• The KillerFrogs

FWST: TCU’s Patterson on Fair Pay to Play Act: Amateur athletics go away if bidding wars start

Wexahu

Full Member
Wow. Hey while you're back in the 1940's, can you throw some money on IBM for me?

(This totally isn't true, btw. Liability laws and safety regulations exist for a reason.)


This goes back to our previous conversation of "Yeah but it'll hurt our business" vs "Your business is based on an unjust arrangement" from the other thread. My position has not changed. The effect on college football is not relevant if you are fixing an injustice. It's then up to the NCAA to figure out a way to maintain given new constraints. Adapt or die, but it's becoming increasingly clear that you can't be a professional-in-everything-but-name football league signing hundred-million dollar TV rights deals, hiring coaches for tens of millions of dollars, building hundred million dollar stadiums, sell millions in tickets to watch kids play, and selling millions in merchandise with star-player's number / likeness on it...and then say "Whoa whoa, you're amateurs" when those players ask for the right to monetize their labor. As I said before, the status quo isn't going to work.

So better to just blow up everything (even though literally EVERY player in the system....coaches, players, administrators, etc....is without doubt better compensated and better taken care of then ever before) just because a couple groups are getting a bigger chunk of the pie than they did in the past? Well, ok, but that sounds really really stupid.

Over time attorneys ruin everything. Are you an attorney? You sure sound like one.
 

GenXFrog

Active Member
Do you think honestly think revenue being pumped into college sports will remain the same if players are allowed to become, for all intents and purposes, paid professionals who put themselves out for bid?

Just curious, what is a workable solution in your eyes?

Do you not believe this already happens in some high profile cases?

'Bag men' are a myth? Jarrett got a truck? Dylan #wrts?

How would you characterize the NCAA's ability to police this type of activity over the last decade? Will they do better? I, at least, believe they cannot realistically.

Not saying that I agree with what's proposed in California. Just saying that the money already happens, that the NCAA has been proven largely unable to stop it, and a different approach should be taken.
 

Zubaz

Member
So better to just blow up everything (even though literally EVERY player in the system....coaches, players, administrators, etc....is without doubt better compensated and better taken care of then ever before) just because a couple groups are getting a bigger chunk of the pie than they did in the past? Well, ok, but that sounds really really stupid.
Agreed, it would be really really stupid of the NCAA to "draw a bigger line in the sand" and try to "stand their ground" on the status quo when that is no longer workable, and quite possibly facing federal legislation that will render it so. I do hope they can be pro-active and come up with something that works best for everyone.
 

Double V

Active Member
Wow. Hey while you're back in the 1940's, can you throw some money on IBM for me?

(This totally isn't true, btw. Liability laws and safety regulations exist for a reason.)


This goes back to our previous conversation of "Yeah but it'll hurt our business" vs "Your business is based on an unjust arrangement" from the other thread. My position has not changed. The effect on college football is not relevant if you are fixing an injustice. It's then up to the NCAA to figure out a way to maintain given new constraints. Adapt or die, but it's becoming increasingly clear that you can't be a professional-in-everything-but-name football league signing hundred-million dollar TV rights deals, hiring coaches for tens of millions of dollars, building hundred million dollar stadiums, sell millions in tickets to watch kids play, and selling millions in merchandise with star-player's number / likeness on it...and then say "Whoa whoa, you're amateurs" when those players ask for the right to monetize their labor. As I said before, the status quo isn't going to work.
Liability laws and safety regs have no correlation to the question of "fairness". What you are advocating for is the equivalent to saying everyone working as a logger should get paid $XXXX more than they currently do, because the job is dangerous.

If they know the danger when they took the job, and accepted the pay, then it's fair. In fact, I cant think of a better way to determine "fairness" than two rational adults entering a mutual agreement.

The idea that the NCAA or some other governing body can determine a number that is more "fair" is just wrong.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
This goes back to our previous conversation of "Yeah but it'll hurt our business" vs "Your business is based on an unjust arrangement" from the other thread. My position has not changed. The effect on college football is not relevant if you are fixing an injustice.

You really have to step out on a limb to say this is an injustice. Being a talented athlete in and of itself doesn't entitle anyone to anything. And there are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of kids out there waiting in line for these $40-75k annual scholarships. Parents are getting private coaching and sending their kids to camps just to increase the chance they land one, flying all over the country in some cases so their kids can be exposed for the opportunity to get an athletic scholarship. And here you act like it's almost worthless.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Agreed, it would be really really stupid of the NCAA to "draw a bigger line in the sand" and try to "stand their ground" on the status quo when that is no longer workable, and quite possibly facing federal legislation that will render it so. I do hope they can be pro-active and come up with something that works best for everyone.

Like I said, attorneys ruin everything eventually. They are the only reason the status quo is no longer workable, if in fact that's the case.
 

Zubaz

Member
Liability laws and safety regs have no correlation to the question of "fairness".
Uh, yes they absolutely do. If you are violating liability laws, you are not providing the duty of care that you owe to the other party, and that is an "unfair" agreement. It's the entire reason those laws exist in the first place.

What you are advocating for is the equivalent to saying everyone working as a logger should get paid $XXXX more than they currently do, because the job is dangerous.
What, you mean like some sort of a minimum level of wage to ensure a fair compensation for labor? Hey, that's also been a law since the 1940's to ensure a more fair working arrangement!

If they know the danger when they took the job, and accepted the pay, then it's fair. In fact, I cant think of a better way to determine "fairness" than two rational adults entering a mutual agreement.
...a "mutual" agreement warped by anti-competitive forces that are protected by both market share and legislation, you mean?
 

Zubaz

Member
You really have to step out on a limb to say this is an injustice. Being a talented athlete in and of itself doesn't entitle anyone to anything. And there are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of kids out there waiting in line for these $40-75k annual scholarships. Parents are getting private coaching and sending their kids to camps just to increase the chance they land one, flying all over the country in some cases so their kids can be exposed for the opportunity to get an athletic scholarship. And here you act like it's almost worthless.
I am not acting like it's worthless.

I am acting like some could earn more than what you are describing if they were not prohibited from doing so, and that the arguments against them being allowed to do so ring hollow given the other behaviors of those actors.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I am not acting like it's worthless.

I am acting like some could earn more than what you are describing if they were not prohibited from doing so, and that the arguments against them being allowed to do so ring hollow given the other behaviors of those actors.

Everyone is going to be earning a lot less if they aren't very, very careful with how they handle this. Given responses I've heard so far I don't have much confidence the end result is going to be anything I will be terribly interested in.

I guess everyone making less money and having less benefits is better than a few people making too much money.
 

Double V

Active Member
Uh, yes they absolutely do. If you are violating liability laws, you are not providing the duty of care that you owe to the other party, and that is an "unfair" agreement. It's the entire reason those laws exist in the first place.


What, you mean like some sort of a minimum level of wage to ensure a fair compensation for labor? Hey, that's also been a law since the 1940's to ensure a more fair working arrangement!


...a "mutual" agreement warped by anti-competitive forces that are protected by both market share and legislation, you mean?
A minimum wage is a great example, actually. Minimum wages have done nothing but put DOWNWARD pressure on wages as employers have anchored their starting wages to the minimum wage for decades.

As for the monopoly argument (which doesnt hold water, because neither the NCAA nor the NFL hold a monopoly on the labor market for kids trying to figure out what to do after HS), the fix is to get rid of the monopoly! I'm all for stopping the special treatment of the NFL and NCAA. There's some common ground there. But mone of that matters, because there are a MILLION other things to do with your life than play college football.

I'll drop the liability laws argument because that's going down an irrelevant path, anyway.
 

Zubaz

Member
A minimum wage is a great example, actually. Minimum wages have done nothing but put DOWNWARD pressure on wages as employers have anchored their starting wages to the minimum wage for decades.
Oh brother.
As for the monopoly argument (which doesnt hold water, because neither the NCAA nor the NFL hold a monopoly on the labor market for kids trying to figure out what to do after HS), the fix is to get rid of the monopoly! I'm all for stopping the special treatment of the NFL and NCAA. There's some common ground there. But mone of that matters, because there are a MILLION other things to do with your life than play college football.
As Dr Butler often said between Elvis quotes: "Defined narrowly enough, everything is a Monopoly. Defined broadly enough, nothing is." I'd argue you are being too broad to say "you can earn a living doing something else therefore they don't have a monopoly". I would suggest it is fairly clear the NFL has a de-facot and are in general protected by both market share and legislation when they engage in anticompetitive practice (like prohibiting younger players from being drafted, or signing exclusive network contracts). The NCAA therefore certainly has a de-facto monopoly on U-21 American football.

We are in agreement on ending those protections.
 

MAcFroggy

Active Member
I do not act like I have the answers, but I really do think this is going to dramatically and forever alter college athletics. Students can now transfer without restraint and will soon be able to utilize NIL to market themselves, I imagine situations where players will be moving from school to school to get higher payouts every year. Players will "climb the ladder" similar to coaches or in the same way that grad transfer currently do.

I am not old (graduated TCU in late 2000s), and I think this will alter my affinity toward TCU and college athletics. I go to every home football game, and I stay until the end every time. I do it because I want to support the players, and also because it makes me fell good I guess. The alma mater is a great way to keep an attachment to the school and program. I have no desire to stay late to sing an alma mater to players who are only in it for marketing opportunities and money. I give money to the school because I believe they are providing a great opportunity for these young people. Once this becomes professional football, I have no desire to donate to a TCU professional football team no more than I would donate money to the Dallas Cowboys or Dallas Mavs. I already have Cowboys season tickets to go watch professional football.

I know a lot of people hate the NCAAs argument that people care about college sports specifically because it is amateur athletics. I honestly think there is validity to that, as I feel that way personally.

IMO the free market has already spoken, and it emphatically stated it prefers the NFL and amateur college football. It does not support the XFL, AAF, semi-pro leagues, or any other minor league. People like amateur sports, and the market should not be forced to eliminate them no more than golf courses should be forced to eliminate amateur golf tournaments or boxing should be forced to eliminate amateur bouts. It seems funny to me that many of the most conservative people that hate government interference are the same people that say the kids should be able to be a part of the free market and want to do away with the NCAA. The students currently are part of the free market, and the market has stated it prefers amateur sports.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Oh brother.

As Dr Butler often said between Elvis quotes: "Defined narrowly enough, everything is a Monopoly. Defined broadly enough, nothing is." I'd argue you are being too broad to say "you can earn a living doing something else therefore they don't have a monopoly". I would suggest it is fairly clear the NFL has a de-facot and are in general protected by both market share and legislation when they engage in anticompetitive practice (like prohibiting younger players from being drafted, or signing exclusive network contracts). The NCAA therefore certainly has a de-facto monopoly on U-21 American football.

We are in agreement on ending those protections.

Are you an attorney?

Your responses seem to indicate that you couldn't care less what becomes of college football, it could go away for all you care, as long as everything is "fair" from a legal standpoint.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I am not old (graduated TCU in late 2000s), and I think this will alter my affinity toward TCU and college athletics. I go to every home football game, and I stay until the end every time. I do it because I want to support the players, and also because it makes me fell good I guess. The alma mater is a great way to keep an attachment to the school and program. I have no desire to stay late to sing an alma mater to players who are only in it for marketing opportunities and money. I give money to the school because I believe they are providing a great opportunity for these young people. Once this becomes professional football, I have no desire to donate to a TCU professional football team no more than I would donate money to the Dallas Cowboys or Dallas Mavs. I already have Cowboys season tickets to go watch professional football.

I know a lot of people hate the NCAAs argument that people care about college sports specifically because it is amateur athletics. I honestly think there is validity to that, as I feel that way personally.

My thoughts exactly. As soon as players start taking the highest bid, I'm out. It just won't be any fun anymore so why bother spending time and money on it. And I know I'm not alone.
 

jake102

Active Member
Everyone is going to be earning a lot less if they aren't very, very careful with how they handle this. Given responses I've heard so far I don't have much confidence the end result is going to be anything I will be terribly interested in.

I guess everyone making less money and having less benefits is better than a few people making too much money.

I'd slightly adjust to most everyone making less money/scholarships, with a select number of athletes making significantly more money.
 

jake102

Active Member
My thoughts exactly. As soon as players start taking the highest bid, I'm out. It just won't be any fun anymore so why bother spending time and money on it. And I know I'm not alone.

I'd guess you are in the majority.

It's a classic case of Freakenomics. Reminds me of the program a few years ago where there were giant subsidies for trading in old vehicles and buying new ones. The old vehicles were scraped and taken out of circulation. What happened? The market for old, cheap used cars skyrocketed hurting the poors who depend on that market.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I'd slightly adjust to most everyone making less money/scholarships, with a select number of athletes making significantly more money.

A very select few. Without the platform the NCAA provides, most of these players really aren't worth much at all, and the audience in front of that platform is going to get a lot smaller.
 

Zubaz

Member
Are you an attorney?

Your responses seem to indicate that you couldn't care less what becomes of college football, it could go away for all you care, as long as everything is "fair" from a legal standpoint.
No, I am not an attorney.

I do care about college football. The reason you and I are both here is because we are fans of college football. I want it to survive. I want the NCAA to come up with something that is satisfactory for everyone (or at least a compromise that everyone can live with. I don't, however, think that the impact of moving away from the status quo is an adequate response to the objections, any more than "VHS will kill the movie industry", "Home Cassettes (later Napster / iTunes) will kill the record industry", etc is a defense against progress (I also just fundamentally don't think it's true, btw). So if you want to argue that the labor that goes in to billion dollar industry doesn't deserve an increased share of revenue, a voice at the table, or at the very least the right to sell their labor / likeness as they see fit, I do think you need to do better than "But that would harm our business model" as a rebuttal.
 

MAcFroggy

Active Member
One other reason I am against the "Olympic" model is because the players likeness is directly tied to the school they chose. With the Olympics the vast majority of athletes can not pick and chose what country they play for. Yes, there are some duel citizens, but by and large most people are only eligible to participate for one country. They are not choosing which country to represent based on how it will effect the NIL rights. However, with college athletics players do have the ability to chose which "country" to play for, and their NIL is directly linked to where they decide to attend. The current level playing field of (scholarship, food, coaching, etc) will forever be un-level ("our school can increase your NIL because we have xxx number of alumni and yyy number of rich alumni who will market you")
 

Planks

Active Member
College Football currently has a huge optics problem. On one hand you have coaches, athletic directors, school administrators, and TV executives, the majority of whom are white, earning millions of dollars off of the backs of athletes, the majority of whom are black, who play a dangerous, body breaking sport all while getting paid nothing either directly or indirectly (via the use of their likeness).

This arrangement will not pass the test of time. Society will continue to see this more and more as a social justice issue. The rules WILL be changed, regardless of whether or not it is good for the game of college football. The history textbooks of the future will have an unfavorable opinion of the current arrangement of college football. Like it or not, that’s the way it’s going to be.

I’m not saying I have an idea for a better solution, but I also don’t think it’s out of the question to refer to the current state of college football as “unjust”. I do believe that whatever changes are to come will likely be negative for the game of college football, and almost certainly crippling for the ability of my beloved TCU’s ability to compete in the sport. However despite that, I am open to proposals and changes that have the potential to improve the lives of the athletes. The current arrangement is not fair to the players.
 
Top