College athletics is undoubtedly dirty and a complete
cluster. I’m sure the entire system will
collapse for innumerable reasons and I can’t say I’ll miss it terribly when
that happens. But I am tiring of the
“free market” arguments and incessant complaints that the athletes are
indentured servants or worse.
Through a Twitter back and forth with Sports on Earth writer
(amongst other qualifications) PatrickHruby comes this post as a response to two of his articles. Also, this post from Andy Schwarz that talks about market collusion and provides a counterpoint to my primary premise.
My belief… college bball and football are part of the “free
market”… the entertainment market.
College football and bball are in competition with professional sports
(including minor leagues) as well as any other entertainment venture that
competes for consumer dollars.
Athletes ARE a part of that market and the market has
already set a value for their services.
They have options… they can become professional directly after high
school (bball.. NBDL or Europe; football… CFL) or they can go to college. Those individual athletes have ample
opportunity to balance the pros/cons of each route and determine what the best
deal is for them individually. The vast
majority of athletes choose to go to college because they’re making a rational
decision that college sports is the best means to their preferred
“end-point”. If the player’s value was
truly higher they’d be flocking in droves to minor leagues/Europe, which in
turn would force universities to re-examine the price it pays for its
athletes. Isn’t that the definition of
free market? Why should colleges bid
against themselves?
From what I’ve gathered from Hruby’s previous tweeting and
the two articles is that he believes strongly that college athletes are being
taken advantage of and that they should be compensated more fairly. Below are my thoughts on each article.
Red Herring #1 –
Deloss Dodd’s $1 million+ salary and the comparison with all sorts of other
important professions like the president.
Used to suggest that ADs aren’t worth their extravagant salaries.
·
My take –
Drives me crazy when “market principles” are used to support the players
value but then that same logic isn’t applied to other parts of the debate. Universities pay LOTS for ADs not because
they have to have someone to give all of those surplus dollars; they pay ADs
lots of money because that’s what the market suggests a top-notch AD is
worth. And those ADs deliver a LOT of
money back to the university… donors are often times the biggest funding source
for university athletic departments.
Red Herring #2 –
“Drexel study estimated that if athletic departments shared their revenues in
the same manner as professional sports the average fair market value of FBS
college football and men's basketball players would be over $121,000 each, with
Duke's basketball players each worth roughly $1 million and Texas' football
players each worth $513,000.”
·
My take – “Markets” don’t exist in a vacuum
(unlike academic studies). A market
price is determined by how much one entity is willing to pay for an
asset/product/service. The NCAA has a
published price it’s willing to pay for an asset (re: player). European
leagues, the NBDL, the CFL (and for upperclassmen, the NBA and NFL) are all
part of the market also setting the price for those players. If the players perceived value was higher,
they’re free to go another route to achieve their full value.
Red Herring #3 –“
Less money chasing the talent means more money chasing everything else.”
·
My take – Completely agree but it also points to
a bigger question… would college athletics have the high TV ratings, packed
stadiums, huge donor checks and sponsor dollars IF that “money wasn’t chasing
everything else”. Stadiums/facilities
matter (yes, even Godzillatron). Having great coaches matter. Great ADs and great conference commissioners
matter (see Scott, Larry). Conference TV
networks matter. You can’t say player X
is worth a million while at the same time criticizing the investments that were
necessary to make that player (supposedly) worth a million.
Red Herring #4 -
"It's like [the NCAA is arguing] that if we have to pay stipend to our
quarterback, university intramurals is out the window," McEvoy says.
"There's no way. Study a Division III athletic department for 10 minutes.”
·
My take – Comparing DIII athletic dept budgets,
in which there aren’t any scholarships, with DI athletic depts. with $100
million budgets is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps the whole D1 house of cards won’t
collapse but that money does have to come from somewhere. Just suggesting that coaching costs and AD
salaries are going to mysteriously go down is a bit pollyanish. D1 schools are so heavily invested – Cal’s
repercussions from its stadium renovation is a good example – that they’re all
doubling-down. Sinking a few million
into upgrading a coach is a much less risky financial move then seeing your
program lose relevance, lose ticket sales, lose booster donations, etc.
Will the money come from cutting other sports? Who knows but Temple’s recent announcement
that it’s cutting 7 programs impacting 150 student athletes might be a window
into the not-too-distant future to save football and basketball. This follows similar cuts from Cal, UMass,
Rutgers and Robert Morris.
Headline Quote Movie
of Origin: Hoosiers
Character: Myra
Fleener
Setting: Female wet-blanket
1st ballot HOFer Myra Fleener doing her durndest to ensure Larry
Bird doesn’t become Larry Legend. (Jimmy
Chitwood is based off the Hick from French Lick, right?)
The Quote is Relevant
How? Jimmy’s only realistic escape from Hickory is playing college ball even
though Myra Fleener thinks he can get an academic scholarship. But she’s dumb.
UPDATE: More color added to the conversation via Twitter. Click to enlarge the image.
UPDATE: More color added to the conversation via Twitter. Click to enlarge the image.
Contact El Duderino at jaipf@hotmail.com.
2 comments:
Enjoyed your take. Regarding red herring no. 2 - if a Drexel study is used to estimate the value of a student-athlete, where is the counterbalancing study that estimates the marketing, publicity, training, health care, and more provided to the athlete? Thanks for writing.
Horrible article. The players' market value is set by independent entities (here, the Universities) *bidding against each other* for talent. That doesn't happen because the Universities agree among each other to cap the value of what each one can offer players to the "reservation wage" (a GIA scholarship). If their market value wasn't higher than that, they wouldn't need the cap.
It really isn't more complicated than that. You are very, very wrong.
Post a Comment