Real Sports story implicates Auburn, other schools

To be fair, most university employees have to sign an agreement that anything they "invent" while an employee is property of the university. So if a scientist IDs a new process or something, or more succinctly "create value" for the school, it belongs to the school.

 

The value the players bring the school comes in concert with their teammates, a system created by coaches, the interest of a fan base built over decades, media coverage, opportunity made available by the school, a stadium to play games in, uniforms, equipment, and on and on. I suppose the players are free, each on his own, to take their individual value elsewhere and see what they get for it. If Cam Newton invents a new play, he should get market value for it.

 

But, again, the problem is not the clause itself. The problem is that in the context of athletics, the universities-through the NCAA-have created a cartel that allows them to jointly agree on the provisions they will force on players-and have the power to punish anyone that deviates from that agreement.

 

Well, there is the NAIA.

 

Again, please walk me through the steps your are taking from this point to reaching the conclusion that an arbitrary amount - a scholarship - is the fair value to pay these players. As Michael Gee already pointed out, the fact players receive bribes suggests the market rate should be higher.

But, for argument's sake, let's look at your claim. Remind me again the harm in eliminating NCAA rules? Based on your analysis in this post, players provide minimal value to the university. Given this, you certainly wouldn't have to worry about them making too much. Are you suggesting the NCAA benefits the players because they'd be making less in the absence of the cartel the schools have agreed to?

 

Let kids choose between a pro career and a scholarship, and that should go a long way to defining their market worth. Or perhaps you haven't heard of baseball.

 

Pay the players. Easy to say. Costs nothing to say. Makes you feel good.

Isn't going to happen, no matter how much you ignore workers comp laws, insurance regulations, the courts -- and no matter how many times you say "cartel."

 

Just give athletes an option to take the cash value of their scholarship. Drop the facade of being students.

 

Sorry I was repeating myself. Given that many of you repeatedly failed to address this part of my argument, couldn't be sure you had seen it.

Speaking of which, since you've avoided answering my most recent post, I take it you've changed your position? Now you only oppose paying players because of the impracticality of doing so? Perhaps if the NCAA and its members institutions can't figure out a legal way to do so, they should exit the business of major college athletics.

 

or, we don't care.
Get me a beer, newb, before you head back under the bridge.

 

This argument about paying players is in support of the Cam Newtons, who will get theirs eventually, anyway. Does anybody on a MAC or Sun Belt roster really add enough value to pay them? In schools likes this, players should give back their scholarship money, for football is a money pit at such schools. And does a player at most SEC schools really add value? 120,000 in the stands whether it's Peyton Manning or Erik Ainge behind center at Tennessee, and the situation is similar at most other SEC schools. I guess maybe a Blaine Gabbert or a Brad Smith at Missouri, you'd have a case for their added value; they're the difference between 35,000 and 65,000 in the stands.

Anyhoo, the scholarship and breaks and special services and the guaranteed insurance selling job from a fat-cat alumnus if there's no pro career...JD and others have laid out the absurdity of the concept that the players are playing for free. And to compare the NCAA laws to Jim Crow laws as far as being unfair laws is a slap in the face to the millions of blacks who were oppressed by Jim Crow.

Should the millions made off athletics go more into academic programs and facilities than back into the athletics maw? Certainly. That's where the exploitation is taking place

 

Attack the person, not the argument?