18-22 year olds participate in the labor market, dude. What is it, specifically, about 18-22 year olds who are good at sports that makes them incapable of it?

If you want to convince yourself that people making money is bad for them, knock yourself out. But it's completely illogical.

Why not just call a spade a spade? You like college sports how they are, and worry paying athletes will change a thing you like. That makes sense, and it's honest. But trying to pretend this is somehow about the best interests of the kids, and these poor, poor athletes can't understand how jobs work is patronizing nonsense.

So if they were to become employees, theoretically they could be fired or traded for non-performance or other contractural provisions. Remind me, what does that have to do with getting an education?

Not sure you can point out where I ever said making money is bad for them. But keep reaching for it. My comment is more to the delusion of some with regards to their value and and perceived worth. Which is proven by how many enter the portal and never are heard from again.

By my count, not including players who entered the portal and then withdrew, 171 MAC players entered the portal in December. 20% moved up to a G5 team, and some of those no doubt got NIL money. 13% moved sideways to another G5 team, and they probably got little NIL money. Another 12% moved down to FCS. The majority, 55% of them, have yet to find a new position, and are probably not enrolled anywhere this spring. If they don't find another position fairly soon, their window of opportunity may close, and they may never be heard from again.

By my count, not including players who entered the portal and then withdrew, 171 MAC players entered the portal in December. 20% moved up to a G5 team, and some of those no doubt got NIL money. 13% moved sideways to another G5 team, and they probably got little NIL money. Another 12% moved down to FCS. The majority, 55% of them, have yet to find a new position, and are probably not enrolled anywhere this spring. If they don't find another position fairly soon, their window of opportunity may close, and they may never be heard from again.

I'm very aware that your comment is about "the delusion of some with regards to their value"; that's why I suggested there is a benefit to an actual labor market instead of the completely opaque NIL. Do you think a third string running back would be asking for $100k of he could see the going rate was a quarter of that? Transparency is a good thing.

You're ranting about how a bunch of kids are delusional about their value. I'm suggesting a solution to that. And then you're ranting some more about how jobs are "an ultimate form of Capitalist Theory that doesn't exist", and somehow brought up unions and protected classes.

If part of the reason people are transferring is they think there's a financial windfall out there and there's not, make it clear there's not a financial windfall out there. A labor market is a way to help with that. Why do you think that NCAAs proposal is to run NIL deals through the schools? It's for reporting and transparency.

It's not so simple. Various places are collecting guesstimates about how much NIL money is available. For example ON3 estimates that Kurtis was worth $153,000, while Bangura was $0. They estimate that maybe 10-15 running backs in the portal were worth $100k NIL. So, even if the information isn't 100% accurate, it is out there. The problem comes in the abilities of athletes to self-evaluate. No athlete can thrive in any sport without self-confidence. Thus, I don't think that the third string RB thought that all RB are worth $100k NIL; I suspect that he believed that he could be a starter and a star if he finds the right opportunity, and maybe he can be. Or, maybe he just deluded himself, and made a poor career choice. [/QUOTE]I'm not suggesting that it's simple, or that employment would be a full solution. But it would be incremental progress towards more pay transparency for athletes. Does it solve 100% of the problem? Of course not. But would actual employment provide more insight to inform transfer decisions? Undoubtedly.

I think the reality is that BTCs stance here is pretty incomprehensible. He won't say he doesn't think athletes should get paid, but he complains about athletes making bad choices because of the NIL, but also is very anti-employment because "18-22 year olds aren't seasoned veterans of market economics."

Not exactly sure where that leaves us, but it's certainly not with a solution.

Of course. Billy insists I think labor markets are the "perfect capitalist" whatever he said, but that's just a strawman argument and his putting words in my mouth. Labor markets aren't perfect, and people make dumb decisions in the labor market all the time. But the task here isn't to legislate away dumb decisions. And if you want to limit transfers, in my view a good approach is to create more transparency not less.

[QUOTE=L.C.]
Either way, Pandora's box is open now, and we can only go forward, not back.

It's not so simple. Various places are collecting guesstimates about how much NIL money is available. For example ON3 estimates that Kurtis was worth $153,000, while Bangura was $0. They estimate that maybe 10-15 running backs in the portal were worth $100k NIL. So, even if the information isn't 100% accurate, it is out there. The problem comes in the abilities of athletes to self-evaluate. No athlete can thrive in any sport without self-confidence. Thus, I don't think that the third string RB thought that all RB are worth $100k NIL; I suspect that he believed that he could be a starter and a star if he finds the right opportunity, and maybe he can be. Or, maybe he just deluded himself, and made a poor career choice.

This isn't just a problem for athletes, by the way, nor a problem for just the NIL system. I've known many people who had good jobs that could lead themselves to long term success, who thought they were worth more, left that job, and ended up worse off. Any system free enough to create opportunities to do well also creates opportunities to choose poorly.

Here's one good thing about the NIL system. Because of all the people getting extra Covid years, there are a lot extra people still playing football who would otherwise have already used up their eligibility. That, in turn, would mean less scholarships available for Freshmen. Those 55% of MAC players who voluntarily gave up their scholarship to enter the game of musical chairs known as "the portal", and lost, created new openings of scholarships available to be given to Freshmen. For example, Ohio signed 17 Freshmen this year, pretty much a normal year. Eight Ohio players are still in the portal and have not reported new destinations (Tristan Cox, Allison, Kitrell, Quinn, Rhone, Burton, Ben Johnson, Wilburn). Without those voluntary departures, Ohio would have only been able to take 9 Freshmen. Most people playing football are going to find another line of work after college, and so it's not the end of the world for those that don't find a new college to play for. They just need to move on in life to another type of opportunity, and I hope they all succeed.

I'm neither pro-portal nor anti-portal. I'm just an observer, watching to see what happens as the system evolves. Some will benefit from the new system, while other will be worse off. Either way, Pandora's box is open now, and we can only go forward, not back.

One can state an opinion and not be "ranting". And statistics do show that roughly 50% swing and miss badly on this. And I really can't even begin to follow you side road of Capitalist Theory that doesn't exist. Beginning to think all you like to do is look for an argument. Which you will not get one from me. I see your opinion, and welcome you to have it. [/QUOTE]

You're really not following along here at all, man. I'm not sure what to tell you at this point.

Your entire point here is that the NIL results in kids making rash decisions and transferring too often. I'm not disputing that. So the statistics that you think prove your point aren't actually counter to what I'm saying at all. Upthread you said I'd ignore the "FACTS" -- but I'm not ignoring them at all. I am, in fact, suggesting that employment might help mitigate that.

The only point I replied to was you saying that you don't think employment would change things. I suggested in might help by creating more transparency because I think most labor markets operate far more efficiently than the completely opaque, wild west of the NIL. That's not "Capitalist Theory" or whatever you think it is. It's not me claiming labor markets are perfect. It's just a very basic acknowledgement of what a labor market is, and how it differs from whatever the hell the NIL is.

And that's why you seem like you're just ranting here. Because I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you actually think. You think kids transfer too much because they get bad advice about what they can earn in NIL money, but that if they're employees, they'll still transfer too much because 18-22 year olds aren't labor economists, but also when I said you didn't want players to get paid you said you thought they should get paid. Your point seems to be that you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And that 18 year olds transfer too much. So what's your proposal? Not letting them transfer? Not gonna hold up in the courts without, you know, an employment agreement with a non-disclosure agreement.

So yeah, forgive me if I mistake your constant posts on this subject -- basically all of which include you saying "I told you all, be careful what you wished for" -- as rants. As far as I'm aware, you haven't actually stated any opinions about how to fix any of those. You just complain. A lot. How many posts would you say you have about this topic? And how many does one need before "rant" becomes a solid descriptor?


[QUOTE=BillyTheCat]
My point regarding making athletes employees is that universities will simply drop athletics. We run at a deficit as it is, add 535 more employees, with benefits, and how do you support an athletic department? Do more resources flow in once we make athletes employees. That is my entire and ONLY point about the drawback of creating a laborforce.

There is a whole lot of discussion on this thread that talks around the main point of disagreement without directly addressing it. Both sides agree that kids are making bad choices. BLSS says they would make less bad choices if they were employees. Perhaps, or perhaps not. BTC says that making them employees is impossible because it would bankrupt the system, and that schools would simply give up athletics, which is probably true. Thus, the solution that would satisfy everyone seems to be to just make them employees, then have the schools drop athletics, after which there will no longer be a problem with kids making bad choices. Er, well, at least, not these particular bad choices.

The only question left then, is whether to apply this solution just to football, or perhaps to football and basketball? Or, should we apply it to all varsity sports? Schools can continue to offer club sports, of course. They don't need to have varsity sports and schools can get by with just club sports and intramural sports. And, having no varsity sports also solves the problem of highly paid coaches. See? Everyone will be happy.