"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."
Quote from: Cheerful on June 21, 2021, 08:01:59 AM
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."
Finally. The NCAA and D1 universities are rent-seeking organizations that treat "student-athletes" as bonded labor.
Good!
While the decision is narrowly tailored to barring limits on educational benefits that can be given athletes, many states have already passed laws to necessarily allow pay to athletes.
Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is riotous: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-ncaa-in-landmark-antitrust-case/ (https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-ncaa-in-landmark-antitrust-case/)
Aside from removing an injustice, the decision and state laws will make college athletics more expensive and less widespread. :-)
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
I'm hoping it causes the costs of D1 athletic programs to spiral even further out of control, to the extent that universities are forced to choose between bankruptcy and leaving D1.
Quote from: spork on June 21, 2021, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
I'm hoping it causes the costs of D1 athletic programs to spiral even further out of control, to the extent that universities are forced to choose between bankruptcy and leaving D1.
Yo!
Quote from: spork on June 21, 2021, 10:58:46 AM
I'm hoping it causes the costs of D1 athletic programs to spiral even further out of control, to the extent that universities are forced to choose between bankruptcy and leaving D1.
Merely ending the charade of athletic programs "earning" money for their universities should be enough.
I wonder if escalating amenities for players (at least in the richest programs) would make other students less willing to subsidise this through all kinds of athletic fees.
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on June 21, 2021, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: spork on June 21, 2021, 10:58:46 AM
I'm hoping it causes the costs of D1 athletic programs to spiral even further out of control, to the extent that universities are forced to choose between bankruptcy and leaving D1.
Merely ending the charade of athletic programs "earning" money for their universities should be enough.
I wonder if escalating amenities for players (at least in the richest programs) would make other students less willing to subsidise this through all kinds of athletic fees.
Yes.
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
It will definitely increase the divide between wealth schools and less wealthy, the divide between high-revenue sports and other sports, and between telegenic top athletes and other athletes. It is not clear whether that is the intent of the plaintiffs, but those who know where their bread is buttered see where there is more butter.
Quote from: Hibush on June 21, 2021, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
It will definitely increase the divide between wealth schools and less wealthy, the divide between high-revenue sports and other sports, and between telegenic top athletes and other athletes. It is not clear whether that is the intent of the plaintiffs, but those who know where their bread is buttered see where there is more butter.
And the poorer, black students get more cash. The wealthy schools would have to pay more. More equality! Wonderful!
Remarkable (and kind of nice) to see the Supreme Court issue a unanimous opinion on ANYTHING!
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
Quote from: dismalist on June 21, 2021, 01:59:12 PM
And the poorer, black students get more cash. The wealthy schools would have to pay more. More equality! Wonderful!
One negative unintended consequence may be that, having a pay-out closer at sight, more students from poorer backgrounds may try their luck as "walk-ons" (concept introduced to me by the certain Netflix show) with ruinous consequences for their financial well-being and, possibly, their entire life trajectory
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on June 22, 2021, 08:04:26 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
Quote from: dismalist on June 21, 2021, 01:59:12 PM
And the poorer, black students get more cash. The wealthy schools would have to pay more. More equality! Wonderful!
One negative unintended consequence may be that, having a pay-out closer at sight, more students from poorer backgrounds may try their luck as "walk-ons" (concept introduced to me by the certain Netflix show) with ruinous consequences for their financial well-being and, possibly, their entire life trajectory
Is that really any different than the students who go into massive debt to attend "elite" institutions, or people who self-fund (a.k.a. go into debt) for graduate programs thinking it will be the golden ticket?
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 22, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Is that really any different than the students who go into massive debt to attend "elite" institutions, or people who self-fund (a.k.a. go into debt) for graduate programs thinking it will be the golden ticket?
No, but similarity between "debt-financed walk-on" and "debt-financed phd" does not make either practice more acceptable.
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on June 22, 2021, 08:18:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 22, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Is that really any different than the students who go into massive debt to attend "elite" institutions, or people who self-fund (a.k.a. go into debt) for graduate programs thinking it will be the golden ticket?
No, but similarity between "debt-financed walk-on" and "debt-financed phd" does not make either practice more acceptable.
That confuses the cure with the disease. NCAA rules
prevent certain walk-ons from getting paid.
QuoteDue to scholarship limits instituted by the NCAA, many football teams do not offer scholarships to their punters, long snappers and kickers until they have become established producers.
More generally, higher pay for work is good. Lower pay for work is bad.
I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.
Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).
Quote from: research_prof on June 22, 2021, 09:49:20 AM
I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.
Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).
The rationale of the ruling is anti-trust. There is collusion in setting the remuneration of college athletes. There is no collusion setting the terms for PhD students. There is in fact ferocious competition.
Quote from: research_prof on June 22, 2021, 09:49:20 AM
I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.
I like that aspect of it. It drives home the fact that universities have no business running essentially-professional-but-unpaid sports teams that bring in millions of dollars on the effort of unpaid, undercompensated, frequently Black young men. Some of whom in marquis sports like football are giving themselves long-term brain damage for our amusement and profit. My hope is that the vast majority of schools will give up on sports as a money source and go (back?) to real student athletes. No doubt a subset of big sports schools (the 25 or 30 where sports are actually profitable) will be able to pay their student athletes sufficiently, and I think the questions that raises will lead to important questions about the actual mission of those schools.
Best case scenario for me would be the deprofessionalization of sports at as many schools as possible, adequate compensation for the schools where sports are profitable, and the NBA and NFL developing real minor leagues where the most talented players can earn real money without being distracted by trying to be students at the same time.
And regarding this:
Quote from: research_prof on June 22, 2021, 09:49:20 AM
Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).
My other unpopular opinion is that we should not be allowed to pay PhD students off of grants. They should be paid on training grants (funded by making grant budgets smaller because they don't need to fund as much salary).
So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.
Quote from: waterboy on June 22, 2021, 10:44:53 AM
So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.
A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.
Quote from: spork on June 22, 2021, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: waterboy on June 22, 2021, 10:44:53 AM
So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.
A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.
Yes. They would get paid market price, whatever that may be.
QuoteI can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.
And why not!
Quote from: spork on June 22, 2021, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: waterboy on June 22, 2021, 10:44:53 AM
So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.
A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.
Yup, and for the students in the sports that generate that kind of $$$ it's not like they have time or focus for their studies anyway. Frankly, I think that for students in marquis sports on full scholarships we should pay them to play during their eligibility and THEN give them four years of tuition and support to be students (either right after, or they could come back later if they get drafted to play professionally).
Quote from: onthefringe on June 22, 2021, 10:41:24 AM
And regarding this:
Quote from: research_prof on June 22, 2021, 09:49:20 AM
Following the rationale of the ruling, my PhD students should also be paid much better, since they generate indirect cost that is coming to the university (and yes, I understand the difference between not being paid at all and simply being under-paid).
My other unpopular opinion is that we should not be allowed to pay PhD students off of grants. They should be paid on training grants (funded by making grant budgets smaller because they don't need to fund as much salary).
I like that and I believe it is the case in Canada and the EU. However, I do not see it happening anytime soon in the US. Every time I ask the admins of my school about something I need, the question they would ask me is "how much money have you brought in lately?".
I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....
M.
Quote from: onthefringe on June 22, 2021, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: research_prof on June 22, 2021, 09:49:20 AM
I am concerned about the consequences of this ruling. I can see the day coming that NCAA athletes will be making more money than professors who bring millions of dollars in grants and that's gonna be ugly.
I like that aspect of it. It drives home the fact that universities have no business running essentially-professional-but-unpaid sports teams that bring in millions of dollars on the effort of unpaid, undercompensated, frequently Black young men. Some of whom in marquis sports like football are giving themselves long-term brain damage for our amusement and profit. My hope is that the vast majority of schools will give up on sports as a money source and go (back?) to real student athletes.
Quite. And let the NBA and NFL franchises fund their own farm teams, instead of freeloading on the NCAA.
I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.
Quote from: mamselle on June 22, 2021, 11:32:39 AM
I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....
M.
It is possible that certain elite institutions in D1 are already paying football and basketball players, and not just in scholarships. Heh.
I'm sure The OSU is not one of them (okay, they probably are), and this may mean the cost of now is transferred from alums and apparel companies to the school. So the schools will be glum.
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 22, 2021, 12:01:03 PM
I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.
They'd be legally employees and have insurance for injuries.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on June 22, 2021, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 22, 2021, 12:01:03 PM
I don't think they'd make any more money on a *farm* team (as opposed to the "major" NFL team), that is , if you account for scholarships as compensation.
They'd be legally employees and have insurance for injuries.
Let's not forget the essential point: The NCAA is against paying money to student athletes. They must be doing something else with the money, like having fun. Thus, after deregulation, wages, including tuition, of student athletes will rise. Farm teams would have to pay similar amounts.
[Wages might fall if tuition is entirely worthless, and being in college is really rough. :-)]
That risen compensation can be in many forms. One is health insurance.
Remember: The student athletes will be better off.
Makes sense...we'll see what happens.
Presumably you can't just set a special tuition level for student-athletes, so unless tuition rises for everyone, they're safe on that score.
What gets me is that if student-athletes shouldn't be compensated because they're "amateurs" doing it for love of the sport, then surely the same should be true of the coaches. Since dozens of assistant college football coaches currently make over $800 000...
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 21, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
I have the feeling that this is going to bring on some unintended consequences.
Uh, yeah. That's the first thing I thought of. I'm at a D1 school, and although the Athletics at my uni does not pull their own weight and has to be subsidized, this might kill off athletics at our university. I'm not sure how badly it will affect our enrollment and some academic programs that are athletics-associated, but there will probably be some impact. Now, some might say this a good thing for academics, that killing off athletics means that academics will be more of a financial priority since athletics would no longer be subsidized . . . . Ha ha ha ha!!!!
Frankly, I will shed the same amount of tears for D1 Athletics at my school as they would for academic programs that get shut down. ---Nada---
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 03:10:06 PM
Presumably you can't just set a special tuition level for student-athletes, so unless tuition rises for everyone, they're safe on that score.
What gets me is that if student-athletes shouldn't be compensated because they're "amateurs" doing it for love of the sport, then surely the same should be true of the coaches. Since dozens of assistant college football coaches currently make over $800 000...
And us!
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 22, 2021, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on June 22, 2021, 11:32:39 AM
I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....
M.
It is possible that certain elite institutions in D1 are already paying football and basketball players, and not just in scholarships. Heh.
I'm sure The OSU is not one of them (okay, they probably are), and this may mean the cost of now is transferred from alums and apparel companies to the school. So the schools will be glum.
The summer I taught swimming as part of the Summer Inner-City Youth Sports Program, we had to bring the kids over from the pool to the batting cage/track arena beside the ice rink for their snack boxes (which was part of what they got for attending).
The little red Corvette that Archie Griffin and Corny Green drove up in, to throw a few footballs and impress the kids (very clearly staged, to my jaundiced eye...) had to have been an alumni gift.
In fact, I just realized I can almost bet I knew the name of the alumni. After playing for OSU and then professionally, the fellow who was my Sunday School teacher had started a car dealership.
And that also wasn't surprising: W. Hayes also attended that church, and his wife was in my mother's "Women's Group" as they called them then.
Circles within circles,...
M.
P.S., No-one calls it "The OSU" whatever the stationary and journalistic usage advisements are....it's just "OSU" (the school in Oklahoma isn't considered, sorry...).
Quote from: mamselle on June 22, 2021, 04:04:47 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 22, 2021, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on June 22, 2021, 11:32:39 AM
I'm wondering what my BA alma mater (Ohio State) thinks of all this....
M.
It is possible that certain elite institutions in D1 are already paying football and basketball players, and not just in scholarships. Heh.
I'm sure The OSU is not one of them (okay, they probably are), and this may mean the cost of now is transferred from alums and apparel companies to the school. So the schools will be glum.
The summer I taught swimming as part of the Summer Inner-City Youth Sports Program, we had to bring the kids over from the pool to the batting cage/track arena beside the ice rink for their snack boxes (which was part of what they got for attending).
The little red Corvette that Archie Griffin and Corny Green drove up in, to throw a few footballs and impress the kids (very clearly staged, to my jaundiced eye...) had to have been an alumni gift.
In fact, I just realized I can almost bet I knew the name of the alumni. After playing for OSU and then professionally, the fellow who was my Sunday School teacher had started a car dealership.
And that also wasn't surprising: W. Hayes also attended that church, and his wife was in my mother's "Women's Group" as they called them then.
Circles within circles,...
M.
P.S., No-one calls it "The OSU" whatever the stationary and journalistic usage advisements are....it's just "OSU" (the school in Oklahoma isn't considered, sorry...).
Heh. I know. It's just a way to rib my rabid OSU colleagues
Quote from: dismalist on June 22, 2021, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 03:10:06 PM
Presumably you can't just set a special tuition level for student-athletes, so unless tuition rises for everyone, they're safe on that score.
What gets me is that if student-athletes shouldn't be compensated because they're "amateurs" doing it for love of the sport, then surely the same should be true of the coaches. Since dozens of assistant college football coaches currently make over $800 000...
And us!
'Interest in giving back to the community' has long been the rational given for crappy pay for part time faculty.
I'm wondering if the state universities will be exempt from paying 50% of the employee's social security tax as many are now. Another ripoff.
Quote from: onthefringe on June 22, 2021, 10:58:01 AM
Quote from: spork on June 22, 2021, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: waterboy on June 22, 2021, 10:44:53 AM
So, do we pay them whatever amount and they cover their own tuition? Always bugs me that tuition is ignored as a benefit in these conversations.
A tuition waiver is peanuts compared to the billions earned annually by NCAA executives, university athletic program employees, TV networks, apparel manufacturers, video game companies, etc.
Yup, and for the students in the sports that generate that kind of $$$ it's not like they have time or focus for their studies anyway. Frankly, I think that for students in marquis sports on full scholarships we should pay them to play during their eligibility and THEN give them four years of tuition and support to be students (either right after, or they could come back later if they get drafted to play professionally).
I heard one of the plaintiffs (I think) on NPR arguing precisely this: he wants his alma mater to pay for a proper trade school experience, after college, as compensation for four years of non-education, knowing that the odds of any kind of professional football contract are virtually nil.
I don't think most people in D1 programs are kidding themselves that their tuition is worth much, except insofar as the degree itself might be valuable.
Finally, I share the sentiment that there are going to be unintended consequences. But anybody not actually asleep could see this decision coming at least a decade ago.
Whatever comes out of this, it's hard to see how it could be worse that the system that's been in place for the past 50 years.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 03:10:06 PM
Since dozens of assistant college football coaches currently make over $800 000...
$800k? That's peanuts. Many coaches make in the millions.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/
EDIT: I see you specified
assistant coaches.
Quote from: Cheerful on June 23, 2021, 06:36:16 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 03:10:06 PM
Since dozens of assistant college football coaches currently make over $800 000...
$800k? That's peanuts. Many coaches make in the millions.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/
EDIT: I see you specified assistant coaches.
Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous all the way down. But the assistants are clearly less important, and clearly bloat. A business model which has everyone making enormous profits--profits which dwarf faculty and even most admin salaries!--but which pays the workers nothing is... well, it sounds a lot like slavery.
And the proof is in the pudding that even this brain-dead Supreme Court can see it, and can't justify it. (If you'll permit such a tortured phrase.)
If you took all the overpaid coaches, their assistants, and all of the highly paid administrative bloat positions, out of academia, you'd have many fewer with whom senior way-tenured faculty with light schedules and retired tenured who are paid way more for sitting home on their butt than adjunct faculty are paid for Monday through Friday and weekends for grading and class prep, compare favorably. Speaking of unintended consequences.
Maybe I shouldn't go down this path, but could you clarify that last point? I've been reading the second to last sentence (which I guess is the first sentence!) a few times and still can't quite process it.
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 23, 2021, 08:36:23 AM
Maybe I shouldn't go down this path, but could you clarify that last point? I've been reading the second to last sentence (which I guess is the first sentence!) a few times and still can't quite process it.
Faculty salaries are rarely considered bloated. And it's hardly ever claimed that there are extra tenured faculty who could be done without. That's partly because we have other big expenses that look more like bloat to point to.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/01/19/faculty-groups-try-educate-biden-salaries
BTW, remember this? Didn't go over well. Old Joe sometimes rushes right in where angels fear to tread.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/01/19/faculty-groups-try-educate-biden-salaries (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/01/19/faculty-groups-try-educate-biden-salaries)
Faculty wages will cause the tuition (price) rise iff the supply of faculty falls. If one considers only the high flyers, the supply of those must fall to make the price rise. The opposite seems to have happened.
Thus, the price rise is a demand side phenomenon and causes the wage rise on average or of some, not the other way around.
As my father used to say, there's too much money around!
I don't know about most schools, but every year people petition to create tenure track faculty positions. Replacements for retirees mostly get renewed. Growth positions are actually rare, and even more rare in depts. that haven't shown explosive growth (only even close to being true for 1 or 2 departments). These decision get made based on advice to the Dean from tenured faculty. So, effectively, we turn down tenure track growth every single year.
I would say our salaries are OK at my school. Without COL adjustment, we're just above average, maybe a bit more so for certain categories, but that always shifts with time. Lets just say very very few are going to be retiring with 6 figure salaries. We have many full time adjuncts, and their pay is decent. Well above 25K, I can say that.
Salaries (and other compensation) are almost going to be the biggest budget outlay. That's hardly unique to faculty, but yeah, if salaries go up just a small amount its probably going to mean a tuition increase (though, that's backwards of our common practice---we don't raise salaries until we know we have much larger enrollment at the same tuition rate). How misbalanced this is between upper admin and certain coaches is highly dependent on the type of school.
Quote from: Ruralguy on June 23, 2021, 11:06:10 AM
I don't know about most schools, but every year people petition to create tenure track faculty positions. Replacements for retirees mostly get renewed. Growth positions are actually rare, and even more rare in depts. that haven't shown explosive growth (only even close to being true for 1 or 2 departments). These decision get made based on advice to the Dean from tenured faculty. So, effectively, we turn down tenure track growth every single year.
I would say our salaries are OK at my school. Without COL adjustment, we're just above average, maybe a bit more so for certain categories, but that always shifts with time.
Salaries (and other compensation) are almost going to be the biggest budget outlay. That's hardly unique to faculty, but yeah, if salaries go up just a small amount its probably going to mean a tuition increase (though, that's backwards of our common practice---we don't raise salaries until we know we have much larger enrollment at the same tuition rate). How misbalanced this is between upper admin and certain coaches is highly dependent on the type of school.
You're doing what faculty do when the question comes up. Comparing salaries and pensions at your school with those of other schools. That's not what Old Joe was putting his foot in his mouth about. He meant the entire culture breeds unneeded expense by making 'research universities' where a simple college would have been fine, Nobel Prize contenders where dedicated, qualified people without the ultimate in charisma and notoriety would have been fine. This kind of thought process is generally considered impossible, if even considered of at all, but the presence of so many adjuncts with PhD and others like myself who far outperform tenured faculty in other ways that bring benefit to students suggests otherwise.
He's not as loopy as he sounds.
QuoteLets just say very very few are going to be retiring with 6 figure salaries
Do you have any idea how obscene this sounds to the average American 9-5 er?
QuoteWe have many full time adjuncts, and their pay is decent. Well above 25K, I can say that.
Red herring maybe, but interesting to know. What about your faculty who have to work under a 'part-time' designation?
Quote from: mahagonny on June 23, 2021, 11:48:27 AM
QuoteLets just say very very few are going to be retiring with 6 figure salaries
Do you have any idea how obscene this sounds to the average American 9-5 er?
Well, my most recent PhD student's first job offer was for $250K/year, so I'm taking a substantial pay cut by choosing to be a full professor.
Would this ruling also apply to the NJCAA?
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 06:59:34 PM
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Yo!
An economist accusing someone of rent-seeking is like saying s/he should die in a fire.
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 06:59:34 PM
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Yo!
An economist accusing someone of rent-seeking is like saying s/he should die in a fire.
Have no clue about what the norms among economists are—I just looked at the numbers presented in table 9.
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 06:59:34 PM
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Yo!
An economist accusing someone of rent-seeking is like saying s/he should die in a fire.
Have no clue about what the norms among economists are—I just looked at the numbers presented in table 9.
Thank you. I love it! At the very least, the table indicates what's at stake.
Everyone can opine for themselves who deserves how much, but I like the numbers in the table as dollars going to the majorly producers of those profits, the kids.
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 06:59:34 PM
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Yo!
An economist accusing someone of rent-seeking is like saying s/he should die in a fire.
Have no clue about what the norms among economists are—I just looked at the numbers presented in table 9.
Thank you. I love it! At the very least, the table indicates what's at stake.
Everyone can opine for themselves who deserves how much, but I like the numbers in the table as dollars going to the majorly producers of those profits, the kids.
Fair. But should not the same apply to grant dollars? Should not most of the money go to the investigator, whose research brought the money?
Sorry for ranting.. just tired of paying so much indirect cost and having a limited amount of summer salary..
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 07:46:41 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 05, 2021, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: research_prof on July 05, 2021, 06:59:34 PM
Here you go: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734
I can see 18-year old kids making 10x more than the compensation of a faculty member in a few years.
Yo!
An economist accusing someone of rent-seeking is like saying s/he should die in a fire.
Have no clue about what the norms among economists are—I just looked at the numbers presented in table 9.
Thank you. I love it! At the very least, the table indicates what's at stake.
Everyone can opine for themselves who deserves how much, but I like the numbers in the table as dollars going to the majorly producers of those profits, the kids.
Fair. But should not the same apply to grant dollars? Should not most of the money go to the investigator, whose research brought the money?
Sorry for ranting.. just tired of paying so much indirect cost and having a limited amount of summer salary..
I only spoke for my own opinion about the distribution of those dollars to the athlete kids. I have no clue how much cash it is efficient to pay a PI, nor how much for a Summer's work or teaching.
Like two year olds, we all say we want more. As we get older, only the verbiage defending this position gets more sophisticated. :-)
Quote from: IHEUniversity of Alabama sophomore quarterback Bryce Young has earned close to $1 million in endorsement deals. College athletes in Alabama and a number of states have been able to legally earn revenue from their name, image and likeness since July 1. Young, who is expected to be Alabama's starting quarterback this year, has not yet started a game for Alabama
Not bad for three weeks on the job, and still in the onboarding phase.
I've been predicting that the elite will get rich and the nonelite will get less than they do now.
Quote from: Hibush on July 21, 2021, 03:19:57 PM
Quote from: IHEUniversity of Alabama sophomore quarterback Bryce Young has earned close to $1 million in endorsement deals. College athletes in Alabama and a number of states have been able to legally earn revenue from their name, image and likeness since July 1. Young, who is expected to be Alabama's starting quarterback this year, has not yet started a game for Alabama
Not bad for three weeks on the job, and still in the onboarding phase.
I've been predicting that the elite will get rich and the nonelite will get less than they do now.
Players will
not get less than now. The others worry me not.
When did colleges start playing football and when did the first caterwauling about how such-and-such ruins the game occurred? The gap couldn't have been more than a few years.
Quote from: dismalist on July 21, 2021, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: Hibush on July 21, 2021, 03:19:57 PM
Quote from: IHEUniversity of Alabama sophomore quarterback Bryce Young has earned close to $1 million in endorsement deals. College athletes in Alabama and a number of states have been able to legally earn revenue from their name, image and likeness since July 1. Young, who is expected to be Alabama's starting quarterback this year, has not yet started a game for Alabama
Not bad for three weeks on the job, and still in the onboarding phase.
I've been predicting that the elite will get rich and the nonelite will get less than they do now.
Players will not get less than now. The others worry me not.
While players don't get paid, they still get coaches, playing venues and travel. Players will lose those those things if they are not at a college with a high-profile sports program or participate in a non-revenue sport. I also predict that there will be no endorsement revenue for about fifty of Mr. Young's Alabama teammates.
That last point brings up the question of how much revenue sharing Mr. Young will need to do to assure that his O line blocks
every pass rush. There are pay disparities in the pros, but everyone gets paid as much as they can negotiate.
Quote from: Hibush on July 22, 2021, 02:48:42 AM
While players don't get paid, they still get coaches, playing venues and travel. Players will lose those those things if they are not at a college with a high-profile sports program or participate in a non-revenue sport. I also predict that there will be no endorsement revenue for about fifty of Mr. Young's Alabama teammates.
That last point brings up the question of how much revenue sharing Mr. Young will need to do to assure that his O line blocks every pass rush. There are pay disparities in the pros, but everyone gets paid as much as they can negotiate.
I wonder if players retaining 100% of such windfall is a transient effect of a change in rules. I.e. universities will change letter of their offers to take a cut from new players, but the players who signed up before the ruling will keep everything.
I suspect that a university taking a cut of endorsement money may be even welcomed by the brands as it gives such university a monetary incentive to ensure that "expected quarterback" actually plays as one.
Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on July 22, 2021, 04:42:15 AM
Quote from: Hibush on July 22, 2021, 02:48:42 AM
While players don't get paid, they still get coaches, playing venues and travel. Players will lose those those things if they are not at a college with a high-profile sports program or participate in a non-revenue sport. I also predict that there will be no endorsement revenue for about fifty of Mr. Young's Alabama teammates.
That last point brings up the question of how much revenue sharing Mr. Young will need to do to assure that his O line blocks every pass rush. There are pay disparities in the pros, but everyone gets paid as much as they can negotiate.
I wonder if players retaining 100% of such windfall is a transient effect of a change in rules. I.e. universities will change letter of their offers to take a cut from new players, but the players who signed up before the ruling will keep everything.
I suspect that a university taking a cut of endorsement money may be even welcomed by the brands as it gives such university a monetary incentive to ensure that "expected quarterback" actually plays as one.
Taking a cut might create an employer:employee relationship, and I'm not sure most places would want that. And if the university is actively involved with branding for some athletes and not others, that might open them up to TitleIX concerns? So I'd guess Universities are unlikely to actively take a cut.
Universities have been getting a cut since the beginning of the NCAA -- revenue sharing. Athletes have been denied fair compensation through a regulatory monopoly that is in part subsidized by taxpayers.
I'm hoping that the new rules cause this entire bread and circus charade to bankrupt itself.
Quote from: Mobius on July 21, 2021, 05:35:55 PM
When did colleges start playing football and when did the first caterwauling about how such-and-such ruins the game occurred? The gap couldn't have been more than a few years.
U.S. Football: First noted game, 1892; first college game, 1896:
https://www.profootballhof.com/football-history/birth-of-pro-football/#:~:text=The%20sport%20of%20American%20football,the%20first%20college%20football%20game
I'm presuming you don't mean U.K. Football (Rugby).
I don't know of a caterwauling index, but maybe 2 minutes after the 1st game started?
M.
Quote from: Mobius on July 21, 2021, 05:35:55 PM
When did colleges start playing football and when did the first caterwauling about how such-and-such ruins the game occurred? The gap couldn't have been more than a few years.
Here you go: https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/10/4/18716003/college-football-amateurism-history