Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,147
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 79
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #161
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance.

Um, I don't think any conference or schools would rather go back to the pre-1984 days of a couple of games on TV each weekend and the non-existent payouts of that era. I would bet 99% of all schools will gladly accept attendance falling to 1997 levels or worse to have the exposure and money of today's TV, and surely fans prefer it as well.

I mean, the schools could go back to the old NCAA-dominant regime any time they want to. None want to.

The money is too dam good..
02-22-2020 04:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,345
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 853
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #162
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly--nobody ever touched on any of unintended ramifications of eliminating all caps on college athletics. That said---is it really that hard to see a fairly decent number of schools, unable to compete---dropping down---vastly cutting back on sports or dropping them altogether in a free agent environment? One need not envision a virtual Armageddon end of all college athletics to see a serious reduction in athletic scholarship opportunities could occur if free agency was instituted.

Maybe it's just that others either (a) don't share your speculations on the ramifications of free agency, or (b) don't think the rights of student X should be suppressed in order to benefit student Y?

Concerning (a), think about it: First, there is good reason to think few schools would drop down or abandon athletics. It might happen, yes, but it is by no means certain or close to it. Why? Because schools have, sadly IMO, proven remarkably resilient in clinging to football specifically and athletics generally that *already* is an uncompetitive financial disaster. Just look at all the FBS schools that run athletic programs, and football in particular, where operating revenues are only about 30% to 50% of operating costs, such that they soak their students or the academic side for fees and transfers to make it up, and with not only no apology but with bristling defenses about the "value of athletics"? Is having to pay players really going to push them over the edge? Not likely, especially when the cost of the typical player is unlikely to be more, and may well be less, than the current value of a scholarship.

Also, I think it just as likely that free agency will help the "have nots" as it will hurt them. As IIRC Tank once said, under the current football regime, his Illinois has to compete with Michigan and Ohio State for players on essentially one basis - the status and prestige of the program. And that's as impossible a game for Illinois to win as it is for USF or UCF to compete for 160 IQ kids with Harvard and Yale. But, allow Illinois to compete using money to pay players, and that could change the calculus significantly. And not just for P5. Schools like USF and Houston and UCF churn out thousands of new alumni every year. All it takes is one of them to become a Bloomberg or Pickens with money to burn and suddenly they might be able to out-bid even some P5 for better players. Or even without a Bill Gates they could pool their resources, collect $100 each from those hundreds of thousands, and create a big fund to buy players.

As for (b) that's a moral question and one I think has to be readily answered in favor of the high-market value students. It is no more right to take away the economic rights of a Joe Burrow just because that might mean 10 soccer players lose their scholarships any more than a new car company running lean with 10,000 employees but an innovative, better product should be shut down by the government because it might mean that 100,000 employees at existing firms lose their jobs because of the competition.

IOW's, the 'ramifications' of free agency are by no means obvious, nor is it clear that those ramifications create problems that government should fix.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020 10:28 AM by quo vadis.)
02-22-2020 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #163
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I do agree with Attackcoog on payments. If the costs go up, many schools will drop sports. Especially the non-rev sports, that are actually played by serious students. Lots of men's sports got dropped when Title IX came in.

Pay for play means even more distortion of the academic side to help the football and basketball players. Reality is that basketball players do have an alternative. Almost every one of the one and dones thinks being in a college program for a year is more valuable for them than playing pro in a minor league or Europe.

And then we do get strikes and things like that as they are employees and even bigger prima donnas than some are now. That will seriously turn off fans. Baseball used to be my favorite sport to follow, but after the strike that cancelled the World Series, I lost interest.
02-22-2020 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,192
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #164
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-22-2020 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  I do agree with Attackcoog on payments. If the costs go up, many schools will drop sports. Especially the non-rev sports, that are actually played by serious students. Lots of men's sports got dropped when Title IX came in.

Pay for play means even more distortion of the academic side to help the football and basketball players. Reality is that basketball players do have an alternative. Almost every one of the one and dones thinks being in a college program for a year is more valuable for them than playing pro in a minor league or Europe.

And then we do get strikes and things like that as they are employees and even bigger prima donnas than some are now. That will seriously turn off fans. Baseball used to be my favorite sport to follow, but after the strike that cancelled the World Series, I lost interest.

It’s always the unintended consequences. For instance, Title 9 means you’ll need to pay the women on a scale similar to the men. While Quo says schools will just keep on poring more and more money into the program—-I don’t think that’s true, Idaho moved down. UAB nearly shut down. Many men’s programs were shut down in cost savings moves required for Title 9 women’s programs. Multiple schools have culled sports to cut costs. Some states have moved to legislate a cap for student fees (meaning there is no avenue to get more athletics money for some schools). Heck---some schools will shut it down simply because they are adamant about not wanting to deal with student athletes as employees.

Furthermore, is the sport lose legitimacy if Tillman Fertita can simply buy Houston a title. I mean I’d be excited if my team won—but even I would have to admit it wouldn’t mean nearly as much as winning a national title under the current rules. Will people continue to watch if they know a couple of billionaires are deciding who wins like its WWF wrestling? Will fans of teams with no billionaire booster stop watching——preferring to invest themselves in a different sport that is not so predetermined and is more unpredictable?

With respect to Quos concern about Joe Burroughs—-we limit the Joe Burroughs every day. Every pro league has a salary cap of some kind. Yes, a union negotiated those caps—-but they are still caps. Furthermore—-not a single rookie drafted and playing under a rookie scale deal had any input into the NLF or MLB agreements (nor did they get to vote on it).

Assuming free agency hit---in order to make this league work you will need a college union in order to negotiate a cap that can make the sport competitive enough to keep folks interested. The union will need to include all womens sports as well (as Title 9 will probably require the pay to be equal). That means there will be an immediate issue in the union because Joe Burrough is still getting screwed over to pay a womens rower who probably has no actual economic value). With unions your going to get strikes, cancelled games, perhaps even cancelled seasons or championships, holdouts, and contract disputes. So yes, there will be many universities that will want absolutely no part of that and will drop sports.

Just seems to me that this is borderline unconstitutional. How can the government say you cant have a amateur league? It seems a real stretch that anti-trust law written to prevent robber barons from charging the public $70 a gallon for gas---can be used as a club to dismember a money losing amateur league that doesnt cost the public a cent.

Is the argument the free market must be allowed to flourish? In the current "free market" literally millions of high school athletes are aggressively competing for the 50,000 or so FBS athletic scholarship opportunities. Seems to me the "labor" market participants are fine with the compensation. If it wasnt, the schools would have few applicants to choose from. I'd also add that about 20% of each FBS football roster (walk ons) are receiving NO compensation what so ever. They just do it because they enjoy it that much. So---it clearly sounds like a purely enjoyable recreational pursuit requiring no compensation at all for a significant portion of the participants.

Alston is focusing only on a handful of kids that are highly sought after by multiple schools---but are ignoring the fact that the entire membership of the NCAA is more than willing to completely forgo the services of these high value players in favor of alternatives willing to play within the NCAA's defined amateur compensation parameters. Hard for me to understand how the schools can be forced to have a pro league if they dont want one. Since when did the government start making investors invest in money losing ventures? Well---Title 9 was the first---now its possible the Alston case may do the same. It’s clear to me that the NCAA is probably in violation of antitrust law—but I do wonder if the law might be challenged on constitutional basis in this application. It was applied to amateur sports in the 84' Oklahoma Board of Regents case---but you can reasonably argue the public gained access to more games at a cheaper price. How exactly does the public gain from the creation of a free agent pay-for-play pro league that greatly reduces the supply of all college sports (which likely will increase costs to the consumer)?

This one has lots of interesting angles in my opinion.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020 05:20 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-22-2020 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.