Blood doping, the NCAA and the Tour de France...

[Gatorubet]

So you're saying that college football players would bid up their value to the point where nobody would go to games or watch them on TV. Because those revenue streams are what pays for Olympic (non-revenue) sports.

If that happens, college football would obviously also collapse.

No...this argument does not hold water!

FIFY

 

[MaxBuck]

A lot of boosters are going to redistribute their giving. I see many donations being halted so they can instead line the pockets of prospects to keep elite players coming . Sure some do this now, but this will take it to another level

I doubt it. So long as the booster bucks are needed to get seats in the stadium, those dollars will continue to flow in.

Don't forget - all these newly-wealthy star players are gonna want cars, clothes and bling. Much new trade will occur, making the sport an increasingly important economic engine.

 

[BB73]

FIFY

I'd like to give her some PosiTraction.

 

[knapplc]

I'd like to give her some PosiTraction.

She won an Oscar for that role. Amazing!

And yes, I'd put some mud in her tires.

 

[Steve19]

So you're saying that college football players would bid up their value to the point where nobody would go to games or watch them on TV. Because those revenue streams are what pays for Olympic (non-revenue) sports.

If that happens, college football would obviously also collapse.

This argument holds no water whatsoever.

You're right...except that was not my argument.

I was responding to your argument, which concerned free market forces. Let me make my assumptions explicit.

I assume that revenues are very tight in college athletics. College football cross-subsidizes as many as forty other sports teams at some universities. So, there's a lot of room for college football players to negotiate value from those economic rents at many universities, by demanding that the cross-subsidies stop and that they capture the full market value that they create.

However, because athletic departments are running at a loss at almost all universities and are hampered by Title IX and other regulations, there really isn't much room to maneuver.

This suggests some rather obvious consequences. Because subsidies will no longer be an option, paying college football players will require universities to find new business models or greatly reduce/discontinue financial support for non-revenue sports. There are several ways that this can be accomplished. Ohio State's rugby team has been a case in point.

The argument mistakenly attributed to me results in some new assumptions that are incompatible with the assumption of self-interest that underlies your free markets argument.

I hope that it will be acceptable if I set aside the claim that people wouldn't watch football on TV or attend games for the time being, because it just isn't clear why this would happen. After all, college football would be bigger and better than ever. Surely, it would not collapse because the market is getting exactly what it wants.

Now, potentially, I can see that you might be arguing that football players would not bid up their remuneration because of some concern for other sports. But that argument does not follow from your free markets argument.

Recall that a free market argument rests on the assumption that football players will be motivated to capture as much revenue as they can. In turn, this would lead to an efficient market that pushed out inefficient sports that were unable to sustain sufficient revenues from the market.

Given your argument, why would college football players (or fans) care about the remuneration or financial sustainability of other so-called Olympic sports? If fans really cared about the other sports, then administrators would be able to identify self-funding models that worked. Right?

So, I guess the question is, do you believe in free markets or not? A simple yes or no will do. Or will it?

 

[MaxBuck]

You're right...except that was not my argument.

I was responding to your argument, which concerned free market forces. Let me make my assumptions explicit.

I assume that revenues are very tight in college athletics. College football cross-subsidizes as many as forty other sports teams at some universities. So, there's a lot of room for college football players to negotiate value from those economic rents at many universities, by demanding that the cross-subsidies stop and that they capture the full market value that they create.

However, because athletic departments are running at a loss at almost all universities and are hampered by Title IX and other regulations, there really isn't much room to maneuver.

This suggests some rather obvious consequences. Because subsidies will no longer be an option, paying college football players will require universities to find new business models or greatly reduce/discontinue financial support for non-revenue sports. There are several ways that this can be accomplished. Ohio State's rugby team has been a case in point.

The argument mistakenly attributed to me results in some new assumptions that are incompatible with the assumption of self-interest that underlies your free markets argument.

I hope that it will be acceptable if I set aside the claim that people wouldn't watch football on TV or attend games for the time being, because it just isn't clear why this would happen. After all, college football would be bigger and better than ever. Surely, it would not collapse because the market is getting exactly what it wants.

Now, potentially, I can see that you might be arguing that football players would not bid up their remuneration because of some concern for other sports. But that argument does not follow from your free markets argument.

Recall that a free market argument rests on the assumption that football players will be motivated to capture as much revenue as they can. In turn, this would lead to an efficient market that pushed out inefficient sports that were unable to sustain sufficient revenues from the market.

Given your argument, why would college football players (or fans) care about the remuneration or financial sustainability of other so-called Olympic sports? If fans really cared about the other sports, then administrators would be able to identify self-funding models that worked. Right?

So, I guess the question is, do you believe in free markets or not? A simple yes or no will do. Or will it?

Again, I believe very strongly in free markets. And I think the rest of your post creates a complicated set of circumstances that doesn't reflect reality. Allowing college football stars to profit from their celebrity will not lead to the other impacts that you posit to be inevitable via domino-effect. It is not now, nor will it be in the future, a decision left to football players or football fans what other sports a school will participate in.

I don't propose turning all of college sports into a market economy. Just allowing players to profit. There's no thin end of the wedge here, Steve.

 

[Folanator]

Man...this thread has gone completly offtrack.

 

[Steve19]

Again, I believe very strongly in free markets. And I think the rest of your post creates a complicated set of circumstances that doesn't reflect reality. Allowing college football stars to profit from their celebrity will not lead to the other impacts that you posit to be inevitable via domino-effect. It is not now, nor will it be in the future, a decision left to football players or football fans what other sports a school will participate in.

I don't propose turning all of college sports into a market economy. Just allowing players to profit. There's no thin end of the wedge here, Steve.

Wow. Just wow.

No, you don't believe in free markets. The argument that I set out is entirely consistent with free markets and it shows an instance where free markets fail to achieve what you consider to be a desirable social goal--support for your daughter's athletic endeavors.

Do you really understand the financial pressures that college presidents face these days?

Let me help you out. The Chronicle of Higher Education announced today that, for the first time in a generation the most profitable product, graduate admissions, is down across the United States. Last week, it was announced that SAT scores for undergraduates also took a plunge, suggesting increased support costs for poorly prepared students.

Consider that costs are rising dramatically at a time of serious pressure when government subsidies have been cut in most states. Typically, academics are paid over nine months and then receive 2/9ths of their salary to cover the summer months. Summer salaries have been revoked in many states or reduced to just a few top professors. Things are so bad in several states, that professors at many major colleges (e.g, Illinois, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State) have had to endure unpaid leave (furlough) in order to avoid layoffs the last three years. So it is not just that you lose 2/11ths of your salary, you lose up to another month on furlough. I am not able to share this but you would be absolutely amazed at the applicants we just had for a faculty position in Cape Town, amazed.

Now, let's examine your argument. With coaches being paid about ten times what top professors are paid, money so tight that professors are being sent on furlough, and athletic programs bleeding money at almost every university in America, you want to begin paying players. You make no suggestion about the source for funding these payments, despite the fact that it is clear that such payments cannot be made without significant funding.

So, on one hand, you claim to "believe very strongly in free markets" but on the other hand, you assert that free markets cannot be extended to everyone, so that "non-revenue" sports can be cross-subsidized.

The dilemma faced by the NCAA and college sports in particular is thus put sharply in focus.

 

[MaxBuck]

Wow. Just wow.

No, you don't believe in free markets. The argument that I set out is entirely consistent with free markets and it shows an instance where free markets fail to achieve what you consider to be a desirable social goal--support for your daughter's athletic endeavors.

Do you really understand the financial pressures that college presidents face these days?

Let me help you out. The Chronicle of Higher Education announced today that, for the first time in a generation the most profitable product, graduate admissions, is down across the United States. Last week, it was announced that SAT scores for undergraduates also took a plunge, suggesting increased support costs for poorly prepared students.

Consider that costs are rising dramatically at a time of serious pressure when government subsidies have been cut in most states. Typically, academics are paid over nine months and then receive 2/9ths of their salary to cover the summer months. Summer salaries have been revoked in many states or reduced to just a few top professors. Things are so bad in several states, that professors at many major colleges (e.g, Illinois, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State) have had to endure unpaid leave (furlough) in order to avoid layoffs the last three years. So it is not just that you lose 2/11ths of your salary, you lose up to another month on furlough. I am not able to share this but you would be absolutely amazed at the applicants we just had for a faculty position in Cape Town, amazed.

Now, let's examine your argument. With coaches being paid about ten times what top professors are paid, money so tight that professors are being sent on furlough, and athletic programs bleeding money at almost every university in America, you want to begin paying players. You make no suggestion about the source for funding these payments, despite the fact that it is clear that such payments cannot be made without significant funding.

So, on one hand, you claim to "believe very strongly in free markets" but on the other hand, you assert that free markets cannot be extended to everyone, so that "non-revenue" sports can be cross-subsidized.

The dilemma faced by the NCAA and college sports in particular is thus put sharply in focus.

You're saying that market economics will lead to non-revenue sports being dropped by universities. You may or may not be right on this (I happen to think you're wrong), but none of this has anything whatever to do with allowing college football or basketball stars to profit via jobs, memorabilia, or other opportunities. The two are entirely independent phenomena.

 

[muffler dragon]

Man...this thread has gone completly offtrack.

Could've sworn we already had a thread on whether players should receive benefits or not.

 

[greyscarlet]

You're saying that market economics will lead to non-revenue sports being dropped by universities. You may or may not be right on this (I happen to think you're wrong), but none of this has anything whatever to do with allowing college football or basketball stars to profit via jobs, memorabilia, or other opportunities. The two are entirely independent phenomena.

Max, the issue people are having is you are proposing an open market, but then you immediately limit it by stating you don't suggest salaries.

Again in a true free market monies will flow to revenue generating sports and thus away from non revenue generating sports in almost all rational decision making and you can see this in almost all athletic departments. Now if you start paying the players, the revenues do not change but the expenses surely do. Where that money comes from is likely to some extent coaching salaries but likely the majority from non revenue earning sports.

 

[Steve19]

You're saying that market economics will lead to non-revenue sports being dropped by universities. You may or may not be right on this (I happen to think you're wrong), but none of this has anything whatever to do with allowing college football or basketball stars to profit via jobs, memorabilia, or other opportunities. The two are entirely independent phenomena.

You are simplifying my argument. I am saying that it would cause changes in the way that sports are subsidized and that this is the NCAA's dilemma in respect of the move away from amateurism that you suggest.

As Mili pointed out, such a move simply opens the door to disguised booster payments. ("Oh, wow, that is a lovely teaspoon! Here's $1000!) Will the pie get bigger or will boosters spend money on memorabilia that detracts from revenues universities earn on licensed goods? If so, who makes up the difference?

Given trends in university education worldwide, including a dramatic increase in quality outside the US and the availability of American education outside the US, lower student numbers could have a major effect on university revenues that continues the current pain. It's not just China or India either, as MIT's new Rwanda campus shows.

We can agree to disagree but, one thing seems certain, amateurism in the NCAA in its present form is unlikely in coming decades.

 

[MaxBuck]

Max, the issue people are having is you are proposing an open market, but then you immediately limit it by stating you don't suggest salaries.

Again in a true free market monies will flow to revenue generating sports and thus away from non revenue generating sports in almost all rational decision making and you can see this in almost all athletic departments. Now if you start paying the players, the revenues do not change but the expenses surely do. Where that money comes from is likely to some extent coaching salaries but likely the majority from non revenue earning sports.

Jeebers. I DID NOT suggest turning collegiate athletics into a market wherein survival of a sport would depend upon ticket revenue or whatever. I suggested ONE VERY LIMITED THING: allowing star players to profit from their celebrity. I did not suggest they be paid directly by the universities, either.

It's interesting what kind of extrapolations people do with opinions sometimes - especially opinions they disagree with. They also apparently ignore parts of the writeup, since people are suggesting that I've supported all kinds of stuff that I don't support at all.

 

[Folanator]

Could've sworn we already had a thread on whether players should receive benefits or not.

I expect this from a Scount forum. But I am suprised that people here are so ADD. Oh well...

 

[knapplc]

I really like Le Tour, by the way. Started watching it when Greg LeMond was winning back in the day, and didn't miss a Tour once Armstrong started getting good. Someday I gotta get over there in July.