The evil empire known as the NCAA has now finally relaxed its rules on amateurism allowing college athletes to earn compensation off of their name, image, and likeness rights (henceforth, NIL). How sweet of them. It only took a rare 9-0 shutout loss at the Supreme Court to get them to change their ways.
Cue the pearl clutching as the latest moral fear becomes a moral panic--God forbid someone in America would make money off of their talent.
Yes, times they are a changin', and for the better. There will be losers, though. Eventually, it is likely the ones losing advantage will be all of those who have been profiting off of players not being compensated. This list somewhat in order includes: coaches, administrators, athletes in all sports other than football and men's basketball (mixed bag here as there will be lots of NIL opportunities for many of them), fans, and the universities in general.
For this post I'd like to briefly discuss how this might affect competitive balance (aka, "parity") in college football and men's basketball.
If by parity we mean anybody can beat anybody (i.e., "any given Sunday"), then the initial and perhaps enduring apparent result will be increased parity.*
If by parity we mean league continuity, then the apparent result will be decreased parity.
Let me explain. Allowing NIL compensation adds a dimension along which teams can compete. A classic analogy is when the CAB under the Carter administration ended price controls allowing airlines to compete on price. This was very good for consumers in the long run and very disruptive to airlines in the short run.
In this same way NIL comp will add a competitive dimension to the competition for college athletes and thereby increase variance in those athletes' sports. An increase in variance means instability. That instability will have two features:
- It will give new and added opportunities for lesser, secondary teams to challenge incumbent blue bloods. Potentially Oklahoma State now has more opportunity to challenge Oklahoma in football.
- It will open up more risk of failure especially for lesser, secondary teams. This failure can be in the more obvious form of shutdown but also in the harder-to-perceive version of loss of status. Hypothetically the difference is Temple dropping football altogether or going down to a lower, true-amateur level versus Penn State falling from prominence.
The first case will look like more parity. The second case will look like less to the causal observer. This is why I referred above to these being the "apparent result". I would guess that the second will come to dominate the narrative as many will long for the good old days when anybody could compete in college football and men's basketball. You know, back when Alabama always played Clemson for the national title . . .
*If you think complete parity is in any way desirable in sports, you don't understand sports in the least. Nobody gathers around to watch guys flip coins.
No comments:
Post a Comment