Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Spending bill could quash Minor League Baseball players’ wage claims

Why doesn’t the MLBPA add minor leaguers to their union? Of course, we know why.

Jim Furtado Posted: March 20, 2018 at 07:01 AM | 118 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: minor league pay

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 09:10 AM (#5640112)
Why doesn’t the MLBPA add minor leaguers to their union? Of course, we know why.

The same reason the Teamsters don't add semi-employed people who want to be truck drivers; their interests are not aligned.
   2. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 20, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5640128)
The same reason the Teamsters don't add semi-employed people who want to be truck drivers; their interests are not aligned.


I can't speak to the Teamsters, but most building trade unions do incorporate non-members into their coverage. IIRC, I don't think apprentices are full-voting members but they are covered under building trade contracts. I do know that laborers - we're talking the straight-out-of-HS, digging ditches and doing the grunt work - are covered under union contracts as I was one way back when. This meant your hourly wage was a bit over double the minimum wage - certainly not something one could raise a family on, at least, easily - but you also got health and benefits coverage and accrued (at a reduced rate, IIRC) service time towards the pension plan.

Part of this is sustaining a pipeline of apprenticeship applicants (who would go on to become journeymen, etc) - but I'm just saying that there are ways the MLBPA could envelop minor leaguers into their contract without giving away the farm. Simply adding them to MLB/MLBPA health benefits would be big (for the minor leaguers) as would a modified pension schema; where minor league/professional service time accrued at some kind of reduced rate or qualified them for some kind of reduced pension or retirement savings. Even some kind of "minor league pension" system - even if it were only some kind of thousand dollar profit sharing arranged directed into an IRA or 401k type vehicle would cost MLB/MLBPA no more than 5 million annually... That would be peanuts to both the MLBPA and MLB.
   3. McCoy Posted: March 20, 2018 at 10:03 AM (#5640147)
Tradesmen "look after" "apprentices" because it is in their interest to have an orderly procession to full status. Tradesmen don't operate in a closed market so they need a way to constrain the supply of labor. Baseball is a closed market thus baseball players don't need to constrain the supply of labor, it is already constrained. What they need to do is to constrain the flow of money to any labor outside of major league players and that is what they do in their CBA negotiations.
   4. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 20, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5640168)
Tradesmen "look after" "apprentices" because it is in their interest to have an orderly procession to full status. Tradesmen don't operate in a closed market so they need a way to constrain the supply of labor. Baseball is a closed market thus baseball players don't need to constrain the supply of labor, it is already constrained. What they need to do is to constrain the flow of money to any labor outside of major league players and that is what they do in their CBA negotiations.


As I said they did...

However, this varies depending on locale - each local negotiates its own contracts with mechanical contractor firms and in some areas; especially in the rust belt and NE - union contractors at the commercial level (and I'd include public construction; i.e., schools, court houses, prisons, hospitals, etc) do operate in near closed markets. Projects above a certain size simply don't get any non-union contractor bids, with non-union shops generally sticking with single family home building or one-off stores.

Beyond that, though - it's more than just apprentices - as I said, they also include laborers within the salary and benefits packages they negotiate with union firms and the majority of these folks don't ultimately end up applying to the apprenticeship programs.

I'll grant the paradigm is different for MLB/MLBPA... but I also go back to the idea that providing for even the slimmest modicum of protections and benefits to non-MLBPA member minor leaguers really wouldn't be such a big nut. By my guesstimate, we're talking about less than 5000 minor leaguers total. In the grand scheme of MLB revenues that the basic agreement is negotiated over - it would be less than peanuts to provide some slim sliver of benefits (again, even just some sort of annual savings vehicle and some basic health coverage/catastrophic insurance would be something).

While doing so out of altruism might be a bit much to ask - if I were advising the MLBPA, I might be thinking a bit more longterm, too... Between the service time imbroglios that obviously don't endear young players and the manner by which the recent FA market played out for almost everyone except the high earners, I do think it would be wise to consider that there's a potential for the MLBPA to be weakened by internal strife as CBAs come and go. Throwing a bone to future members - most of whom won't be stars - can go a long way towards building good will and confidence in the union.
   5. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 20, 2018 at 10:44 AM (#5640182)
We can wish for the MLBPA to be altruistic all we want, but the fact is that the MLBPA is not merely indifferent to the interests of minor league players; the MLBPA is hostile to the interests of minor league players. There are a fixed number of major league jobs. Every minor leaguer that gets a major league job is taking it from a current MLBPA member. The MLBPA is quite rationally going to happily do everything it can to make minor leaguers' lives miserable.

Besides that, when major league players consider the plight of minor league players at all, most of them don't think "I went through hell to reach the majors, we really need to put a stop to treating those kids this way." There is, rather, a distinct and powerful attitude of "I went through hell to reach the majors, so the kids in the minors now damn well should, too." You find that attitude in a lot of rigidly structured industries. Medicine, just to pick one glaring example.
   6. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5640189)

We can wish for the MLBPA to be altruistic all we want, but the fact is that the MLBPA is not merely indifferent to the interests of minor league players; the MLBPA is hostile to the interests of minor league players. There are a fixed number of major league jobs. Every minor leaguer that gets a major league job is taking it from a current MLBPA member. The MLBPA is quite rationally going to happily do everything it can to make minor leaguers' lives miserable.
That doesn't make sense. Setting aside that many major league members of the union will at some point end up being minor leaguers, making minor leaguers' lives miserable in no way benefits the major leaguers; it doesn't keep minor leaguers from taking major leaguers' jobs.

It would be more accurate to say that because minor league players don't generate significant revenue, every dollar given to minor leaguers comes from major leaguers' pockets.
   7. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5640222)
There is, rather, a distinct and powerful attitude of "I went through hell to reach the majors, so the kids in the minors now damn well should, too." You find that attitude in a lot of rigidly structured industries. Medicine, just to pick one glaring example.
Law firms, equally glaring. But with less formal structures in place than either medicine or the minor leagues, so the old guys also get to exaggerate how hard they think they had to work as associates - "I billed 4,000 hours a year! My office was outside in the snow!"
   8. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM (#5640223)
That doesn't make sense. Setting aside that many major league members of the union will at some point end up being minor leaguers, making minor leaguers' lives miserable in no way benefits the major leaguers; it doesn't keep minor leaguers from taking major leaguers' jobs.


Yeah, I was just going to make a similar comment. Joe Jones and Bob Smith are both marginal major leaguers. Joe is on a MLB roster, Bob is in the minors. The union is hostile to Bob in favor of Joe and wants to make Bob miserable, but if Joe gets released and Bob gets called up, all of a sudden the union is hostile to Joe in favor of Bob and wants Joe miserable?
   9. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 20, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5640235)
Instead of the attacks on MLBPA, can we focus the attacks on MLB spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid standard labor laws?
   10. Hank Gillette Posted: March 20, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5640297)
When the union was first getting started, didn’t Marvin Miller tell the players that they had to make some sacrifices for the players down the road, or is my memory failing me?
   11. Hank Gillette Posted: March 20, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5640303)
It’s the same mindset that made it so difficult to root out hazing in military schools. The general attitude was “I had go go through that, why should the ones that come after me be any different?”

Coke to PASTE, who said pretty much the same thing, with different examples.
   12. Hank Gillette Posted: March 20, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5640307)
That doesn't make sense. Setting aside that many major league members of the union will at some point end up being minor leaguers, making minor leaguers' lives miserable in no way benefits the major leaguers; it doesn't keep minor leaguers from taking major leaguers' jobs.


One could argue that with more money, minor league players would get better nutrition and thus, make the majors sooner. I doubt anyone is thinking that deeply about it, though.
   13. winnipegwhip Posted: March 20, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5640328)
Meanwhile MLB states it concerns about losing minorities in America to other sports. Why should a player consider minor league baseball if he is offered a full ride to play football or basketball?

So despite the efforts like RBI, which MLB uses to promote their brand, they make it difficult for those to stay loyal to baseball in the long run.
   14. winnipegwhip Posted: March 20, 2018 at 01:29 PM (#5640334)
They are meeting the player's demands in another way. They are trying to shorten the work day by avoiding extra inning games with the new rules.
   15. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 20, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5640345)
Again, minor league wages can only be accurately measured after the nookie multiplier has been applied.
   16. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 20, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5640368)
It’s the same mindset that made it so difficult to root out hazing in military schools. The general attitude was “I had go go through that, why should the ones that come after me be any different?”


I think there's also an added element here --

In that, I doubt the number of players under 30 generally see themselves as tweeners reliant on union-negotiated benefit packages but instead, overwhelmingly believe they're destined for riches "if only they got the chance"... not Harper-esque money, but comfortable, multi-million dollar contracts, etc.

It's obviously a big difference between player unions and other labor unions - there's an underlying idea outside of pro sports unions that you basically put in your time, perform to some minimum standard, and you're going to make a living, get decent benefits, and carve out a life for yourself and your family. Again, I'm more familiar with trade unions than other labor unions - but it's not wholly membership tenure, either... in trade unions - they call it sitting on the bench - waiting for a contractor who needs the help. Journeymen with good reputations generally don't stay on the bench long - and in some cases, contractors will even try to carry them on the payroll in between jobs if they're bidding on a new project not yet ready for work just to keep quality tradesmen at hand for the next project if they can float it.

It's a mindset that I imagine is difficult for ballplayers to grasp - these are already folks who have been screened into the top tiny percentage of performers by the time they the pro ranks. Add to that - you also get a fair number of foreign-born players who hail from places without a lot of organized labor, so they're not necessarily imbued with any sort of tradition in that regard (i.e., a midwest kid who stars on the baseball team probably has a better appreciation for dad the pipefitter being able to afford to send him to camp, buy new cleats, etc than a kid from the Dominican just looking to make the paycheck - even just a signing bonus - that lifts him and his family out of poverty).

Still - I come back to the longterm health of the MLBPA... I just think that, even if not today, there are long term benefits to the health of the union to extend some limited umbrella of coverage and assistance to minor leaguers. The world will never lack for star athletes who can make a lot of money plying their trade - but there's a level of recognition that bit players have a role, too -- and even the guys on the cusp of brief cups of coffee provide value to the union.
   17. Bhaakon Posted: March 20, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5640424)
“We’re in 42 states, 160 cities. We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist,” he said. “This is about constituents, this is about jobs at home, and this is about quality of life at home.”


That has got to be the most tone-deaf, idiotic, just flat out offensive argument he could have possibly made for this legislation. I mean, really. Really? All the cases you could make for why minor leaguers should be exempt from minimum wage laws--some of them quite reasonable--and the one he throws out? Is it too much to say that reads like a justification for slavery? "Yeah, it's kinda crappy, and I can't really defend it on its merits, but we've invested too much in it to change now."
   18. Hank Gillette Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:06 PM (#5640441)
Pat O’Conner, the president of Minor League Baseball:
“We’re not saying that it shouldn’t go up,” he said. “We’re just saying that the formula of minimum wage and overtime is so incalculable. I would hate to think that a prospect is told, ‘You got to [sic[ go home because you’re out of hours, you can’t have any extra batting practice.’ It’s those kinds of things. It’s not like factory work. It’s not like work where you can punch a time clock and management can project how many hours they’re going to have to pay for.”


They could do what they do now, except pay a wage that someone could live on. It’s only when people ask to be paid fairly that they have all these excuses.

And, of all the things Congress could be doing, why this?
   19. jmurph Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5640454)
It’s only when people ask to be paid fairly that they have all these excuses.

Right, you see this with the discussion around college athletes, too. "But how does one determine the value of things? It seems impossible! Numbers, math, who can say?" from the people who have figured out how to pay thousands of other people, sometimes tens of thousands, in the case of large public universities.
   20. McCoy Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5640455)
Meanwhile MLB states it concerns about losing minorities in America to other sports. Why should a player consider minor league baseball if he is offered a full ride to play football or basketball?

So despite the efforts like RBI, which MLB uses to promote their brand, they make it difficult for those to stay loyal to baseball in the long run.


No kid who can get a full ride for football or basketball is going to pass that up simply because he'll get paid 25,000 instead of 12,000 dollars in the minors. Kids don't think that way or come close to thinking that way.

In terms of schools and minorities if you want more American minorities to play baseball in college then they have to hand out more scholarships and have them be full ride scholarships. Colleges would also have to make college baseball be more appealing by making it look like a gateway to stardom and riches. Unless MLB starts handing out 6 figure salaries to play minor league ball the minors is never going to look attractive to anybody but the most hardcore of hardcore baseball playing fanatics.
   21. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5640466)
That has got to be the most tone-deaf, idiotic, just flat out offensive argument he could have possibly made for this legislation. I mean, really. Really? All the cases you could make for why minor leaguers should be exempt from minimum wage laws--some of them quite reasonable--and the one he throws out? Is it too much to say that reads like a justification for slavery? "Yeah, it's kinda crappy, and I can't really defend it on its merits, but we've invested too much in it to change now."


Doubly dubious pretending that those stadiums are built by the clubs - I'll grant, I don't have specifics - but it would shock me if the proportion of MiLB stadiums that were built and financed with public monies is the same as MLB.

I remember at least two parks within an hour of where I grew up (Coveleski in South Bend, the Railyard in Gary - though it's an independent league) were both publicly financed.

   22. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5640469)
Right, you see this with the discussion around college athletes, too. "But how does one determine the value of things? It seems impossible! Numbers, math, who can say?" from the people who have figured out how to pay thousands of other people, sometimes tens of thousands, in the case of large public universities.


They’re getting a free college education in exchange for their jockery, oftentimes with other perks like meal plans, books, and tutoring.
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5640476)

Instead of the attacks on MLBPA, can we focus the attacks on MLB spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid standard labor laws?
As I posted in the OTP thread (which used this same article as the link), the story is misleading. Minor league players are already exempt under existing law, as numerous courts have ruled, but said laws are vague enough that people can keep suing. This would not change the law; it would simply clarify it to avoid the expense of further litigation.

Also, "standard" labor laws is not really a thing. These laws apply to some professions/industries and not others. There's no inherent reason why minor league players should be covered. And there are some good reasons why they shouldn't be; professional baseball isn't really a clock-punching type of job.

Finally, it's not "labor laws" in some amorphous sense; it's the wage-and-hour laws.
   24. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5640480)

They’re getting a free college education in exchange for their jockery, oftentimes with other perks like meal plans, books, and tutoring.
Sometimes they're even allowed to attend class in between practices.
   25. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 20, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5640486)
Yeah those 5-a-days are brutal.
   26. manchestermets Posted: March 20, 2018 at 07:11 PM (#5640638)
Doubly dubious pretending that those stadiums are built by the clubs - I'll grant, I don't have specifics - but it would shock me if the proportion of MiLB stadiums that were built and financed with public monies is the same as MLB.


The quote acknowledges that:

We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist


So somehow, it would be unfair to the cities that paid for the stadium if the team paid the players more? What?
   27. Walt Davis Posted: March 20, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5640656)
So somehow, it would be unfair to the cities that paid for the stadium if the team paid the players more? What?

Yep. At the moment, players (in organized ball) are paid by the parent club so the cost of players has no impact on minor-league team revenues which means that no matter what local levies/taxes there are, the municipal revenue generated by a team is not tied to player salaries. If anything, better paid players might spend more in the local economy (an exceptionally trivial effect but greater than the zero municipal revenue lost by raising salaries).

Now possibly the parent teams might start squeezing the local clubs to pick up some of the increased player salaries or, probably more likely, would cut back on the number of minors teams they support. That would obviously affect the communities where the defunct teams were located. Of course, given such stadiums are usually rip-offs of the community, that could be a good thing for the community in the long run. (In the short run, assuming it was financed through bonds, then I assume the community is on the hook whether there's a team there or not.)
   28. I Am Not a Number Posted: March 21, 2018 at 09:09 AM (#5640784)
They’re getting a free college education

How many really have the time and desire to attend classes? How many really have the aptitude to be in college in the first place and would have a fighting chance to get through a college curriculum if this were even their mission?
   29. McCoy Posted: March 21, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5640788)
Baseball players? Probably a good deal of them since they aren't getting free rides. Now I'm sure some colleges have players like Mike Piazza who never really cared about schooling but there are also a ton of baseball players in college that know they have no real shot at the majors and are playing college baseball because they love baseball and or it helps pay the bills.
   30. I Am Not a Number Posted: March 21, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5640801)
Probably a good deal of them since they aren't getting free rides.

I was thinking more about the players who were given scholarships for the sole purpose of generating revenue for their college.
   31. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 21, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5640804)
They’re getting a free college education

How many really have the time and desire to attend classes?


Time? All of them. Desire? Only the ones who value a college education.

How many really have the aptitude to be in college in the first place and would have a fighting chance to get through a college curriculum if this were even their mission?


If they don’t want the free college education they can get a job instead. What are the best job opportunities for stupid people? Presidential Press Secretary?
   32. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 21, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5640821)
The actual education at the undergrad level is all but valueless; you don't learn anything there that you can't learn from any device with an internet connection. It might be better to observe that scholarship athletes are getting a free degree, which has a lot of value. Degrees are expensive and absolutely necessary if you ever want to rise above entry level.

As always, star athletes are comically underpaid at something like $25,000 a year's worth of value (especially if, as is usually the case, they don't actually have to go to class to get their degree), but non-star athletes are getting a sweet deal and do well to take it.
   33. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 21, 2018 at 10:44 AM (#5640824)
The actual education at the undergrad level is all but valueless; you don't learn anything there that you can't learn from any device with an internet connection.


Good luck going forward with that Prager U background, home skillet.
   34. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: March 21, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5640844)

As always, star athletes are comically underpaid at something like $25,000 a year's worth of value (especially if, as is usually the case, they don't actually have to go to class to get their degree), but non-star athletes are getting a sweet deal and do well to take it.
This is a point that most people seem to forget when they say that college athletes should be paid. Only a tiny fraction are "worth" more than the break they get on tuition, room and board. So really the idea of paying college athletes has nothing whatsoever to do with college athletes as a class of people, but everything to do with funneling large sums of money to a very small select group of these athletes. For the most part these are the same people in line for huge paydays once they reach the pros. In many cases these same athletes could turn pro immediately and make huge sums (if not in the US then overseas) but choose to stay in college despite the lack of official payment.

I'm very much against the rules requiring players to play a year (or whatever rule they have) in college before going pro.
   35. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: March 21, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5640890)
I've of the opinions that:

College sports are a lot of fun.
College sports (as practiced in the States) is a ridiculous idea.
College players should be allowed to be paid above (and well above) and beyond their current benefits.
Most players would not benefit from this.
Many more would benefit from this than will one day go pro. There's a lot of money in college sports.
Title IX is a good thing.
I don't know how paying college players in a rational manner would be reconciled with Title IX. I've ideas here, but they're ignorant.
Rules requiring future pros to first play in college (or sit out or whatever) are bad.

Minor leaguers should make more money, have better nutrition, and so on.
It is, however, not that different than being a low level actor/musician/entertainer. I'm okay with the money still being really bad relative to other jobs.
   36. jmurph Posted: March 21, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5641023)
This is a point that most people seem to forget when they say that college athletes should be paid. Only a tiny fraction are "worth" more than the break they get on tuition, room and board.

The important thing is that we must prevent this theory from ever being tested.

I'm being snarky obviously, and there's truth in your post. But I have many colleagues who are more valuable than I am, and we are paid accordingly. Somehow my employer was able to determine that with some semblance of accuracy. The rest of the economy seems to have figured this out to varying degrees. But we've decided it's just impossible to ever do this for this one relatively tiny segment of commercial enterprises.

   37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 21, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5641078)

I don't know that college athletes should be paid -- it would only be a very small number who would have value -- but the rules against them accepting money should be eliminated. If a college athlete can get a shoe contract, why the hell should that be forbidden?
   38. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 21, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5641084)
If a college athlete can get a shoe contract, why the hell should that be forbidden?


Because it might make it harder for his/her coach and/or University to get a shoe contract. Duh.
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 21, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5641101)
I'd go the other direction. College scholarships for athletics should be abolished. Big time college sports are awful for supposed academic institutions. They totally warp the priorities.

Let the real students go to college and play sports. Let the guys who are only admitted because of sports play in the minor leagues.
   40. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 21, 2018 at 05:34 PM (#5641198)
Yup. Make college sports intramural and save scholarships for scholars. There are enough stupid people in college already, we don’t need big-time sports to bolster their ranks with dimwitted jocks who would be better-served finding a sports league somewhere.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: March 21, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5641213)
I don't know how paying college players in a rational manner would be reconciled with Title IX. I've ideas here, but they're ignorant.


That is the real stickler. I don't know how you pay just the revenue-generating athletes without running afoul of Title IX.

I've come to a take on David's position. Let the boosters, shoe companies, agents pay whoever and whatever they want. But the colleges themselves shouldn't.

The other thing is, even for the revenue-generating athletes, most of them don't really have that much value on an open market. Their revenue-generating ability is tied to playing for the university.

If you did away with all scholarship athletes, but not college athletics, Michigan could still generate significant revenue from its football program. Because the absolute skill level isn't what's truly important*. What's important to most UM fans is having better players than Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State. And you wouldn't see some sizable minor league system pop up to absorb all of these football players who previously would have been on scholarship somewhere (you might have a single league for development purposes/reserve troops, but not a system like baseball's, certainly).

* I'm sure most G League basketball teams would beat the vast majority, if not all, of the best college teams. But that fact doesn't swing the turnstiles.
   42. Zach Posted: March 21, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5641255)
The MLBPA hasn't figured out yet that the single best way to increase your salary is to increase the salary of your closest competitors. Major leaguers should *want* the minor leagues to be expensive.
   43. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 21, 2018 at 08:28 PM (#5641272)
What's important to most UM fans is having better players than Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State.

The fact that there are still UM fans suggests that being better than tOSU and the two molester colleges can't be that important.
   44. McCoy Posted: March 21, 2018 at 09:49 PM (#5641322)
Except for MLB the minors are not a competitor but a subsidized asset.
   45. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5641419)
The other thing is, even for the revenue-generating athletes, most of them don't really have that much value on an open market.

"That much" in comparison to what? I'm more than certain the top basketball players would be able to demand more than the $20-30K they're currently getting per year to go to Kentucky. We know this because some of them are getting that now, in secret, in addition to the value of their scholarships.
   46. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 09:43 AM (#5641420)
I'd go the other direction. College scholarships for athletics should be abolished. Big time college sports are awful for supposed academic institutions. They totally warp the priorities.

Let the real students go to college and play sports. Let the guys who are only admitted because of sports play in the minor leagues.

Well yeah I obviously agree with this, but given that it's not happening anytime soon, and given that basketball and football players (ie the revenue generating college players) are currently not allowed to play in the NBA or NFL, I'd like to see some of that revenue flow to the players that are generating it.
   47. DL from MN Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:04 AM (#5641430)
Big time college sports are awful for supposed academic institutions. They totally warp the priorities.


They warp priorities not just of the colleges but also of high school athletes. People pay lots of money for extra training to get a scholarship. If there were no scholarships we might slow the arms race of high school professionalization.
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5641436)
"That much" in comparison to what? I'm more than certain the top basketball players would be able to demand more than the $20-30K they're currently getting per year to go to Kentucky. We know this because some of them are getting that now, in secret, in addition to the value of their scholarships.


In comparison to not having an NCAA basketball structure. Their value is inextricably linked to the existence of a wildly popular college basketball system. Most would not have nearly that much revenue-generating power as a sub-NBA professional player, which the overwhelming majority of them would be.
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5641440)
If there were no scholarships we might slow the arms race of high school professionalization.



High school? If you're not engaged in the Youth Sports Industrial Complex long before high school, you ain't getting one of those oh-so-plentiful athletic scholarships (at least that's the message from the men on the front line).
   50. dlf Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5641451)
High school? If you're not engaged in the Youth Sports Industrial Complex long before high school, you ain't getting one of those oh-so-plentiful athletic scholarships (at least that's the message from the men on the front line).


My cousin's fiance is a former D1 softball player who now coaches (and is a teacher at) a junior high. She tells me that kids who aren't already on the radar of the D1 programs by the time they are in 9th grade simply won't be getting scholarship offers from the competitive programs. Since girls physically mature earlier than boys, there is probably a slight time shift for women's sports, but probably not by more than a year or two.
   51. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5641457)
In comparison to not having an NCAA basketball structure. Their value is inextricably linked to the existence of a wildly popular college basketball system. Most would not have nearly that much revenue-generating power as a sub-NBA professional player, which the overwhelming majority of them would be.

Again, the most important thing is that we must never find out if these arguments are true.

And anyway, this is true of all prospects. #1 overall MLB draft picks out of high school are years from being MLB-caliber, and easily command in the millions. Some of them would get much more if not for the relatively new draft slotting rules.

I think a lot of these anti-pay positions are arguing against the idea that all college athletes should get the exact same pay. But I don't know anyone who thinks that.
   52. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:44 AM (#5641472)
The Olympic model of allowing endorsements would allow the revenue-generating athletes to be paid, while complying with Title IX. I'd prefer the NCAA go that route, but they're determined to screw athletes over.
   53. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5641482)


Again, the most important thing is that we must never find out if these arguments are true.


Do you honestly believe that the equivalent of Single A level pro basketball players are going to command anywhere near that kind of salary?

For the vast majority of these players, their market value is completely tied up in the fact they play in the lucrative world of college basketball. That's a simple fact.

And anyway, this is true of all prospects. #1 overall MLB draft picks out of high school are years from being MLB-caliber, and easily command in the millions. Some of them would get much more if not for the relatively new draft slotting rules.


Most players are not prospects. The guys good enough to play in the NBA will always command high salaries, whether that's based on projection or performance. The overwhelming majority of Division I college players are nowhere near good enough to play in the NBA, and thus they would be paid accordingly (which is nothing, at least on these shores).

I think a lot of these anti-pay positions are arguing against the idea that all college athletes should get the exact same pay. But I don't know anyone who thinks that.


Title IX seems like a pretty large impediment to a la carte payment schemes.

The Olympic model of allowing endorsements would allow the revenue-generating athletes to be paid, while complying with Title IX. I'd prefer the NCAA go that route, but they're determined to screw athletes over.


That would work too.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5641486)
Most players are not prospects. The guys good enough to play in the NBA will always command high salaries, whether that's based on projection or performance. The overwhelming majority of Division I college players are nowhere near good enough to play in the NBA, and thus they would be paid accordingly (which is nothing, at least on these shores).

Correct. We hear complaints about minor league pay in MLB. DI scholarship players are receiving far more than the vast majority of miLB players. ~$40-60K p.a. in scholarship, room, and board, vs. $10-20K for the minor leaguers.

Colleges would save a fortune if they converted their revenue sports into affiliated minor league teams where the players had the option, but not the requirement to be students. They'd get to eliminate all the scholarships for 95% of athletes, and, instead pay the basketball and football players $30K p.a.
   55. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:15 AM (#5641505)
For the vast majority of these players, their market value is completely tied up in the fact they play in the lucrative world of college basketball. That's a simple fact.

You can make this statement for literally all professional athletes. It's essentially meaningless.

Do you honestly believe that the equivalent of Single A level pro basketball players are going to command anywhere near that kind of salary?

I don't know what "anywhere near that kind of salary" is referring to. Is there a specific number we're arguing about?

And do I honestly believe that a substantial number of single A level pro basketball players are going to command more than the $25Kish per year they're currently getting? Yes. I believe a substantial number of them would command substantially more than that on the open market, and I believe a substantial number of small to middling college basketball programs would cease to exist as currently constituted in a world where the players could get paid. Both of those things seem fine to me, in the interest of overall fairness.

Title IX seems like a pretty large impediment to a la carte payment schemes.

Lots of people who have looked at the relevant case law seem to think this won't be an issue. Some links here (in an obviously pro-pay article).
   56. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5641507)
In the interest of fairness nobody should get paid for playing college sports.
   57. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5641508)
Do you honestly believe that the equivalent of Single A level pro basketball players are going to command anywhere near that kind of salary?

Also, again to this point I just want to remind you that many of them are already getting under the table payments, and secret apartments for family members, cars, etc., in addition to the scholarship/free housing. That coaches and universities are willing to do that now, in the current system in which they can get punished for doing so, makes it pretty clear they think a lot of these players are worth more than they're currently getting.
   58. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:20 AM (#5641509)
Big time college sports are awful for supposed academic institutions. They totally warp the priorities.


Much as I can appreciate the sentiment - even agree with it, and have no real moral objections...

I wouldn't support this.

I love college football and don't particularly care for the NFL. Ditto basketball to a lesser extent. While MLB still reigns supreme to me, I've found myself watching and following college baseball more over the last 5 years or so, too.

That's nothing more than a personal leisure time preference defense, but there it is...
   59. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:20 AM (#5641510)
In the interest of fairness nobody should get paid for playing college sports.

Noted that the guy whose posts are like 90% whining about how unfair the "Budshoveks" are is not actually in favor of any kind of free market.
   60. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:24 AM (#5641516)

And do I honestly believe that a substantial number of single A level pro basketball players are going to command more than the $25Kish per year they're currently getting? Yes.


How? Where is the revenue coming from to support that? No one gives a #### about minor league basektball now, and they're not going to suddenly start just because you add even lower levels of play.

Also, again to this point I just want to remind you that many of them are already getting under the table payments, and secret apartments for family members, cars, etc., in addition to the scholarship/free housing. That coaches and universities are willing to do that now, in the current system in which they can get punished for doing so, makes it pretty clear they think a lot of these players are worth more than they're currently getting.


Yes, they're getting that to PLAY FOR THE COLLEGE TEAM, because those arenas are filled and the games are on TV and well-heeled alums like to see old Alma Mater U kick ass in the NCAA Tournament.

They wouldn't be getting that to play for the Ypsilanti Shitkickers of the NABA.

I have no doubt most G League Teams would beat the crap out of almost all, if not absolutely all, of the best teams in college basketball. The existence of that superior level of play hasn't made anyone give a damn about the G League.
   61. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:25 AM (#5641517)
I love college football and don't particularly care for the NFL. Ditto basketball to a lesser extent. While MLB still reigns supreme to me, I've found myself watching and following college baseball more over the last 5 years or so, too.

Why wouldn't you still enjoy it if the athletes were actual students, and not scholarship athletes?
   62. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:26 AM (#5641521)
SoSH I don't even understand your argument any more. We're talking about colleges paying college athletes, yes? What do you mean "where is the revenue going to come from?" Last year the NCAA tournament brought in more than a billion dollars.
   63. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5641536)
In the interest of fairness nobody should get paid for playing college sports.

Noted that the guy whose posts are like 90% whining about how unfair the "Budshoveks" are is not actually in favor of any kind of free market.


Well there’s a difference between professionals and amateurs. They have different definitions and everything.

And as a good little Budshovik you’d notice that these poor oppressed college goons have a much freer market than any baseball player. They aren’t forced to play for whatever team drafts them, and they’re allowed to transfer at their leisure. Maybe you’re agitating for a system where the worst colleges make the best high school players play for them for 4 years?
   64. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5641538)
SoSH I don't even understand your argument any more. We're talking about colleges paying college athletes, yes? What do you mean "where is the revenue going to come from?" Last year the NCAA tournament brought in more than a billion dollars.

I think he's saying the colleges don't need the athletes to generate the revenue. If the top 500 NCAA basketball players, and 500 top football players left the game to play minor league ball, the college arenas would still be full of people rooting for the laundry.
   65. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5641547)
Why wouldn't you still enjoy it if the athletes were actual students, and not scholarship athletes?


No, I don't think so... HS sports interest me not in the slightest.

I've never really spent a lot of time thinking about why college sports hit that sweetspot for me - increasingly so, but considering it for a moment, I guess I'd say -

Part of it is no doubt, nostalgia. Not exactly sure why I feel that way about college sports but not HS - if I had to guess, it's probably because I remember playing HS sports more than participating as a fan. College was pure fandom. I also find that increasingly, as friends get spread to the winds across the country, even the world - folks I stay in touch in with mostly digitally, we usually end up getting together a time or two for a football tailgate or game. A big part of that is obviously the media intensity, marketing, $$$, etc - things that would go away with a lower quality product, I bet.

That said, it's more than just alma mater rooting - I genuinely enjoy the idea that you've basically got near 100 teams (and double that at the hoops level) experiencing a constant renewal/talent influx, rising and falling, etc. If anything - I'd probably like to see the super-programs knee-capped a bit... but it's still always fun with a Notre Dame or an Alabama or whomever gets upset. I like the fact that a good recruiting class can elevate a program... a program can go from doormats to darling... and it can all happen so quickly. I love the overload - flipping between half a dozen games at once.

I also enjoy the not-quite-professional level of play - that is to say, games aren't nearly as choreographed and "called it before it happens" - there's an element of sloppiness on occasion.. the unexpected... the falling flats... the rising to a challenge... etc. Granted, this is kind of weird when you think about the fact we're talking about teenagers and 20/21/22 yos - but it's enjoyable to sort of hope/expect a pro-level of play but at least subconsciously knowing you're often going to get less than that.

   66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5641564)
No, I don't think so... HS sports interest me not in the slightest.

They'd still be a lot better than HS. You'd only lose the tippy-top guys to the minor leagues.
   67. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5641567)
And as a good little Budshovik you’d notice that these poor oppressed college goons have a much freer market than any baseball player. They aren’t forced to play for whatever team drafts them, and they’re allowed to transfer at their leisure.

If any of this were coming from actual principle and you were interested in the facts (which is a laughable premise, but sure), you might want to catch up on transfer rules and the various age limits of the professional leagues.
   68. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5641570)
They'd still be a lot better than HS. You'd only lose the tippy-top guys to the minor leagues.


There’s 351 Div 1 basketball programs. It would amount to a loss of less than 1.5 players per team on average.
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5641576)

SoSH I don't even understand your argument any more. We're talking about colleges paying college athletes, yes? What do you mean "where is the revenue going to come from?" Last year the NCAA tournament brought in more than a billion dollars.


My argument hasn't changed from 41. College players value is tied to being college players. They don't have value outside the NCAA system.
   70. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5641589)

I think he's saying the colleges don't need the athletes to generate the revenue. If the top 500 NCAA basketball players, and 500 top football players left the game to play minor league ball, the college arenas would still be full of people rooting for the laundry.
Would they? I mean, non-powerhouse schools -- by that I mean non-major-conference schools, rather than major schools having off years -- don't really generate the same sort of revenue as the powerhouse schools, right?
   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:24 PM (#5641599)
Would they? I mean, non-powerhouse schools -- by that I mean non-major-conference schools, rather than major schools having off years -- don't really generate the same sort of revenue as the powerhouse schools, right?

The powerhouse schools would presumably still be powerhouses; guys are going to rather play ball at UNC than at Murray St. It's just that the overall level of play would be slightly lower.
   72. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM (#5641601)
Would they? I mean, non-powerhouse schools -- by that I mean non-major-conference schools, rather than major schools having off years -- don't really generate the same sort of revenue as the powerhouse schools, right?


I think you need look no further than college baseball - in terms of... well... everything - fannies in the seats, media coverage, TV, you name it - college baseball probably draws about as much as college volleyball.

   73. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5641612)
My argument hasn't changed from 41. College players value is tied to being college players. They don't have value outside the NCAA system.

Okay but I'm not sure I've argued against that premise, really? I'm arguing the players should be paid. Which could be done, starting now, with the billion+ dollars they're bringing in this month through the men's basketball tournament.
   74. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5641617)
I think you need look no further than college baseball - in terms of... well... everything - fannies in the seats, media coverage, TV, you name it - college baseball probably draws about as much as college volleyball.


Illinois was terrible this year. I went to a game they played against Southern U. I seriously doubt that any of the players were among the top 500 in the country, and probably no more than 1 or 2 who would be replacing a top 500 player at a powerhouse school. The place was packed.
   75. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5641620)
Okay but I'm not sure I've argued against that premise, really? I'm arguing the players should be paid. Which could be done, starting now, with the billion+ dollars they're bringing in this month through the men's basketball tournament.

And I'd say the schools should eliminate scholarships, and spend the billion dollars, and the scholarship dollars to lower tuition for everyone.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM (#5641646)
Okay but I'm not sure I've argued against that premise, really?


Since you've been arguing with me, you've been arguing against that premise.

I'm arguing the players should be paid.


I'm not opposed to that philosophically, though I suspect it would be far more difficult in practice than Slate makes it sound.
   77. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5641651)
Since you've been arguing with me, you've been arguing against that premise.

No, because you also said most players aren't worth much, and that Title IX would be an impediment, and you questioned where the revenue would come from, etc. "They don't have value outside of the NCAA setting" honestly seems entirely incidental to the discussion of whether the NCAA's current athletes, who generate piles of money, should be paid.
   78. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5641653)
They warp priorities not just of the colleges but also of high school athletes.

And not only just the athletes, but also the jock-sniffing politicians and administrators who enable them.
---
Said as a resident of perhaps the only school district in the country that has a domed stadium for high school football games.
   79. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5641655)
And as a good little Budshovik you’d notice that these poor oppressed college goons have a much freer market than any baseball player. They aren’t forced to play for whatever team drafts them, and they’re allowed to transfer at their leisure.

If any of this were coming from actual principle and you were interested in the facts (which is a laughable premise, but sure), you might want to catch up on transfer rules and the various age limits of the professional leagues


Since you’ve never shown any interest in discussing topics of this nature in good faith I can see it was naive of me to expect you to start now,

So can you explain to me the process by which amateur athletes are drafted and assigned to colleges who then own them unequivocally, so I can better understand the shameful circumstances under which they’d are treated like chattel? Does LeBron James have to negotiate his rights to be released from the college that owned him before the NBA? Come comrade, enlighten me to the shameful treatment of the proletariat in college, as opposed to glorious worker paradise of MLB.
   80. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5641658)
So can you explain to me the process by which amateur athletes are drafted and assigned to colleges who then own them unequivocally, so I can better understand the shameful circumstances under which they’d are treated like chattel? Does LeBron James have to negotiate his rights to be released from the college that owned him before the NBA? Come comrade, enlighten me to the shameful treatment of the proletariat in college, as opposed to glorious worker paradise of MLB.

Alas, just one racial slur shy of a full YR bingo. Bummer.
   81. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5641659)
You have the dimwitted argumentative capacities of a Hottentot.

There, feel better?
   82. Zonk is One Individual Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5641672)
And I'd say the schools should eliminate scholarships, and spend the billion dollars, and the scholarship dollars to lower tuition for everyone.


The problem is that they wouldn't -

Virtually every college that already participates in this shared billion dollar pie already has the endowment resources at hand to easily lower tuition for everybody.

As noted above, I don't think the billion pie transitions quite so readily - it shrinks or goes away.

But just assuming for a moment it remains, there's nothing to even suggest it would be used for anything approaching this purpose...
   83. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5641683)
No


That was the paragraph you quoted from in my 41 that started this, so yes.

As for the other stuff, which came later, I'm still not sold on the Title IX wouldn't be any kind of impediment argument, despite the assurances of the Slate kids. And the revenue argument was not about the NCAA, which you kept bringing it back to, but the theoretical minor league system that would absorb these athletes if they were cut loose from the NCAA (you know, what kind of market there would be for their services).
   84. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5641685)
The problem is that they wouldn't -

They're not going to pay players either.
   85. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:35 PM (#5641687)
But just assuming for a moment it remains, there's nothing to even suggest it would be used for anything approaching this purpose...

How did universities ever carry out their primary academic missions before the explosion in recent years of armies of Assistant Vice Provosts of Something or Other staffing up the ivory towers of academia?
   86. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5641695)
SoSH, scroll up man. I posted multiple times before you did on the subject. The context for the entire part of the thread devoted to this subject is the paying of college athletes, specifically in revenue-generating sports. You're being a pedant for the sake of pedantry when, based on the second half of your post 76, we apparently don't disagree? Has Ray stolen your log-in?
   87. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5641698)
They're not going to pay players either.

I think things will change, but I'm not sure how radically. Image rights, larger "living stipends," contribution to retirement accounts, some combination of those things. The momentum around it seems real, combined with various (or is it all the same?) federal investigations into recruiting/bribery schemes.
   88. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5641700)
I made a comment, unrelated to whatever your previous arguments were, that college athletes' value is tied up in being college athletes. You apparently misunderstood that point when you decided to challenge it. I'm sorry you did that.

As for paying athletes, I'm not opposed to it in on a philosophical level. I have serious skepticism about how well it would actually work in practice. I also suspect that it would lead to a lot fewer opportunities than the system provides now.

I absolutely support simply letting the various boosters, agents, shoe companies and other old people with too much money give the athletes whatever the hell they want, and letting the schools just offer the scholarships.

But scholarship athletes do get something very valuable for their participation in Division I athletics.
   89. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5641701)
I think things will change, but I'm not sure how radically. Image rights, larger "living stipends," contribution to retirement accounts, some combination of those things. The momentum around it seems real, combined with various (or is it all the same?) federal investigations into recruiting/bribery schemes.

99% of athletes contribute nothing to revenue. Title IX means you can't pay the football and basketball team without paying all the women teams, and mens teams.

No way are shools going to incur an additional cost of $10K+ for every scholarship athlete.
   90. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5641704)
I made a comment, unrelated to whatever your previous arguments were, that college athletes' value is tied up in being college athletes. You apparently misunderstood that point when you decided to challenge it. I'm sorry you did that.

Good god man, a simple yes to the Ray joke would have maybe been the better choice.

   91. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5641708)
Title IX means you can't pay the football and basketball team without paying all the women teams, and mens teams.

Again, no one knows this, it is not a settled fact. Many legal experts across the internet appear to think otherwise.
   92. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 01:59 PM (#5641709)
Many legal experts around the country will argue anything in hopes of getting paid for the argument. It’s why people don’t trust lawyers.
   93. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: March 22, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5641723)
I absolutely support simply letting the various boosters, agents, shoe companies and other old people with too much money give the athletes whatever the hell they want, and letting the schools just offer the scholarships.
I think the main reason the current rules exist is to protect the illusion of the student/amateur athlete. If the star quarterback starts getting multi-million dollar endorsements and a house on campus next to the president's mansion, the whole endeavor becomes an obvious joke.

edit: I'm actually kind of rooting for all restrictions to be removed. I would expect the popularity of college athletics to collapse in 10-20 years.
   94. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 22, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5641726)
Many legal experts across the internet appear to think otherwise.
Isn't everyone on the internet a legal expert?
   95. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 02:33 PM (#5641736)
Isn't everyone on the internet a legal expert?

Yes, true, but in this case I meant actual legal experts quoted in various stories. There are people who do think it's an impediment, too, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. I'm just saying lots of people who understand the legal implications seem to believe things could be structured in such a way to make it work. Scholarships/funding are not actually divvied up 50-50 now, for instance.
   96. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5641770)
Yes, true, but in this case I meant actual legal experts quoted in various stories. There are people who do think it's an impediment, too, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. I'm just saying lots of people who understand the legal implications seem to believe things could be structured in such a way to make it work. Scholarships/funding are not actually divvied up 50-50 now, for instance.

How are you going to justify paying 20 male athletes $100K each, and no female athletes anything?

Endorsements you could get away with.
   97. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: March 22, 2018 at 04:14 PM (#5641833)
an endorsement based model could lead to risk wrt throwing games, no?

what if there was another division of the ncaa - the employee division? (name would have to change)
schools can pay them whatever and you could move up from d1 to dE on a sport by sport basis, subject to certain rules

---

ba highlighted a risk with the proposed legislation limiting ot pay, etc... for minor leaguers (that also mandates that you at least pay minimum wage*40 hrs/wk - most indy leagues would have to jack up their pay or shutter, likely the latter. atlantic league already would meet standards and would likely survive.
   98. jmurph Posted: March 22, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5641836)
Timely!

Some good figures in there (this is just counting football/men's basketball revenue in the "Power 5" conferences):
The direct revenue figures alone are staggering: They represent $1.27 million for every scholarship football and men’s basketball player at the Power Five institutions.
   99. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 22, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5641850)
Again, no one knows this, it is not a settled fact. Many legal experts across the internet appear to think otherwise.


Even though this is true, I can't see any P5 schools taking the risk that they'll be brought down by Title IX. And even before Title IX came into play, the howls of the public, board of regents, and their local campuses would force them to pay equally.

They'd still be a lot better than HS. You'd only lose the tippy-top guys to the minor leagues.


In college basketball, we've effectively lost the tippy-top guys to the NBA already. All the top guys are gone after a year, and the game has seemingly lost a little from it's former glory, yet they still get big crowds and a lot of eyeballs. The one and done rule may be dropped, and we'll lose the tippy-top even faster. College hoops will likely continue to be healthy.


   100. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 22, 2018 at 05:00 PM (#5641863)
How are you going to justify paying 20 male athletes $100K each, and no female athletes anything?


They're already "paying" 100 men considerably more than they pay 90% of the other athletes. How are they justifying that, and why couldn't that justification extend to sliding-scale stipends?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost of Sox Fans Past
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCampaign to make Negro League bobbleheads
(4 - 1:31pm, Dec 16)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogCardinals prospect Griffin Roberts suspended 50 games for a drug of abuse
(17 - 1:30pm, Dec 16)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(496 - 1:29pm, Dec 16)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogWhy gambling used to scare baseball and why it doesn’t anymore
(52 - 1:28pm, Dec 16)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRed Sox owe $12 million in luxury tax, showing why they'd want to shed payroll
(7 - 1:16pm, Dec 16)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogJeurys Familia finalizes 3-year deal to return as likely setup man
(3 - 1:04pm, Dec 16)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(198 - 12:52pm, Dec 16)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(353 - 12:47pm, Dec 16)
Last: Carl Goetz

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(129 - 12:37pm, Dec 16)
Last: sgt23

NewsblogYonder Alonso headed to White Sox in trade with Indians
(1 - 11:36am, Dec 16)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPadres get Ian Kinsler to play all over infield - The San Diego Union-Tribune
(14 - 11:21am, Dec 16)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3703 - 9:29am, Dec 16)
Last: JC in DC

NewsblogTHE HALL OF FAME VALUE STANDARD (Bill James rank 25 worst players in HOF & 25 best not in the HOF)
(93 - 8:18am, Dec 16)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogYankees To Sign J.A. Happ
(36 - 12:16am, Dec 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Athletic: What It's Like to Cover an Indians Three Team Trade on a Flight with the Front Office and No WIFI
(5 - 12:08am, Dec 16)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Page rendered in 0.7399 seconds
46 querie(s) executed