The CardBoard
Slate article on paying athletes - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Slate article on paying athletes (/thread-11408.html)


Slate article on paying athletes - Mick - 01-16-2016

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/01/paying_college_athletes_a_point_by_point_evisceration_of_the_ridiculous.single.html

This was written by OSKR partner Andy Schwarz in 2014.  He's an expert witness who concentrates on antitrust and class actions across a wide variety of industries, including sports.  In it, he debunks four myths as to why college athletes should not be paid.

And here's a 2014 article on why college sports should be unionized.  I know that ship has partially sailed.  Pulled anchor at least.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/03/northwestern_football_players_allowed_to_unionize_how_labor_unions_can_save.html


Re: Slate article on paying athletes - Stymie - 01-17-2016

(01-16-2016, 08:35 PM)Mick link Wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/01/paying_college_athletes_a_point_by_point_evisceration_of_the_ridiculous.single.html

This was written by OSKR partner Andy Schwarz in 2014.  He's an expert witness who concentrates on antitrust and class actions across a wide variety of industries, including sports.  In it, he debunks four myths as to why college athletes should not be paid.

And here's a 2014 article on why college sports should be unionized.  I know that ship has partially sailed.  Pulled anchor at least.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/03/northwestern_football_players_allowed_to_unionize_how_labor_unions_can_save.html

Hard to disagree with the legalisms, but when I juxtapose adults' dry arguments with the wet pictures (on other threads here) of 17-19 year old members of the recruiting class of 2016, I wonder which system is "right" (i.e. best for the kids)?  Is it an MLB or FIFA model where kids sign up to play for money for a team in their teens (VERY early teens for FIFA), or is it a NCAA model which pretends that all athletes are students and vice versa, but also provides serious "in loco parentis" standards for these man/women children who not only play for our universities but also learn trades or professions in the process?

And, if we pay student/athletes at the college level, are payments for HS student (or even JHS/MS) athletes far behind?

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - winflop - 01-18-2016

Legalisms aside, if colleges are forced to pay student-athletes it will be the end of college athletics.

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - Stymie - 01-18-2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Feathers

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose......

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - BostonCard - 01-18-2016

I don't know that it will be the end of college football writ large, but I suspect it will be the end of college football for some schools, including, IMHO, Stanford.  I have a hard time believing that fans in most SEC or BigTen schools would care if athletes were paid or not (hell, they are paid in many schools, if not always above the table).  But in some places the administration wouldn't stand for paying college athletes and would just as soon drop the program as drop amateurism, with only muted disagreement from some fans.

I think the problem is that college football has all the trappings of a professional league, with outsized television contracts, coaches that are hired and fired for outrageous sums and outrageous expectations, facilities that rival many pro franchises, a schedule that places more emphasis on maximizing eyeballs and return on investment than athlete welfare, academics that are de-emphasized at most schools, and a constant push towards more.  With the one thing that distinguishes college from professional football being solely that the players aren't paid.  For me, I would want to see college football move away from an "all-but" professional model, with the University Presidents and AD's making athlete welfare the first and most important concern, above revenue, fan convenience, eyeballs, and, if it comes to it, winning, etc.  Otherwise, it is hard to argue against the players being paid.

BC

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - indiancardinal - 01-18-2016

(01-18-2016, 12:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think the problem is that college football has all the trappings of a professional league, with outsized television contracts, coaches that are hired and fired for outrageous sums and outrageous expectations, facilities that rival many pro franchises, a schedule that places more emphasis on maximizing eyeballs and return on investment than athlete welfare, academics that are de-emphasized at most schools, and a constant push towards more. 
BC

Might as well add private jets and helicopters for recruiting to your list of things that are wrong with college football.

Sorry don't know how to link to the recruiting thread where I learned this bit of news  today. Apparently private jets are par for the course and considered cost effective measures at the Factories. ???

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - fullmetal - 01-18-2016

The justifications for private jets (especially those possibly funded by plane-owning boosters) are very similar to the justifications of corporate jets for C-level executives.  Their time is just worth that much, and if the coaching staff can personally recruit 100 blue-chippers in a season versus 25, you bet that will pay dividends in roster talent, and that will lead to more wins, and maybe a New Year's Six bowl--and how much would that be worth?

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - winflop - 01-19-2016

(01-18-2016, 12:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I don't know that it will be the end of college football writ large, but I suspect it will be the end of college football for some schools, including, IMHO, Stanford.  I have a hard time believing that fans in most SEC or BigTen schools would care if athletes were paid or not (hell, they are paid in many schools, if not always above the table).  But in some places the administration wouldn't stand for paying college athletes and would just as soon drop the program as drop amateurism, with only muted disagreement from some fans.

I think the problem is that college football has all the trappings of a professional league, with outsized television contracts, coaches that are hired and fired for outrageous sums and outrageous expectations, facilities that rival many pro franchises, a schedule that places more emphasis on maximizing eyeballs and return on investment than athlete welfare, academics that are de-emphasized at most schools, and a constant push towards more.  With the one thing that distinguishes college from professional football being solely that the players aren't paid.  For me, I would want to see college football move away from an "all-but" professional model, with the University Presidents and AD's making athlete welfare the first and most important concern, above revenue, fan convenience, eyeballs, and, if it comes to it, winning, etc.  Otherwise, it is hard to argue against the players being paid.

BC

Actually, college football & men's basketball will be the two sports that survive in some form.  The casualties will be all the other sports because schools simply won't be able to afford the additional cost of those athletes.  Despite all the TV revenues from FB & MBB, most athletic departments are still not profitable.  Teams in so-called "olympic sports" cost just as much if not more than MBB.  Those are the one that will fold.

It's Econ 101 - the more something costs, the less of it there will be.

Re: Slate article on paying athletes - BostonCard - 01-19-2016

Well, Universities will still have to follow Title IX, which might be one legal argument against having to pay athletes, sinxe professional leagues are not bound by Title IX.

BC