Amateurism and College Sports

I'm sure there's a thread about this topic somewhere, but I don't feel like looking for it. The New York Times used the March Madness tournament as an excuse to invite a bunch of people to write short articles about whether college athletes (basketball players in particular) are fairly compensated or if they should be paid. Some of the suggestions are pretty interesting. I particularly liked the idea of the NBA adopting the WNBA's eligibility rules (4 years of college, 22 years of age, or your class graduated college). I also think that the NCAA should enforce stricter academic standards. College basketball and football players are already compensated via a free education. Just because many choose not to take advantage of this, it doesn't mean they should receive money on top of their scholarship. It means that they should be required to go to class and earn a degree (or at least make a serious effort at earning one).

jtn27
I'm sure there's a thread about this topic somewhere, but I don't feel like looking for it. The New York Times used the March Madness tournament as an excuse to invite a bunch of people to write short articles about whether college athletes (basketball players in particular) are fairly compensated or if they should be paid. Some of the suggestions are pretty interesting. I particularly liked the idea of the NBA adopting the WNBA's eligibility rules (4 years of college, 22 years of age, or your class graduated college). I also think that the NCAA should enforce stricter academic standards. College basketball and football players are already compensated via a free education. Just because many choose not to take advantage of this, it doesn't mean they should receive money on top of their scholarship. It means that they should be required to go to class and earn a degree (or at least make a serious effort at earning one).

The bias of mainstream college students is the U belongs to people 18-22. Ageism may be around longer than racism or sexism.The NCAA long ago stuck it to older athletes, particularly those from outside the U.S. Cornell's captain on the unbeaten 1970 team, Dick Bertrand, wasn't allowed to play in the NCAAs because of age; he spent a couple years as a cop in Toronto. The NCAA exempted the military from age caps and also missionaries, at least U.S. military.

Sure, the employees of a multibillion dollar industry run by a cartel should have no problem working for a fraction of their value.

I think we should start a college software engineering league. College students build us software for free, and we make lots of money selling it. They'll be willing participants for the sake of amateurism.

ugarte
Sure, the employees of a multibillion dollar industry run by a cartel should have no problem working for a fraction of their value.

If college athletes really hd that much value that wasn't attached to "college" athletics then someone could make a killing starting up minor league basketball and football leagues that compete with the NC$$. Somehow I don't think this is the case. The attraction of college sports is specifically linked to the institutions and (IMO) the fiction that the players are students. Imagine if the Big-10 schools gave up on amateurism and simply had well paid pro- basketball and football teams attached that were affiliated with and funded by the schools. Do you think these teams would have the same appeal as what we have now?

Willy '06
I think we should start a college software engineering league. College students build us software for free, and we make lots of money selling it. They'll be willing participants for the sake of amateurism.

Not an apt analogy. If CS students are good enough to generate marketable software that makes a lot of money they cna simply do it, indepedant of the schools. This even happens to some degree. A football player doesn't have the same options.

KeithK

ugarte
Sure, the employees of a multibillion dollar industry run by a cartel should have no problem working for a fraction of their value.

If college athletes really hd that much value that wasn't attached to "college" athletics then someone could make a killing starting up minor league basketball and football leagues that compete with the NC$$. Somehow I don't think this is the case. The attraction of college sports is specifically linked to the institutions and (IMO) the fiction that the players are students. Imagine if the Big-10 schools gave up on amateurism and simply had well paid pro- basketball and football teams attached that were affiliated with and funded by the schools. Do you think these teams would have the same appeal as what we have now?

Two responses.

First, the only reason that the best players stay in college at all is because of a tacit arrangement between the professional leagues and the NCAA to restrict entry into the professional ranks so that college serves as a free minor league system. Baseball and hockey haven't followed suit because they happen to have developed minor league systems already.

Second, you can claim that the brands are the schools and not the players, but in the absence of a rule requiring "amateurism" those colleges would immediately start outbidding each other for the services of those apparently anonymous and fungible parts. Because they don't have to, the money gets spent instead on indirect inducements (celebrity coaches, multimillion dollar locker room renovations and practice facilities, etc.) or redirected to illicit payments that the institutions pretend to be wholly unaware of.

It is a fake system that lacks any moral justification. It pretends to have a justification by acting high-minded but the pieties are all false. The Atlantic dismantled the sincerity of the NCAA's position on amateurism last October.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte
Sure, the employees of a multibillion dollar industry run by a cartel should have no problem working for a fraction of their value.

If college athletes really hd that much value that wasn't attached to "college" athletics then someone could make a killing starting up minor league basketball and football leagues that compete with the NC$$. Somehow I don't think this is the case. The attraction of college sports is specifically linked to the institutions and (IMO) the fiction that the players are students. Imagine if the Big-10 schools gave up on amateurism and simply had well paid pro- basketball and football teams attached that were affiliated with and funded by the schools. Do you think these teams would have the same appeal as what we have now?

Two responses.

First, the only reason that the best players stay in college at all is because of a tacit arrangement between the professional leagues and the NCAA to restrict entry into the professional ranks so that college serves as a free minor league system. Baseball and hockey haven't followed suit because they happen to have developed minor league systems already.

Second, you can claim that the brands are the schools and not the players, but in the absence of a rule requiring "amateurism" those colleges would immediately start outbidding each other for the services of those apparently anonymous and fungible parts. Because they don't have to, the money gets spent instead on indirect inducements (celebrity coaches, multimillion dollar locker room renovations and practice facilities, etc.) or redirected to illicit payments that the institutions pretend to be wholly unaware of.

It is a fake system that lacks any moral justification. It pretends to have a justification by acting high-minded but the pieties are all false. The Atlantic dismantled the sincerity of the NCAA's position on amateurism last October.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. If the "only" reason that students stay in college is because the pros have restricted entry, but hockey and baseball have no such restriction because they have minor leagues, then how do you explain the fact that there are so many NHL-caliber prospects who DO stay in college, many for a full 4 years? What am I missing?

Robb

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte
Sure, the employees of a multibillion dollar industry run by a cartel should have no problem working for a fraction of their value.

If college athletes really hd that much value that wasn't attached to "college" athletics then someone could make a killing starting up minor league basketball and football leagues that compete with the NC$$. Somehow I don't think this is the case. The attraction of college sports is specifically linked to the institutions and (IMO) the fiction that the players are students. Imagine if the Big-10 schools gave up on amateurism and simply had well paid pro- basketball and football teams attached that were affiliated with and funded by the schools. Do you think these teams would have the same appeal as what we have now?

Two responses.

First, the only reason that the best players stay in college at all is because of a tacit arrangement between the professional leagues and the NCAA to restrict entry into the professional ranks so that college serves as a free minor league system. Baseball and hockey haven't followed suit because they happen to have developed minor league systems already.

Second, you can claim that the brands are the schools and not the players, but in the absence of a rule requiring "amateurism" those colleges would immediately start outbidding each other for the services of those apparently anonymous and fungible parts. Because they don't have to, the money gets spent instead on indirect inducements (celebrity coaches, multimillion dollar locker room renovations and practice facilities, etc.) or redirected to illicit payments that the institutions pretend to be wholly unaware of.

It is a fake system that lacks any moral justification. It pretends to have a justification by acting high-minded but the pieties are all false. The Atlantic dismantled the sincerity of the NCAA's position on amateurism last October.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. If the "only" reason that students stay in college is because the pros have restricted entry, but hockey and baseball have no such restriction because they have minor leagues, then how do you explain the fact that there are so many NHL-caliber prospects who DO stay in college, many for a full 4 years? What am I missing?

"So many"? The vast majority of top prospects do not go to college and you know this. To the extent that there are top prospects in college, they often developed into or proved themselves to be elite prospects in college and can't jump to the NHL's minors without sticking around for at least a couple of years because of NHL draft rules (though they may go back to major juniors, who have no reason to give a shit about the NCAA's rules). There are exceptions to this rule because there are exceptions to every rule. There are elite baseball players in college too, but they are usually trying to leverage college into a better signing bonus.

ugarte
Second, you can claim that the brands are the schools and not the players, but in the absence of a rule requiring "amateurism" those colleges would immediately start outbidding each other for the services of those apparently anonymous and fungible parts. Because they don't have to, the money gets spent instead on indirect inducements (celebrity coaches, multimillion dollar locker room renovations and practice facilities, etc.) or redirected to illicit payments that the institutions pretend to be wholly unaware of.

I'm not sure they would. Would big public universiies bid hundreds of thousands of dollars for each of their players? Maybe. But I think you'd have a huge public outcry that would prevent this. Would it be hypocritical? Sure. But I think that the voting public (or the alums for a private institution) would view diect payments to players differently.

Sadly we can't create a viable experiment to test this. Oh to have alternate universes where we could test social science and economic theories before trying them out!

KeithK

Willy '06
I think we should start a college software engineering league. College students build us software for free, and we make lots of money selling it. They'll be willing participants for the sake of amateurism.

Not an apt analogy. If CS students are good enough to generate marketable software that makes a lot of money they cna simply do it, indepedant of the schools. This even happens to some degree. A football player doesn't have the same options.

A football player doesn't have the same options because of the NCAA and the NFL trying to preserve the amateurism racket. If the market for software developers were treated in a similar way 30 years ago when college and universities were pretty much the only place you could get access to the hardware needed to become a developer, maybe things would be really different.

Whether a student's talent is in software development or football, if they can make money for their college without getting paid, they can probably make money for someone else who is willing to pay them.

KeithK

ugarte
Second, you can claim that the brands are the schools and not the players, but in the absence of a rule requiring "amateurism" those colleges would immediately start outbidding each other for the services of those apparently anonymous and fungible parts. Because they don't have to, the money gets spent instead on indirect inducements (celebrity coaches, multimillion dollar locker room renovations and practice facilities, etc.) or redirected to illicit payments that the institutions pretend to be wholly unaware of.

But I think you'd have a huge public outcry that would prevent this.

I think you are insane. Every time a school is caught actually breaking the rules, the fans bend over backwards to claim that the school has been jobbed. It's a lot like how people feel about Congress; they're all scoundrels except for my rep, so I'm voting for the incumbent.

ugarte
I think you are insane. Every time a school is caught actually breaking the rules, the fans bend over backwards to claim that the school has been jobbed. It's a lot like how people feel about Congress; they're all scoundrels except for my rep, so I'm voting for the incumbent.

Actually, most people say "They're all scoundrels" and then don't vote