NIL

[BearLover]

Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players.  Give them a percentage of the net profit.  For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved.  Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

...in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players...they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It's one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It's another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won't tank the whole program.

[George64]

Interesting article in today's Rochester D&C.

Arguably, college athletes, or any student with some notoriety, should be able to benefit through NIL, but should the university abet the practice?  The article points out that it might affect even minor sports.  How will this work out for the Ivies in this era of free agency?  How will a free oil change and tune-up from Cutting Motors compete with a new car, or more, from a Boston or Hamden, CT, auto dealership?  Personally, I liked things better when the main perk for Ferguson twins was to be bunkers at the College Town fire station.

Also, check out AD Moore's most recent Big Red Threads.

[ugarte]

Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players.  Give them a percentage of the net profit.  For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved.  Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

...in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players...they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It's one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It's another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won't tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

[upprdeck]

Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players.  Give them a percentage of the net profit.  For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved.  Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

...in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players...they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It's one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It's another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won't tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

the issue is that you are ignoring that this is not a labor market.. This was an attempt to create a somewhat level playing field across 100s of teams..  The reason have scholie limis and the like in the first place..    if you look at teams as one market it all makes sense..  Like if you work at cornell there are limits on what you can make in any pay band.  Depts cant offer more than another and in many bands/jobs you will top out.   This is not working at a local place and taking a  better paying job at Meta.. This is working at Tops and you make within peanuts of what others make at your same level.

[ugarte]

Pay makes sense if the university is making money off the players.  Give them a percentage of the net profit.  For every sport except football and basketball, the net profit is zero.

Problem solved.  Not that it was a problem, since "but it's inconvenient and complicated" are not good reasons to exploit people.

Does Dartmouth basketball make a profit?

how relevant is this when you are putting coaching salaries and facilities improvements on the ledger? these could be diverted to player comp.

...in exchange for the facilities falling apart and the coaches making so little they would never accept the job in the first place? Frankly, these programs that lose money are already providing a charity to their players...they are giving them the opportunity to attend school, often for free or at a significantly reduced cost, while pursuing the game they love. It's one thing to say Power Five football players should share in the massive profits. It's another to say this should apply to programs with negative profits. There is no place for the money to come from that won't tank the whole program.

everyone loves markets until their artificial market distortions get threatened.

coach/admin salaries ballooned as the profits flowed and fancy facilities substituted as a market distinction for actual bidding for talent. the scholarship as full payment is essentially costless to the university and hasn't changed - until it was forced to change - in decades, with the only "inflation" a result of the comically inflated cost of college.

if the result of a non-collusive market is that nobody pays fencers more than a 1/4 scholarship, so be it, but please spare me the idea that there should be rules in place to restrict the labor market. the dartmouth ruling is focused on how these student-athletes have job-like responsibilities (practice schedules, special rules and restrictions) handed down from a coach that can take priority over the education that is supposed to be their "payment."

the system is fucked because it's so easy to laugh at the idea that anyone "deserves" anything but if college athletics were treated like the labor market it is (or the "extracurricular activity" it is not) the answers about value would become clear pretty quickly.

the issue is that you are ignoring that this is not a labor market.. This was an attempt to create a somewhat level playing field across 100s of teams..  The reason have scholie limis and the like in the first place..    if you look at teams as one market it all makes sense..  Like if you work at cornell there are limits on what you can make in any pay band.  Depts cant offer more than another and in many bands/jobs you will top out.   This is not working at a local place and taking a  better paying job at Meta.. This is working at Tops and you make within peanuts of what others make at your same level.

what if i told you it is a labor market and the rest of this analogy is a bunch of bullshit! the ncaa is a cartel controlling, among other things, labor costs through arguing that it's a special environment. they've been doing this for almost a century now, with the initial impetus being an unwillingness to pay workers comp after football players got hurt. The Tops comparison is awful but also too thread drifty.

[jtwcornell91]

It seems a key factor in this ruling was "compensation" the players (as employees) receive, even though previous rulings called them educational stipends.  Those stipends weren't taxed.  So do player's scholarships (academic as they are::whistle: now become taxable as remuneration/income?

I think tuition payments are not taxable anyway.  When I was in grad school I had to pay income tax on my fellowship (which IIRC was a then-recent change) but not the tuition waiver.

[David Harding]

AP report on "Dartmouth basketball players end their unionization attempt in anticipation of shifting NLRB".

[billhoward]

AP report on "Dartmouth basketball players end their unionization attempt in anticipation of shifting NLRB".

Perhaps the Dartmouth basketball workers overestimated demand for their product.

[Trotsky]

More likely they anticipate the coming Reich.