’t like what schools offer them for their services, they can always choose to take their skills elsewhere, Justice Thomas would like a few words.

Hint:  they’re not.

117 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

117 responses to “Market power

  1. Derek

    Its not the colleges fault that there aren’t easy alternatives.

    They are under no obligation to provide a pro option on their campuses because of the whims of pro league cba’s.

    To argue otherwise would suggest that in the days when Kemp, Kobe, LeBron etc., went from HS to the NBA that college basketball could function differently then than it can now simply because the owners and players came to new arrangements. Nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • They are under no obligation to provide a pro option on their campuses because of the whims of pro league cba’s.

      Uh hunh. Because it’s simple math that there’s a spot in the NFL for every college football player who wants to play there.

      Maybe Emmert can trot out a “we’re just innocent bystanders, folks” defense the next time he gets deposed.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Derek

        There isn’t. Which is why accepting mediocre students on a NFL pipe dream so you and I can be entertained is immoral.

        Like

        • So now you’re voiding your first argument to make a more specious one.

          Derek, society values entertainment more than utility. It’s how we’re wired. If you want to call that immorality, be my guest.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Derek

            Valuing entertainment isn’t immoral.

            Not caring about the well-being of those who provide it can be tho.

            Like

            • Funny, after seeing all the passionate arguments here about how good college football players have it — nutrition, free room and board, education, tutoring, etc. — that you argue schools don’t care.

              Seems to me if you’re right, it’s all the more reason to allow/provide financial compensation for their services.

              Liked by 2 people

              • 3rdandGrantham

                Good hell, this back and forth is about as one-sided as the infamous Jordan Peterson versus Cathy Newman debate.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Derek

                That’s not been my argument and you know it.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Sorry, I guess I misunderstood “Not caring about the well-being of those who provide it can be tho.” Although I’m not exactly sure how.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • 3rdandGrantham

                  My response wasn’t pertaining specifically to SB’s last point, but instead was more an overall observation.

                  Respectfully, I’ve never seen anyone who likes to move the goal posts as often as you do when getting slaughtered in various debates. The Petersen v Newman debate referenced above provides a good visual for you for constructive criticism purposes.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Derek

                  I have never once said: no NIL, no compensation, they’ve got it too good as it is.

                  Never.

                  What I’ve talked about is the long term well being of the players. I think coaches, administrators and fans across the board (not every single one obviously) have put short term gain for themselves over the long term interests of the players. Sometimes they’ll even put the campus and broader community at risk if it could mean on field success.

                  The indifference to that comes from both sides of the NIL aisle.

                  Like

                • Antitrust law — you know, the subject of my post — isn’t concerned with the long term well being of labor. So why are you making that argument here? However noble your intent, it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

                  I mean, let’s not forget what you started with:

                  Its not the colleges fault that there aren’t easy alternatives.

                  They are under no obligation to provide a pro option on their campuses because of the whims of pro league cba’s.

                  And then quickly abandoned.

                  Liked by 3 people

                • Gaskilldawg

                  I am sorry but what is the short term gain for myself that I am pursuing?

                  Like

                • Derek

                  The opinion you posted from is a dissent in a free speech case not an antitrust case. The implication was clear to me:

                  A lack of reasonable alternatives requires some reasonable redress by those burdened by the lack of alternatives.

                  The argument in the dissent is that because there is one Twitter, maybe it should be considered a like a public utility and be regulated.

                  Your application of that argument in this context is that the narrow path to the pro leagues ought to be considered in deciding how college sports is regulated.

                  What am I missing?

                  Like

                • The two words in his opinion that are the header to my post.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  When did I abandon that argument?

                  Should I cut and paste every point cumulatively?

                  That would get messy.

                  Like

                • RangerRuss

                  It appears Derek understands the first rule of digging holes.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Derek

                  Gaskill: Your team winning.

                  Would you like for the University of Georgia to decide to raise its admissions standards unilaterally in an effort to better ensure that the players graduate and are productive citizens or do you want a natty?

                  I’m guessing you’re thinking short term here.

                  Like

                • Gaskilldawg

                  What position have I stated on the issue of UGA unilaterally raising academic admissions standards for athletes? Certainly the issue of UGA academic admissions standards is not a topic of this thread..
                  My issue is with the NCAA setting caps on benefits to athletes. I believe that allowing companies to do such things as paying athletes to be influencers for products on TikTok neither harms me or benefits me. long or short term.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Gaskill,

                  Its hard (for me anyway) to parse this argument into segments. Its difficult to speak to a piece of the construct without address my views of college sports generally.

                  I have an idea of what college sports should look like and my position on a piece of it will inevitably lead to placing that view in the larger context.

                  Your patience is appreciated.

                  Like

              • mg4life0331

                Well they eat better than I did in the chow hall. Biggest difference is I can knock a gnats dick off at 500 meters with irons sights. They can throw a football of them there mountains like Uncle Rico.

                Liked by 3 people

    • Spell Dawg

      That there are no easy alternatives makes the case against them even stronger. They might collude against the interests of the student athlete if the athlete could simply choose another comparably competitive option.

      Like

    • Former Fan

      It’s not the utilities fault that they are monopolies either. Doesn’t matter. That is exactly why we have anti-trust laws. Not one college will be forced to pay players. Not one. However, they will be forced to compete for the labor and that is a good thing.

      Like

  2. I would agree with Derek that it’s not the colleges’ fault that there aren’t easy alternatives. I still think it’s hypocritical that LeBron has talked about the exploitation of college athletes and then he went along with the CBA change that created the “one and done.”

    It is still a restraint of trade to act on that advantage to prevent athletes from earning on their NLI. Maybe if the NCAA and its members hadn’t decided to do everything but put the players’ names on the jerseys in EA Sports college games, we wouldn’t be here. They knew the game would be more marketable this way and let the genie out of the bottle.

    Like

    • Colleges get all sorts of public incentives, starting with tax breaks out the wazoo, that aren’t available to “easy alternatives”. I’m sure they’ve never lobbied for any of those.

      If the NBA were to eliminate the one and done tomorrow, how many kids a year would be affected by that?

      There are 130+ D-1 college football teams with 85-man rosters. There are 32 NFL teams with 53-man rosters. You can blame LeBron, or you can do the math.

      Liked by 3 people

      • We’re on the same side of the argument, Senator. I’m only accepting the fact there is no real minor league opportunity for football or basketball players that have no desire to attend college other than as a bridge to their chosen profession – sports. I’m only making the comment about LeBron that he slammed the door in Anthony Edwards’s face when he agreed to the CBA that created the basketball problem.

        It’s a big math problem in professional sports (regardless of sport). I wanted to be a professional golfer as a kid, but my talent eventually ran into the reality that my dream wasn’t going to happen. If I had plowed ahead and focused on golf at the expense of everything else, I would be much less successful than I am now.

        That’s the message many high school athletes need to get. Hey, you’re a great running back, but you aren’t going to play in the NFL. You may be able to play at the college level, but you need to get a meaningful degree while you play football. In the meantime, allow these guys to trade on their NLI while it’s most marketable.

        Like

        • You should run a PSA… oh, wait.

          The numbers and the lack of a viable alternative are what allow the NCAA to run a labor cartel. The idea that schools are just passive observers, that it’s just happening to them as much as it is to students, is ludicrous.

          If we’re on the same side, I don’t understand how you think that’s part of my argument.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I get that. Did you read my second paragraph of my original comment? Just because there’s no alternative doesn’t make it ok to act on it in a way that creates a restraint of trade.

            Like

            • Then I don’t understand the point you’re trying to correct. The NCAA isn’t a passive actor. It doesn’t matter how the circumstances were created; it matters that schools actively take advantage of their market power to fix the labor market. That’s it.

              Like

              • The NCAA and its member institutions certainly aren’t passive actors. They take advantage of the fact that the NFL owners have figured out every time they try minor league football, it fails. They know they have a superior product in college basketball to the NBA’s developmental league.

                Like

          • Derek

            All the more reason to frown upon exploitation.

            A little cash band aid isn’t going to solve the problems of a Trenton Thompson.

            I’m not suggesting that I know all there is to know about him, I know very little, but as an outside observer he seems like a poster child for the problem.

            I think there is a high risk that NIL aggravates the problem of too much too soon, focusing on the wrong thing, and being spit out with little or nothing to show for it.

            Does Trenton make it if he gets no hype because he’s on juco track, puts his head down for two years and earns his way into big time college ball by doing the work? It couldn’t have hurt IMHO.

            I can’t help but thinking the current system failed him and that the NIL system proposed will make the problem worse, not better.

            Good students tend to be more mature students who can better handle the pressure and the hype that comes with being a top recruit. If we redirected those less able to function in that pressure cooker environment and allowed the time to mature and progress academically at a juco and earn their spot, not on the basis of athletic talent alone, but upon classroom achievement, maybe we’d have more reliable outcomes.

            At least we might have outcomes we can feel better about because we aren’t setting up kids to fail simply so we can be entertained.

            Like

            • spur21

              From my seat it appears Trenton is a product of bad parenting – bad advice and a group wanting to ride his coattails to financial reward.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Derek

                Aren’t all of those things fairly common?

                Won’t the problems be exacerbated as earning potential moves to an earlier age?

                Like

                • Gaskilldawg

                  The argument amounts to. “Sorry. Azeez. but because Trenton Thompson had some mental health issues we get to monetize your name and image and you can’t.”

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Not exactly.

                  My premise is that we wouldn’t have gotten here if the colleges hadn’t created a system that gave the appearance of using kids for financial gain while at the same time enrolling kids who couldn’t give a rats ass about the diploma and/or are set up to skate/fail.

                  The confluence of greedy adults and highly talented players with no interest in the academic mission has made NIL an issue.

                  If we returned to first principles, IMHO, we could do far better by these kids than trying to make this bullshit construct appear more fair.

                  In short, I don’t give one rats ass how a declared “one and done” college bb player is treated financially or otherwise for that one semester of class.

                  My position is that college and that kid should never meet in the first instance.

                  And why should they? Neither is getting what they are supposed to be looking for.

                  Like

                • Gaskilldawg

                  The issue isn’t confined to football and men’s basketball players. For example, I read a story about 2 college volleyball players in California somewhere who have hundreds of thousands of TikTok and Instagram followers. Companies want to pay them for produce placement because so many hundreds of thousands of young women who buy those products would see those products on their favorite social media. The players. who i will bet are legitimate students, cannot use their appeal to be influencers. Their compliance office told them they could not. At the same time, friends who aren’t athletes can get paid for product placement in their TikTok posts.
                  The volleyball players aren’t using the school to make millions in pro volleyball. How is their university’s academic mission ruined by them being able to make money on the entertainment they create?

                  Like

                • spur21

                  Nope to both of your questions.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Spur,

                  Good to know bad parenting is unusual.

                  Dana Plato and Todd Bridges told me youth and money can lead to tragic consequences.

                  Maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about.

                  Perhaps had they your experience with early fame they’d know better.

                  Like

  3. akascuba

    Maybe just use the Nuremberg defense. I was just following orders. That worked out well.

    I dont like where CFB is headed paying players. Me personally Ill never get passed I had to pay my way without all the benefits the players get. Yeah I also worked full time. First nobody in charge of CFB cares what fans think that seems pretty clear.

    When the sums of money colleges are getting on the backs of these kids while allowing coaches to get rich screwing players every time they leave for more money. I can`t disagree with their point of view show me the money anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. The schools and sport have no one to blame but themselves.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. ASEF

    Same guy who thinks Nebraska is still a top program?

    I know it’s nice to hear a SCOTUS justice affirming your priors, but do consider the source.

    Like

  6. ronbreakfastfoodswanson

    So you admit then, that what college football players get in return for their time in college is extremely valuable.

    Like

    • I’ve never denied that there isn’t value being given by schools to college athletes. Of course there is. (Sorry if that screws up your “aha!” moment.)

      But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether the schools and the NCAA have colluded to deny college athletes their fair market value — you know, the same thing available to you and me.

      Put it another way: if amateurism were tossed in the trash bin tomorrow, do you honestly believe that no college athlete would receive a penny more in compensation than they’re receiving today?

      Liked by 3 people

  7. ronbreakfastfoodswanson

    Senator, that’s not really what I was going for, but I understand everyone gets hurt feelings from time to time. The issue is that you believe that anything that is not “cash” or currency isn’t good enough. You are willfully blind to all the things that aren’t cash that an athlete receives that are extremely valuable. Their “compensation” includes all of these non-cash things, whether you choose to value them or not.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I just said, as I’ve always maintained, that college athletes receive value from schools for their services. How is that being “willfully blind”?

      Meanwhile, I notice you’ve ignored my question. But, yeah, I can see how that’s not really what you’re going for.

      Like

      • ronbreakfastfoodswanson

        Senator, I did ignore your question, but you’ve also ignored my point. By fixating and obsessing on cash, you are purposely diminishing the extreme value of everything else. As you said, there is nothing comparable. So while you say, “I’ve always maintained college athletes receive value” your constant soapboxing on this topic tells me exactly how small you think this value really is. But we get it, you want the players to receive cash.

        Like

        • Tell me something — do you work for a living? If so, how are you compensated?

          Some college athletes are already receiving fair compensation for their services. Some aren’t. The problem is that the NCAA is a cartel that fixes the labor market so that no college athlete is permitted to receive what an open market would pay for their services. You apparently feel that’s okay, even though I assume you aren’t compensated in a similar way for what you do.

          It’s not so much that I want players to receive cash as it is that I want the NCAA to stop saying they can’t.

          Liked by 3 people

          • You’re arguing for an open market–“no college athlete is permitted to receive what an open market would pay for their services.”

            The college athlete has already participated in the open market. He’s made his decision: he’s chosen to play for an NCAA-member school. Now he has to play by the NCAA’s rules.

            To compare with Hizzoner’s statement above: if the athlete chooses to use the bridge, he’s got to pay the toll.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I’m not going to waste my time responding to “The college athlete has already participated in the open market.”

              Like

              • Have it your way, Senator. It’s your blog, and I appreciate it very much. You can choose to respond to posts, or not, it’s your very own open market. It’s obviously what you think all college athletes should get.

                Liked by 2 people

                • No offense, Chop, but there’s no point in discussing this when your take is 180 degrees off. The market isn’t open because it’s fixed by the NCAA. Now, you can argue there’s nothing wrong with that, that amateurism is a valuable protocol for schools to adhere to, and at least I can understand where you’re coming from. But to insist it doesn’t exist? Sorry, I can’t even begin a discussion with that as a starting point.

                  I think all college athletes should get what a free, competitive market for their services says they should get, whatever that might be. That’s it.

                  Liked by 2 people

            • Former Fan

              It is, by definition, not an open market. That’s like saying that I can choose to get electricity from the one provider in my area, or do without and because I have that choice, I have participated in an open market. On the contrary, it is the lack of an open market that causes us to name such a thing a “monopoly” or a “cartel”.

              The colleges have colluded with each other to set the price of labor. They are losing in courts, because it is illegal to do so. No one cared when there was no money at stake, but now there are billions, so it matters.

              Like

          • ronbreakfastfoodswanson

            Tell me something, how much revenue do you receive from the banner ads that run on this site? Seeing how the we, the users, are the ones that generate the page views and potential purchases of goods advertised on these ads that likely adds to your bottom line, should we get some financial compensation from that? I know I know, I get value from reading about UGA football, but that’s not good enough for me. I want cash! You are running a cartel! (because that’s a scary word that people understand).

            Also, in my profession, which requires a post-college degree, the most highly sought after positions are almost exclusively UNPAID to start with (they start as summer internships) because the applicants receive extreme VALUE from having trained with the best. They then use that credential for the rest of their working lives as they move their way through the profession in PAID positions after they are trained. Sound familiar? That’s the way the world works.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Tell me something, how much revenue do you receive from the banner ads that run on this site? Seeing how the we, the users, are the ones that generate the page views and potential purchases of goods advertised on these ads that likely adds to your bottom line, should we get some financial compensation from that?

              Ooh, you got me there. If you can explain how I can send you $.00036154 for each ad view you have, I’ll send you a check.

              To accuse me of running a cartel means you aren’t making a serious argument here, which I sort of suspected.

              Also, in my profession, which requires a post-college degree, the most highly sought after positions are almost exclusively UNPAID to start with (they start as summer internships) because the applicants receive extreme VALUE from having trained with the best. They then use that credential for the rest of their working lives as they move their way through the profession in PAID positions after they are trained. Sound familiar? That’s the way the world works.

              Unless your profession colludes to fix the labor market, no, it doesn’t sound familiar to the topic at hand, and no, it’s not the way the world is supposed to work, at least according to antitrust law.

              Like

              • ronbreakfastfoodswanson

                So you are going to stop using cartel now? Thanks! According to your calculus of value, that check for real money is extremely valuable to me and outweighs everything else, so please send it as quickly as possible. Finally, there are tons of professions that work exactly like that, and it is exactly like the topic at hand. Sure, you could not go after that unpaid internship that everyone else wants with the best of the best, and instead get paid pennies to work with the dregs of your profession for a summer, but which one is really more valuable? The point is, there are alternatives for football players who just want cash, but that’s not where you get the best training. I know its good to be king of these boards, but you are sticking your head in the sand and everyone can see it.

                Like

                • So you are going to stop using cartel now?

                  No. I’ll just continue using it in its proper context, unlike yourself.

                  Look, I understand you have a different worldview on this, personal insults and all. Let’s just leave it there.

                  Like

            • Oh, one other thing — are these interns prohibited from earning outside income from, say, social media? Is that also the way the world works?

              Like

              • ronbreakfastfoodswanson

                That’s fine, I appreciate the back and forth and the forum. You take it as well as you give it. I will say though that comparing colleges like UGA to sergeants in murderous and violent organizations (cartels) is a little over the top and never really in context.

                Liked by 2 people

                • Well, maybe that’s the problem here, semantics.

                  I’m using cartel strictly in the antitrust sense:

                  A cartel is a formal agreement among firms in an oligopolistic industry. Cartel members may agree on such matters as prices, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid-rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these.

                  Does that make more sense?

                  Like

              • Derek

                Word choice dude….word choice….

                I just can’t….

                Because, in part, you won’t let me!

                Like

        • spur21

          A large portion of what athletes receive does benefit them – it also benefits the school. Nutrition and healthcare and training helps keep the players playing which keeps the $$$ rolling into the pockets of the schools and NCCA.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Gaskilldawg

      I can only speak for myself; I can’t speak for the guy to whom you addressed your point.
      I am not blind to the value to the athlete of a scholarship. But that is a red herring. In antitrust analysis the issue is whether collusion determines the value of the pay rather than bargaining between buyers and sellers setting the value of the pay.
      It is the act of collusion that matters. not the generosity of those who collude.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. classiccitycanine

    After reading the arguments over amateurism here over the years, I’m convinced that opponents of NIL reform have nothing to stand on except an emotional resistance to change. There’s no rational reason to support the status quo. If you’re concerned about commercialization of the sport, that ship sailed a long time ago. If you’re worried about bidding wars for players, the talent will still concentrate at the powerhouse programs. I don’t think the average fan’s experience will change much with NIL reform. Heck, it might get better if NCAA football comes back.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’ll give you one big potential plus: some college kids will have enough of a financial incentive not to leave for the pros early and will stay in college instead. That’s likely to be good for both the athlete and the program.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Derek

        Or the financial wherewithal to quit after year 2.

        (Not that its an argument against btw. Just noting that some proponent’s heads may fall off if a kid opts out of year three because he’s set financially and doesn’t want the risk of injury.)

        Like

        • spur21

          Do you honestly believe a player will bank enough $$ to opt out?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Derek

            The potential is there, yes.

            And I do think some should.

            Lattimore should not have been playing in his third year.

            Gurley shouldn’t have come back after suspension.

            Clowney basically took the year off.

            Like

            • stoopnagle

              Pickens already should play for Georgia again.

              I don’t get it how financial incentives are okay for literally anyone else in the entire world save a student-athlete.

              Like

              • Derek

                Except when I point out where financial incentives clearly aren’t ok and then people say well thats not the same.

                In short, financial incentives aren’t not ok for trial judges.

                Before it comes:

                So now players wear black robes?!??!

                No stupid.

                I’m attacking the “literally anyone” argument.

                We know there are plenty of places where money doesn’t and shouldn’t come into play.

                Can a woman get on hormones and sell children for $75k a pop?

                Before it comes:

                So you’re saying Gurley breast feeds?!?!

                No stupid.

                Im attacking “literally anyone” argument.

                This could go on awhile….

                Like

                • spur21

                  You left hookers off your list. Perfectly legal (and regulated) in some states but will get your ass arrested in others. Truth be known BOTH get paid.

                  Like

        • mddawg

          Do you mean quit college and go pro or quit football (or whatever sport) altogether?

          Like

      • classiccitycanine

        I heard Roquan almost came back in 2018. If he’s making NIL money, perhaps he comes back and gets us over the Bama hump.

        Like

  9. stoopnagle

    It’s interesting, to say the least, that we might expect Justice Thomas to hold a consistent view when it comes to the rights of labor vs capital as when it comes to non-state actors deciding to not amplify far-right speech and undermine liberal democracy. It’s my read that Justice Thomas will worm his way into some reason to prop up the far right whether it lines up with his own previous reasoning or not.

    Like

  10. TN Dawg

    Lol.

    This is like dangling a toy mouse on a string in front of kitten for Derek.

    Quoting a highly educated, accomplished black conservative minded Justice while simultaneously arguing in favor of player compensation and personal autonomy for a group largely comprised of minority individuals.

    His institutional racism should be in full display on this thread.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Although there are upon occasion good debate interactions, no one has pushed me off the fence yet. Its the absolutism that throws me off. But I do know it’s coming and nothing I can do will change it.

    Like

  12. RangerRuss

    Anyone that prevents another one from earning a fair wage for their efforts is simply wrong. Just because that’s the way it has always been done doesn’t make it any more right.
    But what the fuck do I know? I’m the asshole who drove through Auburn so fast I didn’t even smell the shithole.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Senator, you posted this above:

    “I think all college athletes should get what a free, competitive market for their services says they should get, whatever that might be. That’s it.”

    When I read this, I assume you feel that every athlete–say JT Daniels–should be able to make whatever money he can, from whoever, whenever he can make it. This means, JT could tell UGA his price is $100K per game, or whatever salary he thinks he’s worth, and if UGA doesn’t want to pay, then JT will shop his services to Alabama or wherever, and get the best money he can. If nobody wants to pay him $100K per, he’ll lower his asking price, until he finds his best deal. All the while, he’s free to make as much as he can from his NIL rights, from whoever will pay him, same process.

    The problem for me is that JT has already made a decision to participate in NCAA football. He’s decided he doesn’t want to proceed on his own–hire his own agents, trainers, find his own facilities, hire his own coaches, rent his own stadiums, promote himself to the NFL and to the Internet and to businesspeople who might pay him for his NIL. He’s also decided he wants the education the NCAA school will give him–he doesn’t want to pay for that education himself–just in case he can’t make an NFL roster. He’s willing to accept the benefits accrued from decades of accomplishments made by universities, donors, builders, coaches, players who’ve been here before him and are here now. He’s said he’s willing to let the NCAA and its member institutions provide for him, because he thinks that playing NCAA football will be much, much better for him in the long run.

    Unfortunately for him, if he accepts all these benefits from playing major college football, he has to play by its rules, just like the man crossing Justice Thomas’s bridge has to pay the toll and has to abide by any other rules incumbent on those who’d use his bridge: no stopping, no standing, no fishing off bridge, stay in your lane, no turning around, whatever the bridge builders and/or the entities maintaining the bridge have set up.

    In other words, you and me and JT can take advantage of a free market whenever and wherever one happens to exist. But, we can’t just decide to wave our magic wands and Poof! Free Market Now! Never has worked that way, and the chaos that will be created by those who want to try to make the NCAA into an open bazaar will severely affect a system that’s managed to exist and flourish for all this time, to the benefit and enjoyment of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Liked by 1 person

    • He’s decided he doesn’t want to proceed on his own–hire his own agents, trainers, find his own facilities, hire his own coaches, rent his own stadiums, promote himself to the NFL and to the Internet and to businesspeople who might pay him for his NIL.

      “He’s decided” is doing a shit-ton of heavy lifting there, chop. Unless I completely missed where JT and his agent were allowed to negotiate a deal with Georgia when he signed. No?

      I think we’re back to my original point.

      Like

      • Derek

        We know jt didn’t negotiate a deal to sign.

        You seem to be pretty clear that he should be able to tho.

        I don’t think Chop is talking about what has already taken place.

        I think he’s asking about what happens when you get what you want.

        Of course, I already know the answer:

        “We’ll see.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • Maybe your grammar skills exceed mine, but “He’s decided” is past tense, Derek. The past is usually when things have already taken place, no?

          As for what happens, see my answer to atticus34 in this thread.

          Like

      • PTC DAWG

        Hell yeah, he decided, the dude is draft eligible now.

        Like

  14. atticus34

    Unbelievable your crusade for the poor athletes Your contention is athletes should receive the fair compensation of a free market? Is that correct? How do you create a fair market for collegiate athletics? I really do want to understand your position. You are a smart guy, intelligent. We both agree they are already compensated, we both agree it should be more given the revenue including some method of NIL but 100% disagree on players are being taken advantage of and 100% disagree on how its solved. So I continue to ask what it looks like.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How do you create a fair market for collegiate athletics?

      You stop the NCAA from conspiring to fix the labor market. The conferences would then be forced to compete with each other for player services and compensation limits for those would be forged out of competition between the conferences. Players would then be free to negotiate with schools for their services within those limits.

      You guys seem to be fixated on how much?. I’m focused on fairly negotiated arrangements. If the SEC says player comp is capped at $XXXX and a player signs a contract to play for a conference school at that price, that’s great, as long as the player had a choice in the market place with regard to the terms. Maybe he takes it, maybe he goes to a school in a different conference with a different limit. Maybe he agrees to play for exactly what players get now. It’s all good as long as it’s not a one-sided, forced arrangement.

      Is that really so hard to understand?

      Like

      • PTC DAWG

        The NFL exists already.

        Like

      • atticus34

        Ok, I actually understand that. Follow up question, how do the salary caps in pro sports pass that? You are viewing conferences as individual entities where as NFL, NBA is one entity is that not accurate? How do you CAP compensation, as you say and still be a free market?

        Like

        • There are two differences: one, the NFL has a limited antitrust exemption and two, it negotiates a labor agreement with a players union.

          CFB has neither. But it doesn’t need those to escape antitrust liability. The courts (and plaintiffs’ attorneys, perhaps more relevantly) view the conferences as independent competitors. They’re free on an individual basis to craft market limits, as long as they don’t collaborate together to fix the market.

          Those are two different ways to make things fairer for college athletes.

          Like

      • Doesn’t the player already have that choice in the marketplace? Aren’t the amounts of the stipends different, at different schools? Isn’t the value of a degree from UGA worth much more than a degree at, say, Georgia Tech?

        Like

  15. atticus34

    On random though, would you agree that if you open it up to free market that first off all scholarships, room and board are no longer covered (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and they simply receive what the market dictates and pay their fair share? And in your scenario what does a 3rd string safety receive are there minimums?

    Like

    • Gaskilldawg

      Senator Blutarski’s proposal would allow for the SEC schools to get together and decide that scholarships to SEC schools did not cover room and board whil the Big Ten and ACC schools could decide that their scholarships did include those things.
      At that point the sellers of athletics services (the players) could decide whether they wanted to pay their own room and board at Vandy or Alabama or go to Clemson or Wisconsin and have room or board paid.
      Then the SEC schools could decide whether not paying room and board is a good decision.

      Like

  16. Granthams Replacement

    The NFL sets that. Not the colleges.

    Like

  17. Geezus

    Ugh, this whole comment’s section reminds me of the old Monty Python Argument Clinic skit. No I didn’t, yes you did, no I didn’t …

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.