Explain why college athletes shouldn't/won't ever get paid.

That will never happen in a million years.

You greatly overestimate the athletes' dissatisfaction with their "lot". Many think the system is unfair, but few would do anything about it.

 

Supposedly, it's been talked about several times, but you're right in that it hasn't happened because of cold feet:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/04/college_athletes_rights_why_do.html

http://deadspin.com/5840246/i+team-which-college-basketball-team-guaranteed-a-walk+out-if-they-made-the-ncaa-final

 

How much should a top-player get?

 

How much should an editor get paid? A school teacher? A police chief? A CEO? Factory worker?

In almost every other field I can think of, we allow markets to set wages. Even in industries where we have collective bargaining, we have some sort of a negotiation process. These markets sometimes fail--see, e.g., CEO salaries--but, in aggregate, they do a decent job, most would agree. So it strikes me as a rather bizarre criticism to believe it will be difficult to figure out how much to pay top players. And based on bribes, the market-going wage is surely higher than currently allowed.

 

It's been talked about exactly once ... when UNLV was in the Final Four 20 years ago.

And the circumstances for that had less to do with anything high-minded than a roundabout fuck you to the NCAA for fucking with Tarkanian and their Vegas money men.

Even then, they didn't do it.

There's no way any player will do it. And it would probably be a fatal blow to their cause if they did.

Very, very few joe blow fans would be in support of such a boycott and it would harden resistance to those in a position of power who maintain the status quo.

It would backfire massively.

 

Michigan State's regular long snapper did not play in their bowl win today. Holder Brad Sonntag spent the day correcting snaps. Sonntag is a fifth-year senior who was awarded a scholarship before the start of this season. Should his compensation be based on his career or today?

Everyone is complaining because the other side's answers aren't perfect. No answer is going to be. We need to figure out where our comfort levels are and, at least, not transgress them.

 

The market solution is great if it works. No major professional team sport in the U.S. has a free-market, so let's go back to the real world. What would a salary cap look like for college football?

Football players aren't slaves. They have an education, room and board, and books. If players need more money, there are Pell Grants and student loans that will make up the gap for the full cost of attendance.

 

True. People want their games. They don't care what the players do, either get money or don't get money, go to class, or skip class, get a 3.8 GPA or not able to write their name, as long as the kids are eligible to wear the multiple uniforms provided by the marketing arm of the sneaker company for Good Old State U.

Something like a sit-down strike would anger fans considerably ... and prove the players' point that no one cares about them but themselves.

 

It was discussed earlier in the thread. I, as well as Franklin Lincoln, felt a salary cap wouldn't work because schools and boosters would find a way around it.

I just feel my proposal is fair. Every scholarship athlete gets an equal amount from the school for four years, which takes care of Title IX, and are free to seek outside compensation. No reason why a coach should be free to earn money from a sneaker company, and the player can't.

 

Tomorrow, we start tearing down the college.

 

But, like I said, at least in cases where there is collective bargaining--pro sports leagues, for instance--you have two sides in an adversarial context negotiating a deal. In the NCAA, you have the employers collectively imposing the wage cap (including limiting outside money), with no input from labor.