[teejers1]

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

[THIS IS A NO-BRAINER, AND NO ONE OPPOSES EXTINGUISHING THIS MISCONDUCT]

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

RESPONSE:  You assume that the resource generation comes from the athletes for their individual performances.  I submit that the name on the front of the jersey is far more responsible for the revenue generated than the individual player wearing the uni.  But even though I believe that, I'll grant you that's its likely that some increment of that "generated value" may be attributable to exceptional performers (i..e, more people will pay to see Andrew Luck as opposed to Keller Chryst . . . the same probably holds for coaches, too).   So the question is, should those athletes be compensated for that incremental value, or should it just be "part of the deal" of playing college ball in a revenue generating sport?  I obviously think the latter.  But I also want to give athletes choice.  Thus, if $$ is what drives them then go play D-League ball and get paid and forego college].

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

RESPONSE:  NFL D-League would show these athletes what their "true value" is in our economy, and I'm pretty sure for the overwhelming number of them, that amount is less than the benefits of college (room, board, tuition, academic assistance, and all the other intangible benefits of attending college that they would not enjoy but for their sports-playing abilities).  But by all means, give them choice.  And that's where an NFL D-League comes into play (already have it for MLB and NBA).

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.


RESPONSE:  It's no doubt a net-bad for non-revenue sports and their athletes.  But again, not one you need to deal with if those choosing college do so knowing full well that this is "part of the deal."

One last add: I'm not opposed to some moderate stipend for all athletes - if it can be distributed equally and in compliance with Title IX. Of course, even that would lead to dropped sports, etc.

[teejers1]

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

[THIS IS A NO-BRAINER, AND NO ONE OPPOSES EXTINGUISHING THIS MISCONDUCT]

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

RESPONSE:  You assume that the resource generation comes from the athletes for their individual performances.  I submit that the name on the front of the jersey is far more responsible for the revenue generated than the individual player wearing the uni.  But even though I believe that, I'll grant you that's its likely that some increment of that "generated value" may be attributable to exceptional performers (i..e, more people will pay to see Andrew Luck as opposed to Keller Chryst . . . the same probably holds for coaches, too).   So the question is, should those athletes be compensated for that incremental value, or should it just be "part of the deal" of playing college ball in a revenue generating sport?  I obviously think the latter.  But I also want to give athletes choice.  Thus, if $$ is what drives them then go play D-League ball and get paid and forego college].

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

RESPONSE:  NFL D-League would show these athletes what their "true value" is in our economy, and I'm pretty sure for the overwhelming number of them, that amount is less than the benefits of college (room, board, tuition, academic assistance, and all the other intangible benefits of attending college that they would not enjoy but for their sports-playing abilities).  But by all means, give them choice.  And that's where an NFL D-League comes into play (already have it for MLB and NBA).

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.


RESPONSE:  It's no doubt a net-bad for non-revenue sports and their athletes.  But again, not one you need to deal with if those choosing college do so knowing full well that this is "part of the deal."

One last add: I'm not opposed to some moderate stipend for all athletes - if it can be distributed equally and in compliance with Title IX. Of course, even that would lead to dropped sports, etc.