Monday, April 07, 2014 11:38am

College Athletes

If the NCAA let colleges pay athletes with more than scholarships (which currently may cover tuition, books, room and board), then top colleges in men’s basketball and football would pay most athletes substantial sums beyond full scholarships.

Responses
 

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Strongly Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Strongly Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Strongly Agree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Disagree 6
If colleges commit when the student joins (bidding on transfers not allowed) the earnings effect will be small. Too much uncertainty at 17
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Agree 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Strongly Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Strongly Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Strongly Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Agree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Strongly Agree 8
The million dollar (and often multi million dollar) salaries of top basketball coaches in NCAA basketball testify to the value of winning.
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Uncertain 5
Most atheletes, or superstar atheletes?
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Agree 10
the best athletes at the best D-1 schools would obviously be paid a lot
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Agree 7
& would be a series of distributional issues affecting non-revenue men's and women's sports who have largely benefited from cross subsidies
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Agree 8
Star basketball and football players, for sure. Historically, this has been happening through alumni off-campus deals and the like.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Agree 7
Since the stakes are high, the incentive to pay top athletes a lot is strong. Preserving equity among students is a small mitigating force.
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Agree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Strongly Agree 10
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Uncertain 7
Athletes will receive more money but it is not clear that there can be big gaps between the money sports and other sports.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Strongly Agree 7
Players get few rents now. That would change for sure
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Strongly Agree 10 Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Strongly Agree 5
Schools are not afraid to spend money to win at football & basketball - look at coaching salaries.
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Agree 5
"Most" probably wrong, but likely see the superstar compensation phenomenon, with some million dollar athletes.
Bio/Vote History
         
Obstfeld Maurice Obstfeld Berkeley Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Strongly Agree 1
One would surely expect the athletes to capture some of surplus, just as baseball players did when the reserve clause was eliminated.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Uncertain 5
Some schools would clearly pay some athletes a good deal more, but I have a hard time with "most."
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Strongly Agree 8
There is a great deal of evidence that individual colleges would pay athletes more if allowed.
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Uncertain 5
Some would get paid substantial salaries. Unclear if median athlete would be helped. There are probably some cross subsidies today.
Bio/Vote History
         
Stokey Nancy Stokey Chicago Agree 1
Presumably this is the definition of "top colleges in ... ."
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Strongly Agree 7
Pay would go up for stars, unless the schools could collude, as they do now. More interesting question: should the athletes be paid? Yes
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Agree 8
There is a regular parade of recruiting violations in the face of potentially harsh penalties. The only question is if it would be "most".
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

chicago booth