Blog 7 Frame

Some concepts that I am using to help make sense of my project are the terms "Student-athlete" and "amateurism". I am using these terms because they are crucial components when debating the topic of whether or not college athletes should be paid. These terms are created and used by the NCAA for their own benefit to keep control on how things are run in their association and it has gotten them out of legal issues as well. A small story that I am going to incorporate into my paper is about how the NCAA created the term "student-athlete" back in the 50's to get out of having to give employee compensation to an athlete for injuries he sustained playing football. I will also break down what is considered to be the "Principle of Amateurism" as defined by the NCAA, and how they actually go against the very statement that they provided.

Blog 6 Visual

These visuals are all graphs that help illustrate the concept of how college athletes generate millions of dollars in revenues, but are not getting compensated for their actions. The first graph shows how successful "March Madness" is for NCAA basketball, and how it is the leading broadcast in march of 2013. The middle graph illustrates the gap between revenues vs scholarship expenses, which is an astounding number for most years and revenues seemed to be increasing at a much higher rate than scholarship expenses. The last Graph shows the revenue and player salaries of athletes in the NCAA, NFL, and NBA. It makes a strong point when you can see how much the NCAA is actually making and paying their players absolutely nothing. 

Literature Review 4

Lit Review 4

Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports." Journal Of Economic       Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226. Business Source Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Summary:

This paper discusses evidence on whether the NCAA has exercised cartel power. It also review evidence on the indirect effects of college sports on the rest of the university, including how sports revenues affect the rest of the university. The author investigates pay of coaches, assistant coaches, and student athletes. He compares the pay with what could be possible, what they deserve, what is restricting proper pay, and takes a look at illegal (under the table) pay as well.

Author: Lawrence M. Kahn is Professor of Labor Economics and Collective Bargaining, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Key Terms:

"Monopoly"- The author refers to the NCAA as a monopoly over college sports. In the business world a monopoly is something that the government tries to avoid because it allows one entity to command the rules and prices of the goods/services. This is no different with the NCAA.

"Division I"- D1  can be further segmented into I-A,  I-AA, and I-AAA. Division I schools with football are classified as I-A or I-AA. For membership in Division I-A, a school must have a football team which satisfies attendance criteria. Division I schools without football programs are classified I-AAA.

Quotes: 
"Total ticket revenues for football and men’s basketball were $757 million in 1999, which exceeded ticket sales for professional baseball, football, and hockey that year" (1)

"Both big-time college athletics and professional athletics have highly paid coaches and expensive facilities for games and practices. However, while professional teams are owned by investor groups and feature highly paid athletes, college teams are “owned” by colleges and universities whose official mission is not primarily athletic accomplishment and they feature athletes who receive only free tuition, board, and a small stipend for living expenses—if the athletes even receive a full scholarship, which not all of them do." (8)

"Another piece of evidence that the NCAA is restricting pay comes from the widespread incidence of under-the-table payments for top college athletes. For example, Sack (1991) surveyed 3500 current and retired NFL players in 1989, of whom 1182 responded. He found that 31 percent of them received under-the-table payments while in college and 48 percent claimed they knew of others who received them." (9)

Value:

This is a strong article that I could use in my paper because the author shares the same beliefs that I do on the subject of paying college athletes. The author has many facts that he implements into his arguments, and he examines both sides of the argument to further his point. I will draw from certain areas of Kahn's writing to further my paper. 

Literature Review 3

Lit Review 3

Hruby, Patrick. "The End of Amateurism Is Not the End of Competitive College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Summary:

This article is explaining the fact that the NCAA is not equal. The authors main point is that the rich college teams (or successful for this matter) will get richer, and the poor teams will get poorer. Some teams will just continue to be underfunded and it will result in them sliding into irrelevance. The future of college sports depends on balancing the way programs can work, so that some do not get left behind.  

Author: Patrick Hruby, writer for The Atlantic.

Key Terms:

Autonomy- NCAA Division I Board of Directors voted for greater power-conference “autonomy,” which allowed the 65 schools that earn the bulk of the football television money to give athletes larger scholarships and increased medical benefits without breaking away from the association as a whole.

Amateurism- A term that describes the NCAA's way of price fixing. Every school in the country can only offer recruits free tuition, and room and board, nothing more. This new term “autonomy” is now challenging amateurism.

Quotes: 
“College football hasn’t had a mid-major national champion since Brigham Young University in 1984, while in men’s basketball, more than half of the Final Four appearances between 1979 and 2011 were made by just 12 power conference schools.”

“Ending amateurism could actually lead to greater competitive balance. Under current rules, Ball State will never beat out Kentucky for a basketball prospect—but if the school’s boosters could pool their cash and target, say, Kentucky’s fifth-most-coveted prep player, they might be able to win a few recruiting battles, and over time construct a more talented roster.”

“For bigger and smaller schools alike, amateurism acts as a wage suppressant, allowing them to funnel every television, ticket-sale, and booster-gift dollar that doesn’t go to the on-field talent into ever-expanding facilities and executive salaries.”

Value:

I can use this article for my argument because it has a strong focus on the impact that not paying college athletes has on college sports. It explains how the national championships in both college basketball and football have been won by the same top teams for many years now with no changes. It has many points on how by changing the rules of what schools can offer, it will ultimately bring more colleges into the competitive mix and allow for more competition from a greater variety of schools. The author’s point he is trying to make is different than mine for my paper, but we both see eye to eye on certain things and that is why I will use this piece of writing for my project. 

Research Blog #5: Bibliography

Bibliography

Barbash, Louis. “Pay or Don't Play.” Washington Monthly. Sep/Oct2013, Vol. 45 Issue 9/10, p13-15. 3p. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web 29 Feb. 2016. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=07d4dae5-c40a-450b-9dbf-a80e0229b540%40sessionmgr4001&vid=6&hid=4214>. 

Brown, Tyler M. "College Athletics Internships: The Case For Academic Credit In College

Athletics." American University Law Review 63.6 (2014): 1855. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Hruby, Patrick. "The End of Amateurism Is Not the End of Competitive College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226. Business Source Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Muenzen, Kristen R. “Weakening Its Own Defense? The NCAA's Version of Amateurism” Marquette Sports Law Review. 13. 2. (2003). Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Murphy, Steve, and Jonathan Pace. "A Plan For Compensating Student-Athletes." Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 1 (1994): 167. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
Sack, Allen L., and Staurowsky, Ellen J.  College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth.  Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1998.  Print.

Vanderford, Ryan. “Pay-For-Play: An Age-Old Struggle for Appropriate Reform in a Changing Landscape between Employer and Employee.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. (2015), Vol. 24 Issue 3, p805-838. 34p. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web 29 Feb. 2016. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.

journals/scid24&page=805&collection=journals>

Research Blog #4: Research Proposal

Daniel Bury

Professor Goeller

Research in Disciplines: College!

March 8th, 2016

Research Proposal

Working Title: Now or Never: Pay College Athletes

Topic

My goal is to discuss the popular argument of whether or not college athletes should be paid. The paper will shed light on the fact that college athletes are generating an enormous amount of revenue without receiving a dime for it.

Research Question

With the amount of revenue being brought in from college athletics, should big time collegiate sports be considered an extracurricular activity or a job?

Theoretical Frame

The main thought in this argument is that big time colleges that have enough money to pay their athletes, should be paying their athletes. An article written by Ryan Vanderford called “Pay-For-Play” explains a very important term in this debate that some argue has allowed the NCAA to get away with not paying their players. Vanderfold states in 1953, a football player from the University of Denver got hurt in a game, and sued the University claiming he was obligated to workers compensation for his injuries. The Colorado Supreme Court stated that the player was an “employee” within the meaning of Colorado’s worker compensation law. The NCAA was stunned, and quickly reacted by creating a term to shift the view of players being “employees”, and instead being seen as “student-athletes”. I am curious to see how much power the term “student-athlete” actually holds in allowing the NCAA to label their athletes as just that; a student-athlete, instead of something more.
"A Plan for Compensating Student-Athletes,"an article written by Steve Murphy and John Pace, does a great job at explaining ways that the NCAA is exploiting student-athletes. The NCAA is a money driven organization, and it is could actually be viewed as one of the enterprises that is cautioned off in it's own constitution. The article ultimately introduces a plan that could be used to compensate student-athletes with the money that is rightfully theirs.

Research Plan

An article titled “Pay or Don't Play” by Louis Barbash, explains that college basketball will decline in talent if players do not start getting paid for their play. Originally the only way to the NBA was to play in college, but now with different leagues emerging that pay players, many recruits will look to go there instead of risking a career ending injury playing for free in college. Another issue for college basketball is the new “one and done” rule which only requires student athletes to play one year in college before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. In time, college basketball will start to decline in talent, competition, and ultimately interest. Barbash goes on to offer solutions to colleges trying to figure out this debate of how to pay their players, such as letting colleges run their teams like they do other campus based enterprises, such as public radio and TV stations or hospitals. These programs pay their producers or nurses, as should colleges that are generating revenue off of their athletes.

“Pay-For-Play: An Age-Old Struggle for Appropriate Reform in a Changing Landscape between Employer and Employee” an article by Ryan Vanderford, will help me show how much colleges are actually making off of some student athletes. Vanderford makes a claim at a football player at the University of Texas is worth, on average, $578,000, and the school only actually spends $37,000 on each player. By showing real examples like this one, it will allow me to surface the reality of how much these players are being used for business purposes, and that they deserve their cut.

I also want to clarify my research question. Obviously all college sports are not generating enough money to be able to pay their players, so I will explain what programs are truly deserving of this reward. I will explain how most big time programs cannot be considered an “extracurricular activity” because of how many hours a week are required to be put in by players and relating that to the amount of hours a week required by a full time job. I will also explain how Rutgers and other members of the Big 10 are actually beginning to pay their players.

Literature Review #1

Lit Review #1

Barbash, Louis. “Pay or Don't Play.” Washington Monthly. Sep/Oct2013, Vol. 45 Issue 9/10, p13-15. 3p. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web 29 Feb. 2016. . “Pay or Don't Play.” Washington Monthly. Sep/Oct2013, Vol. 45 Issue 9/10, p13-15. 3p. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web 21 Feb. 2016.

Summary:
The article is pushing the point across that the NCAA should be paying its basketball players. The author describes the need for players to be getting paid on-top of free tuition, and that in the long run this will actually increase competition in NCAA basketball. By not paying student athletes, they are looking elsewhere for ways to get to the NBA, and this is resulting in less talented competition for college basketball.

Author:
Louis Barbash, writer for Washington Monthly.

Key Terms:
Cartel- Barbash calls the NCAA a "cartel" implying that the NCAA creates a price fixing agreement among the member schools and among the student athletes, and tries to diminish any other competition. 
"One and Done" rule - A very important rule for Barbash's argument that states the NBA only requires one year of college play before being eligible for the NBA draft.

Quotes:
"Now, dozens every year desert the college game for something they can’t get in college—the chance to share in the revenues their performances create—and their departures have fractured the college basketball cartel’s hold on its sport."(13)

"So it worked for college basketball and the NBA. For the players? Well, not so much. Yes, they got four years of college, provided at wholesale, priced at retail. But recurring scandals surrounding college players’ academic eligibility called into question how high a value some colleges and some players attached to whatever education was taking place."(14)

"So pay the players. Pay them what the market will bear—maybe in the low-five-figure range of the salaries now paid to players in the NBA’s Development League. Allow them union representation like NBA and NFL players have. Provide a free college education—a real college education—for players who want one"(15)

Value: This article holds a lot of powerful information for me to prove certain points I want to make. This article focuses on primarily college basketball, but I will be able to take certain points the author makes and apply them to college sports as a whole. I also like the whole "cartel" thing because it sheds light on how unfair the NCAA actually is and brings up opportunity for me to capitalize on in my paper.

Literature Review #2

Lit Review 2

Vanderford, Ryan. “Pay-For-Play: An Age-Old Struggle for Appropriate Reform in a Changing Landscape between Employer and Employee.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. (2015), Vol. 24 Issue 3, p805-838. 34p. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web 22 Feb. 2016. 

Summary: This article focuses on athletes in college that are playing revenue generating sports. It goes into detail regarding NCAA laws and how they affect college athletes in terms of pay. It has many good facts about big time schools and the revenue gained from their athletics. The main point the author wants to drive home is that there is a need for a pay-for-play system in big time athletics.

Author: Ryan Vanderford writer for Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal


Key Terms:
Student-Athlete- The writer explains how the term "student-athlete" came into play originally, and how this term is what allows college athletes to be seen and labeled as "student-athletes" instead of "employees". Student athletes can not receive any money for their athletic efforts because they are primarily students.

Employees- Vanderford likes bringing up the differences between being labeled as a "student-athlete" verses an "employee". Vanderford sees being an "employee" as having a right to form a union and receive compensation for use of an athletes name, image, and likeness. 

Quotes:

"In 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association "NCAA" reported $871.6 million in revenue."(805)

"In sum, major college football and basketball can hardly be considered amateur athletics."(806)

"The NCAA required the use of the term (Student-athlete), and embarked on a long, fervent public relations campaign to persuade the public that these athletes were students not employees" (808)



Value: This article was a major help for me because it brought up the history of why the NCAA is how it is, and how certain policy's came about. It also has many real examples to make its point which helps me because I am arguing for the same point; to pay college athletes. Overall this article has a ton of helpful information and it will greatly assist me with this paper.