at least it's not just us?
- Member for
- 2 years 20 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 hours 10 min ago||Joe D IS an idiot,||
But not because he drafted KCP. I mean, we're not even half way through their rookie years. Acting as if it's just a fact that Burke is the better prospect and then calling people idiots base on that supposed fact is a little silly.
|2 days 6 hours ago||Endogeneity bias, yo.||
Endogeneity bias, yo.
|6 weeks 9 hours ago||No way. He got beat by a||
No way. He got beat by a girl! What a looser!
|9 weeks 1 day ago||I think the Wisconsin||
I think the Wisconsin situation is not really analagous. They fired they're brand new coach who had installed a new technique. When they fired him, they went back to coaching the old technique that the players had a history of executing succesfully.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||It happens to the best of us.||
It happens to the best of us.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||It was directed at you, but||
It was directed at you, but it was just an observation. I don't know scheme from a hole in the ground. Your arguments seem well reasoned, just think your tone can be a bit vehement and dismissive, which may be why you're getting so much pushback.
To be clear, as BISB said, this is much better than a lot of the arguments on the board. Just a suggestion for further improvement.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||You have a tendency to||
You have a tendency to declare yourself right and others wrong. I think that rubs some people the wrong way. Might be something to consider.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||I thought this sort of||
I thought this sort of comment was verboten ever since the great bye week purge.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Im A little short on time so||
Im A little short on time so I'll be brief. I think your post was thoughtful, but I still disagree substantially. I think the semi pro thing is a red herring because the ncaa's existence distorts the market. I also don't think legal associates or internships are analogous because they don't occur to explicit collusion. Medical residents is an interesting example although healthcare is a unique market. In the end, I don't find examples of other market distortions persuasive evidence that we should tolerate this particular distortion.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||I think the existence of the||
I think the existence of the NCAA as cartel creates significant barriers to entry. In that context, your recommendation is basically a nonstarter. You're saying players have other options without acknowledging that these options are undermined by the existence of a cartel.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||And the players are typically||
And the players are typically unionized and negotiate a cba. I think you're being too dismissive of the power of this cartel, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe read that article by Becker and Posner and see if you still feel the same way.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Absolutely. I wasn't trying||
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply that the nfl was a free market. There are two critical differences though: 1) the nfl players have a union and negotiate a cba and 2) congress gave the nfl an antitrust exception.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||If it was completely false||
If it was completely false you would have a better argument than the existence of semipro leagues.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Their value on the semipro||
Their value on the semipro market is low because semipro leagues are filling a low cost, low quality niche, given the current equilibrium enforced by NFL age restrictions and the NCAA cartel. I don't question that a four year scholarship to M is a better deal than playing in the AFL. That doesn't mean that top CFB players are receiving market clearing wages. It's basically indisputable that if the NCAA didn't limit compensation that players would receive a higer level of compensation than they do now from schools like UM, PSU, Alabama, etc. Just because there are market options (AFL, USFL, etc) does not mean the entire market is free. An entire segment of the market has formed a cartel.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||If you're really interested||
If you're really interested in having a genuine debate and not just trying to score cheap points, I think you should look into the implications of your argument a little further. I never said that the AFL or any other semipro league offers superior compensation. I just pointed out that universities use a cartel in the form of the NCAA to limit compensation.
Here's a UofC economist and attorney explaining it: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-becker.html
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Sure, but this logic can be||
Sure, but this logic can be applied to the labor market in general. For instance, some of the revenue generated by apple is the result of employee value and some is the result of the apple brand. It's almost impossible to parcel that out correctly, but that's why we have a competitive labor market to figure it out for us. It seems obvious that some players are paid below their market value. Otherwise, the NCAA wouldn't have to enforce restrictions on player restriction. Hell, you wouldn't even need the restrictions in the first place.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||In addition to what doctor||
In addition to what doctor wolverine said, Michigan is free to increase the compensation of PhD candidates. In athletics they have committed, via the NCAA, to explicit limits on compensation. Big difference, IMO.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||The issue is that||
The issue is that universities collude to constrain players' compensation below what the market would provide.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah, but political||
Yeah, but political correctness is destroying america or something.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Just to clarify, I don't||
Just to clarify, I don't support the ban. I'm fairly new but I liked chitownblue and ShockFX's posts. Maybe it's just because I agreed with them a lot.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||I love weird stuff and this||
I love weird stuff and this is definitely very weird.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||ShockFX as well.||
ShockFX as well.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||I thought for sure that Heiko||
I thought for sure that Heiko would ask Hoke what he thought about chitownblue2 getting banned. So disappoint.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||I think one big difference is||
I think one big difference is that Brian hasn't gotten together with all the other blog owners and created a regulatory organization that prohibits the kids from earning a living, selling their likeness, etc.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, it seems like Lewan||
Yeah, it seems like Lewan comes off the double and takes that LB right before Fitz cuts.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Ok, so does that mean the||
Ok, so does that mean the standard is wrong? I mean, I don't know that much about GSRAs, but their mere existence doesn't contradict the legal reasoning laid out in the article.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Thankfully, Bry Mac provided||
Thankfully, Bry Mac provided a handy link to an academic article that makes an argument that they are employees based on common law and statutory standards. So, yes, they do meet a legal definition of employee.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||See, even a football playing||
See, even a football playing dog knows an employee when he sees one.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Are you aware that this isn't||
Are you aware that this isn't a realistic option? I think you're making your vision of the perfect the enemy of the good.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Well, typically rock climbers||
Well, typically rock climbers aren't members of massive organizations that they've signed exclusive contracts with in exchange for compensation (scholarship). So it's not really an analagous example. I had the impression that you were a lawyer. This stuff is so obvious that it seems like you're being intentionally disingenuous.
You can say that football players aren't employees, but the reality is that they make a shitload of money for their organizations and receive (limited) compensation in exchange. Semantics aside, that sounds like an employee to me. And colluding to limit compensation is illegal in the absence of an anti-trust exemption. What you're proposing would require federal legislation (i.e. changes to Title IX and anti-trust laws). That seems unrealistic, so the result will be the further exploitation of college athletes.