Great Discussion with @NCAADana on NCAA openess, rules
Earlier today, I had an insightful discussion with Dana T of the NCAA on the openness of the NCAA to dissenting views. It started when Bryan D. Fischer of CBS Sports engaged Dana on NCAA Blog's recent somewhat mocking critique of Frank Deford's recent commentary on NPR. I jumped in and Dana was kind enough to have a discussion with me on the topic. The transcript follows (direct from twitter), followed by a brief comment from me (which I realize is a tad unfair to Dana, since she's not here, but she is cordially welcomed to submit any rebuttal and I promise to publish it here).
Bryan D Fischer:@NCAADana Yet you criticize us for doing OUR jobs. Open and honest debate would be very beneficial for the public and the member schools.
Dana T:@BryanDFischer That open and honest debate takes place every year within the NCAA legislative structure through proposals, debates & votes.
Bryan D Fischer:@NCAADana Deford and Bilas are probably two of the MOST informed guys out there. If the debate was open, when is my invite to Council mtgs?
Dana T:@BryanDFischer When you start working at a school & nominated to be on a committee/council by your conference office. Piece of cake!
This is where I jumped in
Andy:Open debate but only if you work for NCAA. nice. RT @NCAADana: @BryanDFischer When you start working at a sc… (cont) http://deck.ly/~ES17z
Dana was kind enough to engage with me in a nice discussion
Dana T:@andyhre Hey, I work here and I don't even get to debate. It truly is membership-led.
Andy:@NCAADana I'm not saying that some voices within the NCAA aren't heard, but every voter has vested interest in certain parts of status quo.
Andy:@NCAADana for example, how many future first-round draft picks voted on old COA proposals under Dr. Brand? How many will vote this time?
Andy:@NCAADana So debate is b/w schools that want to spend extra to get talent /avoid scandal, and those that don't. But no room for other voices
Dana T:@andyhre So, you think this structure would be better served by including outside (public and media) voices?
Andy:@NCAADana Well, multi-part answer (hard on twitter!). first part -- saying an NCAA vote is open debate misses lots of stakeholders.
Andy:@NCAADana 2nd part is that current situation benefits many people, including some college athletes, but causes extreme disadvantage to some
Andy:@NCAADana And those disadvantaged are given no say in the decision, and there is no room for competition to solve it organically.
Dana T:@andyhre This "extreme disadvantage" you speak of...I'm confused. Are you saying they are forced to play and then suffer because of it?
Andy:@NCAADana No, I am saying 345 D1 schools agree not to compete, offer Hobson's choice and say take it or leave it.
Andy:@NCAADana Same world, same NCAA, but no agreement on GIA max and it would all work out. But voters at NCAA probably earn less, so voila.
Andy:@NCAADana and I know twitter is hard to make nuanced arguments, so apologies for seeming super strident. In real life, only a tad strident.
Dana T:@andyhre I'm not a lawyer & can't even pretend to be, so your attempt to lose me has worked! Though, I appreciate the debate (really, I do).
Andy:@NCAADana I'm economist but work in law, so fair call. Let's do it this way: imagine if NCAA stepped out of GIA and each conf pick max GIA
Andy:@NCAADana So SEC decides it wants to do current GIA but also a $10K stipend. Other confs stick with current GIA (for now). Does CFB end?
Dana T:@andyhre Well, CFB wouldn't end, but our mission is to maintain a level playing field for all. So...
Dana T:@andyhre If I were a start CFB prospect, wouldn't it be more enticing for me to go to a school that pays a stipend than one that doesn't...
Andy:@andyhre doesn't that create a recruiting advantage for the stipend school? I would argue yes. This is where there is no clear fix to this.
Andy:@NCAADana many responses! first, of course it gives advantage to those who offer more for talent. Is that bad? Other conf can match if want.
Andy:@NCAADana but current NCAA rule is something like "b/c some poorer schools wouldn't offer more, athletes who would get a stipend can't."
Andy:@NCAADana So that's an example of how I think when NCAA votes, they vote on their interests, not student athlete interest.
Andy:@NCAADana and your Qs are good (and I can take competitive balance more), but what about my Q... would CFB stop being popular?
Dana T:@andyhre Like Posnanski says, ultimately, fans pay to support the schools...not the players. I can personally say that, as well.
Dana T:@andyhre As an IU alum, I go to football games for the alumni connection & school pride. I love that about it & will always go b/c of that.
Andy:@NCAADana Anyway, Obviously, I think Big10, IX, Pac-12, probably match SEC. Maybe ACC, Big-East too. So 6 confs now offer same higher GIA
Andy:@NCAADana Does CFB still exist? Do BCS AQ conf still nab 99%+ of the top recruits. What changes except now athletes get more, schools less?
Dana T:@andyhre You raise excellent points. Yes, CFB still exists & is popular in my opinion. But, I side w/ this argument: http://bit.ly/oWytbt
Andy:@NCAADana One general point (e.g. http://bit.ly/pwzcVm) is that we can keep the COLLEGE in CFB whether or not we also pay.
Andy:@NCAADana but I have to take pause... meeting, be back soon!
Dana T:@andyhre All this twibate has made me hungry...lunch time! Thanks, again, for the thoughtful back and forth!
Andy:@NCAADana lol, we both have to stop-- well timed
Dana's first reaction to the idea of opening up athletic scholarships to competition was to worry about the NCAA's "mission ... to maintain a level playing field." I truly think Dana believes in this mission as a unqualified good thing, but to my outsider eyes, this is a classic example of a cartel working to prevent the forces of competition from causing costs to rise. So I hope I am not stretching things too much when I say "Level Playing Field" is another way of saying "Collective agreement not to compete on scholarship offers in order to keep costs down." And I think as an antitrust justification, collective price fixing to keep costs down just won't fly.
Here's how the court in Law v. NCAA addressed that question:
“cost-cutting by itself is not a valid procompetitive justification. If it were, any group of competing buyers could agree on maximum prices. Lower prices cannot justify a cartel's control of prices charged by suppliers, because the cartel ultimately robs the suppliers of the normal fruits of their enterprises.”
Second point -- Dana agrees with me (twice, even!) that she doesn't think that relaxing the nation-wide scholarship cap and replacing it with conference-level caps, so that the SEC can compete against the Big Ten by offering more valuable GIAs, would end the popularity of college sports. As Dana stated (and of course I believe as well), if one conference offered more generous GIAs than another talent would gravitate towards the better paying conference. But that even if all of the BCS AQs reached some new higher-paying equilibrium, we could (a) have a level playing field among the big-time football schools and (b) have players getting a closer-to-market rate, all while (c) maintaining the popularity of college sports.
So again I just have to say, I don't see much, if any, pro-competitive benefit (in the antitrust sense) to having a nationwide cap on GIAs when it's not necessary to produce the product.
Finally, Dana replied by saying " As an IU alum, I go to football games for the alumni connection & school pride. I love that about it & will always go b/c of that."
This is exactly my point. What makes COLLEGE football popular is that it is football played by college kids. We love it because of the college-ness of the sport. But I can write this entire paragraph without once saying "amateur" or "unpaid" or "scholarship-only." Unpaid non-college football is unpopular. Paid College football would be popular. Or so I think.
Dana, want to make a case to the contrary? Anyone else? Please Make a comment below or click SUBMIT for something meatier.
