[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14318.msg152066#msg152066 date=1452382516]
I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free

( plus great training, facilities, etc).

Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.

I agree with you completely, if you are referring to D3 athletes.  I largely agree with you with respect to D2 athletes.  I agree with you with respect to D1 athletes in non-revenue sports.  I disagree with you wholeheartedly with respect to D1 football players.

The average football player invests the equivalent of a full time job for most of the year (same for many of the non revenue athletes at Stanford, incidentally).  And I agree with you that a scholarship is not insubstantial.  At the same time, the money in NCAA football is staggering, both legitimate revenue and illegitimate revenue, and an amazing amount goes to the schools, the non revenue sports and the coaching staffs.  But under the current system, you can't tell whether the NCAA is stealing their labor on the surface or not, because all revenue and athletic programs tend to get blended.

Let me put it another way.  I think of NCAA football as the old Soviet system.  Everyone gets the same thing (a scholarship).  Maybe some of the working class had slightly better benefits.  I recall Vasily Alexeev, the old gold-medal winning weightlifter, who bragged that he had a truck to use whenever he wanted (I saw it on video, looked like a mid-1950s Ford).  The apparatchiks (coaches) and the Communist party members (NCAA) raked it in.  The extra money?  A thriving black market, similar to the way that SEC schools compensate their players, off the books and under the table.  A state-dictated system has therefore given rise to an athletic black market in America.

So let me ask you this.  Let's say that players were compensated like coaches or teachers, that there was an open bidding system, where there were no restrictions on compensation, and schools could offer scholarships and stipends at any level they wanted through employment contracts, with no restrictions on moving between schools.  Do you think players would be satisfied with scholarships and fees only?  Or would they go where they were offered the most?  I think we know the answer to that question.
[/quote]

This is a good discussion. I think your last paragraph is the most important one and I will give a quick response but also give it more thought. My quick response is that in the free market for college football athletes that you describe, I dont think I would be attending games or donating to the Buck/Cardinal Club or watching much on TV.  I am interested in college football, and especially Stanford football, because the players are amateurs, they have a commitment to my school, and because (at least as to Stanford) I respect how they comport themselves. So if college football went to the free market system you describe, yes many players would go to whomever pays them the most, but the question is how would that affect the fans, and the overall appeal of the sport. As I mentioned above, minor league sports in baseball and basketball have not attracted big revenue or high compensation and to my knowledge those are free markets. So maybe football would be different and minor league quality teams would still attract large crowds and big revenue and allow for big compensation, but that is far from clear to me. I suspect that the basketball D league has on average better talent than almost all college basketball teams, but the college basketball teams  outdraw the D league, because I think most fans find something very special about supporting an "amateur", and that fan interest would decline noticeably if college football became a free market. And if that was the case, there would be a lot less money available to pay the players. So in short, the question is whether turning college players into professionals would kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14318.msg152066#msg152066 date=1452382516]
I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free

( plus great training, facilities, etc).

Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.

I agree with you completely, if you are referring to D3 athletes.  I largely agree with you with respect to D2 athletes.  I agree with you with respect to D1 athletes in non-revenue sports.  I disagree with you wholeheartedly with respect to D1 football players.

The average football player invests the equivalent of a full time job for most of the year (same for many of the non revenue athletes at Stanford, incidentally).  And I agree with you that a scholarship is not insubstantial.  At the same time, the money in NCAA football is staggering, both legitimate revenue and illegitimate revenue, and an amazing amount goes to the schools, the non revenue sports and the coaching staffs.  But under the current system, you can't tell whether the NCAA is stealing their labor on the surface or not, because all revenue and athletic programs tend to get blended.

Let me put it another way.  I think of NCAA football as the old Soviet system.  Everyone gets the same thing (a scholarship).  Maybe some of the working class had slightly better benefits.  I recall Vasily Alexeev, the old gold-medal winning weightlifter, who bragged that he had a truck to use whenever he wanted (I saw it on video, looked like a mid-1950s Ford).  The apparatchiks (coaches) and the Communist party members (NCAA) raked it in.  The extra money?  A thriving black market, similar to the way that SEC schools compensate their players, off the books and under the table.  A state-dictated system has therefore given rise to an athletic black market in America.

So let me ask you this.  Let's say that players were compensated like coaches or teachers, that there was an open bidding system, where there were no restrictions on compensation, and schools could offer scholarships and stipends at any level they wanted through employment contracts, with no restrictions on moving between schools.  Do you think players would be satisfied with scholarships and fees only?  Or would they go where they were offered the most?  I think we know the answer to that question.
[/quote]

This is a good discussion. I think your last paragraph is the most important one and I will give a quick response but also give it more thought. My quick response is that in the free market for college football athletes that you describe, I dont think I would be attending games or donating to the Buck/Cardinal Club or watching much on TV.  I am interested in college football, and especially Stanford football, because the players are amateurs, they have a commitment to my school, and because (at least as to Stanford) I respect how they comport themselves. So if college football went to the free market system you describe, yes many players would go to whomever pays them the most, but the question is how would that affect the fans, and the overall appeal of the sport. As I mentioned above, minor league sports in baseball and basketball have not attracted big revenue or high compensation and to my knowledge those are free markets. So maybe football would be different and minor league quality teams would still attract large crowds and big revenue and allow for big compensation, but that is far from clear to me. I suspect that the basketball D league has on average better talent than almost all college basketball teams, but the college basketball teams  outdraw the D league, because I think most fans find something very special about supporting an "amateur", and that fan interest would decline noticeably if college football became a free market. And if that was the case, there would be a lot less money available to pay the players. So in short, the question is whether turning college players into professionals would kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.