The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.
The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]
This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.
"immorally suppresses wages." what a crock. they get tuition free. they get housing free on campus, and a stupidly high housing stipend for moving off campus. they get food free, and better food than normal students. they get academic support that normal students don't get. they get brand new laptops and ipads. they don't have to pay for books that can easily total to over $1000/semester.
do i think they deserve a stipend since they can't realistically hold jobs to make some disposable income? absolutely. they work their asses off, and that's why the ncaa approved stipends, but let's not act like these guys aren't coddled from the day they arrive on campus.
Yup, ceteris paribus, without a football scholarship some of these guys would be standing on the corner playing with their ****, and without football some of them would be attending on an academic scholarship.
So first lemme say it great to see you back on our board, Chuckles. Glad to have you back. Missed you, sweet pea. <big kiss>
to the topic, again, the NCAA has a monopoly in football. If enough of these kids walked away from scholarships, the marketplace would develop an alternative, likely similar to minor league baseball where individual NFL teams would have their own minor league system and NCAA football would either go away or relent on their arcane labor rules. It aint rocket science, its just the invisible hand.
I value you as well. What we can't seem to agree on is the notion that the player does not bring the same investment to the table as the school. I am fine with the marketplace developing an alternative. Who will go first? If the economics work why doesn't someone do it? Again, will the players pay for coaches, equipment, trainers, and all the rest of the support structure? That's a part of the economics that seems to be often left out. Until someone comes up with all the things that go into a D-1 football program and makes the economics work it's all a fairy tale. That's the invisible hand that's being left out of this equation.
Assuming for the sake of giggles that the players can't put together what is needed to replace a major college football program there could be an alternative that benefits both the player and the school:
1. Cancel all football scholarships
2. Colleges can use their owned stadiums for intramural football, sell their stadium to independent corporation, or the NFL if they're interested. Not a U problem.
3. Athletes can compete for a salary on an NFL minor league team
4. Players can form unions, teams can choose to play where the economics dictate
5. Player's attorneys can get the best possible contracts for their clients
Yes, I've veered off into the woods with this. At the risk of sounding like the guy that says "It's always been done this way" until someone comes up with a better way I don't see a bunch of kids in their teens and early twenties creating what it takes to replace college football. And will the promoters serve the best interests of the players? Players tend to overstate their real INDIVIDUAL economic worth to a college and fans tend to think colleges somehow can't exist without big time football.
I'm no fan of the NCAA, or the insulated elites that run the schools and no doubt there could be improvements but going pro-early does not look like a player-friendly solution to me.
It's a nice debate to have over a couple of pitchers of beer. We can repeat it next year when little has changed.