Everyone wants to pay college athletes, but why not just stop paying the schools?

[KillSpray]

Anything not to pay nikkas what they worth one star neg rep.

Damn breh, carrying around that anger is doing a job on you.

If you turn college sports into what it's supposed to be, you then open the market to meet the demand for football up to legitimate businesses. If you read over this thread you'll see how college sports is neither amateur sports or a legitimate business subject to market forces.

That's the real reason why nikkas can't get what they worth.

 

[No1]

Or I might say that you're letting the fact that they made 5 million a game cloud yours.

It is a business in the literal sense that it generates lots of revenue, but it's not a business in the same sense that Wal-Mart is a business. In the business of higher education the school is the seller, the faculty is the employee and the student is the customer. So what business model is this?

College sports are not part of the business of higher education in the sense that you're arguing. College is relevant to college sports only in that it provides a guaranteed fanbase and loyalty. That's really about it. Most college departments operate autonomously and do not in any way affect the regular applicant pool. I can draw many distinctions between the two but you're looking at the composition of the businesses as opposed to the similarity in the strategy and logic. That is my point.

 

[KillSpray]

@hayesc0 @dh86 @BarNone

Just to be clear about what I'm saying. College sports is not a business in the traditional sense because it doesn't have to respond to traditional market forces.

- The labor pool is not legally recognized as employees, thus have no bargaining power:
The primary labor (the players) that produces the product (the games) are not recognized as employees of the schools AS A MATTER OF LAW. Without being recognized as employees, they are not protected by labor laws and have no right to unionize or collectively bargain. Even if colleges decided to pay college athletes, the details of payment won't be bargained for, they will be unilaterally decided by the college's/NCAA. Ironically, the labor (the players) are actually considered customers of the schools primary product (education), while the fans are not considered to be customers, and the dominant product (live sporting events) is not even considered a product offered by the school. It clearly is.

Competition for the labor force is artificially restricted:
Because the NFL requires players to be 21 to play in the league, the labor (the players between the ages of 18-21) have no other avenues to exploit the market demand (fans of college football) for their talents.

So even if you pay college athletes under the current system, you don't solve their real problem, that they are being held hostage in a system that distorts their economic value.

I think you have to do the reverse. Drain the money out of college sports, return it to its natural state, and then let the market (legitimate businesses) respond to the demand for sports competition between 18-21 year olds.

nikkas gotta try to see beyond their noses to see what it is.

 

[Anerdyblackguy]

@BarNone is correct here. I was at ST John's and to say these students are there for the academics is a fallacy. The athletes are there to work on their game, become stars and hopefully get ready for the professional athletic world ( NFL, NFL,MLB, and etc). Secondly you need money in sports because it is a business. I'll use my school as an example. They go to the NCAA tournament, and know the alma maters get excited, they donate money. One of our Alumni donated 200 million dollars because the team was doing well. It is what it is

 

[No1]

@hayesc0 @dh86 @BarNone

Just to be clear about what I'm saying. College sports is not a business in the traditional sense because it doesn't have to respond to traditional market forces.

- The labor pool is not legally recognized as employees, thus have no bargaining power:
The primary labor (the players) that produces the product (the games) are not recognized as employees of the schools AS A MATTER OF LAW. Without being recognized as employees, they are not protected by labor laws and have no right to unionize or collectively bargain. Even if colleges decided to pay college athletes, the details of payment won't be bargained for, they will be unilaterally decided by the college's/NCAA. Ironically, the labor (the players) are actually considered customers of the schools primary product (education), while the fans are not considered to be customers, and the dominant product (live sporting events) is not even considered a product offered by the school. It clearly is.

Competition for the labor force is artificially restricted:
Because the NFL requires players to be 21 to play in the league, the labor (the players between the ages of 18-21) have no other avenues to exploit the market demand (fans of college football) for their talents.

So even if you pay college athletes under the current system, you don't solve their real problem, that they are being held hostage in a system that distorts their economic value.

I think you have to do the reverse. Drain the money out of college sports, return it to its natural state, and then let the market (legitimate businesses) respond to the demand for sports competition between 18-21 year olds.

nikkas gotta try to see beyond their noses to see what it is.

None of this addresses the point I was making. Black people were not recognized as men in the traditional sense but they were every bit as human as white people. You're making a distinction without a difference. Of course the people who stand to profit the most are not going to label you as what you are if they seek to benefit. Independent contractors are not technically employee of a business and have no union representation but are still entitled to being paid. All workers are not legally recognized as your employees. You're scrambling here and now I don't know what point you think you're making. You just told us to see beyond our own noses, but no one but you knows what you're getting at. You went from saying to blow up the entire college system to saying that even if athletes get paid they are limited so salary is a moot point. Pick an argument. Moreover, all types of professions have strict requirements regarding job qualifications (licenses, certifications, etc.) and restrictive covenants to prevent workers from profiting off of what they learned in a way that the employer feels will hurt them.

Their problem is not being paid. You're doing nothing to address that by not paying them at all. They would still have to risk their health in a college farm system with minimal prospects at the pros and a high likelihood of not being properly educated and physically injured.

 

[KillSpray]

None of this addresses the point I was making. Black people were not recognized as men in the traditional sense but they were every bit as human as white people. You're making a distinction without a difference.

But that distinction actually made a huge difference....

Of course the people who stand to profit the most are not going to label you as what you are if they seek to benefit. Independent contractors are not technically employee of a business and have no union representation but are still entitled to being paid. All workers are not legally recognized as your employees.

All workers are protected by labor law, i.e. Minimum wage, 40 hour work week, discrimination laws, etc. College players are not. The way an employer treats and classifies employees is basically dictated by market forces, i.e. employees in a high churn, low skilled position are easily replaceable and lack leverage to bargain. employees with unique specialized skills are less common and are in the position to bargain for higher wages, additional benefits, etc. College Sports don't have to respond to these market forces.

You're scrambling here and now I don't know what point you think you're making. You just told us to see beyond our own noses, but no one but you knows what you're getting at. You went from saying to blow up the entire college system to saying that even if athletes get paid they are limited so salary is a moot point. Pick an argument.

I'm saying that you have to blow up the entire college system BECAUSE even if athletes get paid they are limited and not bargained for.

Moreover, all types of professions have strict requirements regarding job qualifications (licenses, certifications, etc.) and restrictive covenants to prevent workers from profiting off of what they learned in a way that the employer feels will hurt them.

Again, this will be bargained for in the open market. If you're the cashier in Wal-Mart you have little leverage to oppose restrictive covenants. If you are among the top 5% skilled worker in your field, you have considerable leverage to push back on anything you don't find agreeable.

Their problem is not being paid. You're doing nothing to address that by not paying them at all. They would still have to risk their health in a college farm system with minimal prospects at the pros and a high likelihood of not being properly educated and physically injured.

Right. I'm suggesting their problem is bigger than not being paid, it's not being able to exercise their leverage to bargain for the use of their unique abilities. The difference is, if they could bargain they'd get paid, but if they got paid, it won't mean they could bargain.

 

[Easy-E]

Don't pay the athletes. Fine.

But, get rid of these slave rules that say a car dealer can't give them a car or they get kicked out of school for tattoos.

That'll be a start.