PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

OT: TB12's agent Donald Yee Blasts NCAA For Economic and Racial Discrimination


Status
Not open for further replies.
It's really funny how buthurt you are. Also do you have an issue with players getting money from endorsements, because for the life of me I don't see how that would affect anything, why can't the players each get a stipend from appearing in the team calender, or be able to sell stuff they autograph? I can see how people would be concerned about paying players, but why can't these guys make money on their own image? It can't be amateurish when conferences and schools are getting so much money from tv deals and merchandise.

The reason why they don't allow this is that it would become a free for all with boosters paying each player hundreds of thousands of dollars for these calendars or whatever. It's a competition question more than it is an amateur question.

Personally, I'm all for it. Let the boosters pay. But at the same time, I recognize it would be the end of college football, since the boosters at some of these places are f'in crazy. Alabama's payroll, not to mention Texas's, would be through the roof. Heck, T. Boone Pickens would be shelling out for Oklahoma St. left and right. So--there'd be about 20 schools down south c0mpeting, maybe Michigan and Ohio St., USC, and that's it.
 
Is anyone going to argue that the consideration to the players represents market value for their services?

I already did in my post up above. I think they get more than market value right now through their affiliation with the schools.

I think the actual market for their level of play is way way lower.

Also, in terms of money, they get $5k a year in cash over and above their tuition, room & bard, all the food they can eat (no restrictions on food), and an amount when they graduate.

For those who go pro, they receive the top coaches, trainers, strength & conditioning coaches, doctors, equipment, facilities, travel.

All of this would not be feasible without the expenditures put into these programs.

A true minor league would be bareboned. Again, look at MLB, NHL, and NBA for an idea of how these athletes would live were it not for the colleges.
 
I would point out the dictionary definition of indentured servitude is: a person who is bonded or contracted to work for another for aspecified time, in exchange for learning a trade. It also helps that the nfl won't let players go directly to the nfl so college is the only place they can learn their "trade"

This doesn't meet that definition, obviously. Plenty of players leave college sports. Heck, some of these major athletes have paid their own way, like UConn's Andre Drummond.
 
I already did in my post up above. I think they get more than market value right now through their affiliation with the schools.

I think the actual market for their level of play is way way lower.

Also, in terms of money, they get $5k a year in cash over and above their tuition, room & bard, all the food they can eat (no restrictions on food), and an amount when they graduate.

For those who go pro, they receive the top coaches, trainers, strength & conditioning coaches, doctors, equipment, facilities, travel.

All of this would not be feasible without the expenditures put into these programs.

A true minor league would be bareboned. Again, look at MLB, NHL, and NBA for an idea of how these athletes would live were it not for the colleges.

This operates under the assumption that school attendance is strictly necessary for collegiate sports to function as a sort of minor league. There's no reason this needs to be the case, other than that it traditionally has been. Obviously, the actual benefits of attending school are not on many player's minds, and the separation of the academy and sports is not a bad thing since it results in public subsidies for the billion dollar athletics industry.

One could imagine some scheme where players have the option to take the in-kind benefits and attend school if they're serious about it, or decline the in-kind benefits, receive an actual paycheck, and not be part of the school except as an athlete. This sort of scheme could be collectively bargained through a union. In either case, they should be able to get paid for endorsements and such.

Zeus' well-reasoned post at the bottom of the last page won't get enough play because it was at the bottom of the page so I'll just quote it here.

The scholarship players do get consideration for their services in the form of room, board and college courses. Someone let me know when Nick Saban or the fat cat conference commissioners are ready to take the same deal. And by the way, this "consideration" cannot be used to buy a sandwich or a sweater or for savings. It's not the same as money.

There are players who are recruited into schools they are not academically qualified to attend. These "scholar-athletes" are the ones herded into nondescript majors and given course loads solely designed to help them maintain their eligibility. There is no question that a "free college education" has different utility for different people. Some can and do make great use of it; others, not so much, and for a variety of reasons.

Is anyone going to argue that the consideration to the players represents market value for their services? Clearly not the case. In addition, the players (unlike the coaches) are expressly forbidden from realizing any other income through endorsements, memorabilia, etc. at risk of losing their "eligibility." Again, not so for the coaches, some of whom rake in $millions for TV shows, and endorsements. Ah, the purity of amateur athletic competition.

Yee argues that there is a racial component to this and he's right. He's not saying that young black players are being discriminated against and (I believe) they are not, but only because the NCAA is perfectly willing to exploit anyone without regard to race, gender, creed, sexual orientation or planet of birth. However, it is true that a disproportionate share of the players are black while the same cannot be said for the coaches and conference commissioners who make the truly big bucks. Who is making the money and who is carrying the load? Nobody is watching to see the coaches coach commissioners administrate. (In case anyone hadn't noticed, the NFL league office is filled with empty suits who make more money than the vast majority of the players in the leagues. Funny how that works, Roger.)

One thing that Yee left out is the huge benefit the NFL realizes from all of this. The league's player development system is college football. It costs the NFL not a penny. Negligible player development costs is another contributing factor to the league's huge profit margin.

The offshoot is this for me is that I'm done watching college football. It's an inferior product, lacking in any reasonable form of competitive balance and is run by fat cat greed-heads, hypocrites and morons (I know, not unlike the NFL). That the University of Alabama pays their strength and conditioning coach $600k per year tells you all you need to know. The fiasco about scheduling the playoff games on New Year's Eve coupled with the recent revelations about the absurd amounts paid the coaches and administrators killed it for me. I've got better things to do.
 
This operates under the assumption that school attendance is strictly necessary for collegiate sports to function as a sort of minor league. There's no reason this needs to be the case, other than that it traditionally has been. Obviously, the actual benefits of attending school are not on many player's minds, and the separation of the academy and sports is not a bad thing since it results in public subsidies for the billion dollar athletics industry.

One could imagine some scheme where players have the option to take the in-kind benefits and attend school if they're serious about it, or decline the in-kind benefits, receive an actual paycheck, and not be part of the school except as an athlete. This sort of scheme could be collectively bargained through a union. In either case, they should be able to get paid for endorsements and such.

Zeus' well-reasoned post at the bottom of the last page won't get enough play because it was at the bottom of the page so I'll just quote it here.

I already disagreed with Zeus's post in my response above.

But I actually proposed exactly what you did earlier in the page as well. An professional sports league attached to the colleges.

But I also recognize that this would naturally be the end of bigtime college sports everywhere except a few locales down south. Most fans would lose interest in such a setup. Also, you couldn't have two different types of players, students and pros, on the same team. Right now, the athletes receive institutional support for their time spent on sports (i.e. get out of class free cards) but once you create an actual business of professional sports, then all of the student-athletes (i.e. the ones that want an education) will be treated no differently than average students who work and go to school. In other words, their work is not to interfere with their responsibilities as students.
 
Hmmm...Tom Brady's Agent, friend and confidant going public about "forcing change." I wonder if that's a coincidence? :)
 
I already disagreed with Zeus's post in my response above.

But I actually proposed exactly what you did earlier in the page as well. An professional sports league attached to the colleges.

But I also recognize that this would naturally be the end of bigtime college sports everywhere except a few locales down south. Most fans would lose interest in such a setup. Also, you couldn't have two different types of players, students and pros, on the same team. Right now, the athletes receive institutional support for their time spent on sports (i.e. get out of class free cards) but once you create an actual business of professional sports, then all of the student-athletes (i.e. the ones that want an education) will be treated no differently than average students who work and go to school. In other words, their work is not to interfere with their responsibilities as students.

I was just posting it for the benefit of everyone else.

I have no problem with the end of "bigtime" college sports, for what it's worth.
 
I already did in my post up above. I think they get more than market value right now through their affiliation with the schools.

I think the actual market for their level of play is way way lower.

Also, in terms of money, they get $5k a year in cash over and above their tuition, room & bard, all the food they can eat (no restrictions on food), and an amount when they graduate.

For those who go pro, they receive the top coaches, trainers, strength & conditioning coaches, doctors, equipment, facilities, travel.

All of this would not be feasible without the expenditures put into these programs.

A true minor league would be bareboned. Again, look at MLB, NHL, and NBA for an idea of how these athletes would live were it not for the colleges.

Well, some players would get more and some would get less. MLB has guys in the minors making $millions. (Exhibit A is the Red Sox Yoan Moncada).

The NCAA has set the maximum remuneration at a full scholarship plus some incidental costs. That means that, at least in theory, there is no free market for players' services and the very best QB is compensated at the same level as the last scholarship granted.

Anywhere else, this would be a blatantly unfair labor practice. It's anything but market value.

Coaches and adminitrators have a whole different deal though.
 
Well, some players would get more and some would get less. MLB has guys in the minors making $millions. (Exhibit A is the Red Sox Yoan Moncada).

The NCAA has set the maximum remuneration at a full scholarship plus some incidental costs. That means that, at least in theory, there is no free market for players' services and the very best QB is compensated at the same level as the last scholarship granted.

Anywhere else, this would be a blatantly unfair labor practice. It's anything but market value.

Coaches and adminitrators have a whole different deal though.

I still disagree with your conception of market value here. Especially for football. Outside the college ranks, the possible money for these kids is very, very small. People root for the laundry.

I also don't see this in terms of labor practice. The NLRB already ruled that teaching assistants, for instance, do not constitute a labor class. The student athletes fall under the same category. One could actually easily make the argument that universities exploit student labor even more than they do athlete labor.
 
Sorry, I should have clarified. I didn't mean out of college sports. The vast majority of colleges still subsidize college sports. I was talking about taxpayer subsidies for higher education. Louisiana now provides no money to LSU at all. Arizona is almost out as well. I'm talking about the academic side, not the athletic side.

That makes it even worse.
 
I'd like to preface this by saying upstater1's posts so far have been excellent. However I am confused by how he looks at market value:

I think they [the players] get more than market value right now through their affiliation with the schools.

I think the actual market for their level of play is way way lower.


Also, in terms of money, they get $5k a year in cash over and above their tuition, room & bard, all the food they can eat (no restrictions on food), and an amount when they graduate.

The reason why they don't allow this [paying athletes] is that it would become a free for all with boosters paying each player hundreds of thousands of dollars for these calendars or whatever. It's a competition question more than it is an amateur question.

Personally, I'm all for it. Let the boosters pay. But at the same time, I recognize it would be the end of college football, since the boosters at some of these places are f'in crazy.

If someone is willing to pay collegiate players "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to get them to play for their alma mater then their market value cannot be ~$16,000 worth of goods and services and a small stipend with 400+ pages of stipulations attached.

Being a selfish person who is a fan and not a DI football player I am totally sympathetic to the argument that a cap should be placed on player's earnings in order to level the competitive field for small-time universities. We as fans benefit by the spreading of talent such a system encourages, and are provided with a greater quantity of competitive football. NFL revenue sharing and salary cap do the same thing.

But I wouldn't argue that the current system comes anywhere close to approximating market value at the competitive level we're talking about.
 
I think too many Americans go out of their way to feel empathy for this or that. I think they actually LOOK for people to feel sorry about, and that's really sad.

Are You Addicted to Empathy?
 
One could actually easily make the argument that universities exploit student labor even more than they do athlete labor.

And adjuncts. The academy is full of really ****ty labor practices, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I think too many Americans go out of their way to feel empathy for this or that. I think they actually LOOK for people to feel sorry about, and that's really sad.

Are You Addicted to Empathy?

Are you some kind of sociopath? The only sad thing is this post.
 
And adjuncts. The academy is full of really ****ty labor practices, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The question is what to do with these costs. If you pay athletes, then the subsidies from students are going to skyrocket. If you pay apprentice teachers more, then the costs are going to skyrocket. Either way, you're going to be taking more money from students. I'm not saying that this is a good thing. But someone is going to bear the cost.

In the past, the costs went to the taxpayer. Not anymore.
 
The question is what to do with these costs. If you pay athletes, then the subsidies from students are going to skyrocket. If you pay apprentice teachers more, then the costs are going to skyrocket. Either way, you're going to be taking more money from students. I'm not saying that this is a good thing. But someone is going to bear the cost.

In the past, the costs went to the taxpayer. Not anymore.

This is one reason why I'd dissociate athletics and schools.

But at some point, you'll have to increase public subsidies if you want to continue to have public education. I know that thought is anathema to some, but that's a political question and not a resources question, per se. The pie isn't finite unless you decide it's finite.
 
I'd like to preface this by saying upstater1's posts so far have been excellent. However I am confused by how he looks at market value:

If someone is willing to pay collegiate players "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to get them to play for their alma mater then their market value cannot be ~$16,000 worth of goods and services and a small stipend with 400+ pages of stipulations attached.

Being a selfish person who is a fan and not a DI football player I am totally sympathetic to the argument that a cap should be placed on player's earnings in order to level the competitive field for small-time universities. We as fans benefit by the spreading of talent such a system encourages, and are provided with a greater quantity of competitive football. NFL revenue sharing and salary cap do the same thing.

But I wouldn't argue that the current system comes anywhere close to approximating market value at the competitive level we're talking about.

You're assuming market value is somehow equivalent to a crazy booster's ego. T. Boone Pickens gave hundreds of millions to improve Oklahoma State football. All the millions he gave ended up costing the university (this is a long crazy story, but essentially his hedge fund went bankrupt, and the line of credit the school used to improve football went under, forcing them to cancel building plans to which several huge hundred million dollar research grants were attached to, costing the cancellation of the grants), so market-wise, all these things are totally foolish. But somehow the egos of people with a lot of money are still out there.

I also don't think the stipends are small. I think the stipends may actually be unethical in 99% of the cases. The stipends are $5k for each player, but when an average student is shelling out $1k in fees per year that go directly to athletics, you have to wonder about the ethics of all of this.
 
You're assuming market value is somehow equivalent to a crazy booster's ego. T. Boone Pickens gave hundreds of millions to improve Oklahoma State football. All the millions he gave ended up costing the university (this is a long crazy story, but essentially his hedge fund went bankrupt, and the line of credit the school used to improve football went under, forcing them to cancel building plans to which several huge hundred million dollar research grants were attached to, costing the cancellation of the grants), so market-wise, all these things are totally foolish. But somehow the egos of people with a lot of money are still out there.

I also don't think the stipends are small. I think the stipends may actually be unethical in 99% of the cases. The stipends are $5k for each player, but when an average student is shelling out $1k in fees per year that go directly to athletics, you have to wonder about the ethics of all of this.

Well, I agree in some sense, but you're also operating under an assumption that there's some pure, optimal market which isn't built on the exact kind of practices you're describing, which isn't really true except in the minds of classical liberal theorists.

The ethics question is a wider one, though, and an interesting one, since it seems to be related to amenities in general, of which athletics are merely part. Students are shelling out more fees and tuition money to fund athletics and many other amenities - student centers, gyms, food courts, etc. - which ultimately have little to nothing to do with academics and everything to do with lifestyle. The "amenities race" is one of the more absurd side-effects of increased privatization. And along with it comes administrators specifically for those amenities, who are inevitably paid substantially more than some of your academic foot soldiers like adjunct professors and graduate students.
 
We live in a world of limited resources which means the pie is finite.

Yes, I should have said the size of the pie is only as tiny as it is right now because it has been decided that it is so small. That pie can be made much larger, though obviously there is a theoretical limit to the size of the pie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


New Patriots WR Javon Baker: ‘You ain’t gonna outwork me’
Friday Patriots Notebook 5/3: News and Notes
Thursday Patriots Notebook 5/2: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 5/1: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Jerod Mayo’s Appearance on WEEI On Monday
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/30: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Drake Maye’s Interview on WEEI on Jones & Mego with Arcand
MORSE: Rookie Camp Invitees and Draft Notes
Patriots Get Extension Done with Barmore
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/29: News and Notes
Back
Top