Of course I do. I never claimed they were identical.
I just think the compensation that a person gets in the marketplace should be up to the person providing services. If I want to accept payment in DAR from my clients, I should be able to do that. If I trade my services for plumbing work on my house, I should be free to do that. If I want to be paid in currency, then I can do that. Likewise, if an athlete is providing services according to an agreement with a school, their compensation shouldn't be limited to compensation in the form of a free education. I'm not saying that an athlete can't agree to accept only an education as compensation... basically it should be up to the person providing services.
It just so happens that the most commonly traded compensation in the US is the dollar. It logically follows that everyone will assume that athletes want to be paid money... but that may not be the case with all of them.
Well one, I doubt that third string guard ever becomes an NFL player. He probably doesn't for the same reason most don't -- because he's simply not talented enough, not because of the way he's trained.
If he's not interested in playing on the field, then it follows that he would probably agree to play football on a traditional scholarship.
You've several times about the players being useful to the schools, like they're just chattel. But the player benefits from the school, too. Otherwise they wouldn't go to school at all. Seems like it's a pretty arms-length transaction to me.
Sure, the player benefits from the school. But it's not an arms-length transaction. The term arms-length transaction implies that both parties to the transaction are on equal footing. The fact that football and basketball players have little other options to play their sport after high school and cannot negotiate the entirety of their agreement puts the player and the school on unequal footing
But I think we all know this isn't a free marketplace. Very few things are. If it were, it probably would be like Hoof sort of suggested several posts back and they'd just be outright pro leagues where they didn't even have to go to school.
What do you mean very few things are a free marketplace?
Would you be happy if the players were able to be drafted right out of high school so they didn't have to go to college at all? (Which as we've talked about, they still don't "have" to.) What I think would happen then is that very, very few players would be drafted, and 99% of them would go to school anyway.
I personally don't think anything has to be changed. But maybe a decent compromise would be to let the players market their likeness? Then the Manziels and Reggie Bushes would be able to make money roughly commensurate with their value on the field and the replacement level backups wouldn't.
If the players had the opportunity to be drafted right out of high school, then that would help. I think, just like the NBA, some high school players would be successful, and there would be some who would be drafted. But if college football and basketball continue to be profitable at the levels they are and they don't change their system, then I will still have a problem with that. I'm totally in agreement with allowing players to market themselves. And let's be honest, if players are allowed to do that, the high profile schools will recruit the players on the visibility of their programs (like they already do), and include the ability to gain endorsements. It would be a part of the "compensation package" for the recruits.
I think the writing is on the wall... this is going to happen eventually. The NCAA is under too much pressure right now for it not to happen. In fact, I think schools and conferences are already making preparations for it.
