Okay, we're getting somewhere. I'll try to answer y'all's questions, too.
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.
You are correct that most athletic departments don't make money. The problem is that the football and men's basketball teams usually are profitable. The profits are drained paying for other line items in the departments' budgets. As for the experience issue, I would disagree, but even still it doesn't preclude paying players. It's a big deal at some schools, but a college experience at, say, Princeton is not less valuable because they don't play big time athletics. Lastly, if it isn't a job, can they be fired for not attending practice? If so, that sounds an awful lot like a job to me.
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.
I agree that the purpose, in general, is to educate. The issue I have is that, contrary to what you're saying, the athletes are specifically being "compensated" for their athletic participation, otherwise all students would have full ride scholarships. And if a university said they weren't, I'd have to work hard to contain my laugher. Why else would they recruit so hard? As for ensuring a fairer field of play, and this gets to ClydeBrick's point, if athletes are paid and Michigan or Texas or Bama have the advantage, how is that any different than what we have now? We all talk openly about the factory schools, because they get all the best players. Hell, over the past ten years, a grand total of 11 schools have played in the playoff/BCS title game (Texas, USC, Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, Auburn, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida State). It's the same schools every year. As long as the 25/85 rule is in place, nothing changes. Lastly, when I say that calling them amateurs is circular, this is what I mean - you said they can't be paid because they're amateurs, but they're amateurs because they aren't getting paid. Certainly, the coaches are making tons of money, the schools are raking in television money, and the players can be fired for poor performance. The only thing amateur about the entire enterprise is that the kids are not paid.
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.
I guess you and I disagree. I don't see the current system as promoting parity at all. In football, it's the same 15-18 schools that compete at the top level every year. We can name them all - Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, Auburn, USC, Texas, Notre Dame, Georgia, LSU, etc. Same thing in hoops - it's Kansas, Carolina, Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, UConn, Michigan State, Indiana, etc. Even if a team rises up every now then - say Baylor or Butler or, hell, Georgia Tech - they can't sustain it. Allowing players to get paid might actually entice a player to come to a different school, like Tech. Maybe we take a swing at a 5'10" 190 pound kid who likes FSU and Bama as a corner, but can run like the wind and would look super sweet in a #5 jersey. Who knows. But paying players won't change the fact that certain schools will get the best players every year. It just requires more creativity from everyone else. If Tampa can compete in the AL East, we can hang in the FBS.
