if my company paid all my expenses for a set period (food, meals, doctor, transportation, housing, clothing) - heck yeah, sign me up! I would have loved that when I was 19, a full time student and a full time night shift sorter operator! And i wouldn't be concerned with what every other company was doing, i'd be looking for the one that was the best fit for me...and that when that set time was over, am i now more marketable in my field, which is what leads to the opportunity to make much more.

You're looking at the athletes as kids who haven't done nothing and are beign given an opportunity. I see them (or at least some of them) as having a skill that greatly contributes to a multi-billion dollar industry. Now, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I'm saying let the free market decide where.

my pay is not limited by an agreement between all the institutions in my industry. Again--an individual school can decide what they want to pay a player, if anything at all. My issue is when they all get together and agree to limit what they offer collectively.

This seems to disagree: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45el/auburn-university-tigers/

Of the top ten most valuable programs, 4 are not in the top 25. OF the next ten, 4 more are not in. But if they were allowed to pay for the quality of their players. Good by parity.

Except they are not employees. Good try though.

I missed this and came back to the forum to see what was written. Stupendous Man, I commend you for not having an argument and trying to make one up on the go. The problem is, you have shown your hand. I would go back and reconsider the ramifications of your argument before taking such a hard stance. Please note, listening to sports prognosticators argue the merits of a system is like listening to Debbie Wasserman Schultz (SP?) regarding an election cycle. You might want to try to find better sources for an argument. Those guys are journalists, not critical thinkers.

When you say all these passive aggressive things, you're not being the person Mr. Rogers believed you could be.

I'm interested to hear your take on internships and medical residencies.

As to free market concerns specific to college football, what do you see that's out of whack in terms of supply and demand?

YOU didn't have a skill worth millions at that age. You would have loved that deal because no one was offering more. And that's the evidence that, despite what you say about the value of their education, these guys are not making "enough". Because boosters are falling over themselves to give them money for their services. it's not "enough" because there are other people offering MORE.

It isn't stolen money. It isn't being paid to throw games. It's money to perform their skill. It's being offered and they aren't allowed to take it because of shady cartel rules.

And why does it matter that you would have taken it when you were 19? Would you take it now ? So why do these athletes, who obviously have some monetary value to offer, have to follow your schedule? Yes, YOU (and me) would have loved that offer when we were 19, but, like it or not, these guys have exponentially more economic value than we did.



The demand for the athletes supply of football skill is artificially capped by collusion between the colleges.


If tuition and room and board were truly fair compensation for what they bring, then the schools woulnd't NEED a rule. No one would offer to pay the players if they weren’t providing something in return.

here is a list of 100 guys who would be paid an awful lot but Happy would may have had a greater economic worth at 19.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/060427

We've already established that both parties exchange value in this relationship. If that value is truly NOT fair compensation from the athletes' perspective, shouldn't there be a shortage of athletes wanting to sign up for the deal? No one would sign up to play if they weren't receiving adequate compensation in return.

You didn't want to take a swing at internships and residencies?

College football is pretty much the only game in town if you're 18, 19, 20 years old and have the talent and desire to play football (you can't go to the NFL). Since they don't boycott college football, they must be receiving a fair 'wage'?

For the record, i'm not totally sure how i feel about this subject, but i do think Stupendous Man makes some good points.

well the skill is not easily translated to other areas. And there's a lot of under the table stuff going on.



Not really, because i'm already repeating myself, but i'll do a quick version for you. Those are differenct because not every company in that industry has agreed to force everyone to go through that program unpaid. So, if some hospital or fortune 500 company just really like a kid (a "prospect" so to speak) they COULD offer them extra $$ to recruit them.


The current or future amount of compensation (and even the form) is not the issue. The issue is the collusion between everyone in the same industry that prevents other offers from even being able to be considered.

I'm really surprised at the reaction to this here. Because most of you guys are usually right wing conservative types. Well, i'm advocating the free market here. 100% capitalism.

actually, since the NFL does not allow you to enter the draft until you have been out of high school for 3 years, they have no economic value to offer, at least in professional sports. Now, if the NFL would say "sure, come on you 17 year old high school graduate" then it would be another matter completely.

you dont think players offer any economic value to their college teams?

So, if there were no rule, you dont think any school would be willing to pay top recruits beyond tuition and room and board?

I suppose the bottom line comes down to this...

if you pay college athletes to play, then they become professionals. we already have a league for professional athletes.

or this...

The NCAA, the governing body for collegiate athletics, has a rule in place that says student athletes can't receive monetary compenation. student athletes know this going in. the penalties for violation of this is substantial.

I think the "professional" status thing is important as well, which is why the most i think i would be in favor of is a pretty modest stipend (maybe a few thousand dollars a year), with no ability to pay some players more and other players less. (I do realize that you would open the floodgates of "which athletes in which sports do you pay?", but there's really no question that college football players, and to a lesser degree, basketball players, contribute to millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars being brought into their schools.)

As i have read only 2 colleges actually make enough in their athletic programs to receive no financial support from the school (LSU and Nebraska), I would say "correct, no ecomomic value unless at one of these 2 schools.

So, take away these sports and it would appear the school is doing better financially.

That's the entire athletic programs though, right? Not just football programs or basketball programs. There's no doubt that the swimming, gymnastics, and lacrosse teams are a drain on their schools.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...Who is getting forced to do anything? It's the same choice. I want to be a doctor, I choose to sign up for a term of ungodly hours at very low pay. I want to work on Wall Street but don't have the experience on my resume to get someone to start throwing money at me, I choose to take a job for little or no pay to beef up that resume. These are choices I make and I am aware of the terms - I would not make them if I did not perceive that I was getting adequate value in return. Who is getting forced to do something again?

Also, unpaid? I thought we were past that?

Your chance of becoming a doctor and making big bucks after attending medical school is a lot more of a sure thing than a college football player's chances of making it in the NFL though.....and in the meantime, he sees none of the millions of dollars that the school sees for the product that he helps put on the field.

Would you go to medical school if you knew your chances of making it as a doctor were 1% (or 2% or whatever the odds are of making the NFL)?

It's gotta be less than 1%, now that i think about it.

sure, if you're name is Art Schlister

If you are trying to suggest that the only reason anyone plays college football is to get to the NFL, and less than 1% of college players make it to the NFL, and playing college football is not worth it based on what they receive in exchange for what they give (assuming they don't make the NFL), then why the [censored] don't colleges have trouble filling their rosters?


Would you play college football if you knew your chances of making it to the NFL were less than 1%, unless you were getting some other value from it that made it worthwhile to you?

But since i'd play football for nothing, does that make it right that i MUST play for less than my market value? Guys play football because they love football. If a doctor loves being a doctor, that's great, but he still gets paid.