Crowder & Hayward to HOF

[Marcus92]

Here's a hot take from a recent article by the Courier Journal, and several areas I have issues with this argument:

"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor, and I've felt like maybe it's time where we've reached a place to right this wrong," said Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina, author of the Student-Athlete Equity Act.

"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image. And 99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any type of growth and networking. It just doesn't make any sense."

That's the best case this guy can make? And he's a professional lawmaker? Let's try to unpack this "logic" a bit at a time.

"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor"
For one, the NCAA doesn't profit off of anything. The NCAA is not a public or private business. It doesn't have an owner or shareholders. It's a nonprofit organization that regulates student-athletes from more than 1,000 colleges and universities.

The NCAA exists for the benefit of its members -- which includes the nearly 500,000 students who compete in intercollegiate athletics. It's mission is "to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

The "unpaid labor" argument has already been covered in depth. But to recap -- while athletes are not directly compensated financially for what they contribute to member institutions, this statement implies that athletes receive nothing of value in return.

USA Today estimates that a men's basketball scholarship is worth $120,000 a year (see link below). This includes: tuition, additional financial assistance, coaching, private basketball training facilities, shoes, uniforms and equipment, academic counseling, media relations and publicity, medical insurance premiums, complimentary game tickets, plus the value of a college degree toward future earnings.

The term "labor" also implies that men's college basketball is a job. It's not. It's a game. One so popular that people pay a lot of money to watch it. But it's still a game. That's why they're called "players," not "workers" or "employees."

"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image"
This one sounds kind of persuasive at first. But so what? A men's basketball scholarship is a legal contract. Do all legal contracts have the same exact terms? Of course not.

The expectations for an athletic scholarship and other scholarships are simply different. Some scholarships, for example, may require the recipient to work for a particular employer for a specified period of time (such as the Army or Navy) -- signing over their rights to pursue other employment opportunities.

As long as both parties are aware of the terms beforehand and enter into the contract willingly, I'm okay with that. And nothing is stopping players from leaving their scholarship (breaking the contract) at any point.

"99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any kind of growth and networking"
This sounds like complete BS to me. Men's basketball players receive tremendous exposure within the business and local community -- through fundraisers, booster clubs, events, service opportunities, not to mention hours of national exposure before, during and after games. Plus, those interested in pursuing a career in sports other than playing (such as sports broadcasting or coaching) have a clear leg up.

I'm glad the NCAA is looking at the issue. Fairness and looking out for players' interests are worthwhile goals. Perhaps there's a middle ground. Maybe the market will win out.

Already, players have more opportunities than they used to -- as seen by the growing number jumping directly from high school to the G League or overseas. I just wish there were a lot less hyperbole and more real discussion.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm

[TheyWereCones]

Here's a hot take from a recent article by the Courier Journal, and several areas I have issues with this argument:

"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor, and I've felt like maybe it's time where we've reached a place to right this wrong," said Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina, author of the Student-Athlete Equity Act.

"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image. And 99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any type of growth and networking. It just doesn't make any sense."

Let's try to unpack this "logic" a bit at a time.

"Profiting on the backs of unpaid labor"
For one, the NCAA doesn't profit off of anything. The NCAA is not a public or private business. It doesn't have an owner or shareholders. It's a nonprofit organization that regulates student-athletes from more than 1,000 colleges and universities.

The NCAA exists for the benefit of its members -- which includes the nearly 500,000 students who compete in intercollegiate athletics. It's mission to "to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

The "unpaid labor" argument has already been covered in depth. But to recap -- while athletes are not directly compensated financially for what they contribute to member institutions, this statement implies that athletes receive nothing of value in return.

USA Today estimates that a men's basketball scholarship is worth $120,000 a year (see link below). This includes: tuition, additional financial assistance, coaching, private basketball training facilities, shoes, uniforms and equipment, academic counseling, media relations and publicity, medical insurance premiums, complimentary game tickets, plus the value of a college degree toward future earnings.

The term "labor" also implies that men's college basketball is a job. It's not. It's a game. One so popular that people pay a lot of money to watch it. But it's still a game. That's why they're called "players," not "workers" or "employees."

"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image"
This one sounds kind of persuasive at first. But so what? A men's basketball scholarship is a legal contract. Do all legal contracts have the same exact terms? Of course not.

The expectations for an athletic scholarship and other scholarships are simply different. Some scholarships, for example, may require the recipient to work for a particular employer for a specified period of time (such as the Army or Navy) -- signing over their rights to pursue other employment opportunities.

As long as both parties are aware of the terms beforehand and enter into the contract willingly, I'm okay with that. And nothing is stopping players from leaving their scholarship (breaking the contract) at any point.

"99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any kind of growth and networking"
This sounds like complete BS to me. Men's basketball players receive tremendous exposure within the business and local community -- through fundraisers, booster clubs, events, service opportunities, not to mention hours of national exposure before, during and after games. Plus, those interested in pursuing a career in sports other than playing (such as sports broadcasting or coaching) have a clear leg up.

I'm glad the NCAA is looking at the issue. Fairness and looking out for players' interest are worthwhile goals. Perhaps there's a middle ground. Maybe the market will win out.

Already, players have more opportunities than they used to -- as seen by the growing number jumping directly from high school to the G League or overseas. I just wish there were a lot less hyperbole and more real discussion.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm

Thank you for taking the time to unpack this.  I completely agree.  I keep saying it's a consensual relationship.  No one is forcing them to agree to the terms.  They can pursue literally anything else in life and even other basketball avenues if they don't like it.  Just like I entered into a consensual relationship with my employer which comes with tons of rules as well.  Have you ever read the fine print of the employee contract you signed?  You aren't free to do anything you want outside of work.  But you agree to it because it's worth it.  If it's not, do something else.

[TheyWereCones]

I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.

How is big government imposing its will?  It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up.  Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.

Let's take Uber.  I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber.  Should we have made more rules against cabs?  Force them to accept credit cards?  Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least?  Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry?  No.  Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue.  Enter Uber and Lyft.  Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.

So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization?  No.  If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it.  I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully.  If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup.  Either way, let the free market decide.

[brewcity77]

And the market will be driven by large schools, with deep pockets that will further the imbalance even more.  So in this new world Brew, what team are you going to follow since Marquette and schools like it will slowly disappear from the landscape...purely a numbers game.

WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.

[The Sultan]

Thank you for taking the time to unpack this.  I completely agree.  I keep saying it's a consensual relationship.  No one is forcing them to agree to the terms.  They can pursue literally anything else in life and even other basketball avenues if they don't like it.  Just like I entered into a consensual relationship with my employer which comes with tons of rules as well.  Have you ever read the fine print of the employee contract you signed?  You aren't free to do anything you want outside of work.  But you agree to it because it's worth it.  If it's not, do something else.

And I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, there are significant differences between an employee contract and an NCAA scholarship agreement.  Your employer would be sued if they collaborated with other employers to keep the level of your compensation set at a specific amount.  This is exactly what an athletic scholarship is.  It is a set level of compensation that doesn't allow the recipient to bargain against other offers.  So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.

So please stop with the poor analogies.

[The Sultan]

WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.

I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage.  It may even out the landscape more than people think.

[brewcity77]

I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage.  It may even out the landscape more than people think.

Agreed. Anyone acting like Marquette doesn't have a billionaire booster who has stated one of his goals is to help MU win another national championship is either wrong or ill informed.

[Cheeks]

WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.

All you are doing is making a problem even worse.  No one is going to die, the consolidation of power will become even greater with those with the most resources...the 1% that you champion in life will become even stronger.

[Cheeks]

I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage.  It may even out the landscape more than people think.

It's a pure numbers game.  Scale. 

[TheyWereCones]

It is a set level of compensation that doesn't allow the recipient to bargain against other offers.  So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.

Umm...you literally make a statement and then contradict yourself in the next sentence.  "While they do have other options..."  Exactly, they have other options.  If this option is so terrible, especially against all other available options, why do so many do it?  What part about no one is forcing anyone to do any of this don't you get?

[Lennys Tap]

How is big government imposing its will?  It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up.  Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.

Let's take Uber.  I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber.  Should we have made more rules against cabs?  Force them to accept credit cards?  Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least?  Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry?  No.  Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue.  Enter Uber and Lyft.  Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.

So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization?  No.  If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it.  I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully.  If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup.  Either way, let the free market decide.

Cones

Superbly stated.

[The Sultan]

Umm...you literally make a statement and then contradict yourself in the next sentence.  "While they do have other options..."  Exactly, they have other options.  If this option is so terrible, especially against all other available options, why do so many do it?  What part about no one is forcing anyone to do any of this don't you get?

No.  My point is that a cartel of universities have established set levels of compensation.  You may think that's fine, but your comparisons to the labor market are nonsensical because such an arrangement in the labor market would be illegal.

[The Sultan]

How is big government imposing its will?  It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up.  Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.

Actually we are advocating for less rules and regulations.

Let's take Uber.  I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber.  Should we have made more rules against cabs?  Force them to accept credit cards?  Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least?  Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry?  No.  Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue.  Enter Uber and Lyft.  Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.

So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization?  No.  If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it.  I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully.  If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup.  Either way, let the free market decide.

The market isn't "free" at all.  The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option.  It shouldn't be viewed that way.  If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.

[TheyWereCones]

No.  My point is that a cartel of universities have established set levels of compensation.

I think you forgot the word illegal?  Why not advocate for better enforcement of the rules in place?

[TheyWereCones]

Actually we are advocating for less rules and regulations.



The market isn't "free" at all.  The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option.  It shouldn't be viewed that way.  If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.

Ok, let me rephrase.  You are advocating to force an organization to change its rules.  If it's so bad the way it is, I'd rather see other forms of competition for the talent.

How is it not a free market?  Who is forcing anyone to receive 6-figure annual compensation to play college basketball?

[The Sultan]

Ok, let me rephrase.  You are advocating to force an organization to change its rules. 

I am not advocating for anything of the sort.  I think they should change their rules, but I don't believe they should have be forced to change by the government.  PR pressure?  Sure.  If a court judgement goes against them?  Fine. 

How is it not a free market?  Who is forcing anyone to receive 6-figure annual compensation to play college basketball?

I have explained this.  Prospects can't go from one school to another to shop for the best offer.  Like you can when you participate in the workforce.

I think you forgot the word illegal?  Why not advocate for better enforcement of the rules in place?

Because I don't like their rules.

[Pakuni]

The market isn't "free" at all.  The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option.  It shouldn't be viewed that way.  If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.

Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.

[The Sultan]

Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.

"It's like the labor market."

Except if you are a widget maker, and all the major widget makers across the country got together to set your salary level, and your only other option was to get a job overseas, that would be illegal.

How free market minded people can use these principals to defend the NCAA is bizarre to me.

[MU82]

It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.

This.

I respect the way Cones is trying to make his point, and I understand what he's saying. I just disagree that it is valid in this application

[Nukem2]

Let's all agree to disagree.  Back to Hayward and Crowder.

[Shooter McGavin]

Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.

It is from a broad perspective one entity.  They are "free" to go play wherever they want.  They want to play in college because they are well compensated.

[real chili 83]

Have they re-opened the kitchen at Nicky's Lionhead yet after the fire?

[Lennys Tap]

Let's all agree to disagree.  Back to Hayward and Crowder.

+1. Most of the opinions on the topic have been well thought out and presented. No new ground to plow. Probably no minds to change (except maybe mine - I've found arguments from both sides compelling).

[TheyWereCones]

I have explained this.  Prospects can't go from one school to another to shop for the best offer.  Like you can when you participate in the workforce.

I'll agree with the recent posts that this thread has been pretty much exhausted.  So I will try really hard to make this my last post about this.  What is said above is 100% incorrect.  That's EXACTLY what prospects do.  Hello?  We have an entire recruiting thread that talks about what MU has to offer recruits compared to everyone else.  Recruits get 5 official visits.  What for if they can't go to each school to figure out what the best offer is?  You may be only focusing on one aspect of the "offer."  You can't be serious that every school is offering the same exact vanilla ice cream, or else Kentucky would get the same caliber of recruits as Hampton.  Do you think a degree from Stanford is worth the same as a degree from Montana?  Each student athlete gets to consider the education, facilities, coaching, teammates, opportunities for visibility, alumni connections, accessories (shoes, etc.), geography, probability for success, playing time, etc. etc.

So here we come full circle again where I get really annoyed how people act like there is no choice or compensation involved in any of this.  Like the NCAA runs some monopoly on basketball.  They don't own the basketball market.  They rule college basketball, just like Pringles rules the market on Pringles.  You want Doritos?  Go play overseas.  You want Cheetos?  Go to the g-league.  On top of that, there are over 350 flavors of Pringles to choose from in D1 alone.

In closing, I believe we should all acknowledge that each player is receiving roughly a 6-figure compensation annually in tuition and incentives (yes, it varies but I'm saying on average).  I believe that if they don't want to play college ball and by those rules, then they don't have to.  I believe that the NBA should not limit players from trying to go pro immediately.  I believe that adding the ability for a tiny percentage of college players to essentially profit significantly more than everyone else would decrease parity and turn college basketball into a less talented version of the NBA.  I like it the way it is.  I'd welcome competition to its model, and if that competition succeeds, then the market will have spoken.  I am not a fan of anyone interested in forcing college basketball to change the current model.

At least for the most part this has been civil, so that's good (and refreshing).  There are people on both sides who will have to agree to disagree.  Cheers.

[TheyWereCones]

So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.

Then why is it the best option?  Why wouldn't every single other option that exists where the "likeness" price ceiling restriction isn't in place be a better option if it's so lucrative?  It would seem madness that these players would sign up to play college basketball, throwing away all that money that they could get otherwise.

For example, why didn't Zion go and play in Italy for a year?  He could have been playing basketball full time, not worrying about schoolwork, making a salary, and profiting off his likeness.  He must be nuts.

Sorry.  I said I was done.  Now I'm hopefully done.