Real Sports story implicates Auburn, other schools

I apologize in advance if your speaking more generally, but I don't think anyone in this thread has argued players play for free, or compared NCAA rules to Jim Crow laws.

 

There is no rule that the schools currently in the MAC or Sun Belt schools must have football teams (or any other athletic team, for that matter, other than they'd obviously no longer be MAC or Sun Belt schools if they were to eliminate all of them). For the players that are worth more than the value of a scholarship, though, there are rules that prevent them from getting their fair share.

 

So who determines what their "fair share" is? You?

 

The non-colluding marketplace.

 

I don't suggest to know the "fair share". I do, however, find it very hard to believe that of all the possible values, the one chosen by the NCAA and its member institutions and imposed on parties with little bargaining power is the correct one. Further, the limited data points we have-the bribes, as Michael pointed out (and I already reiterated)- suggest the value for some players would be higher in the counter-factual scenario where players get paid.

<Edited because I misquoted myself. Whoops. And to modify final sentence, too>

 

The bribe argument is weak. Protection money is part of the cost of doing business in some cities. Is the solution to say that's what the market demands, so take racketeering and all similar laws off the books? I don't see where the bribe is justification for eliminating laws and rules.

 

I don't think compensation above and beyond a colluded agreement and extortion ware quite comparable.

In fact, that's a perfect example of why we shouldn't be allowing what the NCAA is doing.

The government and laws are supposed to protect people from being forced to make agreements on uneven footing. This is why, your protection money example, we don't allow people to use the threat of violence to influence business dealings. This is also why, in the NCAA example, we don't usually allow employers to openly collude to bring down the cost of labor.

 

NCAA rules aren't laws. That's a fairly significant difference.

 

And I apologize for, I'm sure, coming off as a huge prick. Not a great first impression. I'm angry about the situation and taking it out unfairly on some of you. I will continue to argue vigorously-and question people directly-but will attempt to be more civil. My apologies.

 

HBO is currently re-airing the episode, followed immediately by "The Blind Side." I see what you did there ...

 

No, I meant that JD pointed out the absurdity of arguments that players were not receiving value for their labor. And I believe you said we should be not be reporting players taking money, because the NCAA laws are immoral, wrong, whatever...a direct comparison to truly wrong stuff like Jim Crow laws. And there's nothing that says a business has to pay an employee the value of his contribution. As you surely know to be true, Peyton Manning's value to Tennessee revenue is no different from Erik Ainge's....sold-out stadium and numerous TV appearances either way.

 

In what other occupation other than the Disney Channel is an 18-year-old receiving $30,000-$50,000 a year, conservatively, in compensation? And make no mistake, this argument isn't over paying the center at Wisconsin. This is over paying players whom the NFL will be paying big anyway. Any claims of battling the oppression of 18 year olds is pure pap.