Yeah, getting a 350k scholarship to ND
by Cards86 (2019-01-10 10:27:19)

In reply to: This is laughably offensive paternalism  posted by KeoughCharles05


Is akin to slavery


As I said
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-01-10 10:57:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Fair point *
by Cards86  (2019-01-10 12:45:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I'd like to commend you for your participation here.
by potatohouse  (2019-01-10 13:56:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Eschew "take" as a noun.
by Irish Tool  (2019-01-10 15:18:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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


F.
by potatohouse  (2019-01-10 17:01:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Yes.


And you yours *
by Cards86  (2019-01-10 14:20:46)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Basketball has plenty of lucrative alternatives
by smithwick  (2019-01-10 12:11:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


basketball is only one year compared to 3 (for the most part
by jt  (2019-01-10 13:56:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Makes sense to me. *
by smithwick  (2019-01-10 17:49:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


does it cost ND 350k per kid?
by jt  (2019-01-10 10:35:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


Yes *
by 84david  (2019-01-10 11:43:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


That's the market value.
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 11:21:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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


And that’s only the tangible market value of the college
by smithwick  (2019-01-10 12:19:46)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


It's certainly relevant
by jt  (2019-01-10 11:26:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


That tuition is the sticker cost, not ND's marginal cost.
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 11:28:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

How does that make ND's marginal cost relevant?


The sticker cost of tuition is about as relevant
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-01-10 12:54:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

as the chargemaster cost of health care.


To an 18 year old making $200k in endorsement deals
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 13:58:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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


it's actually not
by jt  (2019-01-10 14:08:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


the tuition presumes that is what it would cost the player
by jt  (2019-01-10 11:32:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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).


In your example, the player got an NFL paycheck
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 12:32:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.


The value of an ND degree is in the millions over
by 84david  (2019-01-10 11:48:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a working lifetime.


maybe, maybe not
by jt  (2019-01-10 12:27:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

depends on how you determine the "worth."

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