• The KillerFrogs

The House Settlement (Officially Paying Players)

NovaScotiaFrog

Active Member
You can't really have a truly "free market" in sports, because a sports league is made of individual teams that to one extent or the other have to collude with each other. The argument above even argues that a free market necessarily leads to a monopoly, but that monopoly power warps the dynamic and enters in to antitrust territory. Again, this is why we saw their collusion and labor practices ruled illegal.

"Freeer-than-it-was" market is more accurate.
The universities would hold all the value in a free market because without them, none of this exists. Every D1 football player could quit tomorrow and they'd be replaced in a about a week and most of the money would keep rolling in
This definitely isn't true. I take it you are a bit too young to remember 1982 or 1987?
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
Not really.

If it was truly a free market, the universities and the NCAA could rule how they see fit and then the players could then choose to not play college football if they wanted and go find out how much they make playing in their own league that they create. The universities would hold all the value in a free market because without them, none of this exists. Every D1 football player could quit tomorrow and they'd be replaced in a about a week and most of the money would keep rolling in. However if all the P4 universities decided they weren't going to be sponsor football anymore, the players wouldn't be able to make jack [ Finebaum ].

There really is no such thing as a "free market".
TANSTAAFM!
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
You can't really have a truly "free market" in sports, because a sports league is made of individual teams that to one extent or the other have to collude with each other. The argument above even argues that a free market necessarily leads to a monopoly, but that monopoly power warps the dynamic and enters in to antitrust territory. Again, this is why we saw their collusion and labor practices ruled illegal.

"Freeer-than-it-was" market is more accurate.

This definitely isn't true. I take it you are a bit too young to remember 1982 or 1987?
Texas colludes with Texas A&M...to suck!

“All monopolies are maintained by government privilege — and would collapse in a free market.”
-- Ayn Rand

“Monopoly prices can only be maintained if the government interferes and prevents competition.”
-- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (1949)
 

Wexahu

Full Member
You can't really have a truly "free market" in sports, because a sports league is made of individual teams that to one extent or the other have to collude with each other. The argument above even argues that a free market necessarily leads to a monopoly, but that monopoly power warps the dynamic and enters in to antitrust territory. Again, this is why we saw their collusion and labor practices ruled illegal.

"Freeer-than-it-was" market is more accurate.

This definitely isn't true. I take it you are a bit too young to remember 1982 or 1987?
What happened in 1982 and 1987?

If you're referring to specific situations with programs, that's different. A single program that gets hits with huge defections is going to suffer because they will suck relative to their competition.

How much do you think these "4 star" and "5 star" players could make today without their university affiliation? They could all get together and form a league by themselves and nobody would give two [ Finebaum ]s to watch them play if they didn't have the university jersey on and weren't playing NCAA sanctioned college football. On the other hand, they could all disappear tomorrow and UT, OSU, UM and the rest would just reload with what is left and play in mostly packed stadiums in televised games.
 

NovaScotiaFrog

Active Member
What happened in 1982 and 1987?

If you're referring to specific situations with programs, that's different. A single program that gets hits with huge defections is going to suffer because they will suck relative to their competition.
I'm referring to NFL labor stoppages. In 1982 it led to games being cancelled, and the NFL scrambling to come up with exhibitions with replacement players and networks to broadcast CFL games, both of which were financial disasters if I remember right. In 1987 they went even further and played with replacement players, mostly cast-offs from the recently folded USFL or recently retired players, and the play was so bad that it tanked both live and television audiences. Quality of play matters.

Oh, and the NFL only lost about 1,200 players in those labor disputes, less than that in '87 when a lot of players crossed the line early. You're talking about losing 6,000+ players in the Power Conferences alone. 18,000 if you extend that out to "All of D1" as you want to claim [I assume you meant all of FBS rather than including FCS?]. That would absolutely impact people's willingness to watch.

How much do you think these "4 star" and "5 star" players could make today without their university affiliation? They could all get together and form a league by themselves and nobody would give two [ Finebaum ]s to watch them play if they didn't have the university jersey on and weren't playing NCAA sanctioned college football.
Even if this were true, this doesn't really change the overall point which is that without any players the NCAA is left with no product to provide those networks paying them billions. It doesn't really matter if it's the best 6,500 or the next 6,500, the players on the field are still what people are watching and are a significant part of what draws the money, whatever that amount is with worse players.
 
Last edited:

TCUdirtbag

Active Member
They volunteered to play under contract for a scholarship, a chance at a degree, room and board, and a remote shot at professionalism. Nobody forced them. It was not slavery.
Sure, because schools colluded to price fix their labor at “full scholarship” in violation of antitrust laws. While the schools raked in tens of millions in TV money and paid coaches 7-figure salaries. Hence, how we got here.
 

hiphopfroggy

Active Member
Not really.

If it was truly a free market, the universities and the NCAA could rule how they see fit and then the players could then choose to not play college football if they wanted and go find out how much they make playing in their own league that they create. The universities would hold all the value in a free market because without them, none of this exists. Every D1 football player could quit tomorrow and they'd be replaced in a about a week and most of the money would keep rolling in. However if all the P4 universities decided they weren't going to be sponsor football anymore, the players wouldn't be able to make jack [ Finebaum ].

There really is no such thing as a "free market".

There is, it's guided by the invisible hand.

This is just the invisible hand at work.
 

hometown frog

Active Member
What happened in 1982 and 1987?

If you're referring to specific situations with programs, that's different. A single program that gets hits with huge defections is going to suffer because they will suck relative to their competition.

How much do you think these "4 star" and "5 star" players could make today without their university affiliation? They could all get together and form a league by themselves and nobody would give two [ Finebaum ]s to watch them play if they didn't have the university jersey on and weren't playing NCAA sanctioned college football. On the other hand, they could all disappear tomorrow and UT, OSU, UM and the rest would just reload with what is left and play in mostly packed stadiums in televised games.
Cause every pro sport labor stoppage has proven that the athletes are what drives in the revenue. Teams without star players are financial disasters time and time again. So you may feel like the schools have the power, but sports history shows the athletes drive the boat they all float in
 

Dogfrog

Active Member
Cause every pro sport labor stoppage has proven that the athletes are what drives in the revenue. Teams without star players are financial disasters time and time again. So you may feel like the schools have the power, but sports history shows the athletes drive the boat they all float in
Good reason to not use pro sports for a college comparison. There are zero NFL teams without a few star players based on the NFL draft rules. There are many college teams without star players.
 
Last edited:

Wexahu

Full Member
Cause every pro sport labor stoppage has proven that the athletes are what drives in the revenue. Teams without star players are financial disasters time and time again. So you may feel like the schools have the power, but sports history shows the athletes drive the boat they all float in
Not true at all. The league creates the stars. There's nothing all that entertaining about watching a bunch of 20-somethings try and get a ball across a line, only within the framework of a league is it a marketable sport.

And I would guess an average NBA G league team would be VERY competitive in an NCAA P4 conference (and might even be an NCAA championship caliber team) but that league averages less than 2,500 fans per game, basically what decent size high schools draw in many parts of the country. They bring in FAR less revenue than a P4 basketball program. Why is that, if its the athletes and their skill that drives the revenue?

A pro sports league may suffer a blip if all the current stars players quit, but in no time they'd just replace them with new players, and those players would become new stars.
 

Double D

Tier 1
EMAIL just received:



John Denton - TCU's Flying T Club​






State of the Flying T Club - TCU NIL Update


Dear Flying T Club Family,
As you may know, college athletics changed forever last Friday. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the landmark House Settlement, ushering in the Revenue Sharing Era. Revenue Sharing means that, beginning July 1, college athletic departments will be allowed to directly pay student-athletes. This is the most transformational moment in college sports history - and thanks to you, TCU is ready to lead.

What It Means

The Flying T Club still has work to do to fund and fulfill all obligations to our student-athletes for contracts that run through June 30.
We still need your financial support as we continue to work through the summer in
support of TCU’s athletic department.

Giving Instructions

Visit flyingtclub.com/donate or email [email protected] for other donation methods such as checks, wire transfers, and more.

Thank You

Four years ago, we embarked on an unprecedented journey together. You answered every call. You believed in our vision. You made the impossible happen.
After making it to the CFP National Championship Game in 2022, it would have been easy to get complacent. But that's not the Horned Frog way. Instead, we doubled down on excellence. Since that National Championship game, Flying T Club supporters have contributed over $35 million - an extraordinary investment that has directly enabled our coaches to attract and retain elite talent in Fort Worth.

Go Frogs!
John Denton
Executive Director
Flying T Club
 

SlappyFrog

New Member
College football is dead. Disappointing to say the least. Just call it what it is…I don’t understand people who want to pay the salaries of professional athletes. Why would players go to classes?
 

BrewingFrog

Was I supposed to type something here?
College football is dead. Disappointing to say the least. Just call it what it is…I don’t understand people who want to pay the salaries of professional athletes. Why would players go to classes?
Classes? As one of the dizzying intellects of College Football lore once noted, "They don't pay us to play school." The ideal of the Student Athlete is as dead as Caesar.

It could be that, in a few years, there will be far more interesting games found at the lower levels of College Football. Programs that aren't just the NFL Minors, but have actual kids going to college and playing football on the side. No NFL hype, no ESPN blather, no Nike contracts, just a scholarship (maybe) with 4 years of football and a Degree at the end. Memories sweet, and comrades true...
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Classes? As one of the dizzying intellects of College Football lore once noted, "They don't pay us to play school." The ideal of the Student Athlete is as dead as Caesar.

It could be that, in a few years, there will be far more interesting games found at the lower levels of College Football. Programs that aren't just the NFL Minors, but have actual kids going to college and playing football on the side. No NFL hype, no ESPN blather, no Nike contracts, just a scholarship (maybe) with 4 years of football and a Degree at the end. Memories sweet, and comrades true...
Those games are there and have been there for about as long as football has been played. It's called NCAA DIII football. They don't even play for a scholarship, just the love of the game. Go take it in sometime, but I'm not sure you'll get all excited about it, because very few people care outside the parents and relatives of the players.

The stage that is created by whoever is the sanctioning the game, and the media hype that follows that is what make it what it is. Watching guys play a game that nobody is paying attention to and nobody is covering is about as boring as it gets, don't care how "talented" they are.
 
Last edited:

NovaScotiaFrog

Active Member
It could be that, in a few years, there will be far more interesting games found at the lower levels of College Football. Programs that aren't just the NFL Minors, but have actual kids going to college and playing football on the side. No NFL hype, no ESPN blather, no Nike contracts, just a scholarship (maybe) with 4 years of football and a Degree at the end. Memories sweet, and comrades true...
You have that right now, eh? Fordham vs Merrimack, Towson vs Elon, Stonehill vs Wagner would all fit that bill. More interesting than TCU vs UNC? You might be in the minority there but more power to you.
 

Latest posts

Top