vtwhat etc
Historically Competitive
Thought some may enjoy this piece. There's a Lawrence Joel sighting around 19:10. Other highlights include the rest of the Tawainese-esque animation and #SoybeanWind
Last edited:
I was hoping he was going to do this. Teaching about Sports and Education today. Looking forward to watching it and hopefully showing it to my class.
I was hoping he was going to do this. Teaching about Sports and Education today. Looking forward to watching it and hopefully showing it to my class.
Translation: I have watched a shitload of basketball since Thursday and haven't prepared a lesson plan.
I actually disagreed with a lot of what he said.
I agree that there need to be guaranteed scholarships for 4 years and a full cost of attendance stipend, but he seemed to gloss over the fact that they actually have huge benefits to playing these sports and they voluntarily participate.
I was actually thinking about this the other day. This is awfully simplistic, but if college athletics is such a raw deal for student athletes, why do student athletes nevertheless turn out in droves to sign up for college athletics? It's completely reasonable to argue that, economically speaking, the NCAA is a cartel and artificially restricts benefits to the students. But the flip side of the economic coin is that these students must be receiving some benefits that we aren't properly quantifying, given that so many continue to sign up.
(I recognize that the, under normal market conditions, we would expect more students to sign up for athletics. But that seems specious given that, for nearly all college sports, far more students want to sign up for a roster spot than there are available spots.)
Here's to the boards economists weighing in. Is there something I'm not understanding about the NCAA is a unique type of cartel? Or is the answer that students are somehow coerced into signing up (parental/community pressure, e.g.)? I'm comfortable with that answer.
What am I missing?
I actually disagreed with a lot of what he said.
I agree that there need to be guaranteed scholarships for 4 years and a full cost of attendance stipend, but he seemed to gloss over the fact that they actually have huge benefits to playing these sports and they voluntarily participate.
I was actually thinking about this the other day. This is awfully simplistic, but if college athletics is such a raw deal for student athletes, why do student athletes nevertheless turn out in droves to sign up for college athletics? It's completely reasonable to argue that, economically speaking, the NCAA is a cartel and artificially restricts benefits to the students. But the flip side of the economic coin is that these students must be receiving some benefits that we aren't properly quantifying, given that so many continue to sign up.
(I recognize that the, under normal market conditions, we would expect more students to sign up for athletics. But that seems specious given that, for nearly all college sports, far more students want to sign up for a roster spot than there are available spots.)
Here's to the boards economists weighing in. Is there something I'm not understanding about the NCAA is a unique type of cartel? Or is the answer that students are somehow coerced into signing up (parental/community pressure, e.g.)? I'm comfortable with that answer.
What am I missing?