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 Football
Which of these 3 has mess up college football
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="cpf2001" data-source="post: 971515" data-attributes="member: 6459"><p>The existence of competitor leagues that haven't outdone CFB does not disprove the existence of a player market inside the league.</p><p></p><p>Obviously there's a lot of name value in the university programs but that name value won't be maintained for free if they no longer compete in the market for talented players. Look at... well, look at Georgia Tech. Yes, it takes decades to piss away name value; no, that doesn't disprove the existence of a market.</p><p></p><p>Here's the thing: you're claiming that there isn't a market *despite the existence of market participants spending money in that very market outside of just the top few programs.* The evidence of there being a market is crystal clear, it's that there are participants in that market. And as you point out, the market for college basketball players is actually a *hotter* market than the G-League one. It's not an *independent* market - it exists because of existing brand value in the programs - but it's there.</p><p></p><p>You seem to be doing two things:</p><p></p><p>The first is ignoring path-dependency, claiming that because you couldn't immediately replace college sports by hiring away all the best players that there is no value to the players. *Where* the market value is depends on the path; *what* the value is, much less so. The claim here is about the latter. There is value to having the best players within the college structure, even if the value of having the best players outside of the name value isn't enough to overturn a century-old institution overnight. It would take magically erasing a century of history and starting from scratch, *but nobody in this thread is arguing that that's what the players should or could do* - bit of a, what's the word, strawman.</p><p></p><p>The second is substituting collusive ideas with any idea of demonstrating if a market exists. You pitched the scenario swapping all the current players out and sub in new ones, and then have more success than the former players trying to set up a new league. What is this supposed to show beyond that players in a some markets can collude to reduce the competitive cost of the market? What *actually* happens makes the opposite point - the players in the market, *without* a strong collective organization reigning in their behavior, are aggressively competing for players in college sports, even that the middle levels.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cpf2001, post: 971515, member: 6459"] The existence of competitor leagues that haven't outdone CFB does not disprove the existence of a player market inside the league. Obviously there's a lot of name value in the university programs but that name value won't be maintained for free if they no longer compete in the market for talented players. Look at... well, look at Georgia Tech. Yes, it takes decades to piss away name value; no, that doesn't disprove the existence of a market. Here's the thing: you're claiming that there isn't a market *despite the existence of market participants spending money in that very market outside of just the top few programs.* The evidence of there being a market is crystal clear, it's that there are participants in that market. And as you point out, the market for college basketball players is actually a *hotter* market than the G-League one. It's not an *independent* market - it exists because of existing brand value in the programs - but it's there. You seem to be doing two things: The first is ignoring path-dependency, claiming that because you couldn't immediately replace college sports by hiring away all the best players that there is no value to the players. *Where* the market value is depends on the path; *what* the value is, much less so. The claim here is about the latter. There is value to having the best players within the college structure, even if the value of having the best players outside of the name value isn't enough to overturn a century-old institution overnight. It would take magically erasing a century of history and starting from scratch, *but nobody in this thread is arguing that that's what the players should or could do* - bit of a, what's the word, strawman. The second is substituting collusive ideas with any idea of demonstrating if a market exists. You pitched the scenario swapping all the current players out and sub in new ones, and then have more success than the former players trying to set up a new league. What is this supposed to show beyond that players in a some markets can collude to reduce the competitive cost of the market? What *actually* happens makes the opposite point - the players in the market, *without* a strong collective organization reigning in their behavior, are aggressively competing for players in college sports, even that the middle levels. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Which of these 3 has mess up college football
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