ACC’s record revenue surpasses $300 million

[JorgeJonas]

The crux of your argument Jorge is the stipulation players are employees. A court may rule that is the case eventually. Will be a ridiculous ruling if it occurs but those happen more and more frequently nowadays.

No, it doesn't matter whether they're employees or not. What matters is whether there's a restraint of trade. If AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all decided to charge the exact same fees for the exact same service, it's a restraint of trade. Then a court would consider whether that promotes competition more than it stifles it. Similarly, employment status is entirely irrelevant to the NCAA's behavior. Irrespective of industry, if competing entities agree to something, there is a restraint of trade.

Employment status would be important in a discussion about whether or not a union could be certified, but that's not happening here (the Northwestern case has nothing to do with antitrust law; instead if that union is certified, they would negotiate with Northwestern University, not the NCAA).

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

SAs earning a degree is not trade.

 

[ClydeBrick]

No one puts these kind of restrictions on a CS major who got a full ride, so if you want to argue that it's all about education then how about treating athletes the same way the other 99% of scholarship students get treated.

Some non-athletic scholarships have restrictions on them - you want free money to go to school, you do (or don't do) what the scholarship requires or you loose the scholarship.

If a non-athletic scholarship is provided directly by GT, the recipient generally works for GT in some fashion (like GTRI). If said student happens to invent a water-burning engine or cold-fusion, does the student reap the financial reward or GTRI?

 

[JorgeJonas]

Competing for athletes services isn't trade? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Some non-athletic scholarships have restrictions on them - you want free money to go to school, you do (or don't do) what the scholarship requires or you loose the scholarship.

This is exactly true, and it's not an issue because there's no agreement (that I'm aware of) between schools that says the other school competing for that student can't offer them more.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Just keep a close eye on the NLRB case pending now. There's a whole thread about the very issues being discussed here

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Pretty sure we have agreed to disagree from the get go Jorge.

Fwiw different schools will be giving different amounts of stipends determined by cost of living. But you either fail to realize, or don't care, what a monetary bidding war would do to amateur college athletics. Which isn't a trade unless you get your way and SAs get the salaries and benefits you champion.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Just keep a close eye on the NLRB case pending now. There's a whole thread about the very issues being discussed here

There are two cases. There's the Northwestern case concerning unionization of Northwestern athletes (which I believe is currently being appealed), but there's also the Kessler lawsuit filed in New Jersey, and that's the one that's going for the jugular.

 

[OldJacketFan]

There are two cases. There's the Northwestern case concerning unionization of Northwestern athletes (which I believe is currently being appealed), but there's also the Kessler lawsuit filed in New Jersey, and that's the one that's going for the jugular.

Yep, Kessler (Jenkins) is not as far along and is a singular (no class certification that I know of) case. The NW case has already been ruled on (in favor of the SAs) and now going to the full NLRB. It should have a final ruling first but I agree the Jenkins case could be much more explosive to the complete face of collegiate athletics!

 

[forensicbuzz]

The bottom line here is that the athletes are never going to get "real" money. The second that happens, athletic scholarships will be a think of the past. The model will change and the student-athletes will suffer. The money isn't there to support the budgets of the AA's and pay players. Most schools are supplementarily funded by the Universities to get back to even. There are definitely programs that could support this, but the majorigy of Universities couldn't. That would create a competitive advantage to larger schools with more money to spend.

Your analogy regarding the cell phone providers falls short because the universities are part of an association that governs the athletic practices and sets the guidelines for participation (NCAA, NAIA, etc.). They aren't colluding to control costs by not compensating amateur athletes, they've created the rules to keep the playing field level. College golf and tennis players participate in professional events but are not allowed to be compensated for their achievement, even though they may outperform professionals who are receiving compensation. That's the choice they make to participate at the amateur level. If the players want to get paid, they should turn professional. If they want to participate at the college level, then they understand that they may not have to "pay" for their education, but they're not going to be compensated for their participation in athletics.

To me their beef is with the NFL. The NFL has "colluded" with the Players' Association to prevent athletes less than three years removed from high school from competing at that professional level.

When they start paying college players, I stop watching college football.

 

[AE 87]

No, it doesn't matter whether they're employees or not. What matters is whether there's a restraint of trade. If AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all decided to charge the exact same fees for the exact same service, it's a restraint of trade. Then a court would consider whether that promotes competition more than it stifles it. Similarly, employment status is entirely irrelevant to the NCAA's behavior. Irrespective of industry, if competing entities agree to something, there is a restraint of trade.

Employment status would be important in a discussion about whether or not a union could be certified, but that's not happening here (the Northwestern case has nothing to do with antitrust law; instead if that union is certified, they would negotiate with Northwestern University, not the NCAA).

Could you connect the dots on this analogy with ncaa athletics?

 

[JorgeJonas]

Could you connect the dots on this analogy with ncaa athletics?

Sure. Competing organizations - cell phone carriers competing for customers or colleges competing for athletes - colluding to restrict the options of another are restraining trade. In our world, it's either fixing prices of phone plans or fixing compensation to athletes.

Your analogy regarding the cell phone providers falls short because the universities are part of an association that governs the athletic practices and sets the guidelines for participation (NCAA, NAIA, etc.). They aren't colluding to control costs by not compensating amateur athletes, they've created the rules to keep the playing field level.

This is actually entirely the issue. They have collectively agreed what they will "pay" for talent. Whether it's leveling the playing field in games is irrelevant (and just by looking at the participants in the national title game/playoff over the past decade, it has had virtually no effect). The issue is whether it makes the market for players, not on the field, more competitive. If the schools had ended up giving scholarships independently of one another (because that's all their budget could bear, or because that's all the players were worth) there would be no issue at all. It is the existence of the rules in place that are precisely what is causing the litigation.

I believe that as long as the 25/85 rule is in place, nothing will change if players get paid (not even necessarily by a school, but perhaps by a booster or through endorsements). Ironically, the 25/85 rule seems like it restricts access to education, which opponents of athlete pay say is the most important thing.

 

[Skeptic]

I have to say guys, that the arguments on all sides are well reasoned and thought out. Now maybe it is time to move on.

 

[AE 87]

Sure. Competing organizations - cell phone carriers competing for customers or colleges competing for athletes - colluding to restrict the options of another are restraining trade. In our world, it's either fixing prices of phone plans or fixing compensation to athletes.

Your analogy regarding the cell phone providers falls short because the universities are part of an association that governs the athletic practices and sets the guidelines for participation (NCAA, NAIA, etc.). They aren't colluding to control costs by not compensating amateur athletes, they've created the rules to keep the playing field level.

This is actually entirely the issue. They have collectively agreed what they will "pay" for talent. Whether it's leveling the playing field in games is irrelevant (and just by looking at the participants in the national title game/playoff over the past decade, it has had virtually no effect). The issue is whether it makes the market for players, not on the field, more competitive. If the schools had ended up giving scholarships independently of one another (because that's all their budget could bear, or because that's all the players were worth) there would be no issue at all. It is the existence of the rules in place that are precisely what is causing the litigation.

I believe that as long as the 25/85 rule is in place, nothing will change if players get paid (not even necessarily by a school, but perhaps by a booster or through endorsements). Ironically, the 25/85 rule seems like it restricts access to education, which opponents of athlete pay say is the most important thing.

So, in your analogy, a scholarship to GT is of the same value as a scholarship to West Virginia? LOL.

Btw, many markets have pricing guidelines, gasoline, auto repair, civil law etc. IIuc, they have these regulations to keep a big company from driving out competition and then controlling the market.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Agreed skeptic....and I'm Gone!

 

[JorgeJonas]

So, in your analogy, a scholarship to GT is of the same value as a scholarship to West Virginia? LOL.

Btw, many markets have pricing guidelines, gasoline, auto repair, civil law etc. IIuc, they have these regulations to keep a big company from driving out competition and then controlling the market.

Whether they have the same value is not the point; the point is choices. As for the others, I was unaware that there were pricing agreements between mechanics, gasoline companies, or law firms (I certainly don't have any with other law firms).

I've tried to answer every question, and perhaps you'll return the courtesy. Why do you oppose paying players (whether the payments come from the school, boosters, endorsements, etc.)? It can't be because they're amateurs, because that's circular, so there has to be a reason that's driving such fierce opposition. I really just want to know what it is.

 

[AE 87]

Whether they have the same value is not the point; the point is choices. As for the others, I was unaware that there were pricing agreements between mechanics, gasoline companies, or law firms (I certainly don't have any with other law firms).

I've tried to answer every question, and perhaps you'll return the courtesy. Why do you oppose paying players (whether the payments come from the school, boosters, endorsements, etc.)? It can't be because they're amateurs, because that's circular, so there has to be a reason that's driving such fierce opposition. I really just want to know what it is.

I'm against simplistic arguments that don't deal with the economic complexity of college athletics.

You can't stipulate a non existent business market as the baseline. Saying that university sports is amateur is not circular but the fact. It boggles the mind that you don't understand this. Universities do not support athletic programs as a money making proposition. Most don't make money. They do it as part of a developed tradition of identity and rivalry. Having sports teams has become part of the college experience. So, the question you're asking is why am I against college amateur sports becoming professional. My answer is that I don't think that's their job.

If college aged athletes want to start their own professional leagues, have at it. If they want to push a collegiate association to become one, I don't agree.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'll take a swipe at this...

colleges and universities are, first and foremost, institutions of higher learning. Their purpose is to educate. The people who attend these institutions are students. Many, not all, of these institutions provide opportunities for these students to participate in extracurricular activies (in this case athletics). In addition to the collegiality and commraderie gained through these extracurricular activities, the institution gains brand recognition, which helps to promote enrollment. Since the competition is intercollegiate, there is incentive to perform well. So, the institutions provide "scholarship" opportunities to potential students that may enhance the performance of these teams who may or may not have the resources to attend said institute. This scholarship may be in the form of tuition waivers, room and board, entrance requirement waivers, etc. or any combination thereof. As a means of governance and to ensure fair play, the institutions participating intercollegially joined an association that has the ability to institute regulations to ensure the playing field is level for all the institutions. Collegiate athletics is defined as amateur sports, so there is no compensation for the the participants. Their scholarship may be contingient on their participation, but the student is not required to be on scholarship to participate.

The point is you keep saying that the universities have colluded to keep the athletes from taking advantage of a fair market and by setting what they're willing to "pay" the athletes. That's where we diverge. To me, the athletes are not being compensated for their participation in athletics. Fans use the "scholarship" and "education" as an answer to others when discussing compensation, but that's not the answer from the universities. Ask them and they'll say the student-athletes are not being compensated for their athletic ability. They're being afforded the opportunity to attend the institution and participate in the athletic endeavor by a fund generated by boosters of the institution.

 

[ClydeBrick]

I've tried to answer every question, and perhaps you'll return the courtesy. Why do you oppose paying players (whether the payments come from the school, boosters, endorsements, etc.)? It can't be because they're amateurs, because that's circular, so there has to be a reason that's driving such fierce opposition. I really just want to know what it is.

I think that everyone who has posted against paying players has an answer to this question. My answer is that paying players market-based wages destroys the ability for some level of parity to exist within collegiate competition. Do I think that the players deserve some level of compensation? Maybe, but as William Munny said, "deserve's got nothing to do with it". I would rather that the money generated from CFB be spent on lowering the cost for all students to attend college (opposed to collegiate sports increasing that cost) than it being spent on insane coaching salaries and facilities that the rank and file students never get to see much less take advantage of.


The question that you have not answered is how will the "emerging market" for paid players work? How will college football look five years after Texas, Alabama, Ohi0 State, Michigan, Notre Dame and other huge programs with well-moneyed boosters and large markets (for advertising) start showering teenagers with cash?


The really sad thing is this; the real winners if we start paying collegiate athletes will be the agents who will represent them - sure some home-town high school heroes might make a few bucks for a few years before they "go pro in something other than sports" but a whole new class of sports agents will get to become fabulously wealthy on the backs of the teenage athletes who will still have to get day jobs when their pro-sports dream doesn't get realized. Make no mistake, the people funding the lawsuits are sharks circling the blood in the water that is the potential compensation for collegiate athletes.

 

[forensicbuzz]

...The question that you have not answered is how will the "emerging market" for paid players work? How will college football look five years after Texas, Alabama, Ohi0 State, Michigan, Notre Dame and other huge programs with well-moneyed boosters and large markets (for advertising) start showering teenagers with cash?....

To this point, I don't think he has to answer that question. If you concede that the students should get paid, then by setting an arbitrary number without collective bargaining, the institutions have created an unfair condition, i.e. a trust. Once you concede they have a right to compensation, then "how" is moot to the point that it "has" to be done, however.

My point is their not being compensated, period.

 

[Animal02]

Yes, I would actually because there are easily available public numbers. Apparently for $302M the ACC was able to finance well over 1,500 scholarships, and field hundreds of teams across a variety of sports playing thousands of games.

If we want to limit it to just football, it cost the ACC schools $178M for the 2011 season (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/)

Pay each player on a 65-man minor league roster $30k/year (a very hefty minor league salary) and that number goes to $202M.

But sure, a $9B/yr organization can't afford a minor league.

Comparing what college conferences generate as oppose what a professional minor league would generate is foolish and or ignorance. There would not be the TV dollars nor the attendance. You also forgot coaches salaries, staff, equipment etc etc. The costs would far exceed revenue and thus it would be cost prohibitive. Just because the NFl generates lot of revenue does not mean the would take on a huge money losing proposition.