I guess I’m slow on the uptake. I don’t think the analogy works. Walmart–while being large–offers good service and quality products at low prices that are not government subsidized. Their effect on the market for consumer products is positive not negative, as opposed to what the Cato piece was arguing with regards to the effect of mega-state universities on collegiate sports. The difference between Walmart and state universities is coercion. Walmart is large and has gotten that way by winning over customers voluntarily in the market place. This is not the process that has made large state universities large. Knowing what I do of Cato I just can’t believe that they would ever put socialist institutions like UNC or UCONN and Walmart in the same category or ascribe to them the same negative effects on the market.