Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition (/thread-11316.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition (/thread-11316.html)
Re: employment contracts - CTcard - 01-09-2016
(01-08-2016, 07:58 PM)Mick link Wrote:I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind a University's ability to prevent a scholarship athlete from a fifth year at another college,
The reasoning is lots of coaches think they're going to lose lots of fifth year guys and/or their competitors will bring them in.
Look at all the fans (of other teams) moaning that it's "unfair" that Oregon can stock its QB position by bringing in graduated guys from elsewhere.
Re: employment contracts - Mick - 01-09-2016
(01-09-2016, 04:53 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=14318.msg151957#msg151957 date=1452308282]
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind a University's ability to prevent a scholarship athlete from a fifth year at another college,
The reasoning is lots of coaches think they're going to lose lots of fifth year guys and/or their competitors will bring them in.
Look at all the fans (of other teams) moaning that it's "unfair" that Oregon can stock its QB position by bringing in graduated guys from elsewhere.
[/quote]
I understand why a coach would want to keep an athlete captive for as long as possible. That's obvious, as obvious as why NCAA administrators would testify that this is an amateur's game and they ought to be able to steal the labor from not have to pay athletes. My question has to do with the moral underpinnings. A coach has four years to use an athlete for four years. The athlete graduates. He's out of the school. Why should the coach or the school be able to hold the athlete hostage at that point, particularly since a coach can leave any school any time for any reason?
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - TreesAndBirds - 01-09-2016
I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free ( plus great training, facilities, etc). Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - French Rage - 01-09-2016
I agree, I can't lose too much sleep over the no pay complaint. As you say, if they're getting a crap education than they should focus on that aspect, but in the end these are educational institutions that HAPPEN to play sports, and give free education to those who play the sports. The focus of the school should be around the educational aspect, and the reason you should be there should be about the education, and everything else should be secondary. If it really bothers people that college players don't get paid, then by all means we should create a non-college league that allows for developing college age players while paying them. Sort of like how the major junior leagues in hockey work for players who don't want to go the college route. If that causes all college teams to basically become thrid-rate intramural teams, so be it, in the end the educational quality of this nation's school should be first and foremost. And I realize they are some ways the system could be improved, like how giving players certain foods for free counts as paying them while others don't, but those are minor complaints about the implementation; the overall idea should not change.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Mick - 01-09-2016
(01-09-2016, 04:35 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free
( plus great training, facilities, etc).
Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.
I agree with you completely, if you are referring to D3 athletes. I largely agree with you with respect to D2 athletes. I agree with you with respect to D1 athletes in non-revenue sports. I disagree with you wholeheartedly with respect to D1 football players.
The average football player invests the equivalent of a full time job for most of the year (same for many of the non revenue athletes at Stanford, incidentally). And I agree with you that a scholarship is not insubstantial. At the same time, the money in NCAA football is staggering, both legitimate revenue and illegitimate revenue, and an amazing amount goes to the schools, the non revenue sports and the coaching staffs. But under the current system, you can't tell whether the NCAA is stealing their labor on the surface or not, because all revenue and athletic programs tend to get blended.
Let me put it another way. I think of NCAA football as the old Soviet system. Everyone gets the same thing (a scholarship). Maybe some of the working class had slightly better benefits. I recall Vasily Alexeev, the old gold-medal winning weightlifter, who bragged that he had a truck to use whenever he wanted (I saw it on video, looked like a mid-1950s Ford). The apparatchiks (coaches) and the Communist party members (NCAA) raked it in. The extra money? A thriving black market, similar to the way that SEC schools compensate their players, off the books and under the table. A state-dictated system has therefore given rise to an athletic black market in America.
So let me ask you this. Let's say that players were compensated like coaches or teachers, that there was an open bidding system, where there were no restrictions on compensation, and schools could offer scholarships and stipends at any level they wanted through employment contracts, with no restrictions on moving between schools. Do you think players would be satisfied with scholarships and fees only? Or would they go where they were offered the most? I think we know the answer to that question.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - JJJ - 01-09-2016
Just started watching the first 20 minutes of "$chooled" and they are doing a pretty good job of explaining how messed up the system is so far. Must catch the rest later, but if anyone has seen the whole thing, would appreciate input. Sorry no link at the moment as on my phone.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - TreesAndBirds - 01-10-2016
(01-09-2016, 07:58 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14318.msg152066#msg152066 date=1452382516]
I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free
( plus great training, facilities, etc).
Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.
I agree with you completely, if you are referring to D3 athletes. I largely agree with you with respect to D2 athletes. I agree with you with respect to D1 athletes in non-revenue sports. I disagree with you wholeheartedly with respect to D1 football players.
The average football player invests the equivalent of a full time job for most of the year (same for many of the non revenue athletes at Stanford, incidentally). And I agree with you that a scholarship is not insubstantial. At the same time, the money in NCAA football is staggering, both legitimate revenue and illegitimate revenue, and an amazing amount goes to the schools, the non revenue sports and the coaching staffs. But under the current system, you can't tell whether the NCAA is stealing their labor on the surface or not, because all revenue and athletic programs tend to get blended.
Let me put it another way. I think of NCAA football as the old Soviet system. Everyone gets the same thing (a scholarship). Maybe some of the working class had slightly better benefits. I recall Vasily Alexeev, the old gold-medal winning weightlifter, who bragged that he had a truck to use whenever he wanted (I saw it on video, looked like a mid-1950s Ford). The apparatchiks (coaches) and the Communist party members (NCAA) raked it in. The extra money? A thriving black market, similar to the way that SEC schools compensate their players, off the books and under the table. A state-dictated system has therefore given rise to an athletic black market in America.
So let me ask you this. Let's say that players were compensated like coaches or teachers, that there was an open bidding system, where there were no restrictions on compensation, and schools could offer scholarships and stipends at any level they wanted through employment contracts, with no restrictions on moving between schools. Do you think players would be satisfied with scholarships and fees only? Or would they go where they were offered the most? I think we know the answer to that question.
[/quote]
This is a good discussion. I think your last paragraph is the most important one and I will give a quick response but also give it more thought. My quick response is that in the free market for college football athletes that you describe, I dont think I would be attending games or donating to the Buck/Cardinal Club or watching much on TV. I am interested in college football, and especially Stanford football, because the players are amateurs, they have a commitment to my school, and because (at least as to Stanford) I respect how they comport themselves. So if college football went to the free market system you describe, yes many players would go to whomever pays them the most, but the question is how would that affect the fans, and the overall appeal of the sport. As I mentioned above, minor league sports in baseball and basketball have not attracted big revenue or high compensation and to my knowledge those are free markets. So maybe football would be different and minor league quality teams would still attract large crowds and big revenue and allow for big compensation, but that is far from clear to me. I suspect that the basketball D league has on average better talent than almost all college basketball teams, but the college basketball teams outdraw the D league, because I think most fans find something very special about supporting an "amateur", and that fan interest would decline noticeably if college football became a free market. And if that was the case, there would be a lot less money available to pay the players. So in short, the question is whether turning college players into professionals would kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - JohnR34231 - 01-10-2016
Yeah, it would be nice if there were an alternative for college football players who don't think what they are getting now is sufficient compensation for their efforts. Perhaps a mini version of the NFL, although I think it is questionable how much revenue a setup like that would generate.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - washingtonismoney - 01-11-2016
Non-compete clauses may be legal but they're a scourge.*
*(many economists credit California's tech ascendance vis-a-vis Massachusetts -- which had a thriving tech industry of its own, back in the day -- to the state's unwillingness to enforce non-compete clauses.)
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Mick - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 08:41 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Non-compete clauses may be legal but they're a scourge.*
*(many economists credit California's tech ascendance vis-a-vis Massachusetts -- which had a thriving tech industry of its own, back in the day -- to the state's unwillingness to enforce non-compete clauses.)
Not particularly meaningful, but the precedent California case involving unenforceability of employment contracts (non-owner) involved a couple of friends of mine, from about 1982. I've been told it is taught in law schools (at least at SCU at one time) as an example of what happens when plaintiffs do just about everything wrong.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Mick - 01-11-2016
(01-10-2016, 10:42 PM)garvin link Wrote:The assumption that college athletes would command large salaries on an open market, I think, misunderstands the nature of college sports. If, say, Kevin Hogan transferred to become a 59er, I would not suddenly start buying 59er tickets or watching their games on TV. I like -- love -- Hogan because he's one of us, but if he played for another school, I would have only casual interest in him, if that. Most of these guys would not command star salaries if NCAA rules on payment were suddenly eliminated.
As for transfer eligibility rules, lots of professions -- radio deejays and TV news, just to name a couple I know well -- routinely write non-compete clauses into contracts limiting what the employees can do for some period after they leave. And courts have repeatedly ruled that those are legal and enforceable. Whether colleges should enforce them is a very different question. Personally I think if an athlete wants to leave, you should let them leave. But I also recall some commentary on this board that the Plumlee brother who backed out of his Stanford LOI when Trent Johnson left should not be given a release. That's essentially the same thing.
Doesn't have to be large salaries. Right now they make no salary. $5k or $10k, or let's say minimum wage for their 40 hour work weeks would be most welcome. Doesn't have to be $500k or $1mms.Â
Those employment contracts are not enforceable in California for non-principals in a business. And that argument re: Plumlee most certainly would not have come from me. A player makes a commitment to a University. In return, the coaches make a series of commitments. A new coach is not beholden to those commitments, and frankly, most coaches making promises do not keep them in part. I just don't think "Too dxxxed bad, you have to stay at this school" is an appropriate response to a 17 year old who makes a commitment based upon mutual promises that are not kept.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Mick - 01-11-2016
(01-10-2016, 12:59 AM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=14318.msg152083#msg152083 date=1452394706]
[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14318.msg152066#msg152066 date=1452382516]
I agree that players should have full discretion to play where they want after they graduate. But I differ on whether the NCAA is "stealing their labor". I believe this is true if the athletes are not being provided a good education. But if they are, they are receiving the equivalent of $40-70K a year tax free
( plus great training, facilities, etc).
Given that minor league baseball players typically make less than $40K/year, and D league basketball players even less, it seems like college football players are more well off. Now it is true that college football generates far more in revenues than these other minor leagues, but query whether that is because of the talent of the players, as opposed to the value of the school brand, etc. I personally doubt that a football minor league unconnected with colleges would be nearly as successful as NCAA football. I think the real key, and tragedy, is if the players are not given a good education.
I agree with you completely, if you are referring to D3 athletes. I largely agree with you with respect to D2 athletes. I agree with you with respect to D1 athletes in non-revenue sports. I disagree with you wholeheartedly with respect to D1 football players.
The average football player invests the equivalent of a full time job for most of the year (same for many of the non revenue athletes at Stanford, incidentally). And I agree with you that a scholarship is not insubstantial. At the same time, the money in NCAA football is staggering, both legitimate revenue and illegitimate revenue, and an amazing amount goes to the schools, the non revenue sports and the coaching staffs. But under the current system, you can't tell whether the NCAA is stealing their labor on the surface or not, because all revenue and athletic programs tend to get blended.
Let me put it another way. I think of NCAA football as the old Soviet system. Everyone gets the same thing (a scholarship). Maybe some of the working class had slightly better benefits. I recall Vasily Alexeev, the old gold-medal winning weightlifter, who bragged that he had a truck to use whenever he wanted (I saw it on video, looked like a mid-1950s Ford). The apparatchiks (coaches) and the Communist party members (NCAA) raked it in. The extra money? A thriving black market, similar to the way that SEC schools compensate their players, off the books and under the table. A state-dictated system has therefore given rise to an athletic black market in America.
So let me ask you this. Let's say that players were compensated like coaches or teachers, that there was an open bidding system, where there were no restrictions on compensation, and schools could offer scholarships and stipends at any level they wanted through employment contracts, with no restrictions on moving between schools. Do you think players would be satisfied with scholarships and fees only? Or would they go where they were offered the most? I think we know the answer to that question.
[/quote]
This is a good discussion. I think your last paragraph is the most important one and I will give a quick response but also give it more thought. My quick response is that in the free market for college football athletes that you describe, I dont think I would be attending games or donating to the Buck/Cardinal Club or watching much on TV. I am interested in college football, and especially Stanford football, because the players are amateurs, they have a commitment to my school, and because (at least as to Stanford) I respect how they comport themselves. So if college football went to the free market system you describe, yes many players would go to whomever pays them the most, but the question is how would that affect the fans, and the overall appeal of the sport. As I mentioned above, minor league sports in baseball and basketball have not attracted big revenue or high compensation and to my knowledge those are free markets. So maybe football would be different and minor league quality teams would still attract large crowds and big revenue and allow for big compensation, but that is far from clear to me. I suspect that the basketball D league has on average better talent than almost all college basketball teams, but the college basketball teams outdraw the D league, because I think most fans find something very special about supporting an "amateur", and that fan interest would decline noticeably if college football became a free market. And if that was the case, there would be a lot less money available to pay the players. So in short, the question is whether turning college players into professionals would kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.
[/quote]
That is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a Stanford fan...which is not the model for the large majority of NCAAD1 football, particularly the Big 5 conferences. I don't think the average SEC/B1G/ACC/Big12 fan thinks there's any difference at all between a scholarship football player and a scholarship football player who gets $10k extra per year and a car. And your amateurs are working 40+ hours a week and generating brobdingnagian revenues. And frankly, if they really were amateurs, they shouldn't get any compensation at all; scholarship or otherwise. Some amateurs.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - TreesAndBirds - 01-11-2016
I dont have a problem with $10K a year comp either, but I thought you posited a free market which would result in much more money being paid, at least to some players.
I put the word "amateur" in quotes above because I realize they arent pure amateurs, but even the pre-professional Olympics considered scholarship athletes "amateurs".
As I said, I dont know what the effect on college football would be if there is a free market ( where players can make 6 figures and transfer at will). You seem to think it wouldnt have much affect on the popularity of the game. I think it would. For starters I believe schools like Stanford and UND have said they would withdraw from the Power 5 and start their own league. I think other schools would do the same, either because they feel it would send the wrong message as to what college is about, or because their state legislatures would decide they dont want their universities to be in bidding wars for high school players.
If all you are proposing is allowing all FBS players be paid another $10K, I dont see an issue. If you are proposing that players be paid different amounts and the amounts will be set by the free market, then I think it will significantly decrease the popularity of college football as we know it, and would be a mistake. As I have said, that should be the role of a separate professional minor league system. But I guess neither of us really know.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - BostonCard - 01-11-2016
Here's a thought experiment...
ESPN broadcasts the little league world series every year, which means that organization is making a fair bit of money on the backs of little league athletes. So, should little leaguers be entitled to some proportion of the TV money?
BC
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - Rally - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 01:16 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Here's a thought experiment...
ESPN broadcasts the little league world series every year, which means that organization is making a fair bit of money on the backs of little league athletes. So, should little leaguers be entitled to some proportion of the TV money?
BC
Absolutely! And jersey sales!
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 01:16 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Here's a thought experiment...
ESPN broadcasts the little league world series every year, which means that organization is making a fair bit of money on the backs of little league athletes. So, should little leaguers be entitled to some proportion of the TV money?
BC
First, I feel it's pertinent to point out that little leaguers are minors and college athletes are adults, with very few exceptions. That is a brobdingnagian difference.
Now, there's one thing we have to consider. Athletes are the only college students who are forbidden from earning money for their skills. If I'm a talented programmer I can leave school to go work at Google. If I'm a musician, or an actor, or possess some other remarkable skill, there's nothing stopping me from pursuing a career in that at 18 or 19. But if I'm a football player, I'm stuck. I can't go to the NFL, even if there's a market for me. I can't earn money from my skills.
To answer your question, I wouldn't oppose little leaguers being compensated somehow for their participation. But the situations are hardly the same.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - yvonne - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 07:04 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14318.msg152232#msg152232 date=1452543405]
Here's a thought experiment...
ESPN broadcasts the little league world series every year, which means that organization is making a fair bit of money on the backs of little league athletes. So, should little leaguers be entitled to some proportion of the TV money?
BC
First, I feel it's pertinent to point out that little leaguers are minors and college athletes are adults, with very few exceptions. That is a of exceedingly large proportions difference.
[/quote]
Yeah! Child labor laws don't apply to college players!
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - BostonCard - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 07:04 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:Now, there's one thing we have to consider. Athletes are the only college students who are forbidden from earning money for their skills. If I'm a talented programmer I can leave school to go work at Google. If I'm a musician, or an actor, or possess some other remarkable skill, there's nothing stopping me from pursuing a career in that at 18 or 19. But if I'm a football player, I'm stuck. I can't go to the NFL, even if there's a market for me. I can't earn money from my skills.
Isn't that the NFL's problem? I mean, in baseball, the NCAA coexists with MLB and promising baseball players have a choice of entering the draft out of high school, after their junior year, or after graduating. Although I really don't like the "one and done" culture that it creates, in basketball, players can sign with the NBA after one year. It's only the NFL that refuses to let anyone be drafted out of high school, most likely because why spend money developing a viable minor league when you have college football, which not only develops talent (both physical and skills development), but also gets it much more hype and publicity than would a minor league system.
But that's not really the NCAA's doing. If there weren't draft restrictions from the NFL, it's not like the NCAA places restrictions on when people can be drafted.
BC
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 07:26 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=14318.msg152325#msg152325 date=1452564291]
Now, there's one thing we have to consider. Athletes are the only college students who are forbidden from earning money for their skills. If I'm a talented programmer I can leave school to go work at Google. If I'm a musician, or an actor, or possess some other remarkable skill, there's nothing stopping me from pursuing a career in that at 18 or 19. But if I'm a football player, I'm stuck. I can't go to the NFL, even if there's a market for me. I can't earn money from my skills.
Isn't that the NFL's problem? I mean, in baseball, the NCAA coexists with MLB and promising baseball players have a choice of entering the draft out of high school, after their junior year, or after graduating. Although I really don't like the "one and done" culture that it creates, in basketball, players can sign with the NBA after one year. It's only the NFL that refuses to let anyone be drafted out of high school, most likely because why spend money developing a viable minor league when you have college football, which not only develops talent (both physical and skills development), but also gets it much more hype and publicity than would a minor league system.
But that's not really the NCAA's doing. If there weren't draft restrictions from the NFL, it's not like the NCAA places restrictions on when people can be drafted.
BC
[/quote]
You're right about that, I was unfairly placing the blame for that on the NCAA.
I still don't believe they should be barred from being paid. Should they be paid directly by their universities? I don't know. But there's no reason why Popular Player X should be barred from selling autographs, for example.
Re: Today in our attrition: Barry J Sanders edition - JJJ - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 07:31 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14318.msg152329#msg152329 date=1452565593]
[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=14318.msg152325#msg152325 date=1452564291]
Now, there's one thing we have to consider. Athletes are the only college students who are forbidden from earning money for their skills. If I'm a talented programmer I can leave school to go work at Google. If I'm a musician, or an actor, or possess some other remarkable skill, there's nothing stopping me from pursuing a career in that at 18 or 19. But if I'm a football player, I'm stuck. I can't go to the NFL, even if there's a market for me. I can't earn money from my skills.
Isn't that the NFL's problem? I mean, in baseball, the NCAA coexists with MLB and promising baseball players have a choice of entering the draft out of high school, after their junior year, or after graduating. Although I really don't like the "one and done" culture that it creates, in basketball, players can sign with the NBA after one year. It's only the NFL that refuses to let anyone be drafted out of high school, most likely because why spend money developing a viable minor league when you have college football, which not only develops talent (both physical and skills development), but also gets it much more hype and publicity than would a minor league system.
But that's not really the NCAA's doing. If there weren't draft restrictions from the NFL, it's not like the NCAA places restrictions on when people can be drafted.
BC
[/quote]
You're right about that, I was unfairly placing the blame for that on the NCAA.
I still don't believe they should be barred from being paid. Should they be paid directly by their universities? I don't know. But there's no reason why Popular Player X should be barred from selling autographs, for example.
[/quote]
Genuine question I don't know the answer to. Do talented programmers/musicians/actors receive full rides for their talents? (Or is it more like a combination of loans and campus jobs?) If they do, and can work in addition, that's one thing. If not, then I think the comparisons need to be made between walk-ons and said programmers/musicians/actors for apples to apples, which I agree is still not fair.