Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
NCAA Tournament
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MtnWasp" data-source="post: 871767" data-attributes="member: 4110"><p>Umm, the post was supposed to be tongue in cheek for humor purposes.</p><p></p><p>But there are two distinct competitive models being employed by NCAA members right now. There is the semi-pro model embodied clearly by the SEC (and similar big-budget programs) and then there is the traditional student-athlete model to which GT is rigidly adhered. Thus all the chatter about a schism and pending fracture of the NCAA between the two factions. The basis of one is play in return for education, room and board. The other is pay for play. One is traditional where the medium exchange is education providing future societal value to the athlete, the other is market sharing pure capitalism where the medium of exchange is money. </p><p></p><p>As we are seeing, the semi-pro model is progressively more appealing to the top high school/AAU talent as time goes by (probably because of a declining putative cash value of an education. Part of that is a decades long stagnation of real wages, part is likely due to societal and economic instability creating pressure to cash in on value NOW). </p><p></p><p>There is a market and monetary value for these players and the players and their families seem more and more willing to cash-in on this value. This is seen with the under the table talent brokering networks revealed by the Federal Investigation or now with the over the table NIL. The competitive value of an education, even a superior one, at this time is not significant compared to the up-front cash value if the player has such a value on this market. </p><p></p><p>The TV money created a cash value for the athletes. That cash value created a disequilibrium (or, untapped market). The disequilibrium created a potential (anologous to an electrical potential). The potential created pressure to tap the market by the players who want their cut and the programs who use their money for competitive advantage to enlarge their share of the market. Like standing water trying to find cracks in the basement's foundation, the pressure results in various mechanisms to relieve the pressure (under the table brokering, NIL, etc). The mechanisms to relieve the disequilibrium are organic and inevitable. </p><p></p><p>But you think it makes sense that Duke is the exception, that their tradition and reputation are so great, that it overrides the cash market. Well, then ... okay.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MtnWasp, post: 871767, member: 4110"] Umm, the post was supposed to be tongue in cheek for humor purposes. But there are two distinct competitive models being employed by NCAA members right now. There is the semi-pro model embodied clearly by the SEC (and similar big-budget programs) and then there is the traditional student-athlete model to which GT is rigidly adhered. Thus all the chatter about a schism and pending fracture of the NCAA between the two factions. The basis of one is play in return for education, room and board. The other is pay for play. One is traditional where the medium exchange is education providing future societal value to the athlete, the other is market sharing pure capitalism where the medium of exchange is money. As we are seeing, the semi-pro model is progressively more appealing to the top high school/AAU talent as time goes by (probably because of a declining putative cash value of an education. Part of that is a decades long stagnation of real wages, part is likely due to societal and economic instability creating pressure to cash in on value NOW). There is a market and monetary value for these players and the players and their families seem more and more willing to cash-in on this value. This is seen with the under the table talent brokering networks revealed by the Federal Investigation or now with the over the table NIL. The competitive value of an education, even a superior one, at this time is not significant compared to the up-front cash value if the player has such a value on this market. The TV money created a cash value for the athletes. That cash value created a disequilibrium (or, untapped market). The disequilibrium created a potential (anologous to an electrical potential). The potential created pressure to tap the market by the players who want their cut and the programs who use their money for competitive advantage to enlarge their share of the market. Like standing water trying to find cracks in the basement's foundation, the pressure results in various mechanisms to relieve the pressure (under the table brokering, NIL, etc). The mechanisms to relieve the disequilibrium are organic and inevitable. But you think it makes sense that Duke is the exception, that their tradition and reputation are so great, that it overrides the cash market. Well, then ... okay. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
NCAA Tournament
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top