John Oliver: March Madness and the Student Athlete

Silver's overall agenda is to increase the minimum age of the NBA to 20... and it has the net effect of not only making the NBA product better, but it also makes the college game better.

Now, if the players association decides not to cooperate with that, I'm sure he'll maximize the D-league as a backup plan (allow teams to stash underaged players who clearly aren't ready for the NBA... without having them accrue service time).

 

So basically you're telling me that they're worht close to 0, so the NCAA cartel restricting their value to 0 is totally fine?

In that case, why does the NCAA cartel exist at all? To fix prices at 0 for a commodity that nobody wants to pay money for anyway?

Really, Major? Come on, you are WAY smarter than this.

Sure Brad Pitt makes movies and people go to see them, and the guy who holds the boom mike for him is completely replaceable, that doesn't mean motion picures can collude to say "salaries for boom mike holders must be set at 0 because they are student-boom mike holders/amateurs"

 

Correct me if my math is wrong, that translates to roughly $23k a student.

 

I had a really long, well thought out post to contribute then my browser crashed.

Two points:

1) Top bball talent should say F*** the NCAA and play overseas or in the D-League for a year. They'll still get drafted. They have options unlike their football brethren. I'm pretty sure Nike/Adidas/Under-Armour will more than make up their paltry d-leauge salary with an endorsement deal. If they want a bigger basketball paycheck they can go overseas. They still get the coaching and competition that the NCAA would provide AND they would have the freedom to make money off of their popularity. The platform isn't as big as the NCAA, but only because the top guys aren't there (yet).

The NCAA will only start making changes when they see some effects to their bottom line.

2) The student-athlete designation was made up by the NCAA in the 50s to avoid paying workers comp benefits to the widow of a football player who died on the field. http://www.insidenu.com/2014/1/28/5355988/ncaa-student-athlete-kain-colter-union-workers-comp What a bunch of scumbags.

 

How would you differentiate the athletes? For example, football players vs basketball players vs lacrosse...etc...wage levels from male and female athletes?
23k per year is so much money.

The average tuition per year for public schools-->14.3K
The average tuition per year for private (for profit vs nonprofit)-->23.3K - 37.8K

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76


Also what are the pros/cons for having a minor league baseball like system for the other sports? Would something like that help or hurt post highschool sports.

 

Regarding the 420,000 number: Are these only ones receiving scholarships or do they include others (walk-ons, Ivy Leaguers, etc.)?

 

No, I'm saying that the athletes are getting lots of value - far more than you are seeing. That's why they choose $0 cash pay + all the benefits over actually getting paid in the D-League or Europe. The total amount of value the NCAA provides is more than anyone else, which is why everyone chooses them.

The movie studio will pay the boom mike holder the minimum amount necessary to get reasonable quality work. They aren't going to pay him extra just because they are making lots of money.

This is the argument I have a problem with:

The only way to make it is to say the athletes are all idiots and we know better than them. I think the better argument is that they see more value in the NCAA and everything they get from it than the money they get from playing elsewhere.

It would be different if athletes were choosing Europe in basketball - that would indicate a potential problem in all the other sports where there aren't necessarily alternatives. But they have multiple options in basketball - and they still choose the NCAA.

 

That's revenues. Walmart had $485 billion in revenues last year. 2.2 million employees. That translates to $220k per employee. What does that mean? A walmart cashier is worth 10x as much as a student athlete? If so, an athlete should make about $1/hr, which everyone would agree is dumb. That number is meaningless without context. What are the expenses? Most athletic programs lose money as-is.

 

Well, of course everyone wants to be compensated. If you polled people here and asked if they wanted a raise, I'm pretty sure they would all say yes. That's meaningless. They currently have 3 major options:

1. NCAA - no pay, lots of other benefits
2. D-League - some pay, few benefits
3. Europe - more pay, have to live abroad

They have different options each with different benefits and drawbacks. And almost 100% of the athletes are seeing #1 as providing them the most value.

They are compensated - just not in cash. They get an education, tutors, room & board, free food, training facilities and staffs, marketing and exposure, etc. Just because you may not value those things doesn't mean the athletes don't. Again, they are choosing those things over a paying alternative that is readily available to them.

This is possible, but it's similar to any other business - they will pay the minimum needed to acquire labor at the quality they require. Companies generally don't voluntarily pay extra just because they are making lots of money. Until someone else shows they can make money off of these sports and pay enough that they can siphon off labor from the NCAA, there is no reason the NCAA will voluntarily change.

As of now, no one has accomplished that - I would argue that's because the specific athletes aren't nearly as critical to the product generating the money when compared to the NBA or other professional sports. The actual value comes from the schools themselves. People don't really go watch Duke because they want to see Jabari Parker. They go see Duke because they love Duke. If Parker wasn't there, Duke would be just as popular with whoever replaced him. You could pay these guys all you want, but people won't go see them in another league because people simply don't care about the players that much - you see that in the D-League results, despite them having far better players than the NCAA does. The labor isn't as central to the NCAA product as it to pro sports leagues and there's a huge supply of it who see value in what the NCAA currently offers.

 

So basically you are pitching me the same load of bull**** that Mark Emmert does - the fig leaf of the "student athlete" when it's overwhelmingly obvious that both the ability and the opportunity for the majority of athletes in the revenue sports as a student is nonexistent.

The problem of course with this - other than it being 100 percent complete fecal matter - is that you're accepting that they are being compensated for their labor with something of value.

Once you do that, your whole argument is f-ked. We go right to the damages phase of the trial. BTW - they are trebled here. Look up why, I'm sher a man like u can figure out why.

Cam they conspire with other studios to fix his wage at zero? Or any number? That is the question (to which you already know the answer is no.)

The rest of your post is irrelevant because of the above, though nonetheless pretty silly by itself but not worth getting into.


Look Major, I've "known" you long enough to get your BBS pathology/persona:

Look at me, I am Major, a calm rational! I always pick most rational side and I will calmly explain why no matter what! Also most rational side = opposite of whatever emotional side is no matter rationale.

For the most part this works. You generally DO choose the most rational side. You are a smart dude. This time though you are wrong as ***.

I used to echo this line of pro NCAA bull**** even on this board till I read Taylor Branch's very influential Atlantic monthly article a few years back - then the mask slipped and it was over. I suggest you do the same, really.

 

Ok a couple of things, I wasn't necessarily saying that's what they are owed, I was saying if you divide the difference between the money generated from costs that's what each student equates to. Personally I don't think they should be paid a dime. I think student athletes should be given guaranteed scholarships, regardless of injury and an actual chance to get an education. I think they should be supported healthcare wise as well, seeing as how the university is asking them to donate their bodies night after night. I think all money should be split between care and education. If you choose to play for four years, then stay another three (on scholarship) to get a real degree that should be supported. If they really are student athletes, let them be real students.i don't think money should go to cost of living, eating or anything of the sort. What I am mad about is asking a kid to train 90+ hours a week during the season and then saying they are students. They aren't, they are employees. Heck, as an employee at the bookstore at Arizona you get a tuition waiver and paid hourly! I'm not even asking for the hourly wage, I'm asking for protection of their scholarships if they get hurt or pass their 4 years of eligibility!

 

All of these points are the exact flawed views that Oliver and others have pretty much ripped to shreds over the years.... nothing new except your points sway back and forth from "they're getting an education!" (they're not) to "this is how you run a business!" (student-athletes, aka the employees, don't have a union) which contradicts the entire premise again and again.

You also state why the NCAA should never "change" without acknowledging all the evolving changes over the years that make the mythical "student-athlete" illusion even more damning.

Coaches are now pretty much the highest paid employee of any successful NCAA school, with salaries comparable to professional leagues. New facilities are being built at a large cost, not just to serve the school... but to be a source of revenue. TV networks and radio deals for schools are being negotiated at a level of a professional team.

Its a different environment than it was when the NCAA first garnered that "student-athlete" moniker. You want to stick with it? Do away with all of the above as well.

This is an entirely "new" point... that if the best athletes choose not to go to college, that college sports will not only survive, but "thrive"... and if you honestly want to now stand by that premise as a reason why the student-athlete can't even get wages similar to a work-study program, then why even argue anything else? (although as the best athletes forgo college, and the product starts to suffer, it does have consequences... even though March Madness is as big as ever, college basketball has been somewhat stagnant in terms of "interest" and "quality" since the one-and done rule went into play).

 

See, this is the best argument against Oliver's rant. But he isn't interested in taking on the best argument. He just enjoys scolding us.

Not only does Oliver have a rudimentary knowledge of how athletics works in the USA, he doesn't understand concepts like tradeoffs, leverage, choice, competition, cost/benefit.

The basic question of "why do athletes willingly choose to participate in college athletics?" doesn't cross his mind. He seems to think they are forced into it.

It's very possible we could soon see all the top HS players signing million dollar contracts to play overseas for a year.

 

They should get some incentive. Hell, each point scored is equivalent to $2. Seems fair?

 

Didn't know you are involved in the NCAA, big tobacco, the supreme court, civil forfeiture practices, handling special immigrant visas to Iraqi nationals who are in danger because of their sacrifice to our cause, payday loans etc.

That's the problem with the right wing mindset. So many infallible entities.
Israel is infallible
Law enforcement is infallible
Capitalism is infallible
military is infallible

 

You'll have to excuse The Commodore. Any time he senses a large powerful institution being criticized he drops to his knees and assumes power bottom mode.


The richess here is that bro professes to be a bit coin mining libertarian. You'll find fewer anti free market organizationso IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE than the NCAA and its unpaid labor cartel. It literally exists to confiscate the fruits of others and siphon them to others. - it's ayn Rands wet dream of a bogeyman (she may have had a penis)

But for Commodore, since elites realize this, it therefore must be good. Because smart rich people are always wrong. Unless they are right, because they are rich so they must be right. Exhausting.

 

Bingo.

 

NCAA mens basketball and NCAA football are simply the minor leagues of the NBA and NFL, respectively. The "student athletes" representing 95% of the players in NCAA basketball and football have absolutely no business whatsoever in college (note that for many other sports this isn't the case). Their academic scores and credentials are typically at the very bottom of the universities that they represent and their graduation rates are abysmal. They aren't students, they are minor league athletes.

That said, "student athletes" willingly choose to enter into this agreement by entering school. The attraction is an education (ticket out of poverty) and a chance at professional sports. The NCAA and the fans have created a very nice system to benefit themselves -- and the NBA and NFL let it happen and as a result they don't have to invest in minor league teams as do MLB teams. If "student athletes" want to get paid, then they shouldn't enroll in college. Go to Europe or Asia like Emmanuel Mudiay or Brandon Jennings.