[washingtonismoney]

Well, as long as we're having radical thoughts...

It seems to me that you can't countenance not paying the players--they generate so much more value than they create, in service of an ideal that was first conceived with Victorian gentlemen in mind. And, as you ably make the case, the practicalities of paying the players make it difficult to pay them, too.* It seems to me the only way to square the circle is to not have college sports at all.

* Well, there is one way of not putting them on the college's payroll and pay them: allow the players money from endorsements, as Olympic athletes are.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, as long as we're having radical thoughts...

It seems to me that you can't countenance not paying the players--they generate so much more value than they create, in service of an ideal that was first conceived with Victorian gentlemen in mind. And, as you ably make the case, the practicalities of paying the players make it difficult to pay them, too.* It seems to me the only way to square the circle is to not have college sports at all.

* Well, there is one way of not putting them on the college's payroll and pay them: allow the players money from endorsements, as Olympic athletes are.

[mark3k]

This is obviously a very complex issue, but at the risk of grossly over-simplifying, I don't think the proponents of "pay for play" at the college level have really thought about how such a system would ultimately play out, even if they managed to deal with the issues that Garvin raised: ultimately, even the most popular college sports would devolve into second-rate developmental leagues (unless they somehow get the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. to cede their status as the top-notch/top-dollar playgrounds).  Once you've abandoned the "glory and pride" of amateur regional/alumni affiliations, the relative appeal of college sports would plummet, and become subordinate to "the best that money can buy" (and the top bidders would no longer be Stanford, UCB, or even the UTs/tOSUs/USCs of the world... when they'd have to compete directly with the wallets of the Cowboys, Yankees and Knicks). 

As it stands, many folks prefer to cheer for their alma mater and/or local team, as much or more so than their nearest professional franchise, in large part because there is a personal attachment to amateur athletes who aren't just free-agent/carpet-bagging mercenaries.  In exchange for deferring professional compensation (outside of the SEC, etc.!) those student athletes received valuable scholarships, and a benefit/opportunity that's often just as valuable: an admissions letter that they probably never would have received in many cases (unfortunately, far too many of them waste that opportunity).  They also get to be idolized by fellow-students, while actually benefiting from that life-experience, to at least some degree.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that, as college sports have already become more commercialized and tainted (from an amateur/pro perspective), TV ratings for high school sports and even Little League have started to skyrocket?!?  Do you think people (aside from parents) would really care about the 49th best football team in Northern California, if it were all just a free-for-all?  How competitive were the Montreal Expos as they played this game against the New York Yankees (even with some forced revenue-sharing, table-leveling draft rules, etc.)?  It's absurd, IMHO, to think that Fresno State would end up with even a half-decent team that their current fans would really support, if they competed in a true free-agent market for (arbitrarily age-based?) players who never even pretended to attend classes, etc.

The fact is that most of these "exploited" athletes would never rise to a level of athletic distinction such that they would ever make as much as they get from their scholarship anyway, for exactly that reason (the rich -- i.e., the top pro level of each sport -- would get richer, and everyone else would struggle to scrape-by, without the benefit of this CHANCE to get an education, while they pursue that lottery-like dream).  Because it's marginal revenue that drives marginal cost decisions, and very few individual players actually drive the bulk of marginal revenues in sports, very few athletes would actually be worth any real premium.  How does the compensation of the last player on the Yankees' roster compare to that of CC Sabathia?  Same thing in the NFL, professional soccer, golf, tennis... you name it!  Just today, 4 Stanford walk-ons were given scholarships worth roughly $50K each (tax-free!) for playing a somewhat seasonal game that's fun.  Do you think that would be the case if they were scouted/ranked as the 1738th-1741st best 20-year-old football players in a free market system?

Be careful what you wish for, young men!  :(

[mark3k]

This is obviously a very complex issue, but at the risk of grossly over-simplifying, I don't think the proponents of "pay for play" at the college level have really thought about how such a system would ultimately play out, even if they managed to deal with the issues that Garvin raised: ultimately, even the most popular college sports would devolve into second-rate developmental leagues (unless they somehow get the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. to cede their status as the top-notch/top-dollar playgrounds).  Once you've abandoned the "glory and pride" of amateur regional/alumni affiliations, the relative appeal of college sports would plummet, and become subordinate to "the best that money can buy" (and the top bidders would no longer be Stanford, UCB, or even the UTs/tOSUs/USCs of the world... when they'd have to compete directly with the wallets of the Cowboys, Yankees and Knicks). 

As it stands, many folks prefer to cheer for their alma mater and/or local team, as much or more so than their nearest professional franchise, in large part because there is a personal attachment to amateur athletes who aren't just free-agent/carpet-bagging mercenaries.  In exchange for deferring professional compensation (outside of the SEC, etc.!) those student athletes received valuable scholarships, and a benefit/opportunity that's often just as valuable: an admissions letter that they probably never would have received in many cases (unfortunately, far too many of them waste that opportunity).  They also get to be idolized by fellow-students, while actually benefiting from that life-experience, to at least some degree.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that, as college sports have already become more commercialized and tainted (from an amateur/pro perspective), TV ratings for high school sports and even Little League have started to skyrocket?!?  Do you think people (aside from parents) would really care about the 49th best football team in Northern California, if it were all just a free-for-all?  How competitive were the Montreal Expos as they played this game against the New York Yankees (even with some forced revenue-sharing, table-leveling draft rules, etc.)?  It's absurd, IMHO, to think that Fresno State would end up with even a half-decent team that their current fans would really support, if they competed in a true free-agent market for (arbitrarily age-based?) players who never even pretended to attend classes, etc.

The fact is that most of these "exploited" athletes would never rise to a level of athletic distinction such that they would ever make as much as they get from their scholarship anyway, for exactly that reason (the rich -- i.e., the top pro level of each sport -- would get richer, and everyone else would struggle to scrape-by, without the benefit of this CHANCE to get an education, while they pursue that lottery-like dream).  Because it's marginal revenue that drives marginal cost decisions, and very few individual players actually drive the bulk of marginal revenues in sports, very few athletes would actually be worth any real premium.  How does the compensation of the last player on the Yankees' roster compare to that of CC Sabathia?  Same thing in the NFL, professional soccer, golf, tennis... you name it!  Just today, 4 Stanford walk-ons were given scholarships worth roughly $50K each (tax-free!) for playing a somewhat seasonal game that's fun.  Do you think that would be the case if they were scouted/ranked as the 1738th-1741st best 20-year-old football players in a free market system?

Be careful what you wish for, young men!  :(