Reminds me of the justifications for slavery "This population had to be enslaved for their own good."

And I hate the comparison of the NCAA to slavery, but this "it's for their own good" bullshit has got to stop.

We have rules as a society because we make generalized judgments about what is good for people and what is not. Some of those rules prevent people from doing things that they might enjoy, but that take place in situations the lend themselves to exploitation. Cf., e.g., statutory rape laws.

"Paternalism" is an easy slur to throw around, but it's not some kind of magic bullet. Well-functioning societies (which, in general, the NCAA is not, but that's another matter) have "paternalistic" rules. It's what keeps them well-functioning, as opposed to being Hobbesian libertarian dystopias.

we don't tell adults that earning a bunch of money is bad for them.

About the only time we do this purportedly for their own protection is prostitution. I can't really think of another example outside of children.

We have plenty of laws telling people they can't do things we think are harmful to others. And we have some laws telling people they can't do things that are harmful to themselves.

But telling adults that they can do an activity, just not earn money for it, is a pretty rare restriction.

Which, along with prostitution, is along the lines of how professional football has become to be demonized in the past few years.

Is akin to slavery

I hate the comparison to slavery. I'm not making a direct comparison of slavery.

I'm comparing your paternalistic mindset that you know better than these adults about what's in their best interests, and therefore think it's appropriate to restrict their ability to freely perform labor because you've made the determination that they're not ready for it yet.

That's some real hubris there.

If the scholarships offered by schools are such good values, then they shouldn't have anything to fear from other groups offering to pay the players money directly. And why shouldn't the players be the ones that get to make that choice? Because you don't think they're capable of doing so.

I think your viewpoint is a common one. In fact, I'd say it is the majority stance.

I'm quite staunchly with Charles on this topic so I disagree with you. But I admire your general attitude in this thread of engaging and accepting alternative takes.

That's all. Enjoy your day.

Was that a good impression? I've been working on it in front of my mirror.

Yes.

and the overwhelming majority of high school b-ball players still choose college over the pros abroad. They’re not dumb. The college game holds immense value to the athletes who go that route. College football is much different because there are no alternatives but currently, the Zion Williamson’s of the world have determined that playing college sports nets them more value per year than a multi million dollar contract overseas.

with that said, I think that you might have stumbled onto something:

by allowing the kids more freedom they come to the rationalization that it is in their best interests (the majority of them anyway) to go to college and stay in school.

Funny how that works. I would argue that the same would be true if you kept the rules the same for football (no pay for play, no extra money for the school) but allowed the kids to profit off of image and likeness. The vast majority wouldn't profit much at all because demand would be low and the vast majority would realize that the real value they're getting is in the education provided and the spotlight they get from being able to compete at the highest stage.

or is ND paying substantially less than that in their own cost?

An argument could be made that certain players are responsible for generating that type of revenue for the school, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue that ND is actually paying anywhere near that amount per student.

Furthermore, ND is on the higher end of all in costs compared to other schools.

The cost to the player is the operative one. ND's marginal cost isn't particularly relevant.

game. The intangible market value created from college sports is as much if not more than that provided by tuition. Other than baseball nerds, who really knows about anyone playing AAA, AA, A? Compare that to let’s say Trevor Lawrence who is in the NFLs minor league and look at how much value his brand has increased nationally after Monday night. The kid is already a household name. Ditto for Kyler Murray and Tua Tagavailoa.

if a player could argue that he would receive more money were he allowed to operate on the open market and then turn around and pay his own tuition. Such a player certainly would generate a windfall of cash for his school in a variety of ways (butts in the seats at home games, merchandise sold at the bookstore, better bowl games with higher payouts, etc.).

In other words, if you start getting in a quid pro quo argument the star players can argue that they're not allowed to maximize their revenue.

How does that make ND's marginal cost relevant?

as the chargemaster cost of health care.

it is the true cost of the product. That seemed to be the idea I was responding to.

you would have to be making even more than that to pay full freight.

And I assume that the 200k would go on a schedule C and there would be related deductions for that income that would actually bring it down substantially.

And most importantly, I would imagine that the VAST majority of kids would fall well below that 200k of income.

which is misleading in a variety of ways, as really only the wealthiest pay full sticker cost.

The argument was made that these kids should basically just shut up and appreciate the value of what they're getting, and the 350k number is often thrown about as the "value" of what they're getting. I'm saying that the schools benefit an awful lot more than the players in these scenarios and that the cost isn't really 350k to ND nor would it be 350k to the player, though I agree that many/most of these players wouldn't gain acceptance to ND based on their high school transcripts/test scores/etc. (though would also argue that ND's demand would be lower without it's historical draw in football).

and then went back to get a degree--unless I'm misreading your statement about first going on the open market and then turning around and paying his tuition (Maybe it just means getting some likeness licensing money). In that example, unless he is financially irresponsible, he is likely to pay full freight. I wasn't following what you were getting at.

If you would rather cite figures of average real costs to the average student in the high school applicant's shoes, there is some merit to that. Of course, those that are below a certain threshold will have virtually identical costs to any school meeting 100 percent of need. Maybe the market cost is actually nothing or is like $15-20k a year, which it was for me. But in that example, the value of the ND degree in particular will certainly be more valuable than that of many other schools recruiting him. Thus, the sticker cost is likely a better capture of ability to gain return on investment from ND (the broader value that is being gained for future earning purposes).

But in any situation, the marginal cost to ND is of absolutely no value whatsoever in assessing the value to the player.

a working lifetime.

depends on how you determine the "worth."

To a football player, perhaps not. To a future attorney, perhaps it is.

maybe indirectly it does but it basically protects lots of other people directly, namely the current NFL players that would be concerned about job security, the various schools and Athletic Directors that depend on this labor for their product, etc.

But, yes, I think the rule protects the long-term interest of the college football players.

and play for virtually free while risking injury. His other option is to sit and endure public ridicule.

It will be this way until the rule is changed.

It protects the short term and long term profit interests of college football. And that is it. Don't believe me? Watch people lose their shit if you suggest cutting college football back to 9 game seasons...for the long-term interest of the college football players.

Guys get hurt to varying degrees in the NFL regardless of age. This notion that sweet, sweet 19 year old children must be protected from 22 year old savages needs to expelled.

You are not alone, but anyone arguing that the 3 year rule is for the players is not be honest with themselves.

is simply not true - as I will be on the hook for about 80K per year shortly when my son attends ND. But beyond that I don't think these players are ready for the NFL physically. How many NFL players start under the age of 23? I don't feel like checking but the answer is not many. Would that change if the rule were different? Perhaps, but I envision too many of these players getting overwhelmed and washing out when their prospects for success would be greatly increased with more development.

Does that benefit schools and AD's and profit and the whole business of college football? - no doubt. I'm not stupid. But I think the notion that these players would help their careers by going to the NFL at an earlier age is wrong.

In that way I think the rule benefits football players.

if NCAA football were to cease to exist as we know it, I would guess that the NFL would move quickly to fill that void and have a developmental league similar to baseball. One would imagine that these players would then receive compensation for these efforts.

therefore, the idea that they're not physically ready for the NFL, while true in many situations, doesn't really serve the notion that they should come play for a relative pittance compared to what the schools are making off of their work.

For the record, I also have three kids that will be attending college within a few years and so I am pretty familiar with the costs as well. I can tell you that the majority of these big time schools are making out like bandits relative to the kid getting the "free" education.

The NFL wouldn't have 130 minor league teams with 85 players each. I suspect they may not even have 32, so if CFB went away, I'm guessing well more than 80% of the kids on scholarships would lose their scholarships. It's hard to argue that those kids aren't being fairly compensated.

The NFL get's a ton free scouting and development done by colleges. I would suspect that they would have the equivalent of a AAA team where they hold their reserves, top prospects, and injury recovering players, where they learn the system/playbook and are ready to move up to the show at any time.

After that, they would need to have a few developmental levels. They could even keep the current 3 year "rule" by having regional leagues that take the high school talent and work them in to the various systems for the teams, where the new coaches stretch their legs and probably where the PED's flow.

The issue is the variously 60-85 players and all the additional coaches and support staff each team needs is an order of magnitude bigger than what any baseball or even soccer team needs. That doesn't even touch upon facilities. I'm sure that there are quite a few cities that might be interested in hosting some minor league football teams, particularly if there was a void of college athletics, but I don't believe they would foot as big of a bill as they do for baseball.


All of that being said, I think the NFL would benefit from having either a Minor League (AAA) like baseball, or a junior league like the British Premier League (complete with relegation and elevation) as it would allow them to expand the product without watering down the top level of competition.

Is generally less than the cost of out of state tuition at most FBS universities and players go without a paycheck during their off-seasons.

Even if a three tiered Minor League system of Football developed, I'd expect greater than 50% of top prospects would still opt for college especially after the first few classes began offer the feedback of being the initial guinea pigs for such a system.

my guess is that there would still be a market for college football, but it would be different than the current model.

Look, in my opinion the best solution is to let the players profit from their image and likeness. I do not think that they should be paid by the schools and I am not in favor of them going pro right out of high school. That said, these pigs at the trough don't deserve to make all of this money without the kids being able to at least sign autographs or get sponsorship the way an Olympic athlete can.

The NFL reaps the benefit of better ability to assess talent without the risk of signing an 18 year old kid who will turn out to be a bust.

how any of these kids are physically ready to play in the NFL at 18, 19, and 20 years old? If the NFL wants to start a developmental league for players, I'm all for it. Forego the education and go play. I would bet that most in that developmental league would not be "called up" for quite some time.

Should kids get some form of compensation? Sure.

Incidentally, this makes my fourth, and final, college bound student. Hopefully they get some compensation.

at that age?

Not many. That said, when the NBA opened up their draft to high school seniors back in the day, there were still teams spending high picks on the seniors, even ones that needed time to develop.

By allowing players to profit off of their image and likeness and maintain a 3 year commitment to a University prior to entering a draft you can avoid most of these issues.

Is it relatively easy to ensure that these athletes receive only fair market value of their image, or is it almost guaranteed that the big program kids will receive inflated compensations for committing to a specific school over a competitor (eg. $10,000 from rich booster for an 8x10 photo)?

I don't have a better answer, but it is insane that schools benefit exclusively from the likeness/image of these athletes, and also indirectly at the box office, via TV rights fees, and donations. Meanwhile coach and staff salaries and facility investments continue to skyrocket.

I would prefer that a significant percentage of all profits from the revenue sports go into a fund for longterm health support, hardship support (both during and after their college tenure), and other benefits that would help those with the greatest need, but not sure that would be very popular and it would not fairly compensate the elite athletes.

and other people whose income we need to control.

In other words, you don't regulate it. People earn what they deserve; most people will end up with nothing for their image and likeness because it won't be worth anything.

Do you know what Marvin Miller's greatest fear was when he was negotiating for free agency (among other things) for the major league baseball players in the 1970's? His biggest fear was that the owners would just make every single MLB player a free agent after every year. And why is that? Because he knew that if every player was a free agent annually, only the very top players would get paid a lot and the bottom 2/3 of the players would be fighting for table scraps.

So by allowing the owners to "regulate" when players hit free agency, binding arbitration, etc. he was able to help drive up the salaries for all players.

Enhanced regulation is not the answer to any sort of problem you can come up with here, Pat.