Sherman, Bennett Bash NCAA

[BadHog]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12249290/richard-sherman-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa

Totally agree with this. I can't imagine how student athletes balance class/practice/games etc. Especially, basketball with all the travel for 4 months of the year.

But then again, there is not much about the NCAA that I do like.

[Pig In The City]

In my opinion, the networks, ncaa and the universities are all making big, big money on the backs of 18 year old kids.  There is no balance.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Nobody is forcing them to be a part of college athletics. But they do need some extra stipends.
I worked for a company that made millions & I helped them do it. But I agreed to my salary when I took the job.

[Smokehouse]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12249290/richard-sherman-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa

Totally agree with this. I can't imagine how student athletes balance class/practice/games etc. Especially, basketball with all the travel for 4 months of the year.

But then again, there is not much about the NCAA that I do like.

Probably the same way most students with academic scholarships still have to work a job while going to class since not everything is covered.

If the stipend needs to be raised to accommodate all costs, then I'm totally fine with that. But I knew people who were in the RMB, practiced multiple hours every day, traveled as much as the team, and still had to work a job and take out loans since the scholarships were pretty low. I had a full ride academically, but without a job (invested my free time in the RMB and other on-campus organizations) it meant I had to basically forgo eating anywhere but on the campus meal plan or doing anything that wasn't free to make it work.

Not to mention all the students who get screwed over just trying to get scholarships, or have their grants eaten away by fees and bad counseling on campuses. This is what I'm currently writing my dissertation on and believe me, athletes are far from the most disparaged people on campus.

I'm all for taking care of the student athletes, but I hate all this talk that the benefits they receive for a voluntary activity is a pittance.

[ThisTeetsTaken]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

Probably the same way most students with academic scholarships still have to work a job while going to class since not everything is covered.

If the stipend needs to be raised to accommodate all costs, then I'm totally fine with that. But I knew people who were in the RMB, practiced multiple hours every day, traveled as much as the team, and still had to work a job and take out loans since the scholarships were pretty low. I had a full ride academically, but without a job (invested my free time in the RMB and other on-campus organizations) it meant I had to basically forgo eating anywhere but on the campus meal plan or doing anything that wasn't free to make it work.

Not to mention all the students who get screwed over just trying to get scholarships, or have their grants eaten away by fees and bad counseling on campuses. This is what I'm currently writing my dissertation on and believe me, athletes are far from the most disparaged people on campus.

I'm all for taking care of the student athletes, but I hate all this talk that the benefits they receive for a voluntary activity is a pittance.

Makes too much sense.  The hundreds of thousands of dollars made by each athlete in the form of professional coaching, training, recruiting them, feeding, boarding, educating, providing a degree, top-end facilities, etc means nada.

BTW, logic question.  What does the pay of party A have to do with party B?  You're really gonna justify doing something logically flawed (pay athletes more than the already mentioned bennies) for party A due to party B having too much gain (colleges)?

Boost one cause its philosophically right, or smack the other down cause it's philosophically wrong or do both. 

Not cause party A has [CENSORED] envy.

[TeufelHog]

I can't believe the parents aren't doing their part.  Scholarship players are earning their tuition, books, tutors, living quarters, meals, and the finest athletic/medical/health facilities around.  Parents can't supply a monthly "stipend?"  Cry me a river!  Don't come at me with the poverty stricken, inner-city, welfare parents either.  We all make choices.

Answer me this, where are these destitute student athletes getting their "tatt" money?

[Fatty McGee]

Makes too much sense.  The hundreds of thousands of dollars made by each athlete in the form of professional coaching, training, recruiting them, feeding, boarding, educating, providing a degree, top-end facilities, etc means nada.

BTW, logic question.  What does the pay of party A have to do with party B?  You're really gonna justify doing something logically flawed (pay athletes more than the already mentioned bennies) for party A due to party B having too much gain (colleges)?

Boost one cause its philosophically right, or smack the other down cause it's philosophically wrong or do both. 

Not cause party A has [CENSORED] envy.

It only matters when Party B colludes to keep Party A from maximizing their value.  You need not put one down to boost the other, you need only remove the artificial caps on competition and the free market and then everyone wins.

And then when Party B profits handsomely in part by its unlawful collusion in keeping Party A down, what each side is making becomes relevant.

[Fatty McGee]

Nobody is forcing them to be a part of college athletics. But they do need some extra stipends.
I worked for a company that made millions & I helped them do it. But I agreed to my salary when I took the job.

And if you were truly valuable in making those millions, you could have gone to a competitor for a higher salary or your employer could have given you more in recognition of your efforts and value.  The players can't do that, which is why comparisons to the real world don't make sense, and in fact undercut the argument they shouldn't be allowed into the free market.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

[sickboy]

It's a silly argument. In this country, if you are working for a company (generating profits), you get paid. Students generate no income for the universities... football players generate millions on top of millions. That's a cut and dry conversation.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

And if you were truly valuable in making those millions, you could have gone to a competitor for a higher salary or your employer could have given you more in recognition of your efforts and value.  The players can't do that, which is why comparisons to the real world don't make sense, and in fact undercut the argument they shouldn't be allowed into the free market.

How do you know I wasn't rewarded for my efforts? For the record, I was.
Yes, the players can absolutley do that...it's called the NFL. Why people think a college education has no value is beyond me. But again, these guys know the terms of the deal when they sign up. Don't agree to a deal and then gripe about it afterwards. If you don't like it, choose another path.

[B501]

Answer me this, where are these destitute student athletes getting their "tatt" money?

bartering autographs

[Fatty McGee]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

So because some of them wouldn't have gotten in to college they should all get screwed over?  He wasn't complaining about being "inconvenienced" by practice, he was simply pointing out the FACT that their lives are nothing like the non-athletes college experience, and so to compare them to regular students makes little sense.

If those other students are paying for their education with loans or such that's their problem.  They lack a gift a college is willing to give a scholarship for, a fan is willing to watch, a television network wants to televise, and an advertiser wants to be associated with.  That's not an argument for not giving someone the college IS willing to give a scholarship for something.

[cc]

The other thousands of students that pay for the education generate most of the money for the schools.  If it's not for the average student then there are no colleges or universities.  No one shows up for the Chem II finals but the paying students pay the bills.  If the players do not like it then they can try to get an academic ride to pay for college or go to work and class or get a loan.  The money that Sherman got in tuition, room, board, etc from Stanford has to be more than $100,000 per year.  Not counting the coaching, weight training, etc. he received that has helped him become a multimillionaire. 

It's ashame that multimillionaires are complaining that they were victimized by the system.  Don't play if you don't like it. 

[Fatty McGee]

How do you know I wasn't rewarded for my efforts? For the record, I was.
Yes, the players can absolutley do that...it's called the NFL. Why people think a college education has no value is beyond me. But again, these guys know the terms of the deal when they sign up. Don't agree to a deal and then gripe about it afterwards. If you don't like it, choose another path.

I'm glad you were rewarded for your efforts.  You should be.  All of us who believe in the free market think you should be.

Because you know the terms of the deal doesn't mean that it's legal.  Saying "choose another path" doesn't make it legal either.  If everyone in your industry conspired to pay everyone in your particular job the same salary, and prevent you from transferring to a competitor for more, that wouldn't mean it was legal.  Oh, and they can't go to the NFL, because the NCAA and NFL have colluded to prevent that for a time - the NFL even enforces NCAA penalties. 

[Fatty McGee]

The other thousands of students that pay for the education generate most of the money for the schools.  If it's not for the average student then there are no colleges or universities.  No one shows up for the Chem II finals but the paying students pay the bills.  If the players do not like it then they can try to get an academic ride to pay for college or go to work and class or get a loan.  The money that Sherman got in tuition, room, board, etc from Stanford has to be more than $100,000 per year.  Not counting the coaching, weight training, etc. he received that has helped him become a multimillionaire. 

It's ashame that multimillionaires are complaining that they were victimized by the system.  Don't play if you don't like it. 

Why are so many of you such socialists on this issue?  When did so many Americans decide to throw out the free market?  None of you would tolerate that in your own fields.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

I'm glad you were rewarded for your efforts.  You should be.  All of us who believe in the free market think you should be.

Because you know the terms of the deal doesn't mean that it's legal.  Saying "choose another path" doesn't make it legal either.  If everyone in your industry conspired to pay everyone in your particular job the same salary, and prevent you from transferring to a competitor for more, that wouldn't mean it was legal.  Oh, and they can't go to the NFL, because the NCAA and NFL have colluded to prevent that for a time - the NFL even enforces NCAA penalties. 

They aren't being paid the same salary. The value of a college education is not the same for every school. Do you think Sherman's degree from Stanford has the same value as a degree from UAB?

[Smokehouse]

It's a silly argument. In this country, if you are working for a company (generating profits), you get paid. Students generate no income for the universities... football players generate millions on top of millions. That's a cut and dry conversation.

False. Student academic performance is a big draw for federal grants. Academic presidents and boards view tuition as the #1 source of income. Both of those feed into endowments and at the majority of schools their endowments will earn more in interest every year than the athletic department.

I myself working with a single professor am in the process of generating a $700,000 grant from NSF, of which OU will pocket the majority of it, and that's one of the smallest grants you'll see since I work in the social sciences and not a hard science.

Athletics makes money (at some universities), but far and away the largest revenue generated at universities come from academic programs.

[Smokehouse]

So because some of them wouldn't have gotten in to college they should all get screwed over?  He wasn't complaining about being "inconvenienced" by practice, he was simply pointing out the FACT that their lives are nothing like the non-athletes college experience, and so to compare them to regular students makes little sense.

If those other students are paying for their education with loans or such that's their problem.  They lack a gift a college is willing to give a scholarship for, a fan is willing to watch, a television network wants to televise, and an advertiser wants to be associated with.  That's not an argument for not giving someone the college IS willing to give a scholarship for something.

False. The biggest indicator for whether a student is awarded a scholarship? The income level of their family. Plenty of students out there provide tons of value to the university and take on huge loans for the privilege, simply the system is really poor at identifying the standouts and rewarding them for it. But the alternative is not going to college. We're much better at identifying and rewarding athletes, because the public is entertained by them.

Athletes do more physical work than other students. Doesn't mean they do more work in general, or better work. And they get more benefits than the majority of students.

[Fatty McGee]

They aren't being paid the same salary. The value of a college education is not the same for every school. Do you think Sherman's degree from Stanford has the same value as a degree from UAB?

Well if you want to make a distinction between Power Five conferences and the rest that's fine.  Those are essentially going to be the same value, and the NCAA is already making the distinction.

I don't know what the value is, particularly given tuition inflation, but the cost to the school is about the same.  And remember, the schools aren't offering an education with a scholarship.  They're offering a 1 year opportunity to attend classes that don't conflict with the practice obligations.

[Smokehouse]

Why are so many of you such socialists on this issue?  When did so many Americans decide to throw out the free market?  None of you would tolerate that in your own fields.

Whether you like the system or not, there's nothing socialist about it. I say this with a bachelor's and master's degree in political science.

[Fatty McGee]

False. The biggest indicator for whether a student is awarded a scholarship? The income level of their family. Plenty of students out there provide tons of value to the university and take on huge loans for the privilege, simply the system is really poor at identifying the standouts and rewarding them for it. But the alternative is not going to college. We're much better at identifying and rewarding athletes, because the public is entertained by them.

Well that's a complaint with the system then, isn't it?  I'm no defender of the way higher education is funded.  It's a totally false inflationary scheme funded by convincing people to borrow too much at artificially low interest rates underwritten by the taxpayer.

Athletes do more physical work than other students. Doesn't mean they do more work in general, or better work. And they get more benefits than the majority of students.

So?  They also put more at risk than other students.  A potential injury they will live with for the rest of their lives.  The risk of CTE resulting in depression and even suicide increased far beyond that of any other student.

Regardless though, none of that justifies the socialism of the NCAA model.

[Fatty McGee]

Whether you like the system or not, there's nothing socialist about it. I say this with a bachelor's and master's degree in political science.

That's fine.  With your degrees then, what do you call a system where all of the labor is paid the same regardless of talent?  While there is no cap on the earnings of any of the management or any other party profiting off the labor?  And where the labor cannot even collectively bargain for a better return?  And where management colludes with other potential employers to cap that return?  Not to mention all the restrictions on transfer.

If there's a better term, please let me know and I'll be glad to use it.

[Smokehouse]

That's fine.  With your degrees then, what do you call a system where all of the labor is paid the same regardless of talent?  While there is no cap on the earnings of any of the management or any other party profiting off the labor?  And where the labor cannot even collectively bargain for a better return?  And where management colludes with other potential employers to cap that return?  Not to mention all the restrictions on transfer.

If there's a better term, please let me know and I'll be glad to use it.

None of what you just described is specifically a socialist system. It could apply to a wide variety of systems. Capitalists don't like collective bargaining any more than socialists. Socialism has many variations but generally it is a principle of state ownership of equity and a controlled economy where the central government attempts to maximize economic efficiency by controlling output. This is an incredibly simplistic discussion of socialism and you can find entire books on the subject. I think socialism is crap and am a tried and true capitalist, but in this case you're just using socialism as sort of a colloquial term for "bad practices."

The NCAA is not a central government, therefore it can't by definition execute a socialist system even if it wanted to. Because athletes are considered students and not employees, they're under the regulation of laws like the Education Amendments of 1972 (where you find Title IX) rather than labor laws. If athletes really want to become employees they'll regret it. Now that I'm a graduate assistant my stipend is considered income instead of a scholarship. Because of that I move from receiving a tax refund to paying the IRS, I only get paid 9 months out of the year when school is in session (with half pay-checks in December and August), and I pay the equivalent of 3 months salary in fees not covered by my tuition waiver. I'd much, much rather be receiving a scholarship and operating under those limitations than keep getting paid. 

Even if the NCAA had to consider athletes employees, it would likely practice as a recognized exception to antitrust laws (as most sports enjoy, though some recent court rulings are partially reversing this). The Chicago school of economists (about the most free market fellows you can find) would likely be fine with universities limiting payment to scholarships/room and board/training/free exposure (which is all worth a lot, totaled) because they feel the only government interference in a truly capitalist system should occur when the benefits to the consumer are being artificially reduced. Any schools are free to break away from the NCAA and make their own football league and compensate athletes however they wish. Many economists would easily label this situation as the free market at work.

The only thing I find demonstrably wrong with the current system is that athletes can't make their own money with third parties through sponsorship and the like. Students are free to go out and find third-party grants, athletes should be too.

[Smokehouse]

Well that's a complaint with the system then, isn't it?  I'm no defender of the way higher education is funded.  It's a totally false inflationary scheme funded by convincing people to borrow too much at artificially low interest rates underwritten by the taxpayer.

It is a fault with the system, but I bring it up because you used the fact that they don't receive scholarships and have to take out loans as proof that they provide no value. My point is just that they often do provide just as much value but don't receive the benefit because we have a better system in place for athletes than non-athletes for identifying value.

(I won't open the can of worms that is the university system as a whole, but I do agree it is deeply flawed).

So?  They also put more at risk than other students.  A potential injury they will live with for the rest of their lives.  The risk of CTE resulting in depression and even suicide increased far beyond that of any other student.

A risk that is entirely voluntary, and for which they are rewarded at a greater level than all but the very top academic scholarship. It's not just tuition and room and board, but free athletic training, free coaching, free exposure for the NFL, free on-campus services like tutoring that go way above what other students get (and is subsidized by athletic fees built into all students tuition, even ones who can't use these services). Now that athletic scholarships are going to be guaranteed for four years at P5 schools the guaranteed value of them is far and away better than the average student on an academic schollie.

[Fatty McGee]

So what would you call this system?  Certainly not capitalism.  I appreciate your insight, so perhaps we can come up with something else?

Some athletes may regret becoming employees, and some may not.  Depends on the salary they negotiate.  It also would depend on whether they get injured, which might allow them better benefits in terms of workers' comp.

The NCAA might operate with an exception to anti-trust laws, BUT they would have to allow the players to unionize in order to do so. 

As far as it being a free market for the schools, I totally agree.  And for the coaches, administrators, bowl execs, etc.  As to what UC might call the players' situation, who knows.  I have a hard time believing they would consider it a free market.  Why would the schools break away at this point?  Financially it makes little sense for them.

The only thing you find demonstrably wrong with the current system is that they can't make their own money elsewhere?  While I agree that is a problem, don't you find it to be also demonstrably wrong that while a coach can transfer at any time, a player cannot?  How about that a scholarship is revocable at will for no reason whatsoever?  How about the disparate bargaining power of the talent and the management, enforced by collusion among management?

[Fatty McGee]

It is a fault with the system, but I bring it up because you used the fact that they don't receive scholarships and have to take out loans as proof that they provide no value. My point is just that they often do provide just as much value but don't receive the benefit because we have a better system in place for athletes than non-athletes for identifying value.

Did I say "no value"?  If I did, my mistake.  I mean they don't provide as much value, specifically in terms of marketing and profit generation to the university, as the players do.  Please don't come in with "athletic departments don't make money" here - it doesn't fly.

A risk that is entirely voluntary, and for which they are rewarded at a greater level than all but the very top academic scholarship.

No they're not.  The top academic scholarship can be a four year scholarship.  That person can transfer freely to another school.  And most importantly, that person doesn't risk CTE.

It's not just tuition and room and board, but free athletic training, free coaching, free exposure for the NFL, free on-campus services like tutoring that go way above what other students get (and is subsidized by athletic fees built into all students tuition, even ones who can't use these services). Now that athletic scholarships are going to be guaranteed for four years at P5 schools the guaranteed value of them is far and away better than the average student on an academic schollie.

I will agree that the 4 year scholarship is a HUGE improvement, although I'll wait until I see the fine print to go too overboard.  Still, with all we're learning about the risks (which they now undertake knowing them) I'm not going to say it's better than the best academic scholarship.

[Smokehouse]

So what would you call this system?  Certainly not capitalism.  I appreciate your insight, so perhaps we can come up with something else?

Some athletes may regret becoming employees, and some may not.  Depends on the salary they negotiate.  It also would depend on whether they get injured, which might allow them better benefits in terms of workers' comp.

The NCAA might operate with an exception to anti-trust laws, BUT they would have to allow the players to unionize in order to do so. 

As far as it being a free market for the schools, I totally agree.  And for the coaches, administrators, bowl execs, etc.  As to what UC might call the players' situation, who knows.  I have a hard time believing they would consider it a free market.  Why would the schools break away at this point?  Financially it makes little sense for them.

The only thing you find demonstrably wrong with the current system is that they can't make their own money elsewhere?  While I agree that is a problem, don't you find it to be also demonstrably wrong that while a coach can transfer at any time, a player cannot?  How about that a scholarship is revocable at will for no reason whatsoever?  How about the disparate bargaining power of the talent and the management, enforced by collusion among management?

I'd say it's just a business operating outside of antitrust laws (technically the NCAA and most universities are considered nonprofit organizations, but this is obviously a vary dubious distinction for the NCAA and many colleges) even if it isn't recognized as such. I can't think of a "ism" for it, so to speak. The debate is then whether they should be allowed to operate like this.

I only bring up the UC school of thought because, as I said, they think the only interference that should occur in a free market is when the the benefits to the consumer are being artificially reduced (well, and in some instances of the production of goods being artificially limited to alter demand, but the NCAA isn't canceling games to boost demand so that's irrelevant to the point). In this case, the consumers get the same product regardless so many free market economists would say it's up to the athletes to find another entity other than the NCAA to represent them if they don't like the NCAA policies. Just pointing out that there are disagreements even over what constitutes a free market or an antitrust violation.

As for the other things you mentioned, no, I don't find them terribly wrong. Coaches sign non-compete clauses all the time that limit where they can transfer, and even if the new school often covers it there is a punishment for changing jobs paid by someone, that the school tacitly agreed to at some point. Athletes know the deal when they sign the LOI (and when was the last time an athlete was denied a transfer, other than to direct conference competitors?) Most academic scholarships don't transfer if you change schools, that's the risk you run. And they can no longer be revoked at P5 schools, at least. But, again, many academic scholarships have to be reapplied for every year. You know going into it if the scholarship covers your entire program or not. I signed a three year contract even though I was entering into a minimum four year doctoral program trusting that my work would earn me additional pay before the three years were up.

As for collusion among management, it's not collusion if they're all operating under the umbrella of the NCAA. Just like it's not collusion when the MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL owners all vote on a policy at the league level and then enforce it throughout the league. It'd only be collusion if they openly claimed they'd pay disparate scholarships but privately agreed on a set rate. Or if the minority on any decision were free to just not enforce the newly enacted rule.

[Smokehouse]

Did I say "no value"?  If I did, my mistake.  I mean they don't provide as much value, specifically in terms of marketing and profit generation to the university, as the players do.  Please don't come in with "athletic departments don't make money" here - it doesn't fly.

I never said athletics don't generate money. But see my post above before our conversation started. Academics are the primary revenue driver for universities, with maybe the rare exception being a handful of really dominant, national athletic brands (even then, I highly doubt it.) If I had more time I'd cross reference the IPEDS database to get school finances and available information on athletic profits to see exactly how many universities make more money on athletics than academics (but as far as I know, you'd have to individually compile each year of the athletic information from various Forbes articles). But I know just from working frequently with university revenue figures and looking at athletic department profits that it'd be only the very top athletic departments pulling it off.

No they're not.  The top academic scholarship can be a four year scholarship.  That person can transfer freely to another school.  And most importantly, that person doesn't risk CTE.

I will agree that the 4 year scholarship is a HUGE improvement, although I'll wait until I see the fine print to go too overboard.  Still, with all we're learning about the risks (which they now undertake knowing them) I'm not going to say it's better than the best academic scholarship.

In the post you're responding too I admitted the top academic scholarships are likely better. My point was that on average, an athlete gets a better package than a non-athlete.

And, again, the risks are voluntary. People work as Alaskan fisherman or on oil rigs in countries that hate Americans or whatever dangerous job you can think of knowing full well that there are dangers, but also that they get paid more on average than other, less dangerous jobs.

[Fatty McGee]

The comparisons to pro sports fail because the tradeoff for the exemption is the players union. That's prohibited for college athletes. I have further thoughts but not when typing on phone. And I think the Kessler suit will make this all moot.

Athletes are denied transfers regularly. A bball player from St Joe's was denied just last year.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Honest question about free market.  Aren't the players free not to enter into a contract (scholarship) with a university?  I admittedly haven't thought about this matter much, but these individuals can opt not to get screwed by these athletic departments.

Now, I do agree that if the scholarship is a 1 year term, then the athlete should be able to transfer freely if the university elects not to renew the scholarship.  Of course, I suppose the 1 year deal is about to go away, which favors the athlete...and programs like ours.

[Smokehouse]

The comparisons to pro sports fail because the tradeoff for the exemption is the players union. That's prohibited for college athletes. I have further thoughts but not when typing on phone. And I think the Kessler suit will make this all moot.

Athletes are denied transfers regularly. A bball player from St Joe's was denied just last year.

We've monopolized this thread at this point anyway

And probably taken it a bit off subject. One can debate athletes schedules vs. non-athletes and the adequacy of athletic scholarships without some of this, even if it is germane.

[Smokehouse]

Honest question about free market.  Aren't the players free not to enter into a contract (scholarship) with a university?  I admittedly haven't thought about this matter much, but these individuals can opt not to get screwed by these athletic departments.

Now, I do agree that if the scholarship is a 1 year term, then the athlete should be able to transfer freely if the university elects not to renew the scholarship.  Of course, I suppose the 1 year deal is about to go away, which favors the athlete...and programs like ours.

Depends on how you define a lot of things. There isn't exactly a cut-and-dry definition for a "free market," just some generally agreed upon concepts. Really comes down to whether you consider university athletic departments to be illegally colluding to reduce wages (if you even consider athletes to be receiving a "wage"), or if you consider them to be acting under the NCAA as a corporation that dominates the market because of allowable practices (namely, earning rights as an early-mover in investing in college athletics, rather than somehow artificially creating a monopoly).

Even discussing the fact that athletes can choose to sign or not with a school is open to debate. Some would argue the consumer is the most important when discussing a free market (making the choices available to an athlete largely irrelevant), others would argue the labor force is as important or more important (making it possible to argue that monopolizing job opportunities in a field is a market failure).

All of that is to say, there is very much room for debate in anything economics, haha.

[Hogsooey]

Collegiate athletics is in bizzaro economic land. The redistribution of wealth is rampant. Schools do it with one another. Schools do it themselves with their athletes. A football player at Bama can get what I might call a taxpayer subsidy in the form of a Pell Grant when Bama's athletic department is running a surplus and can afford to pay that. Competition is limited from outsiders. Sure, I could go and try to start my own league, but no way for me to compete in theirs. Things that are seen as capitalistic ideals by many, like improving your situation monetarily through hard and valuable work are limited. However, many coaches and athletic departments try to keep making more and more money each year, which I completely understand. The wild world of college athletics.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

It only matters when Party B colludes to keep Party A from maximizing their value.  You need not put one down to boost the other, you need only remove the artificial caps on competition and the free market and then everyone wins.

And then when Party B profits handsomely in part by its unlawful collusion in keeping Party A down, what each side is making becomes relevant.

While I'm not surprised, my point was lost.

[Rocky Mountain Living]

It only matters when Party B colludes to keep Party A from maximizing their value.  You need not put one down to boost the other, you need only remove the artificial caps on competition and the free market and then everyone wins.

And then when Party B profits handsomely in part by its unlawful collusion in keeping Party A down, what each side is making becomes relevant.

BOOM!  Fatty!

Awesome response on explaining a complex (gray) situation to a black and white, simple minded person.

Thx for your response Fatty

[Rocky Mountain Living]

While I'm not surprised, my point was lost.

you have a kindergarten-like point....(though those points are well received here...simple black and white logic)

I think we should let them market decide what a student athlete's time is worth....

[clutch]

I think if they are paid, universities should drop their scholarships and they should be required to pay their own way. Student athletes live better than 90% of the other students. A very few select players draw big money, but they are rare. They already receive completely free educations, which most of them don't care about, and tons do additional benefits your average student would have to come out of pocket for. Add in the fact that most programs just really don't make as much money as we all like to think and you have a disaster for college athletics. Just think, there's even big programs such as Tennessee that have had years where they lost money on their athletic programs.

[Inhogswetrust]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12249290/richard-sherman-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa

Totally agree with this. I can't imagine how student athletes balance class/practice/games etc. Especially, basketball with all the travel for 4 months of the year.

But then again, there is not much about the NCAA that I do like.

Both are undervaluing the degree they are able to obtain. Especially Sherman since his is from Stanford. I would think he would be smarter than that but I guess not everyone from Stanford is.

[Professor Psychosis]

I'm not interested in reading or hearing anything Sherman says.

Couldn't be happier his team lost.

[Inhogswetrust]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

Some........but I wouldn't say most. Especially since there are many other ways to pay for a college education just like those loans you mention.

[Inhogswetrust]

In my opinion, the networks, ncaa and the universities are all making big, big money on the backs of 18 year old kids.  There is no balance.

Does the minimum wage earner always deserve more if their company makes big, big money? As a customer how much are you willing to pay for a Quarter pounder meal?

[Inhogswetrust]

Answer me this, where are these destitute student athletes getting their "tatt" money?

That is the big question.......................

[Inhogswetrust]

False. Student academic performance is a big draw for federal grants. Academic presidents and boards view tuition as the #1 source of income. Both of those feed into endowments and at the majority of schools their endowments will earn more in interest every year than the athletic department.

I myself working with a single professor am in the process of generating a $700,000 grant from NSF, of which OU will pocket the majority of it, and that's one of the smallest grants you'll see since I work in the social sciences and not a hard science.

Athletics makes money (at some universities), but far and away the largest revenue generated at universities come from academic programs.

When more people understand that they might change their mind about how colleges operate. It's amazing to me how some people and fans think the tail wags the dog...................

[Fatty McGee]

Does the minimum wage earner always deserve more if their company makes big, big money? As a customer how much are you willing to pay for a Quarter pounder meal?

No one is suggesting they do. But they can also leave McDonald's any time for another quarter an hour at Burger King and it would be illegal for McDonald's and BK to agree to set their pay.

[Fatty McGee]

Both are undervaluing the degree they are able to obtain. Especially Sherman since his is from Stanford. I would think he would be smarter than that but I guess not everyone from Stanford is.

He's not undervaluing it at all. Read what he said.

[YankHog]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12249290/richard-sherman-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa

Totally agree with this. I can't imagine how student athletes balance class/practice/games etc. Especially, basketball with all the travel for 4 months of the year.

But then again, there is not much about the NCAA that I do like.

Cry me a frickin' river, college is an educational institution that these athletes use to get into the pros.  It provides them free room, board, tuition AND the stage they need, if their skills are high enough, to achieve more wealth than any Medical school, law school or business school student  could ever hope to achieve.  And that is done on the backs of the tax payers so yes they get enough and don't need additional stipends.   Talk to the student who falls in the gray area whose parents aren't rich enough to pay for college but make too much money to be given financial aid, the ones working two jobs and going to school full time, try that and then talk about how hard playing a sport is, and it is easy to schedule a full load from 7-2, hell you can do that and only go to school three days a week.   Although I do believe they should be allowed to go straight to the pros if they have the talent, save the scholarship for someone who actually wants an eduction.   My two cents...

[rickm1976]

Cry me a river!  Big babies.  If it weren't for athletic scholarships most of them wouldn't have been able to go to college anyway.  Sherman complains that regular students can do whatever they want after classes and athletes can't.  Guess what Sherm, they're paying for their education with money from loans etc. and they can do whatever they please. Sorry you were inconvienced by practice. Athletes  pay for school with their time and athletic ability.  Period. Sorry life wasn't easier for you those 3-5 years Mr Millionaire!

My son went through college on a "full-ride" football scholarship.  My youngest daughter went through college on a "full-ride" academic scholarship.  She had plenty of free time for study and whatever and to work a part time job to help cover everything the scholarship didn't.  He had virtually no free time except for study.  I'm proud to say both graduated with honors because they worked their butts off.  I saw first hand what both academic AND athletic scholarship athletes go through, and there is a lot of validity in what was said in the article.

Oh by the way, exactly what kind of kids are you talking about when you say they probably couldn't have gone to college without an athletic scholarship?

Also, my middle daughter went through the same way I did - with student loans and working part time jobs, so I guess I've seen more examples first hand than most.

[YankHog]

Cry me a frickin' river, college is an educational institution that these athletes use to get into the pros.  It provides them free room, board, tuition AND the stage they need, if their skills are high enough, to achieve more wealth than any Medical school, law school or business school student  could ever hope to achieve.  And that is done on the backs of the tax payers so yes they get enough and don't need additional stipends.   Talk to the student who falls in the gray area whose parents aren't rich enough to pay for college but make too much money to be given financial aid, the ones working two jobs and going to school full time, try that and then talk about how hard playing a sport is, and it is easy to schedule a full load from 7-2, hell you can do that and only go to school three days a week.   Although I do believe they should be allowed to go straight to the pros if they have the talent, save the scholarship for someone who actually wants an eduction.   My two cents...

WOW that was a rant, sorry, touchy subject from one who did work two jobs in college with a baby, and who paid for two of their kids to go to the UA (other was a rebel and went a Minnesota school).