Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 975253, member: 622"]
If te kid can say no, the market exists.  College education is not a necessity like gas or electric.  Playing football in exchange for the education is mere the offer.  The kids can accept or reject.  If thousands of kids reject, they will use other kids or change the offers/rules to entice kids to play.  That is the market at work.

Your argument is that since a kid cannot control what the school offers, there is no free market but this is factually wrong.  Yes, I agree that this bargaining position is very weak overall, but that does not affect whether he must accept or not.

As to collusion, the NCAA has various levels of competition and remuneration.  That there is a system in place and it is agreed upon by the member schools does not rise to the level of collusion.  Professional sports cap salaries or tax excessive payrolls.  College sports is in a parallel environment.  Further, the NCAA is complicated by the fact that the majority of sports are actually costing schools money and by Title IX.  If the lawsuit wins, we will likely see many non-revenue sports dropped in favor of keeping football afloat  with many schools opting to cancel football.

Though I am ambivalent as to giving a kid a stipend in lieu of the fact that they cannot work to earn spending money, the OP and my discussion has centered on the actual lawsuit.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?