biggmanu
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 670
|
Post by biggmanu on Apr 1, 2021 10:22:40 GMT -5
Looks like McClung got a taste of his own medicine with Beard taking the Texas job
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,240
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 1, 2021 10:24:39 GMT -5
Looks like McClung got a taste of his own medicine with Beard taking the Texas job They are going to love Mac at the University of Texas...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 10:32:30 GMT -5
Looks like McClung got a taste of his own medicine with Beard taking the Texas job They are going to love Mac at the University of Texas... He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,240
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 1, 2021 10:33:55 GMT -5
They are going to love Mac at the University of Texas... He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe. Beard knows how to get around waivers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 10:36:01 GMT -5
He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe. Beard knows how to get around waivers. Maybe but there’s no guarantee and that seems risky. He only has a year left so seems like he would just stick it out and go pro.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 1, 2021 10:40:12 GMT -5
Is it because no one is willing to pay that fortune 100 company hundreds of millions to watch their star accountant work? Maybe my point is unclear. The sales guys get the incentive trips not the accountants. Applied to an athletic department, the money sports get the spoils and not the non-revenue sports. Ah, understood...
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,318
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Apr 1, 2021 10:55:27 GMT -5
Universities (as well as really any company or organization) have some divisions that are revenue generating and some that aren't. For example, masters programs tend to be big money makers for universities, and are used to pay for lots of other expenses. In any event, its not that basketball players are "paying" for the swim team--the basketball program is. And its also false to say that DI athletes are not "compensated" for playing. Cost of attendance at Georgetown is now, what $70,000 a year? I think most 18 year olds would be ecstatic to be making that much. The problem really is that some players are not able to negotiate their fair market value. But, aside from an elite few each year, most players' FMV would likely be well below $70k (certainly if compared to salaries in minor league sports). So the question really becomes, does the NCAA turn to akin to a total free market system, thus fully professionalizing the top teams in football and mens basketball (and likely sending all other programs to DII)? Or do they use a salary cap (or really increase the salary cap from just cost of attendance, to costs of attendance plus $X)? Unless the salary cap increase is substantial, its unlikely to really change the scenario. And if it is substantial, then we get back to a situation where the top programs essentially become a separate pro-league. And if its a pro-league, why should it matter if the kid is a student or not? At that point, instead of Kentucky being a way-station for one and dones, maybe it goes after G-League players who aren't able to break into the NBA? You're missing the point. The point is if a school wanted to fund those sports they could, and they could use some money from "basketball program" or football program to do so. It's not like they couldn't still turn s profit. They just wouldn't get ALL of the profit. It's a threat and not based in reality because plenty of schools who generate no income off their sports programs still manage to participate in multiple sports. I don't know a single "company or organization" that uses that system as a justification to give a person no money. Now I understand you're using Georgetown's high cost of tuition and saying that's their compensation but the reality is 1) That's their sticker price and not what Georgetown actually spends to educate a kid and 2) That's NOT the education the majority of these kids receive. A kid that plays Alabama football is worth a ton of money to that school and is not getting a 70,000 a year education. So it's quite unfair to use what Georgetown's costs as a standard bearer when that's not close to the norm. I did not miss the point. Your point was that the revenue sport athletes should share (or at least have a greater share) in the profits. But if you are going to compare student-athletes to the labor market, then its worth pointing out that this is not how labor markets operate. Yes, sometimes labor market participants can unionize and use that leverage to negotiate that their compensation be tied to profits--but in a general sense, the cost of labor is not based on profits, its based on demand. And you need only look at the G-League and other US-based leagues below the NBA to know that for 99% of these kids, there is minimal market demand. Your point is well taken that sticker price is not necessarily the university's own cost, but a scholarship is nonetheless it is still both a) a significant cost to the university; and b) a thing of value (i.e., compensation, or in contract terms "consideration"). If the NCAA amateurism rule vanished tomorrow, and was replaced with some kind of semi or minor-pro league, most of the kids playing in college ball would not be able to demand greater value that the scholarship package. However, a few would be able to make substantially more--i.e., the surefire future pros, and especially those who are only playing college ball because of the NBA's arbitrary age restrictions. So, if the NCAA were to allow college athletes to get what they are really worth in a market sense, what we would end up with is a few of the blue-bloods breaking off into a pro-league, and everyone else dropping down to a lower true-amateur division. But reading between the lines of what you are saying about tuition not being "compensation", there is another good point in there--which is that unlike greenbacks which are simply a means of exchange and have relatively equal value to anyone who holds them, tuition is a non-fungible asset--and thus, regardless of the cost to the university, not everyone who receives a scholarship will value it the same way. Many "student-athletes" (but I don't think the majority) don't value a college education at all. For those kids, if there is any value to the experience, its the opportunity to be notices on a big stage and thus increase their chances of getting paid as a pro (or simply because of the NBA age rules). The NCAA's failing here is that the more they encourage the non "student athlete" athletes, the more ridiculous their claim that college athletics are truly athletics for college students.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 11:00:59 GMT -5
Poor Mac
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 1, 2021 11:31:18 GMT -5
In any event, its not that basketball players are "paying" for the swim team--the basketball program is. It's more likely the basketball program pays just for the basketball program, and maybe not even that. Evidence suggests men's basketball runs in the red.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 1, 2021 12:15:17 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The point is if a school wanted to fund those sports they could, and they could use some money from "basketball program" or football program to do so. It's not like they couldn't still turn s profit. They just wouldn't get ALL of the profit. It's a threat and not based in reality because plenty of schools who generate no income off their sports programs still manage to participate in multiple sports. I don't know a single "company or organization" that uses that system as a justification to give a person no money. Now I understand you're using Georgetown's high cost of tuition and saying that's their compensation but the reality is 1) That's their sticker price and not what Georgetown actually spends to educate a kid and 2) That's NOT the education the majority of these kids receive. A kid that plays Alabama football is worth a ton of money to that school and is not getting a 70,000 a year education. So it's quite unfair to use what Georgetown's costs as a standard bearer when that's not close to the norm. I did not miss the point. Your point was that the revenue sport athletes should share (or at least have a greater share) in the profits. But if you are going to compare student-athletes to the labor market, then its worth pointing out that this is not how labor markets operate. Yes, sometimes labor market participants can unionize and use that leverage to negotiate that their compensation be tied to profits--but in a general sense, the cost of labor is not based on profits, its based on demand. And you need only look at the G-League and other US-based leagues below the NBA to know that for 99% of these kids, there is minimal market demand. Your point is well taken that sticker price is not necessarily the university's own cost, but a scholarship is nonetheless it is still both a) a significant cost to the university; and b) a thing of value (i.e., compensation, or in contract terms "consideration"). If the NCAA amateurism rule vanished tomorrow, and was replaced with some kind of semi or minor-pro league, most of the kids playing in college ball would not be able to demand greater value that the scholarship package. However, a few would be able to make substantially more--i.e., the surefire future pros, and especially those who are only playing college ball because of the NBA's arbitrary age restrictions. So, if the NCAA were to allow college athletes to get what they are really worth in a market sense, what we would end up with is a few of the blue-bloods breaking off into a pro-league, and everyone else dropping down to a lower true-amateur division. But reading between the lines of what you are saying about tuition not being "compensation", there is another good point in there--which is that unlike greenbacks which are simply a means of exchange and have relatively equal value to anyone who holds them, tuition is a non-fungible asset--and thus, regardless of the cost to the university, not everyone who receives a scholarship will value it the same way. Many "student-athletes" (but I don't think the majority) don't value a college education at all. For those kids, if there is any value to the experience, its the opportunity to be notices on a big stage and thus increase their chances of getting paid as a pro (or simply because of the NBA age rules). The NCAA's failing here is that the more they encourage the non "student athlete" athletes, the more ridiculous their claim that college athletics are truly athletics for college students. Wouldn't you say the demand for HM college sports are high considering how much money is made from it? To me, it's not about what a Dante Harris is worth individually but what all the kids who participate are worth collectively. Very hard to make the case a scholarship & stipend is fair compensation...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 12:16:32 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The point is if a school wanted to fund those sports they could, and they could use some money from "basketball program" or football program to do so. It's not like they couldn't still turn s profit. They just wouldn't get ALL of the profit. It's a threat and not based in reality because plenty of schools who generate no income off their sports programs still manage to participate in multiple sports. I don't know a single "company or organization" that uses that system as a justification to give a person no money. Now I understand you're using Georgetown's high cost of tuition and saying that's their compensation but the reality is 1) That's their sticker price and not what Georgetown actually spends to educate a kid and 2) That's NOT the education the majority of these kids receive. A kid that plays Alabama football is worth a ton of money to that school and is not getting a 70,000 a year education. So it's quite unfair to use what Georgetown's costs as a standard bearer when that's not close to the norm. I did not miss the point. Your point was that the revenue sport athletes should share (or at least have a greater share) in the profits. But if you are going to compare student-athletes to the labor market, then its worth pointing out that this is not how labor markets operate. Yes, sometimes labor market participants can unionize and use that leverage to negotiate that their compensation be tied to profits--but in a general sense, the cost of labor is not based on profits, its based on demand. And you need only look at the G-League and other US-based leagues below the NBA to know that for 99% of these kids, there is minimal market demand. Your point is well taken that sticker price is not necessarily the university's own cost, but a scholarship is nonetheless it is still both a) a significant cost to the university; and b) a thing of value (i.e., compensation, or in contract terms "consideration"). If the NCAA amateurism rule vanished tomorrow, and was replaced with some kind of semi or minor-pro league, most of the kids playing in college ball would not be able to demand greater value that the scholarship package. However, a few would be able to make substantially more--i.e., the surefire future pros, and especially those who are only playing college ball because of the NBA's arbitrary age restrictions. So, if the NCAA were to allow college athletes to get what they are really worth in a market sense, what we would end up with is a few of the blue-bloods breaking off into a pro-league, and everyone else dropping down to a lower true-amateur division. But reading between the lines of what you are saying about tuition not being "compensation", there is another good point in there--which is that unlike greenbacks which are simply a means of exchange and have relatively equal value to anyone who holds them, tuition is a non-fungible asset--and thus, regardless of the cost to the university, not everyone who receives a scholarship will value it the same way. Many "student-athletes" (but I don't think the majority) don't value a college education at all. For those kids, if there is any value to the experience, its the opportunity to be notices on a big stage and thus increase their chances of getting paid as a pro (or simply because of the NBA age rules). The NCAA's failing here is that the more they encourage the non "student athlete" athletes, the more ridiculous their claim that college athletics are truly athletics for college students. Gotcha. I think you make great point and generally speaking you can say that's not how labor markets work, but sports are entertainment, and that's how the entertainment industry works in a lot of cases. If you sign to a record label that's exactly what's going to happen. Think of Alabama football as Drake for instance. You're going to take the profits you make off Drake to fund artists that may or may not be generating income, but that isn't used as an excuse to not pay Drake his worth. I think tuition is a form of compensation, but the value is in receiving the diploma, and sports scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis. So there's kind of this weird dynamic where we're saying we're educating kids, but if they don't perform up to level they get pushed to another school regardless of what their academic standing is. If the commitment was for four years I think that would hold more weight for me, but it isn't. TBH though I don't think in basketball things would change much. There's not a ton of teams making boatloads of cash of their b-ball programs. Kentucky basketball makes the most and it's still less than their football program for instance. The top schools are going to get the best players, but they are already doing that. Those kids aren't going to be around long, and you win by getting old in college b-ball. I don't think the model for a school like Georgetown would change much. They also have the ability to sell a world class education and an alumni network that can help them when the ball stops bouncing. There are always going to be kids and parents that see the bigger picture. Those folks will understand if you want to play professionally it's better to get showcased at school than to be the 9th kid on Kentucky, even though they might pay you a little more in the short term.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,318
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Apr 1, 2021 12:51:36 GMT -5
I did not miss the point. Your point was that the revenue sport athletes should share (or at least have a greater share) in the profits. But if you are going to compare student-athletes to the labor market, then its worth pointing out that this is not how labor markets operate. Yes, sometimes labor market participants can unionize and use that leverage to negotiate that their compensation be tied to profits--but in a general sense, the cost of labor is not based on profits, its based on demand. And you need only look at the G-League and other US-based leagues below the NBA to know that for 99% of these kids, there is minimal market demand. Your point is well taken that sticker price is not necessarily the university's own cost, but a scholarship is nonetheless it is still both a) a significant cost to the university; and b) a thing of value (i.e., compensation, or in contract terms "consideration"). If the NCAA amateurism rule vanished tomorrow, and was replaced with some kind of semi or minor-pro league, most of the kids playing in college ball would not be able to demand greater value that the scholarship package. However, a few would be able to make substantially more--i.e., the surefire future pros, and especially those who are only playing college ball because of the NBA's arbitrary age restrictions. So, if the NCAA were to allow college athletes to get what they are really worth in a market sense, what we would end up with is a few of the blue-bloods breaking off into a pro-league, and everyone else dropping down to a lower true-amateur division. But reading between the lines of what you are saying about tuition not being "compensation", there is another good point in there--which is that unlike greenbacks which are simply a means of exchange and have relatively equal value to anyone who holds them, tuition is a non-fungible asset--and thus, regardless of the cost to the university, not everyone who receives a scholarship will value it the same way. Many "student-athletes" (but I don't think the majority) don't value a college education at all. For those kids, if there is any value to the experience, its the opportunity to be notices on a big stage and thus increase their chances of getting paid as a pro (or simply because of the NBA age rules). The NCAA's failing here is that the more they encourage the non "student athlete" athletes, the more ridiculous their claim that college athletics are truly athletics for college students. Wouldn't you say the demand for HM college sports are high considering how much money is made from it? To me, it's not about what a Dante Harris is worth individually but what all the kids who participate are worth collectively. Very hard to make the case a scholarship & stipend is fair compensation... Again, if we look at Dante Harris and his teammates as labor market participants, the revenues/profitability of the program are besides the point. Coca-Cola is a massive company, but that does not mean that every Coke employee on the bottling floor makes a fortune. Coke determines how to pay the bottlers not by a percentage of revenues, but by how much (or really how little) they can pay the bottler to entice them to stay in the role. If other companies are paying similar bottlers $15/hr, chances are Coke is going to pay something in that range too. The caveat to this is that if the bottlers successfully unionize, and can employ collective action as leverage to negotiate a better deal (i.e., you pay us some greater sum perhaps taking into account revenues, or else you won't have any bottlers and your business will fail). "Fair" in the sense of moral/ethical fairness is a very different thing from "fair" in the sense of "fair market value".
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,318
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Apr 1, 2021 12:59:58 GMT -5
I did not miss the point. Your point was that the revenue sport athletes should share (or at least have a greater share) in the profits. But if you are going to compare student-athletes to the labor market, then its worth pointing out that this is not how labor markets operate. Yes, sometimes labor market participants can unionize and use that leverage to negotiate that their compensation be tied to profits--but in a general sense, the cost of labor is not based on profits, its based on demand. And you need only look at the G-League and other US-based leagues below the NBA to know that for 99% of these kids, there is minimal market demand. Your point is well taken that sticker price is not necessarily the university's own cost, but a scholarship is nonetheless it is still both a) a significant cost to the university; and b) a thing of value (i.e., compensation, or in contract terms "consideration"). If the NCAA amateurism rule vanished tomorrow, and was replaced with some kind of semi or minor-pro league, most of the kids playing in college ball would not be able to demand greater value that the scholarship package. However, a few would be able to make substantially more--i.e., the surefire future pros, and especially those who are only playing college ball because of the NBA's arbitrary age restrictions. So, if the NCAA were to allow college athletes to get what they are really worth in a market sense, what we would end up with is a few of the blue-bloods breaking off into a pro-league, and everyone else dropping down to a lower true-amateur division. But reading between the lines of what you are saying about tuition not being "compensation", there is another good point in there--which is that unlike greenbacks which are simply a means of exchange and have relatively equal value to anyone who holds them, tuition is a non-fungible asset--and thus, regardless of the cost to the university, not everyone who receives a scholarship will value it the same way. Many "student-athletes" (but I don't think the majority) don't value a college education at all. For those kids, if there is any value to the experience, its the opportunity to be notices on a big stage and thus increase their chances of getting paid as a pro (or simply because of the NBA age rules). The NCAA's failing here is that the more they encourage the non "student athlete" athletes, the more ridiculous their claim that college athletics are truly athletics for college students. Gotcha. I think you make great point and generally speaking you can say that's not how labor markets work, but sports are entertainment, and that's how the entertainment industry works in a lot of cases. If you sign to a record label that's exactly what's going to happen. Think of Alabama football as Drake for instance. You're going to take the profits you make off Drake to fund artists that may or may not be generating income, but that isn't used as an excuse to not pay Drake his worth. I think tuition is a form of compensation, but the value is in receiving the diploma, and sports scholarships are renewed on a yearly basis. So there's kind of this weird dynamic where we're saying we're educating kids, but if they don't perform up to level they get pushed to another school regardless of what their academic standing is. If the commitment was for four years I think that would hold more weight for me, but it isn't. TBH though I don't think in basketball things would change much. There's not a ton of teams making boatloads of cash of their b-ball programs. Kentucky basketball makes the most and it's still less than their football program for instance. The top schools are going to get the best players, but they are already doing that. Those kids aren't going to be around long, and you win by getting old in college b-ball. I don't think the model for a school like Georgetown would change much. They also have the ability to sell a world class education and an alumni network that can help them when the ball stops bouncing. There are always going to be kids and parents that see the bigger picture. Those folks will understand if you want to play professionally it's better to get showcased at school than to be the 9th kid on Kentucky, even though they might pay you a little more in the short term. I fully agree that NCAA and the institutions take full advantage of this model, knowing full well that many of the stars it promotes in football and basketball either don't value the education/degree at all, or are substantially undervalued even if we are talking in terms of the sticker cost of attendance. And the entertainment/sports industry does not really work differently--its simply that the stars in those industries are valuable for their uniqueness in a way that the accountant likely is not. Take a Hollywood movie for example--Tom Cruise knows his value to the filmmaker is so high that he has leverage to negotiate a contract that pays him a high guaranteed pay-out, plus a percentage of the revenues. But Joe Schmo the Extra, who is chilling in the background in a couple scenes, is likely utterly replaceable, and so has minimal bargaining power (unless he's on a SAAG union contract), and regardless of whether the film makes $50m or is a boondogle, will be paid the same wage.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 1, 2021 13:05:14 GMT -5
Looks like McClung got a taste of his own medicine with Beard taking the Texas job All this talk by Beard about “family” and Lubbock being a great place and he skips town. Beard did what was good for Beard. Ball don’t lie (not even sure what that actually means but seems like it would fit here)
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,240
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 1, 2021 13:31:21 GMT -5
They are going to love Mac at the University of Texas... He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe. In all seriousness, why would he have to sit? His coach left and it’s free-transfer year. As I understand it, the only issue is if Texas has an open scholarship (because he would count towards the 13-scholarship limit there).
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Apr 1, 2021 13:41:43 GMT -5
Some leagues have their own rules about in-league transfers having to sit a year (or more) - not sure about the Big 12.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,822
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 1, 2021 13:42:07 GMT -5
Wouldn't you say the demand for HM college sports are high considering how much money is made from it? To me, it's not about what a Dante Harris is worth individually but what all the kids who participate are worth collectively. Very hard to make the case a scholarship & stipend is fair compensation... Again, if we look at Dante Harris and his teammates as labor market participants, the revenues/profitability of the program are besides the point. Coca-Cola is a massive company, but that does not mean that every Coke employee on the bottling floor makes a fortune. Coke determines how to pay the bottlers not by a percentage of revenues, but by how much (or really how little) they can pay the bottler to entice them to stay in the role. If other companies are paying similar bottlers $15/hr, chances are Coke is going to pay something in that range too. The caveat to this is that if the bottlers successfully unionize, and can employ collective action as leverage to negotiate a better deal (i.e., you pay us some greater sum perhaps taking into account revenues, or else you won't have any bottlers and your business will fail). "Fair" in the sense of moral/ethical fairness is a very different thing from "fair" in the sense of "fair market value". I understand what you're saying but your initial post stated that the cost of labor is based on demand and then used that point to say 99% of the kids aren't worth much. You didn’t answer my question of whether or not the demand for HM athletics is high or not? If the answer is yes, then shouldn’t the cost of labor be higher than they're currently offering?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 1, 2021 14:01:28 GMT -5
He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe. In all seriousness, why would he have to sit? His coach left and it’s free-transfer year. As I understand it, the only issue is if Texas has an open scholarship (because he would count towards the 13-scholarship limit there). I believe it's only free transfer for your first transfer. Since this is his 2nd transfer, he would have to sit unless he gets a waiver. I guess it would be also possible he graduates over the summer in 3 years, then he could be a grad transfer and play immediately. Not sure what his academic situation is like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 14:10:14 GMT -5
He would have to sit now if/when the rule passes I believe. In all seriousness, why would he have to sit? His coach left and it’s free-transfer year. As I understand it, the only issue is if Texas has an open scholarship (because he would count towards the 13-scholarship limit there). Gotcha. I think the rule is you don't have to sit if it's your first transfer, but of course it hasn't passed yet so in reality it could be anything. On a side note how craaaazy would that be? I just realized that technically speaking a coach at a really good HM or MM could take a job at a new school and essentially have his best players with remaining eligibility transfer with him and play immediately. Wild yo.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,318
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Apr 1, 2021 14:15:12 GMT -5
Again, if we look at Dante Harris and his teammates as labor market participants, the revenues/profitability of the program are besides the point. Coca-Cola is a massive company, but that does not mean that every Coke employee on the bottling floor makes a fortune. Coke determines how to pay the bottlers not by a percentage of revenues, but by how much (or really how little) they can pay the bottler to entice them to stay in the role. If other companies are paying similar bottlers $15/hr, chances are Coke is going to pay something in that range too. The caveat to this is that if the bottlers successfully unionize, and can employ collective action as leverage to negotiate a better deal (i.e., you pay us some greater sum perhaps taking into account revenues, or else you won't have any bottlers and your business will fail). "Fair" in the sense of moral/ethical fairness is a very different thing from "fair" in the sense of "fair market value". I understand what you're saying but your initial post stated that the cost of labor is based on demand and then used that point to say 99% of the kids aren't worth much. You didn’t answer my question of whether or not the demand for HM athletics is high or not? If the answer is yes, then shouldn’t the cost of labor be higher than they're currently offering? I agree that there is high demand for high major mens college basektball and football--at least relative to non-revenue college sports and minor league sports. But your point--that if there is high demand for a product the per unit cost of labor should necessarily reflect that high demand, simply does not follow. Using my Coke hypothetical again--just because there is high demand for Coca-Cola, that does not by extension mean that there is high demand for Coke bottlers ( relative to available supply of bottlers). So now look at college basketball players--does demand outstrip supply such that the average-talent D1 player would be able to demand something higher than cost of attendance? Salaries in other domestic leagues lower than the NBA would seem to indicate no. Are there a number of players in the NCAA ranks each year who are unique enough talents that they would be able to negotiate higher compensation if it was permitted? Yes. On the other hand, is there any argument that it is the moral/ethical thing to do to see NCAA revenue sport athletes receive a greater share of the sport's success? Sure.
|
|