Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaverly
Fair competition between suppliers (the two, now three, again, pro-schools) in the marketplace is good for the product (the selected pro-candidates, and all others that graduate.)
Fair competition between buyers (PBUC for the selected pro-candidates, and all other attendees) in the marketplace is good for the price (hopefully, lower) and quality (improved, if possible, ha!) of the product offered.
The obvious problem: PBUC, one of the suppliers, is also PBUC, the only buyer of selected pro-candidates.
How could a logical person conclude fair competition is achieved among sellers in the marketplace, when the sole buyer for the selected pro-candidates is also one of the suppliers? It would appear to be like GM, no matter what they do to demonstrate fairness, trying to decide which brand of automobile to buy for its own fleet operations.
|
In this case, why would it make any sense for PBUC to worry about fair competition? PBUC has the ability now to staff a camp and definitely the talent to teach it. They can cut out Hunter and Jim immediately out for the people that want to get into pro ball. Since they run their camp after the other umpire schools let out, why not cut out the middle man and make money on it. A problem of the umpire schools is that there are people promoted there to PBUC that doesn't belong in pro ball in the first place.
I think that the people that will still go to the other schools can/will get their money's worth as many are going for the exposure to big league umps. It could actually make those schools better by getting rid of the competition in the schools.